Supreme Court: How Long Can Enemy Combatants Be Held

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A number of Supreme Court justices expressed concern on Wednesday that Americans captured in President Bush (news - web sites)'s war on terrorism could be held for decades in U.S. military jails without any legal rights.

Several justices also questioned whether enemy combatants, captured on a foreign battlefield and brought to the United States, should at least get a military review or hearing, if not a U.S. court hearing, to challenge their detention.

"Have we ever had a situation like this ... (where the detention) could last 25 or 50 years?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), who often casts the decisive vote on the closely divided court, asked the U.S. government's lawyer.

At issue is whether Bush has the power to order American citizens, captured overseas or arrested in the United States as terrorism suspects, to be held indefinitely without any charges, a hearing or access to a lawyer.

~snip~
more:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040428/ts_nm/court_security_dc

[SEpatriot]

1. Broad Discretion

Once again, the W administration is arguing for "broad discretion" in administering its policies. They also argued for "broad authority and/or discretion" to keep certain things private (Cheney's cronies). How much discretion and authority will the SC give this administration??

[daleo]

2. This is so obviously wrong

It boggles the mind that a U.S. Supreme Court is even considering such a situation. We used to criticize the Soviets for stuff like this.

[maddezmom]

4. while reading, just replace Cuba with the US

~~snip~
The resolution directed at Cuba was introduced by Honduras with the strong backing of the United States.

It urged Cuba to ``refrain from adopting measures which could jeopardize the fundamental rights, the freedom of expression and the right to due process of its citizens.''

The resolution also deplored Cuba's detention last year of 75 dissidents who have been sentenced to long prison terms. Cuba maintains that the group had engaged in anti-government activities in collaboration with U.S. diplomats.

Cuban officials said Thursday the resolution was so mildly worded that it could not be construed as a victory for the United States.

Boucher insisted the resolution ``sends a strong message to courageous Cubans who struggle daily to defend their human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as to the repressive Castro regime.''

~snip~
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3986079,00.html

I'm not defending Cuba, but the hypocrisy of this w/ bushco's Patriot Act is stunning. Do as I say not as I do, is the bush theme.

[hang a left]

3. I hope alot more questions were asked than the ones provided

by that article. This should be a open and shut case. It is unconstitutional and deprives citizens of the 6th Ammendment. I will be holding my breath until July, hoping and praying with my fingers and toes crossed.

[peterh]

5. Scalia’s catchall phase…

"He has the power as an independent branch to say, `No, this intrudes too much upon my powers.”

Thus….concludes Scalia….this is not for debate here in this forum, if the executive branch says it has the power to hold indefinitely….so shall it be….




Now where did I put that shaker of salt…

[pinkpops]

6. Scalia wants to be chief justice sooo bad.

[neverforget]

7. You mean High Priest of the United States!

:evilgrin: