Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial

[Pink Spider]

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.



Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news...go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatants


By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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.


"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."


The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.


The careful opinion seemed deferential to the White House, but did not give the president everything he wanted.


The ruling is the largest test so far of executive power in the post-Sept. 11 assault on terrorism.


The court has yet to rule in the similar case of American-born detainee Jose Padilla and in another case testing the legal rights of detainees held as enemy combatants at a U.S. military prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."


She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) and Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) in her view that Congress had authorized detentions such as Hamdi's in what she called very limited circumstances.


Congress voted shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks to give the president significant authority to pursue terrorists, but Hamdi's lawyers said that authority did not extend to the indefinite detention of an American citizen without charges or trial.


Two other justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites), would have gone further and declared Hamdi's detention improper. Still, they joined O'Connor and the others to say that Hamdi, and by extension others who may be in his position, are entitled to their day in court.


Hamdi and Padilla are in military custody at a Navy brig in South Carolina. They have been interrogated repeatedly without lawyers present.


The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed.


The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision.


The case has additional resonance because of recent revelations that U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners and used harsh interrogation methods at a prison outside Baghdad. For some critics of the administration's security measures, the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison illustrated what might go wrong if the military and White House have unchecked authority over prisoners.


At oral arguments in the Padilla case in April, an administration lawyer assured the court that Americans abide by international treaties against torture, and that the president or the military would not allow even mild torture as a means to get information.

[FORD]

SIEG OIL!! Another bullet in the head of Democracy :mad:

[ELVIS]

I wonder how Kerry would differ...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I wonder how Kerry would differ...

One would hope he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who respected the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Constitution.

That's at least one area where Judas IS better than Junior.

But in this case the damage has now been done. Who do you appeal to when the Supreme Court makes a wrong, fascist, and blatantly anti-Constitutional ruling? :mad:

[Pink Spider]

John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Therefore, he is directly responsible for enabling the mess. Kerry will most likely finish what Bush started if he takes office.

This November you have a choice of either Hitler or Stalin. Take your pick.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Therefore, he is directly responsible for enabling the mess. Kerry will most likely finish what Bush started if he takes office.

This November you have a choice of either Hitler or Stalin. Take your pick.

Bullshit! don't you people know that NONE of the Senators that voted on the Patriot Act were able to read it beforehand??? And that THAT is how MOST of our bills that are passed go??? Everyone from the Bush camp made it sound like you were going to be labled as 'unpatriotic' if you didn't sign it, and when it came down, it was the most unconstitutional piece of crap ever written! You are right about Bush being Hitler, and I'm no Kerry fan, but he's no Stalin and he's leagues better than Bush!!!

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by FORD


But in this case the damage has now been done. Who do you appeal to when the Supreme Court makes a wrong, fascist, and blatantly anti-Constitutional ruling? :mad:

True. Our Supreme Court threw out any claim they had to legitimacy the day they decided not to recount the vote in Florida. End of Story.

[FORD]

Kerry is definitely no Stalin. Neville Chamberlain perhaps, but no Stalin.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
Who do you appeal to when the Supreme Court makes a wrong, fascist, and blatantly anti-Constitutional ruling? :mad:


uh...the supreme court.

they do overturn themselves on occasion.


however, this ruling is an interesting one.

yes, the 6th amendment guarantees a right to an attorney and a speedy trial, "in all criminal prosecutions."

an enemy combatant is a murkier situation.



i have always said that while i don't inherently distrust the military or the government, i nonetheless feel that there should be some sort of judicial oversight over declared enemy combatants.

from what i've seen of this ruling, it goes a good way towards providing that oversight.

though, the "war on terror," is somewhat of a different situation. unlike most normal wars, there isn't likely to be an ending to it. holding an enemy combatant for the duration of the war on terror is much more likely to be an indefinite, and probably permnant decision.

i would rather in this circumstance that the government eventually charges its detainees with a crime in the court system.

and, to be honest, i suspect that this issue will find its way into the legal system as the detainees begin to challenge their status in the courts.

this is a new issue, and will take a little time to hash out.

but i do believe that jose padillia will eventually get his day in court. (and then, probably, his much deserved 20-life...)

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Bullshit! don't you people know that NONE of the Senators that voted on the Patriot Act were able to read it beforehand??? And that THAT is how MOST of our bills that are passed go??? Everyone from the Bush camp made it sound like you were going to be labled as 'unpatriotic' if you didn't sign it, and when it came down, it was the most unconstitutional piece of crap ever written! You are right about Bush being Hitler, and I'm no Kerry fan, but he's no Stalin and he's leagues better than Bush!!!

Then that would make Kerry incompetent. But, what about voting for the war in Iraq? If he didn't read that one, he's obviously more illiterate than Bush.

He puts a lot of spin on everything he does to cover his tracks and not be held accountable for anything he signs. I'm just not buying it.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
uh...the supreme court.

they do overturn themselves on occasion.


however, this ruling is an interesting one.

yes, the 6th amendment guarantees a right to an attorney and a speedy trial, "in all criminal prosecutions."

an enemy combatant is a murkier situation.



i have always said that while i don't inherently distrust the military or the government, i nonetheless feel that there should be some sort of judicial oversight over declared enemy combatants.

from what i've seen of this ruling, it goes a good way towards providing that oversight.

though, the "war on terror," is somewhat of a different situation. unlike most normal wars, there isn't likely to be an ending to it. holding an enemy combatant for the duration of the war on terror is much more likely to be an indefinite, and probably permnant decision.

i would rather in this circumstance that the government eventually charges its detainees with a crime in the court system.

and, to be honest, i suspect that this issue will find its way into the legal system as the detainees begin to challenge their status in the courts.

this is a new issue, and will take a little time to hash out.

but i do believe that jose padillia will eventually get his day in court. (and then, probably, his much deserved 20-life...)

Trying to inject some common sense with this crowd? Good luck! ;)

Honestly though, is there anyway to have a trial for enemy combatants in secret? Where the sources of evidence and information can be protected? I think we learned a lesson with our pursuit of terrorists through the legal system before. I've read quite a few articles on how the damage done to intelligence gathering capability during the previous criminal trials (World trade center bombing I) directly contributed to, and enabled the terrorists to pull off 9/11. However, even if Padilla is a scumbag, I don't believe it's right to hold him indefinitely without charging him. In fact, it's been too long already in my opinion. But I don't know the national security issues that are causing the government to take this position. Like I've said, if we could have trials without compromising national security that'd be ideal. Obviously, this is a tough one.

Oh, and how does the peanut gallery feel about the 2nd Ammendment? We're talking about "shredding the Bill of Rights" and all... Do we have favorite parts of the Constitution? Is it acceptable to protect parts with vigor while pissing on the parts we don't like?

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Oh, and how does the peanut gallery feel about the 2nd Ammendment? We're talking about "shredding the Bill of Rights" and all... Do we have favorite parts of the Constitution? Is it acceptable to protect parts with vigor while pissing on the parts we don't like?

The constitution shredding of this Fraudministration, beginning with the Supreme Court selection of the Chimp, has made me think more about the second ammendment than anything else in history.

[Pink Spider]

One of the things I'm not "liberal" about and haven't been in quite some time are firearms for some of the same reasons that FORD stated.

In fact if you see a "liberal" that wants to ban guns after what's happened lately, I would call that person insane.

[John Ashcroft]

At least you're coming around... ;)

Oh, and Happy Birthday! Hope you have a good one.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Then that would make Kerry incompetent. But, what about voting for the war in Iraq? If he didn't read that one, he's obviously more illiterate than Bush.

He puts a lot of spin on everything he does to cover his tracks and not be held accountable for anything he signs. I'm just not buying it.

It's not a matter of illiteracy, it's a matter of not getting the opportunity or choice of reading a bill before being required to vote on it... ...sometimes all they get is the title.

I'm not happy about Kerry as our only other option either, but it's become a question of the lesser of two evils... ...and anything is better than the criminal syndicate that is running our country right now... ...but I will agree that the only thing Kerry has to do to win this election is just not do anything wrong and watch Bush fuck himself the way he has been... ...not a strong presidential position I agree, but not a criminal one either.

[John Ashcroft]

"Opportunity of choice" to read the legislation you're signing??? How's about "responsibility" and "duty"? I'm not saying that Senators can possibly read every bill cover to cover, but each of them have an extensive staff to do just that, and brief them on the catches. Not to mention the bill authorizing the use of force was no secret. It's not like it was a rider slipping through on a defense appropriations bill!

Do you libs ever take responsibility for anything??? And who feeds you this bullshit anyway?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
is there anyway to have a trial for enemy combatants in secret? Where the sources of evidence and information can be protected? I think we learned a lesson with our pursuit of terrorists through the legal system before. I've read quite a few articles on how the damage done to intelligence gathering capability during the previous criminal trials (World trade center bombing I) directly contributed to, and enabled the terrorists to pull off 9/11. However, even if Padilla is a scumbag, I don't believe it's right to hold him indefinitely without charging him. In fact, it's been too long already in my opinion. But I don't know the national security issues that are causing the government to take this position. Like I've said, if we could have trials without compromising national security that'd be ideal. Obviously, this is a tough one.




i don't know...it IS difficult. but i think, utlimately, if you're going to charge the person with a crime, it has to be public.

so far, from the limited viewing, i like the supreme court's ruling. enemy combatants are at least entitled to judicial oversight into whether or not they should be labeled as enemy combatants. (and for intel purposes, i don't think there's any constitutional requirement that THESE proceedings be made public...)

my concern still lies, like yours, in an eventual trial. anyone who thinks the war on terror will ever be definitively declared over is either stupid or a spin-artist. and i'm not be conspiratory; it SHOULDN'T be declared over. we can be winning it, but until we take out all 6 billion people, we can't ever be 100% free from the threat of terrorism.

that said, eventually, i think we have to try enemy combatants in court. and that's public, constitutionally.

though, whether or not individual pieces of evidence could be gagged in the name of national security is another tough one. but i suppose there's an argument for it. we keep rape victim's identities secret. it's not apples and apples. but there's some precedent.

and no...my position on the 2nd amendment has not changed with the administration. (nor will it, should bush win in 2004...);)

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
"Opportunity of choice" to read the legislation you're signing??? How's about "responsibility" and "duty"? I'm not saying that Senators can possibly read every bill cover to cover, but each of them have an extensive staff to do just that, and brief them on the catches. Not to mention the bill authorizing the use of force was no secret. It's not like it was a rider slipping through on a defense appropriations bill!

Do you libs ever take responsibility for anything??? And who feeds you this bullshit anyway?

Hey, its a fact of life that they are not allowed to do their duty or take responsibility for it when they are forced to vote or not vote on a bill that hasn't even been posted for them or anyone else to read first. Its the way of the Bush administration to push things they want pushed through this way. They tell you what they want you to think its about, and then tell you you are unpatriotic or defending the terrorists if you don't vote for it.

The Patriot Act was not available prior to them voting for it, FACT.
But who would vote against such a proud anti-terrorist title???

Check it out yourself. By the way, have YOU even READ it??

What rock are YOU living under Ashcroft?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by knuckleboner


and no...my position on the 2nd amendment has not changed with the administration. (nor will it, should bush win in 2004...);)


How about your postition on the fact that with the enactment of the Patriot Act, the Fourth Amendment is GONE???

[John Ashcroft]

I'll ask you again Keef, who feeds you this bullshit?

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
At least you're coming around... ;)

[i]You wish. :)

Oh, and Happy Birthday! Hope you have a good one.

It'll probably be another boring day, but thanks. ;)

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Keeyth
How about your postition on the fact that with the enactment of the Patriot Act, the Fourth Amendment is GONE???

i'm not the biggest fan of the patriot act, either.

but i'm not sure it destroys the 4th amendment. care to explain?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
i'm not the biggest fan of the patriot act, either.

but i'm not sure it destroys the 4th amendment. care to explain?

The FBI can come into your house, without a search warrant, and without you even being home, search and seize what they want, and never even have to tell you that they were there. READ THE PATRIOT ACT! It is pure anti patriotic in every sense of the word. It's fucking evil what they can now do with the passage of that document.

[diamondD]

I'd like to see the source of where you are getting these "facts" about the Senators not being able to read these bills because of the Bush admin.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Hey, its a fact of life that they are not allowed to do their duty or take responsibility for it when they are forced to vote or not vote on a bill that hasn't even been posted for them or anyone else to read first. Its the way of the Bush administration to push things they want pushed through this way. They tell you what they want you to think its about, and then tell you you are unpatriotic or defending the terrorists if you don't vote for it.

The Patriot Act was not available prior to them voting for it, FACT.
But who would vote against such a proud anti-terrorist title???

Check it out yourself. By the way, have YOU even READ it??

What rock are YOU living under Ashcroft?

You're an idiot.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Keeyth
READ THE PATRIOT ACT! It is pure anti patriotic in every sense of the word. It's fucking evil what they can now do with the passage of that document.

i have. the entire thing. including the U.S. code sections which it references.


what the patriot act does is expand on a few things, to be sure. but if it's unconstitutional, then there have been prior laws, and court rulings, on the books for years, which were unconstitutional. the patriot act, by and large, expands powers, it doesn't completely create new ones. it also keeps many of the judicial actions in secret, which is the main reason i don't like the act.

warrantless searches are nothing new. that the patriot act expanded the liklihood of their use is probably true. that the supreme court has ruled, at least in certain circumstances, that a warrantless search is constitutional, is also true.

the patriot act's warrantless searches authorization is possibly unconstitutional. though, i think it's a real murky area of law. however, i agree that the scope of the patriot act in this area is probably not good public policy and should be changed.

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh... Uh Keef... I'll cue you in on a little secret here... KB's a lawyer. You're much better off asking his opinion and debating the merits of any issue rather than assuming he's uneducated on a particular subject.

Plus, he's a closet Ditto-head. He just hasn't had his "coming out" yet...;)

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by diamondD
I'd like to see the source of where you are getting these "facts" about the Senators not being able to read these bills because of the Bush admin.

Ron Paul, a senator from Texas no less, spells it out in a movie called "The Truth and Lies of 9-11" by Mike Ruppert. It is also echoed by a senator in Farenheit 911 as well I believe...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You're an idiot.

Hate to think what that makes YOU then...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
i have. the entire thing. including the U.S. code sections which it references.


it also keeps many of the judicial actions in secret, which is the main reason i don't like the act.

warrantless searches are nothing new. that the patriot act expanded the liklihood of their use is probably true. that the supreme court has ruled, at least in certain circumstances, that a warrantless search is constitutional, is also true.

the patriot act's warrantless searches authorization is possibly unconstitutional. though, i think it's a real murky area of law. however, i agree that the scope of the patriot act in this area is probably not good public policy and should be changed.

Well, until it is changed, my lawyer friend, your fourth amendment is GONE!

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Heh heh heh... Uh Keef... I'll cue you in on a little secret here... KB's a lawyer. You're much better off asking his opinion and debating the merits of any issue rather than assuming he's uneducated on a particular subject.

Plus, he's a closet Ditto-head. He just hasn't had his "coming out" yet...;)

I never assumed he was uneducated on a subject, and if you look at his response, you'll see that you are wrong to assume I am uneducated on the subject as well. He basically agreed with me.

Sorry Johnny.;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Hate to think what that makes YOU then...

That makes me Triple B, Lord of these Boards. :gulp:

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Ron Paul, a senator from Texas no less, spells it out in a movie called "The Truth and Lies of 9-11" by Mike Ruppert. It is also echoed by a senator in Farenheit 911 as well I believe...

You're kidding, right?

Let me get this straight... So what you're saying is you rely on movies as your information source for current events?

Hey Keef, I heard there's a comet streaking towards earth right now! It's right behind the hostile aliens that are coming! There's also a volcano right smack in the middle of L.A. about to go off, undoubtably due to the fact that the core of the Earth stopped spinning, which also explains the flash-freezing of New York City!

And guess what? It's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! You're damn right you better vote Democrat! They're the only ones who can stop it all!

Anyway, How's the weather in your neck of the woods Ally?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That makes me Triple B, Lord of these Boards. :gulp:

LOL. Brian, you are fucking priceless. I love ya :hula:

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Anyway, How's the weather in your neck of the woods Ally?

Warm, but not that warm. Been thinking about sun-bathing, right after the glaciers melt. :D

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That makes me Triple B, Lord of these Boards. :gulp:

There is only one Lord around here, and verily, it ain't thee, My son. :cool:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
There is only one Lord around here, and verily, it ain't thee, My son. :cool:

Stop it, you're making me blush. :o

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
You're kidding, right?

Let me get this straight... So what you're saying is you rely on movies as your information source for current events?

Hey Keef, I heard there's a comet streaking towards earth right now! It's right behind the hostile aliens that are coming! There's also a volcano right smack in the middle of L.A. about to go off, undoubtably due to the fact that the core of the Earth stopped spinning, which also explains the flash-freezing of New York City!

And guess what? It's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! You're damn right you better vote Democrat! They're the only ones who can stop it all!


Oh I get... ...like humor... ...but different.

I have many sources little Johnny:D