Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Must Regroup After Combatant Ruling
Associated Press ^ | June 29, 2004 | ANNE GEARAN

Posted on 06/29/2004 11:04:13 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration must regroup legally and politically after the Supreme Court dealt a major setback to the government's anti-terrorism tactics since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The high court refused to endorse the White House claim of authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them.

Monday's rulings in a trio of cases dealing with the rights of prisoners mean that detainees, whether potential terrorist threats or victims of circumstance, have greater rights to challenge their captivity in U.S. courts and force the government to explain itself.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: enemycombatant; gitmo; hamdi; padilla; scotus; supremecourt
Links to Monday's rulings:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Rasul v. Bush

Padilla v. Rumsfeld

1 posted on 06/29/2004 11:04:16 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Don't get too upset about this. The courts are not likely to let these guys go. The fact that the courts will be involved might have the side effect that they will be busy doing this, instead of morer mischievous stuff.


2 posted on 06/29/2004 11:16:12 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I hope W. says something like Andy Jackson...and to paraphrase it since I can't quote it from my dim memory, "Mr. Marshall's court has made it's ruling. Now let's see him enforce it."


3 posted on 06/29/2004 11:19:36 AM PDT by Arizona Pard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Well, another way to look at this (albeit cynical) is that they just need to make sure they have no 'prisoner' enemy combatants...just 'casualty' enemy combatants....


4 posted on 06/29/2004 11:26:14 AM PDT by akorahil (Trust, but verify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Pard

I think that as a practical matter, that is how it will work out. There might be a lower court or two that will order release, but the appeals courts are not going to allow it, if they get that far. The lower courts might actually be military tribunals.


5 posted on 06/29/2004 11:33:50 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson