The U.S. wins the right to abduct innocent people with impunity

I'm guessing the government might not want to open the floodgates on a lot of those type of claims if they set a precendent in this situation.

As I said before this is one of those situations where I would hope they would stand on principle and redress those situations.

 

Title is misleading because the US didn't win anything. The SC didn't rule on the Constitutionality of the act. Executive power didn't change based on this ruling.

 

Honestly, I would much rather that we have special prisons where well-trained personnel can engage in 'legal' torture than engage in a rendition policy. If you engage in rendition, then you still engage in torture. It is like being an accessory to murder but not carrying out the actual murder. Same damn thing!

I dislike the dishonesty of the whole process, especially when it is this blatantly dishonest, only so that American politicians can espouse half-truths about how the United States does not engage in torture.

I respected Bush a lot more than his predecessors because he had the balls to tell people he would torture if he feels it is in the interest of the country. I may disagree with him on principle, but at least he did not lie to our faces about it.

 

Agree completely. Admittedly, international law is not my strong point, so I don't know how unusual this is, or the finer points of how when and where such actions may or should be taken. What I do know is that we really have no idea why they detained him, or why he was sent back to Syria, at least not that I read/saw. I would be curious as to the reason he was sent back, but don't know the answer to that.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm commenting on the implications of the article as to what's happened in this case. What I'm saying is that the author/article implies that the U.S. has won some right to "abduct" "innocent" people with impunity, when really what has happened in this case is that such was already the reality when it happened to him. I'm saying that I assume when they detained him that they had reason to think he was problematic in some way (thus suspected of some wrongdoing or threat... the fact that he was later found to be innocent is irrelevant here) and therefore able to be detained under current law, and that in this event the Supreme Court denied the right of this man to an appeal to get money for what happened based on the fact that it is not within their power to usurp executive decisions such as this as the laws currently stand. I don't think it's right, personally, I'm just trying to sift through the "America voted to kidnap innocent people at will" tone and keep it real.

This ruling ignores nothing. It shows they know their place as it is written under our current laws. Right or wrong, that's how it is. Perhaps the ability of the executive branch shouldn't be able to bypass certain staples of our law, but it is how things are now. In this case, I don't know when or how this power was permitted/enacted, but I do know that Bush put many new "variables" in place under the Patriot Act regarding freedom and due process, and this event (the detaining and rendition of said man) happened during their watch. I can't say I'm surprised, but I can't say that's why it happened either.

So you're upset he won't apologize? That part bothers me least of all about this. Or is it you think he should rescind the policy/ability that allowed them to put this man through this? My guess is that takes more than just a press conference, and there is a lot more to consider than "This guy got completely hosed." I probably am more reactionary toward government than you are, just a guess, but I just don't see the dilemma here in regards to the Supreme Court Ruling except that it's a policy that is in place and does call into question our dedication to the idea of the separation of powers in our government. On that I think we agree as well.