High Court Deals Blow to Bush's War on Terror

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=12&u=/nm/20040628/ts_nm/security_court_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) placed the first limits on President Bush (news - web sites)'s war on terrorism on Monday and ruled that terror suspects can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement.


The historic moves on the day before the end of the high court's term marked a bitter defeat for Bush's assertion of sweeping presidential powers to indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It was the court's first rulings on Bush's terrorism policies.


In one ruling, the court said the nearly 600 foreign terror suspects held for two years at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could turn to American courts to challenge their confinement. In another ruling, it said an American terror suspect held in his nation is entitled to a chance to contest the government's decision.


"Today's historic rulings are a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts," Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) said.

more

[LibertyorDeath]

1. Finally some sanity

[Voltaire99]

8. Amen to that!

And just when we needed it most.

[stevedeshazer]

2. Bad news for Bushco

Lawyers will have access to the "detainees", "terrorists", "POWs", "insurgents", "thugs", or whatever we're supposed to call them this week.

This is good news for us, and especially for the innocent among them.

Can't wait to hear their stories. Can someone get a book out by October?

[Kimber Scott]

3. When I woke up this morning CNN said Bush had a victory in the SC

I guess they didn't read the whole decision before they reported to us what it said.

[k in IA]

4. I saw their breaking news headline and e-mailed them immediately

that it was very misleading.

[JaySherman]

6. This is probably why...

The SC ruled that detainees CAN be held without charges or trial but they also have a right to counsel. They can be held without trial but they have a right to challenge their treatment in court. Figure that one out.:shrug:

Buzzflash is reporting it as a "another nail in the coffin for democracy." The more I look at this ruling, the more it appears to me to be maintaining the status quo at best. In which case it probably is another nail in the coffin.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040628/D83G2UC81.html


Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges

Jun 28, 10:46 AM (ET)

By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

more

[depakid]

5. Great headline.... not

Goes to show you how subtle and pervasive the right wing spin is...

This is actually a victory for human rights and the supremecy of Constitutional Law.

NPR frames issues like this all the time, which is why I no longer listen to them.

[mrdmk]

7. MSNBC is reporting it differently on the Web

<title>

Court: Terror suspects can challenge detentions

<snip>
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration on Monday, ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

The court refused to endorse a central claim of the White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: That the government has authority to seize and hold suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them.

The court did back the administration in one important respect, ruling that Congress gave President Bush the authority to seize and hold a U.S. citizen, in this case Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, as an alleged enemy combatant.
<snip>

<link>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5316401/

Basically MSNBC is reporting that the Bush Administration has overstepped the Constitution and holding people without trail will not stand.

At this time we need to watch news organizations to see if there is actual reporting being presented or if there is spin to-wards Bush. When the spin to-wards Bush is suspected there needs to be a mass complaint to that news agency. We cannot have the Constitution eating for a snack by this current administration.