habeas without corpus

[Charles Doyle]

"Habeus" alone just seems lacking in body.

--Charlie
____________________________________________________

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:36:27 -0800
>From: "James A. Landau" <JJJRLandau at NETSCAPE.COM>
>Subject: habeas without corpus

>
><DIV style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif; font-size:10pt;"><DIV><A href="http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/congress_terrorism/ca3_agreement.pdf">http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/congress_terrorism/ca3_agreement.pdf</A></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>"No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party as a source of rights, in any court of the United States or its States or territories."</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>Is "habeas action" correct legal jargon?  Is there a difference between "habeas corpus" and "habeas" without "corpus"?</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>      - Jim Landau</DIV>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org