“ Critical to relief under the Ex Post Facto Clause is not an individual’s right to less punishment, but the lack of fair notice and governmental restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated. ”

“ The Guantanamo Detainees’ Corrected Second Supplemental Br. Addressing the Effect of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 on this Ct.’s Jurisdiction over the Pending Appeals 43-44 (“ [T] his court should not convert these petitions into petitions for review under the DTA as the government suggests.”) . ”

“ Once there was “a judgment of conviction rendered by a court of general criminal jurisdiction,” release under the writ was unavailable. Hayman, 342 U.S. at 210-11.
10 ↑ With a few possible exceptions, the Guantanamo detainees before the federal courts are unlikely to be fluent in English or to be familiar with legal procedures and, as their detentions far from home and cut off from their families have been lengthy, they are likely ill prepared to be able to obtain evidence to support their claims that they are not enemies of the United States. ”

“ Even assuming that according Guantanamo detainees rights under Army Regulation 190-8 would provide adequate and independent factual review of their claims sufficient to satisfy the dictates of habeas corpus, as well as any treaty obligations that the detainees are able to enforce, the Executive has declined to accord such detainees prisoner-of-war status, see, e.g., The President’s News Conference With Chairman Hamid Karzai of the Afghan Interim Authority, 1 Pub. ”

“ That term refers to citizens of a country with which the United States is at war. See Al Odah, 321 F.3d at 1139-40. But under the common law, the dispositive fact was not a petitioner’s enemy alien status, but his lack of presence within any sovereign territory.
9 ↑ The dissent claims the lack of any case on point is a result of the unique combination of circumstances in this case. But extraterritorial detention was not unknown in Eighteenth Century England. ”

“ Att’y Gen. 47 (1794) , is unclear. Nor is it clear what point the court is making by referencing In re Ning Yi-Ching, 56 T.L.R. 3 (K.B. Vacation Ct. 1939) . In Rasul, the Supreme Court noted that Ning Yi-Ching “made quite clear that ‘the remedy of habeas corpus was not confined to British subjects,’ but would extend to ‘any person ... detained’ within the reach of the writ,” 542 U.S. at 483 n.13 (quoting Ning Yi-Ching, 56 T.L.R. at 5) , and that the case does not support a “narrow view of the territorial reach of the writ,” id. ”

“ Op. at 18 n.9, is of no moment. The court references the 1667 impeachment of the Earl of Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor of England. See id. at 16, 18 n.9. Clarendon was accused of sending enemies to faraway lands to deprive them of effective legal process. ”

“ Papers 121, 123 (Jan. 28, 2002) .
14 ↑ Because the Suspension Clause question must be decided by the Supreme Court in the detainees’ favor in order for the district court proceedings to occur, I leave for another day questions relating to the evolving and unlimited definition of “enemy combatant,” see Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 474-75, a detainee’s inability to rebut evidence withheld on national security grounds, see id. ”