Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

D.C. Circuit Abruptly Closes Courtroom in Guantanamo Case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:01 PM
Original message
D.C. Circuit Abruptly Closes Courtroom in Guantanamo Case
A federal appeals court in Washington was prepared to hear a Guantanamo Bay detainee case in open court today, though the lawyers involved in the dispute were prohibited from talking about the confidential record.

A minute into the argument, Chief Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had heard enough and abruptly closed the courtroom to the public. That meant about a dozen people in the courtroom were barred from sitting in court to hear oral argument.

Sentelle said from the bench that an accidental disclosure of confidential information in an open courtroom presented “too much danger.” Another panel member, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, noted that it was going to be tough ask questions of the lawyers. The third member of the panel, Judge Merrick Garland, whose name is reportedly on a short list as a possible Supreme Court pick, did not express a view from the bench.

The abrupt closure of the courtroom was unusual since the lawyers for the opposing sides—Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner John Ewald for the detainee and, for the government, Justice Department attorney August Flentje of the Civil Division appellate staff—had agreed to argue the case in public, according to court papers filed last month.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/04/dc-circuit-abruptly-closes-courtroom-in-guantanamo-case.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Coward.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Now why would Judge Sentelle do that, I wonder?
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 06:49 PM by dixiegrrrrl
Oh.....maybe this explains it.

Conservative Republican, Reagan appointee, who voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter, also he served on the Special Division of the Court which appointed Kenneth Starr under the renewed Independent Counsel statute.

And in 2007, he upheld the Military Commissions Act of 2006's suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants as constitutional.
Silberman's history is quite similar.

Water bearers for TPTB.

edit: clarification
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, I thought Sentelle's name was familiar
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 07:06 PM by starroute
He's this guy -- a conservative ideologue who was made a judge by Reagan after campaigning for Reagan and Jesse Helms. He also overturned Ollie North's and John Poindexter's Iran-Contra convictions. Quite a track record!

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020513Livemore.html

A former Republican Party chairman in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sentelle had relatively little judicial experience; yet while the Independent Counsel Act directed the Chief Justice to give priority in appointing judges to the Special Division to senior circuit judges and retired justices, Rehnquist ignored this directive and instead appointed Sentelle, who he knew would fulfill what was expected of him: to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate President Clinton who had what we might expect Rehnquist also felt was the correct world view.

Sentelle, of course, delivered. He appointed Ken Starr, who also had, no doubt, what Delay and Sentelle would consider the correct world view.

-----------------

On edit: Oh -- change that to he and Laurence Silberman overturned North's and Poindexter's convictions. So they're still tag-teaming after all these years!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/012610.html

Packing the courts with politically reliable partisans became a key behind-the-scenes goal of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Yet, because turnover on the Supreme Court is slow, Reagan took aim first at the influential U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., appointing hardliners like Laurence Silberman and David Sentelle. . . .

On the North appeal in 1990, Silberman teamed up with a younger conservative, Judge Sentelle, to overturn the three felony counts against North. The appeals court vote was 2-1, as these two Republican “law-and-order” judges suddenly were voting to expand the rights of criminal defendants in cases involving limited immunity, which North had secured from Congress before testifying.

Sentelle, a protégé of conservative Sen. Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina, also served on a second appeals panel that overturned the conviction of Poindexter on similar grounds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wish I could have been in Garland's car on the way home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC