Court Decision

[Superman]

Apparently, the Supreme Court did not close ranks but rather those, predominantly conservative, justices ruled that detainees, whether they be war prisoners, enemies of the state, 'bad guys' or criminal defendants, are entitled to some due process. I'm going to keep this post short (Superman regrets being usually verbose) and just say that the position of the 'administration' seems embarrassing. In my humble view. The position of the administration, now denied, was that the President could deny due process to individuals, holding them indefinitely without a hearing. No checks or balances. No oversight. Just stip someone's freedom and liberty with no recourse. Does this strike anyone as unjust?

[on-ramp]

yeah, it's unjust...what if you're innocent and held months and months on end? it goes against every principal that this country was founded on. furthermore, you're the worst type of hypocrit, you just invaded a country, overthrew their government exclaiming democracy and freedom for the people, but at home you practice otherwise.

the white house should learn what the laws of the land are. who holds them accountable for their actions?

[Hugh R]

I'm a conservative and I agree, prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention, or due process under the Constitution, pick one.

[Beethoven]

Best political news since 9/11.

[djmcmath]

Hang on, missed the news -- the Supreme Court just decided that it doesn't matter who you are, we're still bound to follow the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Uh ... were there any dissenting opinions?

[Beethoven]

'fraid so. This is tough times.

[Superman]

I think it was unanimous or nearly so. and I guess that's my question. Anyone think it could have even been close? In the words of a former Assistant Director, does this (the President's attempted assertion that the Executive branch of government can strip someone's freedon indefinitely with no oversight) pass the "straight face test?" Anybody want to try to argue for the President's position and can you do this with a straight face?

[ubiquity0]

Come on- all those prisoners at Abu Ghirab (sp?) are guilty otherwise they wouldn’t be there. Oops, except for the 1200 who were released last month that is. Although I’m sure THOSE people were never abused (read as: ‘asked to wear panties on head’). Just the guilty ones & they deserved it.

[jyl]

The sole dissenting opinion was from Justice Clarence Thomas, which isn't surprising given his track record.

This decision seems utterly sensible and I agree it would have been shocking if the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise.

As Justice O'Connor pointed out in the oral argument, if the Administration thinks it can detain someone for the duration of the war on terror and the war on terror has no expected end date, then the Administration is saying it can imprison someone for life, simply by slapping on the label of "suspected terrorist", without giving the person any chance to try and show he's innocent. That is shocking.

Of course, this is the same Administration whose lawyers argued it was entitled to torture prisoners (or that inflicting intense physical and mental pain doesn't amount to torture, which is an alternative semantic route to the same conclusion). So it is not shocking that the Administration would make these arguments.

Honestly, sometimes I think that John Ashcroft is the scariest guy in the Administration. Well, maybe it's a tie.

[304065]

Superman, here again your hatred of the Bush administration has overwhelmed any capacity you may have had for clarity of thought.

You find the Government's position "embarrasing" and then launch into your usual tirade about freedom and liberty, etc.

Do you not see that the plurality's opinion is a judicial activist crutch that is intended to facilitate the Bush administration's policy with regard to detention of enemy combatants? That by allowing Hamdi some degree of due process, the plurality is allowing the Executive branch to take a middle road between having to set forth cause for Hamdi's detention and allowing the Executive branch the authority to carry on the war pursuant to a congressional mandate, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, without Judicial intervention?

The decision neither advantages a suspected combatant by allowing him real due process nor allows the Executive branch exclusive authority over the detention of hostile combatants. It simply sets forth a requirement of providing notice to the combatant of the reasons for his detention before a neutral decisionmaker. In such a proceeding, if it were deemed "expedient" by the military, hearsay evidence could be admissible to detain the combatant. And you think that's furthering the cause of freedom and liberty?

Let me get this straight, you think this American Citizen should be entitled to "Some" due process? Why not the same due process that he would be entitled to if he were brandishing an assault rifle in Times Square?

The Court has manufactured a middle ground that is neither provided for in the Constitution nor contemplated by the laws of war.

And yet all you can do is say how this embarrasses the administration. Do you not see that it doesn't go far enough in EITHER direction?

Or do you only listen to the ACLU's position on the case and not think for yourself? Compound question, withdrawn.

Tell you what, why don't you go read the case and then come back to this discussion?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf

And check your Bush-hatred at the door if you want to have a rational discussion about Constitutional law.

[Superman]

Frightening that our nation's high court had to stop these guys, while the rest of us saw it coming. This administration apparently thinks that American citizens are ignorant and gullible. Of course, they're right about that but you guys know what I mean.

[304065]

As Justice O'Connor pointed out in the oral argument, if the Administration thinks it can detain someone for the duration of the war on terror and the war on terror has no expected end date, then the Administration is saying it can imprison someone for life, simply by slapping on the label of "suspected terrorist", without giving the person any chance to try and show he's innocent.

What was the expected end date for WWII?

[Neilk]

John,

It's much easier to fight a country than a concept. Will the war on terror end the day Bin Laden is caught? How do you declare victory over terror? You can't because at any time it might flare up again.

[djmcmath]

Question: Who put Clarence Thomas on the bench? Do we blame that president (and assoc. Congress) for putting him there?

Question: Who initialized the idea to hold suspected terrorists without cause? (It seems to me, somehow, that it wasn't something that Bush was leaning on, but rather a congressional thing. Anybody have time to do the research?)

Just asking some questions...


Dan

[304065]

Neil,

Justice O'Connor goes into painstaking detail about that very issue. She points out that POW status is not supposed to be punitive, but rather, detention until the cessation of hostilities. Hamdi was allegedly captured in Afghanistan as a combatant with the Taliban. Until such time as hostilities with the Taliban are over, Hamdi shall be retained, in order to prevent him returning to Afghanistan to fight us again.

But the determination of when hostilities have ended is not for the Judiciary. It is an exclusively Executive determination as to whether, or when, to set enemy combatants free.

Hamdi argues that the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not contemplate indefinite detention. O'Connor says that for the time being, we are fighting the Taliban, and so doesn't really consider the question.

Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George Herbert Walker Bush.

The detention of enemy combatants is an idea as old as warfare itself. The specific act of Congress that facilitates it now is the AUMF. You can find it here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=publ040.107&directory=/diskc/wais/data/107_cong_public_laws

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
I think it was unanimous or nearly so. and I guess that's my question. Anyone think it could have even been close? In the words of a former Assistant Director, does this (the President's attempted assertion that the Executive branch of government can strip someone's freedon indefinitely with no oversight) pass the "straight face test?" Anybody want to try to argue for the President's position and can you do this with a straight face?

Well it just CAN'T be argued. You finally got one right, super. In fact every enemy combatant and terrorist ought to be afforded the same constitutional rights, which we Americans enjoy.

No more of this, so called, "battle field" killing. No more of this drumed-up notion that just because some guy is style'n around town in an exploding vest, that we have some right to deny him his constitutional rights of life, liberty, & the pusuit of happiness?

[/sarcasm]

Before you blame Bush (too late, i suppose) keep in mind, that our US customs continue to thow people into black holes (even American citizens). . .these would be people who were simpley returning from say vacation in Peru, but where suspected of muling drugs. I believe Clinton was in office when 60minutes (I think) did a peice on the issue. (going thru customs, you have NO rights was the jist)

So where were ya on that super? I think that JC is right " ... . your hatred of the Bush administration has overwhelmed any capacity you may have had for clarity of thought. "

[Moneyguy1]

But on the other hand, the defense of the administration has had the
same effect on others. The ultra right will NEVER admit to an error in procedure or in judgement. And the just-as-far-to-the-lefties will continue to point that out, just as it would be if the "ins" and "outs" were reversed.

Can't you guys see that?

No matter how much bloviating, there are those who cannot or will not admit that the opposition has ANY merit.

It shouldn't be too long before our Congress looks like that in Taiwan.

It is this blind loyalty on both sides that drives the rest of us nuts.

And, incidentially, after much consideration, although not yet decided which way to jump in November, I think, if I voted for Kerry, it would not be so much a vote against GWB as it would be against his handlers. I cannot imagine this country with President Cheney. That, to me, would be a nightmare scenario.

But, let's see who Kerry picks. I might change my thought process yet again.

We are mostly Americans here, and all of us claim to be rational people. But, when it comes to religion and politics, civility and reason go out the window.
Met a pleasant old fellow today in Sears. Bush Supporter, the UN is worthless, thinks Europe is terrible, thinks we should boycott France, thinks Ann Coultier is the greatest, and that Sean Hannaty and Bill O'Rilley are too far to the left. He is independently wealthy and lives in an upper class (upper six to low 7 figure neighborhood)gated community,retired and only comes into town "Oh, every other month or so". He went on to say: "The war is a good thing and maybe be we should go into a few more of those backwater countries and straighten them out too."

Not making this up, folks. Had a good half hour while our respective wives were off doing their things and we had found a place in the mall to sit and wait. Never met the guy before. He initiated the conversation and did most of the talking.

The point? After ten minutes or so, I figured the best thing to do was occasionally nod and smile. This gentleman would not have been open to any comments or questions that would have countered is set-in-concrete views.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Superman
, predominantly conservative, justices ruled that detainees, whether they be war prisoners, enemies of the state, 'bad guys' or criminal defendants, are entitled to some due process.

the whole ruling missed the concept of how to deal with a spy.

ie: if we catch them comming into this country or find a citizen ploting against us kill the Tucker immediately.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I think, if I voted for Kerry, it would not be so much a vote against GWB as it would be against his handlers.

humm. I figured that Kerry's economic statements would bother you 'cause the value of the stock market, etc, would would decrease in reaction to his bs future policies. I thought business people thought the same on this?

[Moneyguy1]

Generally, down cycles are a buying opportunity.

Wise investors never invest solely for the short term. Consider folks with stock plans/deferred income over the past three years. Able to buy many times more shares for the same amount. When the stocks/investments do an upturn, profits come much earlier. Folks who "bought high" thru the banner years (up to 2000) would do well to buy more now so they can dollar average. Consider a share of XXX purchased in 2000 cost $100, and now the stock is $50. Buying a share today at $50 allows the investor to break even at $75 rather than waiting until his investment returns (if ever) to $100.

There are many schools of thought on investment timing and what the market may or may not do. Based upon the historical data, it will make money in the long run, but it is still a crapshoot as to when and how much. Not all business people have the same goals nor the same philosophies. Much depends on the individual's tolerance for risk.

Also, it is not clear that Kerry's economic would be a negative influence on the market in the long term. I would be more afraid of long term Federal debt that at some time in the future will have to be addressed no matter which party is at the helm. Higher interest are a result of massive borrowing since investors want a decent return on their money in light of the fact that interest and inflation have at least a positive correlation. The increase in interest rates may have a negative short term effect, particularly on real estate, since most people look at the monthly payment in total when they make a decision as to what they can afford. And, the higher the portion that is interest, the lower the principal payoff, if the total payment is to remain equal. The effect is to drive home prices down. The market in the late 80s showed that dramatically when interest rates for loans were in the double digits.

Does this help?