Judges beginning to balk in war on terror

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Sun, Dec. 28, 2003

Judges beginning to balk in war on terror
BY RICK MONTGOMERY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - (KRT) - In the war on terror, federal judges are beginning to balk.

Charge the alleged "dirty bomber" with a crime or let him go, one appellate court ruled this month. Give the captured combatants at Guantanamo Bay legal avenues to contest their imprisonment, another said.

For many months after Sept. 11, 2001, the scales of justice consistently tipped in favor of the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism and detaining suspects deemed threats to national security.

Now, some civil rights groups and legal experts point to signs of a judicial backlash as cases inch closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The real change is that appellate courts are saying, `Wait a second, you can't do that,' " said Jim Ross , senior legal adviser for Human Rights Watch.
(snip/...)

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/7585416.htm

[aquart]

1. Well, I'm shocked. You shocked?

Is it possible that the judges are simply conservative Americans who place high value on our guaranteed freedoms and not fascist lickspittles as BushCo intended?

[izzie]

4. And off with his head. What is he thinking?

n/t

[silverweb]

2. Good.

It's about time!

[Melodybe]

3. Yay for honest judges that appreciate the law!

i know that in our Dean group here, we have a lot of law students that fucking hate what the adminstration has done to the constitution. some of them even voted for shrub last time around. America has been a place where liberty and freedom have prospered for so long, people will never except anything less. THAT is what will save our country next year.

[goforit]

11. Well said Melodybe!!!!.........The Constitutional Party is ringing clear!!

Yep!!!

Dean is there to defend the Constitution.
While the other Dems are there to defend their self interests.

Goooooooo DEAN!!!!!!!

[Cocoa]

12. Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards filibustered Bush's judges

shame on you for slandering dems, goforit. :mad:

[0007]

5. 'Tis nice to hear & read that we still have a system of checks & balances

"Fidell said he saw more legal slaps ahead for federal prosecutors.

"The government's conduct has been calculated to annoy (judges) who aren't used to seeing the game played this way," he said. "War or no war, they're not going to allow their judicial function to atrophy."

I love justice! I love it -

[GRClarkesq]

6. I dont think the Feds

ever expected the enemy detainee status to stick on Padilla but they gave it a try just for grins. Of course, Padilla will now be arrested and processed throught the criminal justice system, which is how it should have been in the first place.

The 9th Circuit opinion of the Gitmo detainees is a different manner. The Feds have a better argument in this case and SCOTUS will have to resolve the issue

[DinahMoeHum]

7. Heh, heh. Ashcroft can't kick a duck in the ass unless he

stands on a brick, and even then, it's a 50/50 chance he'll miss.

:evilgrin:

[Just Me]

8. Well,...it's about time!!!

I was really starting to feel a bit panicky about how far the courts were going to let this administration shred the Constitution before some balancing and intervening action was taken. Now that bits of reality peek through the neo-con's smoke-n-mirrors show, perhaps the scales will shift more towards center.

[DulceDecorum]

9. If memory serves

the American Bar Association launched a few protests when Bush first started being a dictator. The FBI was absolutely FURIOUS when they were first informed that henceforth they would be targetting Muslims for thrashings and the Judges openlly rebelled against Ashcroft which resulted in Bush trying to outlaw unions in the Justice Department.

Bushism has always been a tough sell.

[goforit]

10. The only reason it tips in favor for * are the constant threats they use.

Judges were being threatenned to produce legitimacy or "else".

The # 1 terrorist is in the WH.