Shameful

The link to the case is in @107, above.

2004 at supreme court [1]:

QUESTION [2]: Where does jurisdiction lie for someone in Guantanamo, do you suppose?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, if, let me answer the question this way, which is if you had a citizen in Guantanamo.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. CLEMENT: And under this Court’s cases like Toth against Quarles and Burns against Wilson, that citizen is unable to file a habeas petition. Our view is that the proper place to file that would be either in the Eastern District of Virginia, if you were naming the Secretary of Defense or if were you naming some official present in the district, you would sue in the District of Columbia. But the important thing is even in that case, the court where you filed the petition would have jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction over the Respondent and what is so anomalous here is in a sense, it doesn’t, I mean it matters to us in the sense that we think the proper Respondent is Commander Marr, but even if you assume the proper Respondent here is secretary Rumsfeld, the case still shouldn’t be brought in the Southern District of New York. It should be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia.

QUESTION: But why? Why, what difference does it make to the government where they defend?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I think there are a number of –

QUESTION: I mean, there are offices all over the country.

MR. CLEMENT: I think that’s right, Justice Stevens. I think it only makes sense to have the defense mounted in the place where the detention is taking place. And I think that’s particularly true in this case, because this isn’t a petition that only challenges the fact of confinement. If you look at the, the petition in this case, the amended petition, joint appendix page 56, the relief that’s sought here also goes to the conditions of confinement in Commander Marr’s brig. Now, in a case like that, it seems –

QUESTION: Yes, but I’m not sure that’s, that’s appropriate relief in a habeas petition, anyway.

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I think you can file a mixed petition and seek that kind of relief, but in any event, I think that what they are looking for is not just release from detention, but the stopping of the interrogations.

____
[1]Transcript April 28, 2004 in re Padilla v Rumsfeld, pp8-10; argued same day as Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
[2]Questioner likely associate justice J.Stevens. In 2004 the supreme court reporter service, Alderson Reporting Co., utilized a semi-redactive mode of formatting Scotus transcripts which hid the identity of the individual justices. Alderson has remedied that obfuscatory practice. I am not sure that this obfuscatory practice ended because of a communication of mine, however, an official with that court reporting entity engaged in a colloquy with me concerning the obstacles it produces for obtaining accuracy in media and in research work, and shortly after that exchange of emails, Alderson began generating fully attributed transcripts.

I like your idea. I know you posted it in another thread too. Thought I would just put up a few email addresses. Did not include WaPo or WallSTJ. Thought about adding The Guardian and the Toronto Star. All of EW’s posts on this should be Spotlighted. As you said, the more of us who do it, the better…

LA Times:

readers.rep@latimes.com

SF Chronicle:

readerrep@sfchronicle.com

Chicago Tribune:

tips@tribune.com

Boston Globe:

comments@globe.com

NYTimes:

nytnews@nytimes.com

McClatchy:

web@mcclatchydc.com

Please, add to this list!