And it is -- since 1787 -- embedded in Art. I of our Constitution. It provides a device for the freeing of those wrongfully detained, when all other avenues are failing. In sum, when bad men are shirking their duties. So -- here is that muscular opinion, from just yesterday -- one that coincidentally also bolsters Mr. Khalil's case for release (also from Jena). And a bit:
. . .Rümeysa Öztürk is a graduate student who had, until recently, been living in Massachusetts lawfully on a student visa. On March 25, 2025, six plainclothes law enforcement officers arrested Öztürk near her home without warning and drove her away in an unmarked car. Unaware of her location and unable to contact their client, Öztürk’s counsel brought a habeas petition in the District of Massachusetts. The petition alleges that Öztürk was arrested and is now detained based solely on an op-ed she wrote over a year before her arrest. But, when the petition was filed, Öztürk had already been driven across state lines to Vermont. And when the government eventually disclosed Öztürk’s location nearly twenty-four hours later, she had again been moved, this time to a correctional facility in Louisiana.
The habeas petition filed in Massachusetts was transferred to the District of Vermont, and the district court has set an expeditious schedule for a bail hearing and to resolve the constitutional claims made in the habeas petition. . . .
Now you know -- and this is exactly why Tangerine 2.0 is talking about trying (preposterously) to suspend. . . this, the "Great Writ". But the Fifth Amendment says "persons" -- not "citizens" -- and not "landed gentry", so he will fail.
Damnation -- deeply bizarre times.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment