Thursday, September 25, 2008

Judge Hogan on Medical Records

As I reported a short while ago on this blog Judge Hogan the judge responsible for "coordinating" the habeas cases (and he has been a huge disappointment) was also considering a request from another detainee for his medical records. Marc Falkoff reported after the hearing that it went quite well and he was hopeful that they would get the records.
J. Hogan added to his less than stellar Gitmo record by denying the medical records because he doesn't believe he has jurisdiction.
--
According to Marc his client Adnan, 1)attempted suicide in June, (2) weighed about 100 pounds when Marc saw him in August, (3) has had his mattress and blankets taken away as punishment for an unspecified disciplinary infraction, and (4) again attempted suicide about two weeks ago by biting off and swallowing a piece of the feeding tube they began using to force-feed him. Judge Hogan didn't address any of those issue but instead held that -- notwithstanding Boumediene -- the MCA strips the court of jurisdiction to hear all "conditions of confinement" claims. J. Hogan did not address most of the issues raised by Marc such as the records being incident to Adnan's habeas action and necessary to assure Adnan's continued access to the court to prosecute his petition. Judge Hogan also didn't address the argument that if the government's argument is correct, Adnan could be tortured or starved to death at Guantanamo and there's nothing the courts could do about it.
More Justice American Style.

1 comment:

the talking dog said...

The "good news" is that since this came up in the context of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Marc and his client have the avenue of an "immediate appeal" (kind of like the identical appeal you have with Al-Ghizzawi, which, though "immediate," has been kicking around for months.)

Don't know where the neocon all-star team better known as "the DC Circuit" stands on this, but one option is potentially to seek "summary affirmance" and go right back to the US Supreme Court to see if they want to hold "Boumediene means what WE SAY it says, not what Cheney says it says." Of course, one can never quite gauge Justice Kennedy's mood on these things.

Don't know; after three "wins" the US Supreme Court, one would (foolishly) think we'd be getting somewhere. But law and precedent don't mean quite the same thing in the Twilight Zone, I guess.