Supreme Court upholds secret detentions

[Fridays Child]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Bush administration to keep secret the names and other basic details about hundreds of people questioned and detained or arrested after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Without comment, the top court refused to hear an appeal by civil liberties and other groups challenging the secret arrests and detentions, arguing that they violate the Freedom of Information Act and constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3937711/

[Mandate My Ass]

1. This headline should read

Supreme Court allows unelected, illegally appointed president to become a dictator and U.S. to become a banana republic.

[nolabels]

21. Come to think of it none of these folks were ever elected

And the part that was, a congress that was hand picked and empowered by corporate minions could only make things worse (I notice a pattern there too).

We the people really have no Representatives at the top levers of government. I only see nasty and ugly things emanating from around the beltway. The implications of how it works is seem astounding, how come major parts of the population don't see this?

A lot of these folks, as it seems to me, really have nothing to do with that preamble "We the People" but is one of how to screw the people

[0007]

2. So is this what we can expect also about Cheney's energy papers?

[afraid_of_the_dark]

3. Sickening...

Looks like more of our civil rights are becoming "privileges." I'm just waiting for them to give the president carte blanche to do exactly what he pleases. How did Dumas put it in the "Three Musketeers" - "The bearer of this card has done what he has done with my permission..." something to that effect?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

9. Dumas

"The bearer has done what he has done with my permission and for the good of the State"

[BeHereNow]

4. UN-Friggin-Believable.

This is so blatantly FASCIST.
Whe are the people in this country going
to comprehend what is happening?
I CAN NOT believe this.
BHN

[denverbill]

5. Truly horrible news. Incredible.

How can these assholes on the SC look themselves in the mirror?

What is it about the 6th amendment that is so difficult for them to comprehend?

"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."

Fuck the bill of rights.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

7. What part of "all"

criminal prosecutions don't they understand? I kind of understand how they passed "PATRIOT act part deux," with the references to other documents and not actually writing anything that anyone without those other documents sitting in front of them could understand. But this just seems crystal clear to me, if the law could ever be considered such.

[coyote]

6. So much for checks and balances....N/T

NT

[murielm99]

8. Yes...

Screw the Bill of Rights!

[Dover]

10. So basically the Supreme Court refuses to uphold their Constitutional

duties AND refuses to explain themselves.

I think it's time the people respond directly to the SUPREMES. I don't think they should be allowed to have a restful nights sleep ever again. We need to have patriot rebel drums banging our discontent outside their windows every night.

[arcane1]

11. let the disappearances begin!

I used to say that I would never leave DU by posting an "I'm leaving DU" thread, that I would just leave silently, but now I wonder if I should change that. If I stop posting without a farewell thread, who would know if I've been picked up?

Scary times we live in. You know how they had those seminars telling DA's how to use the PATRIOT Act for non-terrorism, civil cases (despite the fact that the Act was supposed to be ONLY for terrorism..). Well, it's only a matter of time before secret detentions get passed along to local jurisdictions, as another "tool" for prosecuters...

remember when we were free? :shrug:

[nolabels]

12. Hey SCOTUS, who the hell do you think gives you your power anyway?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(snip)
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

More follows but the preamble says a lot in a few words as far as I can see, more than enough for me to contemplate that is not what is going on in this present day in these United States of America

Michael Moore was correct, these folks are scared of their own shadow, put their by fascist corporate machine that was looking for Yes men instead of thinkers. Go ahead and kowtow to them, your destroying yourself in the process. Such foolishness, whoa to those who must follow and clean up the mess.

Btw, did anyone ever check out how the word defence was spelled in that document

[DrWeird]

13. Hirabayashi, Korematsu, and Endo.

Here I was thinking the justices had learned their lesson.

[nolabels]

14. Good things never last, but ignorance travels with us through eternity

Have you not noticed that yet

That was some real racist stuff that went on with the Japanese back then.

I always try to notice how much they stay the same as opposed to anything new, always resorting to their fall-backs tactics. Us freedom lovers, we are on the upswing though. I have even been hearing a lot voting republicans lately saying that this * thingy is not kind of thing they signed up for.

Lately I have been feeling satisfied that many people are waking up to the fact that they are Human and can get screwed also.

The only major inducement that * and cohorts have left is the inducement of fear, and that is rapidly fading.

[jpgray]

15. Yes, repeating history is so much fun. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

16. Refusing to grant cert is not upholding it...

It's possible that they just think it isn't ripe yet.

[The Sushi Bandit]

17. NAZI SABOTEURS ON TRIAL: A MILITARY TRIBUNAL AND AMERICAN LAW

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/fisher-louis2.htm

This relates to this story.......

In Chapter 4, Fisher reviews the manner by which the U.S. Supreme Court had become involved in the case of the German saboteurs. After the district court had rejected the request to review whether the military court was properly constituted, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 29 and 30. The next day, July 31, 1942, the Court issued a short per curium opinion upholding the constitutionality of the proclamation. It took until October 29 for the Court to complete a full written opinion explaining their decision. Because the majority of the saboteurs were executed on August 8, Chief Justice Stone believed it was critical to have a unanimous opinion to justify the government's action. Although such support was eventually achieved, several justices expressed misgivings about the matter. The final holding in EX PARTE QUIRIN

(1942) upheld the chief executive's authority to create the military tribunal and distinguished the circumstances of the case from that of EX PARTE MILLIGAN (1866), where the Court determined that President Lincoln's use of a military tribunal to prosecute a U.S. citizen during the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Chapter 5 relays the immediate reaction to the EX PARTE QUIRIN decision and how it affected subsequent court rulings on the application of military tribunals. As opposed to the positive public response to the Supreme Court's decree, the academic and legal community opposed the holding. In later reflections on the case, Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that the "Quirin experience was not a happy precedent;" while Justice William Douglas found it "extremely undesirable to announce a decision on the merits without an opinion accompanying it." Fisher finds that throughout World War II, U.S. "federal courts largely deferred to executive and military authorities" (p.144) and that the "broad scope given to military trials did not begin to narrow until 1955" (p.156). After nearly fifty years, the specter of military tribunals "seemed quaint if not antiquated" (p.159). But the events of September 11, 2001 changed that, reviving the issue as it pertained to punishing those who provided assistance to the terrorist attacks against America. The authorization of military tribunals by the George W. Bush administration followed closely the precedent set by Franklin Roosevelt as far as the admission of evidence, vote required for conviction and sentencing, and the procedure for review. Congressional hearings and an American Bar Association Task Force questioned the expansiveness of President Bush's directive.

Fisher contends that the creation of the military tribunal by President Roosevelt in the German saboteurs incident was "deeply flawed" (p.172) and that the United States seems to be duplicating the mistakes that led to the expedient execution of most of the aforementioned participants. He clearly regards EX PARTE QUIRIN as a precedent not worth repeating, but one that must "be understood within the context of American constitutional law, the relations between Congress and the President, and the tradition of an independent judiciary" (p.175).

[Constitution]

18. Isn't this great? Just like in "1984"

Welcome to Oceana.

[tom_paine]

23. Chocolate Rations will be increased 10mg. next month

Yes, the Judicial Arm of the Imperial Family still serves their Masters when it's on the line, posturing notwithstanding as they try to rehabilitate their image by using the Rule of Law to determine other cases not as close to the interests of their Imperial Masters.

The problem is: Once you shortcut the Rule of Law, there's no going back no matter how much you try. (for the Felonious Five, at least).

We will get to see their Craven, Bootlicking Nature when the issue of the Vice-Imperial nergy Papers comes up again.

Those 5 (at the very least the Big Three...Scalia, Rhenquist, Sock Puppet Slappy) are not judges any more than I am. They are Imperial Operatives, pure and simple.

And there can be no going back.

One day, even speaking of it will risk being sent to Room 101, though right now Room 101 is mostly reserved for Imperial Subjects of Iraq.

[RememberTheCoup]

19. Did you ever think you would see a headline like that in this country?

It's as if some seemingly far-fetched apocolyptic novel is playing out right before our eyes and no one seems to care.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. People won't realize the significance of this

until they, like the people of Argentina and Uruguay in the 1970s and 1980s, find that they or one of their friends or relatives are being detained on suspicion of terrorism or of being friendly with someone who is suspected of terrorism or of protesting the treatment of someone suspected of terrorism.

Until then, they'll think it's just dandy that the government is being so "tough on terrorism."

Wanna bet that this story dies quickly? People have more important things to think about, like Roger Clemens.

[daleo]

22. Imagine what the Supreme Court will do in November

We can always hope, but this sort of thing doesn't make one optimistic.