To: SE Mom
(Kennedy) It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding. We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. . . . The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.
Dear Lord, you've got to be kidding me! He just made it up, right there o the spot. He created a new right, then created a new standard by which the right could be abrogated. If they go back to congress to explicitly overrule this, I guarantee Kennedy will again pull something equally asinine out of his posterior.
56 posted on
06/12/2008 3:11:07 PM PDT by
Blackyce
(President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
To: Blackyce
It’s breathtaking isn’t it?
76 posted on
06/12/2008 5:10:50 PM PDT by
SE Mom
(Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson