Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges (Also in Supreme Court ruling. AP headline.)

[w4rma]

Jun 28, 10:46 AM (ET)
By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 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.
...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040628/D83G2UC81.html

related thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89130

 

[cropcirclewalker]

We're screwed.

 

[M1911Owner]

I read two or three accounts of this decision, and I must say that the media reports are even more frustratingly vague than usual. There is essentially no information in these reports. Is the right to counsel in the majority ruling, or was O'Connor's a minority opinion? If so, when do they have the right to counsel? How soon do they have a right to be heard in court? Under what circumstances can they continue to be held, and under what circumstances must they be freed? Who took what position? I didn't see any mention of Scalia or Thomas--what did they have to say about all this?

To quote the robot in Short Circuit II, "Need more data!"

 

[Standing Wolf]

There is essentially no information in these reports.

Just an accident, I'm sure.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Once again, the Supreme Court paves the way for a total police state in America. Say goodbye to all the stuff you learned in school about your Constitutional rights.

 

[GSB]

I would encourage everyone to do some detailed reading of some analysis of the decisions. It's a lot more complex than people were making the situation out to be at first. I'm still sorting it out myself from my layman's perspective. It's a mixed and complicated bag of legal reasoning as far as I've been able to tell, but it's definitely not the all black/all white some have been making it out to be.

 

[Matt1911]

What? This is not of what Fox is reporting right now...AOL's report says "The high court ruled against Bush"..Thats from the same Anne Gearan in W4MA's post!!

 

[Billy the Kid]

Bush wanted to be able to hold people indefinatly without court interference. the courts however said he has the power to hold them, but they can protest to the courts.

 

[patentnonsense]

No, that is NOT what the law.com article says - I'm starting a new thread to highlight that, but the link to their full article is
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1088439688425
I haven't read the cases yet, but the article is full of details.

There is some spin control being done here, but it appears that this was the underside of the inconclusive Padilla decision. From the quotes it appears that the Supreme Court has come alive again.

 

[tyme]

The SCOTUS seems to think that people can only be detained so long as there is continued combat, because the purpose of military detention is to keep the detainees from returning to the battlefield. They're fairly clear that "battlefield" isn't the whole world. Once military action in Afghanistan and Iraq stopped, the detainees had to be released.

The SCOTUS ruled that Article 3 (aka Federal) courts do have the power to hear Habeas petitions challenging detention. This is a Good Thing.

Nobody knows how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue of whether Padilla, specifically, has been held illegally. A majority of the court didn't address that issue.