Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Supreme Court re: Enemy Combatants
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Big Trials and Legal Cases
Google
Paladin Elspeth
From the New York Times (and yes, they'll want you to register rolleyes.gif):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/politics/29DETA.html?th

QUOTE(Justices Affirm Legal Rights of Enemy Combatants)
WASHINGTON, June 28 — Declaring that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president," the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that those deemed enemy combatants by the Bush administration, both in the United States and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, must be given the ability to challenge their detention before a judge or other "neutral decision-maker."

Although divided in its rationale, the court was decisive in rejecting the administration's core legal argument that the executive branch has the last word in imposing open-ended detention on citizens and noncitizens alike. The justices' language was occasionally passionate, reflecting their awareness of the historic nature of this confrontation between executive and judicial authority.

Eight justices, all but Justice Clarence Thomas, said the two-year-long detention of an American citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, had either been invalid from the beginning or had become so, for constitutional or statutory reasons. The controlling opinion, by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that Mr. Hamdi's detention was permissible if designation as an enemy combatant proved to be correct, but that his inability so far to appear before a judge, challenge the government's evidence, and tell his side of the story had deprived him of his constitutional right to due process.


Was the Supreme Court right in its decision?

Is the Bush Administration trying to consolidate too much power in the Executive branch?
Google
Victoria Silverwolf
Go, Supreme Court! thumbsup.gif

The fact that this was a lopsided decision should tell us something. There is no doubt in my mind that this was the correct decision.

The Executive branch will always --always -- try to grab as much power as possible. Government agencies that deal with crime, from the local cop on the block to the Attorney General, will always -- always -- try to get around the rules in order to get the Bad Guys. Both tendencies have to be watched very, very closely. ph34r.gif
Jaime
<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'>user posted image Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Duplicate topic.<br /><br />Recommended action: Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br /> - Simple Search<br /> - Advanced Search<br /> - Starting New Topics<br /> - Survival Guide<br /> - The Rules<br /> - Staff Directory<br /></td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>

We're debating this here: Supreme Court re:GITMO prisoners, Rule of law applies - please join us flowers.gif
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.