This is not a good thing....
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Posted on 06/28/2004 7:27:11 AM PDT by ICX
breaking news...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Should be interesting to see how broad this is.
That stinks.
The decision should be an interesting read.
Is the terror threat that bad?
BUMP to see the actual decision later...
NO ... The headline says "Citizen". I'm guessing it's a terrorism suspect. Post more carefully.
The Constituion is not a suicide pact?
I don't like this. All the government has to do is declare someone a "terrorist" and they are in jail for as long as they want. Is there any doubt that some future Rat president is giggling with delight over this?
Teheheheh
Supreme Court substantially rules for Bush administration in terrorism detention case
Monday, June 28, 2004
BY ANNE GEARAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.
The ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism. At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer.
The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.
``We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.
O'Connor said that Hamdi ``unquestionably has the right to access to counsel.''
shame it doesnt expire once a dem gets in.
Yaser Hamdi: not an enemy combantant, entitled to due process
Gitmo detainees: can have access to US courts
I wouldn't go that far, Laz. Even the Constitution recognizes that rights can be curtailed during insurrection.
My guess is that SCOTUS isn't going to do the heavy lifting on this one - Congress will have to put some constraints on this power - as it should be.
On our local radio they said they CANNOT hold citizens as enemy combatants.???
Also, per FoxNews, Gitmo detainees can have access to US courts. (Libs and lawyers will love that!!!!!)
We have got to reform our courts - get rid of the libs that rule from the bench.
Look, if we don't do away with all our freedoms and protections, the terrorists might take over and do away with all our freedoms and protections.
Well OK, as long as they just said Bush could do it.....
This is wonderful news!
If Bush would have lost this case, the news would have been all over it like crazy.
That's what FOXNEWS said, too.
I'm confused.
That works for me. The executive must know that the evidence used to designate someone as an enemy combatant will be eventually subject to review, which is the most important means to prevent this power from abuse.
The SC also ruled that the individuals have the right to challenge their confinement in court; and they can have access to U.S. courts.
It's not as bad as you're thinking it is. In fact, the SC decision will be spun as loses for the administration.
Bull!
YAY!!!
What a disaster this ruling is. The Gitmo detainees have access to US courts? The terrorists now have access to the most liberal branch of our government to gain their freedoms and stop our efforts to combat them.
I don't get this, Fox News is claiming both ruling by the SCOTUS was a loss for the administration.
From what Fox just said, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the administration on both rulings.
The fact that it's even close to as bad as it is, is enough for me to know that -- essentially -- we have become the Soviet Union.
I will now wager that within 15 years, there will be people attempting to leave the United States for freer countries.
Like Russia.
The Dems see all gun owners as "terrorism suspects".
It is a loss, not just for the administration - for all of us.
Not too many folks have been following this issue as closely as freepers, so they're bound to be confused by the various legal elements at play in these cases.
At first blush, this ruling significantly reduces my primary concern about the power to declare someone an enemy combatant - that person should have the ability to challenge the evidence used to make the designation - otherwise, this power could be used to toss political opponents down the memory hole.
We are holding scores to hundreds of terrorists who are fighting in violation of the Geneva convention and should simply have been shot for it. Instead, we will hold them until the political heat rises and then let them go kill more Americans.
A lot of this garbage is the result of trying to please liberals anyway.
Yeah, it's cool as hell when you see your country devolve to a fascist police state.
I'm seriously expecting that elections will be a thing of the past in two decades.
Laz, chill out and read post #13. The power to declare someone an enemy combatant does have restraints placed on it by this ruling.
The headline made it seem as if the President could simply hold "citizens" without charges. There is a big difference between that and an individual citizen in an individual case.
This is not a good thing....
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
That's a defeat for the Bush administration that kept American citizens incommunicado and without access to counsel.
This decision seems to be a compromise, like those O'Connor rulings that go both ways. See affirmative action and University of Michigan.
I find it interesting that the US Supreme Court split that Padilla/Hamdi decisions, even though it was the SCOTUS the one that combined the cases in the first place, IIRC. Or is my recollection incorrect?
This makes me sick. Many terrorists will be released back into the public. Here we go with the revolving door strategy. President Bush must be just sick.
Exactly. They are using our freedoms and rights against us for their own gain. And at taxpayer expense.
First of all, the case may not be quite that airtight, and second, you can't interrogate a dead man (although you can still get him to vote).
That part is the only silver lining. But the fact that the courts have ruled that right to a fair and speedy trial -- which is specifically iterated in the Bill of Rights -- is no longer a right, tells me all I need to know.
The Bill of Rights simply has no more force in American Law. It's only a matter of time before the sparse protections we are afforded are swept aside.
This ain't your daddy's U.S.A.
its hard to argue that we should just have had wholesale slaughter of these people on the battlefield, because our Supreme Court wants to give them access to US courts. The real problem is not the conduct of the military in taking them prisoner, its the conduct of the court.
". . . detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer. "
This causes a serious habeas corpus problem. The detainee can not contact counsel and the court will not give standing to those who seek to obtain a writ.
Now I have no sympathy for the monsters locked up at Gitmo, but that is pretty much what happened when some lefty lawyers on the West Coast went in for a writ.
Remember 'habeas corpus' essentially means " I will have the body". In other words the court requires the authority holding the person to bring him into court for a hearing on the validity of the detention.
I thought they decided just the opposite!!
Good grief. I, just like every person here, am all for hard-nosed prosecution of the fight against terrorism. I'd like to see it fought far more toughly than it is. But this is sickening; we're talking about American citizens here, who can just be grabbed and locked away without charge, without due process, without anything, at the behest of a single man. Scary. Very very scary.
MM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.