RAGE! Supreme Court Gives Bush "Partial Victory" re: Terror Detainees

[GiovanniC]

Just got this email from MSGOP Breaking News:

"The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a partial victory to the Bush administration, ruling that Congress gave the president the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but that the detainee can challenge his treatment in court."

Goddamn it! Assuming that Congress DID give that power to the "president", that power is not theirs to give.

Sixth Amendment anyone?

"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 defence."

(All emphasis mine, of course -- the founding fathers probably never thought that such emphasis would be needed).

[Cat Atomic]

1. Jesus.

Here's the problem with having idealogues and corrupted power brokers on the Supreme Court.

[Junkdrawer]

2. I had a bad feeling about this "early handover" thing....

This looks like Page 6 news now.

[LeftHander]

3. I was waiting to hear this....

I hope that this is not accurate...if they allow him to hold people without trial creating a "mock" reason will be easy.

He'll start rounding people up and saying it is for "national security"

If this is true....I guess he'll start pretty damn soon...nothing he would like better than to see a naked pyramid of liberals...I'll bet...

This ruling is the key to America's survival.

I swear people will start dissapearing if they allow Bush to stomp on due process.

[Tellurian]

13. This is what will be the fate of dissenters by the power granted by the SC

The SC is passing the PAII piece by piece instead of a total ruling. In case you hadn't noticed.


U.S. CONCENTRATION CAMPS

FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM




There over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html

[Tellurian]

4. I haven't read it lately but the president's War Powers?

I can't look for it right now. But the SC may be basing their judgment on The War Power Act.. The riddle here is...Bush is not a duly elected president, he is an appointed president. Should the same attributes and executive powers be applied to an appointed president as that of a duly elected president, elected by the people?

A Constitutional question I've asked myself a thousand times that has never been addressed by Congress!

[Guaranteed]

15. I don't know much about the War Powers act, but

my thought is that it addresses Congress' declarations of war, and it does NOT give the President the power to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS US CITIZENS.

[Tellurian]

26. You're right. But the SC's ruling addressed specific questions...

asked by (I believe) the AG- The questions were answered mainly through the definition of words..

Their decision is an abomination and an affront to the Constitution.

Congressional Democrats should be screaming about this until something is done to change it.

[GiovanniC]

16. Did the War Powers Act Repeal the Sixth Amendment?

n/t

[Tellurian]

22. No, but the Prez is given temp sweeping powers...IIRC nt

[GiovanniC]

23. Which Is Itself Unconstitutional

-- by definition -- if those "sweeping powers" violate the Constitution.

[Tellurian]

27. I think the key word there is "temporary" and therefore not really

affecting the mandate of the Constitution..

[GiovanniC]

28. I Hope Someday I Can Be President

So I can "temporarily" engage in some cruel and unusual punishment.

[Tellurian]

29. You don't have to be president...just work for one who is self loathing

Use this for your template.

Scroll 3/4 of the way down until you see

TABLE of STRATEGIES

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/silent_weapons_quiet_wars.htm

(pass this link along)

[GiovanniC]

30. Just Saying...

Just because the suspension of the Constitution is "temporary" doesn't make it right.

In fact, the Constitution should be EVEN MORE VALID in times of crisis.

[Tellurian]

32. Of course, you're right, GiovanniC...

I posted that link for you, to show you, the template being used as the model for controlling the masses. Using the Terror Charade to usurp the power of the Constitution that protects a citizen's inaliable rights.

[GiovanniC]

34. Thank You, Tellurian.

It's an interesting and chilling link.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Crap. No one being detained will ever get the chance to challenge as

they will be permanently "on hold". x(

[geek tragedy]

6. They did say that they have the right to challenge it in court

which is actually the bigger victory against the administration.

This wasn't the Padilla case. My guess is that Bush loses big time on Padilla.

[gatlingforme]

8. I thought that was padilla, >>> thank someone for that, you are

right. I think the Padilla case will be nixed. If it does not I am moving.

[Junkdrawer]

10. CNN Sez: Supreme Court says it will not rule on merits...

of U.S.-born terrorism detainee Jose Padilla's case. Details soon.

[gatlingforme]

7. I have to keep on reminding myself, that Bush can only stay

in power for 8 yrs at the most.... hopefully only 4 but who knows. But he may change that too with the courts blessing.

[americanstranger]

9. Weird. CNN is spinning it as a total smackdown of Bush.

They're saying that detainees have the right to challenge the incarceration, and that US citizens like Hamdi have the right to full representation as per US law. 6-3 decision.

They're saying that since Guantanamo is under US control, then any Americans held their have the right to full representation.

What am I missing here?

-as

[Spazito]

11. I am reading it the same...

I am beginning to think that the opinion is worded to look like it wasn't a total loss but the ruling itself is a loss for the bush admin. Here is a link with a fuller explanation but I am still unclear how it can be touted as a victory for the bush admin at all:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatants

[KittyWampus]

24. This Is What The JAG's Rep'ing Gitmo Detainees Wanted

now they have legal standing.

[geek tragedy]

12. Guys like Hamdi are a strange case

US citizens found on the battlefield fighting against the US poses a problem. This probably means that they can temporarily detain an American found fighting against the US on the battlefield, but that the American can retain legal counsel and fight his detention in the courts.

I'll try to read the opinion itself.

[Guaranteed]

14. ABSOLUTELY UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE.

Congress can NOT give our rights away like that, CERTAINLY without changing the Constitution.

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG, TOTALLY FUCKING UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[FloridaPat]

17. But this isn't a criminal prosecution! It's war!!!

[GiovanniC]

18. In the Immortal Words of Dick Cheney

They can either fuck off or go fuck themselves.

[Junkdrawer]

19. Being spun as a Bush Loss to cover for the extraordinary powers...

this ruling gives them - basically a Republican Congress can strike down Constitutional Rights.

[Mandate My Ass]

20. That's what I think too

THis is an outrage.

[GiovanniC]

21. I Agree

They're spinning it as a loss for Bushco, but he was just handed the unlimited power of the Lightningbolt of Zeus to SMITE people with.

[beyurslf]

25. Truly frightening is the only thing I can say. The descent down the

slippery slope has begun.

[Individualist]

31. The descent began in 2000

when SCOTUS selected the little dictator.

[gottaB]

33. I agree, it's an outrage n/t

[gottaB]

35. Read the Souter opinion

Hamdi v Rumsfeld (largish pdf)

The plurality rejects any such limit on the exercise of habeas jurisdiction and so far I agree with its opinion. The plurality does, however, accept the Government's position that if Hamdi's designation as an enemy combatant is correct, his detention (at least as to some period) is authorized by an Act of Congress as required by §4001(a), that is, by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 115 Stat. 224 (hereinafter Force Resolution). Ante, at 9­14. Here, I disagree and respectfully dissent. The Government has failed to demonstrate that the Force Resolution authorizes the detention complained of here even on the facts the Government claims. If the Government raises nothing further than the record now shows, the Non-Detention Act entitles Hamdi to be released.

On Edit: a poster at Kos has a good summary.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/6/28/113033/891/50#50