From 2d Issue |
From 2d Issue |
From 2d Issue |
From 2d Issue |
From 2d Issue |
From 2d Issue |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 1 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
From Spring 2008 2 |
by Lindsey Simon and Sean Neahusan
The United State Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Boumediene v. Bush, the controversial case that challenged the constitutionality of the Guantanamo Bay detention camps. In a shocking move, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the camps, not under the habeas corpus theory argued by the government, but instead on the grounds that detention at Guantanamo Bay amounted to a mere Terry stop.
In his plurality opinion Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that neither the indefinite detentions, denial of access to legal counsel, prolonged isolations nor water boarding at Guantanamo elevated the seizures above the
level of a lesser-intrusive
contact first described in Terry v. Ohio. Thus the government need only show the presence of “specific particularly facts that support a reasonable belief that criminal activity was afoot” in order to justify the detentions. “Plainly put,” wrote the plurality, “Guantanamo is totally reasonable.”
Justice Scalia’s opinion also hinted that the plurality didn’t even believe the inquiry reached the issue of reasonableness stating, “The government may have conceded that this was a detention, but we’re not even sure about that. The plaintiffs in this case were certainly free to leave the encounter. Heck, I’m pretty sure all you need to get out of Cuba is a bathtub with a makeshift sail. Doesn’t anyone remember Elian Gonzalez? But more importantly, why would anyone want to leave? I’ve seen Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights at least a dozen times. Cuba looks awesome!”
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the result, but wrote: “The text of the Constitution is conspicuously silent on the issue of Islamofacist terrorists kept at a U.S. military base in Cuba. Ergo, the Court has no business hearing this case.”
Many view this decision to be the pièce de résistance in the Court’s long and slow attack on the Fourth Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy took a candid approach in his concurrence when he stated, “Come on, this can’t be a surprise. We said forcing a woman to crap in a trashcan was reasonable!” See United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
The response from the dissenting justices was stark, pessimistic and unprecedented. In her dissent Justice Ginsberg penned a letter to former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Dear Sandy, are you sure you don’t want to come back? This place is going to hell in a hand basket. Let me know if you change your mind. I’ve got connections; I can make sure an opening comes up. I know people. —Ruth.”
Likewise, Justice John Paul Stevens didn’t write a dissent so much as a directive to his clerks. “I need a memo ASAP on the definition of ‘during good behavior’ in Article III section 1. Specifically focus in on whether a justice who is cryogenically frozen can satisfy that requirement. Those bastards think they can beat me by waiting for me to die, do they? I’ll show them. P.S., call Ted Williams’s family.”
The most telling dissent came from Justices Breyer and Souter, who in a joint opinion stated simply, “Screw you guys, we’re moving to Canada.”
Some people feel it is odd that one of our professors has the exact same thing for lunch every day. I find comfort in it. It’s not that I don’t handle changes per se –– I just have some quirks. I am quirky. For example, I don’t like watches; I can’t handle the ticking noise. I like patterns and order. I hate plastic grocery bags, not because they are environmentally unfriendly but because the paper bags are more like little boxes and thus more organized.
We all went into the classroom to get our finals; it was a little different since it was in room 104 and that was bothersome. However, once Susan went over the instructions we sat there staring at her, awaiting the traditional joke. But we were not met with the familiar light-hearted, utterly non-offensive joke that we have all relied on to level us during the apprehension of finals. Instead we received devastating news! Susan is not allowed to tell jokes anymore! Are you kidding me! I depend on that. It breaks the routine! I was a mess.
by Anna Faller
Over the past week a group of us have been working with the North Gulfport Community Land Trust surveying the northern neighborhood of North Gulfport. On August 29, 2005 the city was hit by the strong eastern side of Hurricane Katrina. Gulfport was devastated. Almost three years later, this community is slowly coming back. There is continuous construction, and the city is placing a special emphasis on development according to Smart Code. Smart Code emphasizes preservation of the historic architecture of a community while also creating walkable communities.
The issue we were surveying involved the plans of the Port Authority to expand the local port. As part of the expansion, the Port Authority is planning to build an inland storage facility in North Gulfport. The proposed storage facility is right in the middle of a neighborhood. The facility will require filling in 70 acres of wetlands, making an already low lying area even more susceptible to flooding. Additionally, the facility will be used to store large containers, machinery, and because the need to refrigerate their cargo, diesel trucks running all night.
Erika and I accompanied by our “escort” Shirley set out to find out what members of North Gulfport had to say about the expansion. The Land Trust set us up with escorts from North Gulfport so there would be someone familiar with neighborhood as well as its residents. The comments we received were hardly surprising…most folks had not heard of the expansion much less knew that it was going to be put in right in their back yards. The reactions to our remarks were mixed and often heart breaking. Most importantly the port expansion project is being financed by diverting 600 million dollars from the housing recovery fund. The need for housing is still so great, however, the port is the life line for this community. The port provides jobs and prior to Katrina there were even more jobs. We were talking to folks whose families had worked for the port for several generations. The ideological struggle was obvious in discussing the negative repercussions of having the inland port built so close to their community and going against a company that had given their families so much. Responses we received included, “Its coming anyways…”; “A man can endure almost anything….”. There were people in support due to the promise of more jobs, and the proposed addition also included more casinos with the promise of revenues for roads and schools. When we discussed the positives with people there was a substantial amount of skepticism. One came to the quick realization that politics/racism largely interfered with this neighborhood seeing a dollar of the promised revenues.
The experience has been indescribable. Going door to door and being welcomed into people’s homes was so wonderful. Everyone was so grateful for the work we were doing there and equally appreciative that we are aware of the effects of Katrina nearly three years later. It felt really good to be working for a community that had continuously been ignored by the greater population of MS and giving a voice to people that perhaps hadn’t this opportunity before. The ignorance of the greater population was thrown in our faces when we stopped at a local McDonalds to get directions to North Gulfport. After asking directions we were told by one of the white patrons, “You know that is an all black neighborhood right?” Going door to door for four days allowed us to interact with many lovely people. There is still so much work to be done in Gulfport, but there is an underlying strength that reminds one that whatever the impacts of Mother Nature, people will manage to put their lives back together. Perhaps one of the most poignant conversations I had was with a man named Mr. Johnson*. When discussing everything from the port expansion project to the upcoming presidential elections, his wise words should resonate with us all. He said that in all the talk of rebuilding after Katrina and as well as the upcoming presidential election, there is a vital message missing. Love thy neighbor. If people actually cared what happened to each other regardless of race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, economic status, the world would be a different place. Maybe people would care more that there were still people living in card board boxes, tents, poisoned FEMA trailers, and think twice before putting an industrial facility next to someone’s home.
Established in nineteen hundred and ninety four in the year of our lord, Inter Alia is an oasis for those souls brave enough to make the three year trek across the sweltering law school desert.
Inter Alia's pages are filled with contributions from current students and alumni of the Menard College of Law. Authors are invited to contribute on a revolving basis and the editor compiles a new issue every 2 weeks.
Inter Alia is gracious to the Menard faculty and staff who often find themselves fictitiously quoted as fictional characters in humorous situations.
Send submissions here: uiinteralia@gmail.com
1. Play nice when invoking fellow students, faculty or staff by name.
2. There is a place for satire and cynicism, it's here. There is a place for serious complaints, it's called a "Town Hall Meeting." (Don't bring more sand into the oasis)
Editor: Saundra Richartz