Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial

[Murdock]

Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial

2 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush (news - web sites) the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

The 6-3 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 (news - web sites) wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatants

[FranchiseBlade]

Wow Roxran, I know this has to make you mad, since you love the U.S. and its liberties and rights so much. To think that G.W. Bush is infringing on our rights like this.

[mc mark]

This just in! Bush uses bill of rights for toilet paper!

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Wow Roxran, I know this has to make you mad, since you love the U.S. and its liberties and rights so much. To think that G.W. Bush is infringing on our rights like this.


Yep, the ATF is gonna bust into your house, seize your assualt rifles and the 20,000 rounds of ammo you have stored and hold you without trial cuz you MIGHT be a terrorist with that kind of firepower...sux don't it??

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by mc mark
This just in! Bush uses bill of rights for toilet paper!

NO he he didn't you stupid liberal...he rolled it up into a straw to snort coke through...I mean...come ON!

[Murdock]

Also FYI, The Court Struck down Miranda Rights..

The court on Monday also:


Ruled that evidence derived from a confession after police failed to give Miranda rights does not have to be suppressed at trial.

http://kutv.com/topstories/topstories_story_180103554.html

[wouldabeen23]

Seriously, we need to hear some condemnation from more right-leaning poster's here....

Bama, Roxran, Basso, Faos--you guys MUST have SOME questions about this move...

[SamFisher]

The Supreme Court has had a boatload of sh-tty decisions this past week. That they kicked Padilla's case back down stares is absolutely unbelievable to me.

[rimrocker]

I'm still ticked off about the decision that you have to provide ID to law enforcement, even if there is no cause or reason for them to ask for it.

[DCkid]

I understand the problem people would have with this, but can someone PLEASE acknowledge the possibility that one of these "suspected" terrorists who is being held without trial may otherwise be using his freedom to plot, or God forbid, carry out another terrorist attack. I mean, the Supreme Court isn't making this ruling just because they enjoy stripping away American liberties, which is how some of you are making it sound. Believe it or not, there actually is a legitimate reason in favor of the ruling.

Sometimes I wonder whether some of you think anything should be done at all. And I'm not talking about tackling the root cause of terrorism...I'm simply talking about preventing attacks that terrorists are already determined to carry out. What would you do?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by DCkid
I understand the problem people would have with this, but can someone PLEASE acknowledge the possibility that one of these "suspected" terrorists who is being held without trial may otherwise be using his freedom to plot, or God forbid, carry out another terrorist attack. I mean, the Supreme Court isn't making this ruling just because they enjoy stripping away American liberties, which is how some of you are making it sound. Believe it or not, there actually is a legitimate reason in favor of the ruling.

Sometimes I wonder whether some of you think anything should be done at all. And I'm not talking about tackling the root cause of terrorism...I'm simply talking about preventing attacks that terrorists are already determined to carry out. What would you do?

If they can prove that he would be using his freedom to plot terrorist activities, then arrest him and bring him to trial. Otherwise our country has the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I would never let terrorists or potential terrorists take away my rights. Going by the amount of deaths in our country, we are all far more likely to die of an auto-accident, or heart disease than terrorist activities. Yet the Supreme court doesn't make rulings on what people should eat and how much exercise they must get, because of our individual freedoms.

The minute we restrict freedom based on the action or potential action of would be terrorists the terrorists have scored another victory.

The fact that he might do something means nothing. Thank goodness up until now our country has demanded proof and not just suspicion in order to lock people away.

As far as preventing attacks, I would increase effort in the intel community, etc. Keep watch on the suspected terrorists.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by DCkid
I understand the problem people would have with this, but can someone PLEASE acknowledge the possibility that one of these "suspected" terrorists who is being held without trial may otherwise be using his freedom to plot, or God forbid, carry out another terrorist attack. I mean, the Supreme Court isn't making this ruling just because they enjoy stripping away American liberties, which is how some of you are making it sound. Believe it or not, there actually is a legitimate reason in favor of the ruling.

Sometimes I wonder whether some of you think anything should be done at all. And I'm not talking about tackling the root cause of terrorism...I'm simply talking about preventing attacks that terrorists are already determined to carry out. What would you do?
And I wonder whether or not you're familiar enough with the facts of the various cases to make this kind of an across the board generalization.

If the reasons are legitimate, I'd like to see your factual and legal analyses thereof, not just you alluding to it -- I bet you don't even know what the substance of the Padilla ruling in particular is (FYI, they remanded it because they said Padilla came up through the wrong circuit court)

Jose Padilla was an American citizen, arrested in America, by Americans, and is to be indicted in an American court....and is accordingly still innocent until proven otherwise. By my definition, he becomes a part of the American legal system and is able to seek relief in American courts. Believe it or not, a lot of people agree with that.

[DCkid]

Originally posted by SamFisher
And I wonder whether or not you're familiar enough with the facts of the various cases to make this kind of an across the board generalization.

If the reasons are legitimate, I'd like to see your factual and legal analyses thereof, not just you alluding to it -- I bet you don't even know what the substance of the Padilla ruling in particular is (FYI, they remanded it because they said Padilla came up through the wrong circuit court)

Jose Padilla was an American citizen, arrested in America, by Americans, and is to be indicted in an American court....and is accordingly still innocent until proven otherwise. By my definition, he becomes a part of the American legal system and is able to seek relief in American courts. Believe it or not, a lot of people agree with that.
Like I said in my first sentence, I understand the problem with this...I acknowledged it because I don't gleefully support it myself. So yes...I do believe it. However, I also see the other side of the argument as legitimate...I think this is where we differ.

...by the way, thanks for the answer, FranchiseBlade.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by DCkid
Like I said in my first sentence, I understand the problem with this...I acknowledged it because I don't gleefully support it myself. So yes...I do believe it. However, I also see the other side of the argument as legitimate...I think this is where we differ.

...by the way, thanks for the answer, FranchiseBlade.

But what is the other side of the argument, and why is it legitimate in this instance?

[DCkid]

Originally posted by SamFisher
But what is the other side of the argument, and why is it legitimate in this instance?

Which instance? Hamdi, Padilla, or both? I've been referring to the general ruling on the issue of holding U.S. citizens without trial...not any particular instance.

The other side of the argument is essentially national security. Why else would the Supreme Court rule in favor of this?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by DCkid
Which instance? Hamdi, Padilla, or both? I've been referring to the general ruling on the issue of holding U.S. citizens without trial...not any particular instance.

The other side of the argument is essentially national security. Why else would the Supreme Court rule in favor of this?

Padilla.

But just crying "national security" is not enough, especially when we are dealing with constitutional guarantees, and that is not the reason why the Court took a pass on Padilla.

They didn't say "national security", they said "28 USC and FRCP", in other words, it was procedural.

[DCkid]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Padilla.

But just crying "national security" is not enough, especially when we are dealing with constitutional guarantees, and that is not the reason why the Court took a pass on Padilla.

They didn't say "national security", they said "28 USC and FRCP", in other words, it was procedural.
I see. But national security was a reason for their decision in the Hamdi case, no?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by DCkid
I see. But national security was a reason for their decision in the Hamdi case, no?

This is what they decided in Hamdi:

Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14-15.

Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2-3, 15.

O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion


whatever the hell that means!

[thadeus]

...and still no legally-binding definition of "terrorist."

[GreenVegan76]

A fantastic day for America. FANTASTIC.

People on American soil deserve American justice, period. Liberty cannot be applied or revoked at the whim of a single man. Our country is simply too strong and independent to let a single man determine who deserves American justice. We all do.

[BrianKagy]

Disgusting.

[SWTsig]

:mad:

it's these infringements on our GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that really pisses me off about this administration more than anything.

the fact that there are people that actually support these decisions doesnt piss me off, it freightens me.

[SamFisher]

FWIW, going back and reading them (w/the exception of Padilla, which was absurdly procedural it appears that the initial assesssment of the AP and other wire services, that the Bush administration "won" the right to hold these guys is a pyrrhic victory at best, if not outright wrong.

They seemed to have lost on habeas corpus and due process, everybody gets some sort of hearing. They lost on the fact that Guantanamo is extrajudicial or extraconstitituional, it wasn't held to be; and everybody, except oddly Padilla (the easiest case IMO), got at least part of what they wanted.

I would change the thread title, IMO. I don't think Bush can hold anybody without trial indefinitely after reading these, in fact I think it's the opposite.

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by SamFisher
FWIW, going back and reading them (w/the exception of Padilla, which was absurdly procedural it appears that the initial assesssment of the AP and other wire services, that the Bush administration "won" the right to hold these guys is a pyrrhic victory at best, if not outright wrong.

They seemed to have lost on habeas corpus and due process, everybody gets some sort of hearing. They lost on the fact that Guantanamo is extrajudicial or extraconstitituional, it wasn't held to be; and everybody, except oddly Padilla (the easiest case IMO), got at least part of what they wanted.

I would change the thread title, IMO. I don't think Bush can hold anybody without trial indefinitely after reading these, in fact I think it's the opposite.

Excellent points.

Any president who slashes freedoms and uses technicalities to get around the U.S. Constitution should be impeached and kicked out on his ass. Saddam Hussein should be the one who locks up citizens, tortures them and holds them indefinitely -- not us.

Being America isn't always easy, but it shouldn't be. We should hold ourselves to the highest standards, not weasel around laws we find inconvenient. Wars and terrorists will come and go, but freedom and liberty will ring through the ages. It's our legacy, and we're allowing it to be destroyed one right at a time.

[SWTsig]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
Excellent points.

Any president who slashes freedoms and uses technicalities to get around the U.S. Constitution should be impeached and kicked out on his ass. Saddam Hussein should be the one who locks up citizens, tortures them and holds them indefinitely -- not us.

Being America isn't always easy, but it shouldn't be. We should hold ourselves to the highest standards, not weasel around laws we find inconvenient. Wars and terrorists will come and go, but freedom and liberty will ring through the ages. It's our legacy, and we're allowing it to be destroyed one right at a time.

awesome post.

way to go GV.