posted on June 28, 2004 07:51:46 AM new
SC rules against Bushy's holding of US citizens as "enemy combatants" without constitutional rights...
Score: Bush 0
Human Rights 1
It is a good day.
I guess Scalia must be an Al Qaeda sympathizer, liberal pinko scum
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 28, 2004 07:56:27 AM new
So much for Bush's "I will do anything I want because I am the President attitude" Like every other American Bush has to obey the Constitution.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 28, 2004 08:19:47 AM new
Given the conservative bent of the court, I'd say this might be indicative of a change in the attitude of true conservatives, who are getting fed up with the arrogance of this administration.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 28, 2004 08:46:24 AM new
I thought the posters in here said it was a Conservative court. See how things change from day to day. If you need a refresher course this is the same Supreme Court that gave Bush the Presidency. Is this considered a flip flop or is it that the Supreme Court decides cases on merit on not on political conviction....
posted on June 28, 2004 09:04:17 AM new
Libra: If you need a refresher course this is the same Supreme Court that gave Bush the Presidency.
I was kidding of course, about the court being liberal. Sorry I didn't put a winking smiley in there to tip you off.
You're right Crowfarm, finally a Bush supporter admits how he got there
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 28, 2004 10:00:46 AM new
Wrong as usual... the Electoral college put President Bush there...
The way it was supposed to work
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on June 28, 2004 10:12:23 AM new
Your right twelve, but not according to the liberals on this board. They seem to think they are always right. When of course they are in their mind... I guess two sides to every store doesn't apply to them.
There isn't one decent thread in this round table. If someone outside this forum read these board I bet they are getting a great laugh. Oh well another battling day in the Round table. It makes for a great read. I wonder what the topic will be today. It's fun just to sit back and read as exercising your liver is good and that is what laughing does.
posted on June 28, 2004 11:05:22 AM new
The Demos have a group of voter organizers from Chicago down in Florida. Since most dead people vote Democratic, there should be no problem this election.
______________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 28, 2004 04:54:52 PM new
What is interesting is that according to the 20/20 program I watched, Bush originally wanted to afford the prisoners rights under the Geneva Convention. It was his attorney, Gonzalez, that advised him not to. He took his attorney's advise and it's coming back to bite him in the arz. Like I said before, one by one his cronies are going to abandon him and he's going to be left holding the bag. Just like Nixon.
posted on June 29, 2004 07:12:18 AM new
cheryl, thanks for actually addressing the topic.Nobody else seems to want to.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 29, 2004 11:14:20 AM newThe Demos have a group of voter organizers
Caused to me remember reading how the democratic party has hired released, convicted felons to go door-to-door to sign people up to vote. Thanks DNC....I'm just sure all the law-abiding citizens just LOVE the fact you're sending convicted felons to their door steps. oh brother.
------------
On Topic
I'm not happy with the way the rulings came down...but here, today, the WSJ, finds some positives in these rulings.
--
Terror and the Court
Despite mixed rulings, a victory for the executive.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The instant reading of yesterday's Supreme Court rulings on terror suspects is that they were, as the Associated Press asserted, "a setback to the Bush Administration's war against terrorism."
note - which the left appears to be very pleased with. Me I don't take kindly to those who fight against/plot against my country.
additional note - I always love how the media often refers to it as "Bush's war against terrorism", as if the left isn't interested in fighting and winning this 'war'.
After reading the opinions, we'd say it's more accurate to call them a modest but important victory for the Presidency.
The Court's three rulings will surely complicate U.S. detention policy, at least at the margins.
But at the same time they uphold the longstanding and proper deference that the Supreme Court has shown throughout its history to the executive branch on national security, especially in wartime. That includes decisions on how to define and handle a dangerous enemy. For a change, this particular Court actually restrained itself.
Most important, the Court upheld the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens. That's the key finding of Hamdi, and the implicit basis of Padilla, which the Court threw back to the lower courts on jurisdictional grounds.
It's true that in its Guantanamo ruling--Rasul v. Bush--the Court has opened the door to a flood of litigation by ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreigners detained as terrorists can challenge their treatment in the federal courts. This pretty much guarantees that the 600 or so Guantanamo detainees will bring 600 or so habeas corpus cases--perhaps in 600 or so different courtrooms, with 600 or so different judges demanding 600 or so different standards of what evidence constitutes a threat to the United States.
Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent shreds the majority's messy reasoning.
But the solution here is for Congress to step in with legislation consolidating all of the Gitmo cases in a single court. Arlington, Virginia would be a good choice, as that's where the detainees' ultimate warder, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is located. It also has the advantage of being located in the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already examined these issues in a serious way.
At the same time, however, yesterday's Hamdi decision suggests that the courts must give considerable deference to the executive in handling these habeas petitions.
While Hamdi concerned a U.S. citizen-detainee, it isn't likely that the non-citizens at Gitmo can expect more favorable treatment. And anyone who reads Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's plurality opinion can only conclude that Yaser Esam Hamdi--or anyone else--is unlikely to be sprung from detention anytime soon.
Yes, Justice O'Connor wrote that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." But she also outlined the extraordinary deference that must be given the executive branch.
"The Constitution would not be offended," she wrote, "by a presumption in favor of the Government's evidence, so long as that presumption remained a rebuttable one and fair opportunity for rebuttal were provided." And "once the Government puts forward credible evidence that the habeas petitioner meets the enemy-combatant criteria, the onus could shift to the petitioner to rebut that evidence with more persuasive evidence."
In short, the burden is on the petitioner in these cases to prove that the government's designation is wrong. Just to be sure the ACLU gets the point, Justice O'Connor added that "the full protections that accompany challenges to detentions in other settings may prove unworkable and inappropriate in the enemy-combatant setting."
Even more striking, Justice O'Connor all but invited the Administration to set up a military court to hear Hamdi's plea. That suggestion goes a bridge farther than even President Bush has dared. His controversial 2001 order establishing military tribunals to try enemy combatants specifically excluded U.S. citizens even though there is ample legal precedent for their use. The Court's ruling is also an implicit suggestion that the military is capable of adequately reviewing challenges brought by the Gitmo prisoners.
All in all, the Court stepped away from the chaos of making judges the arbiters of American security. That's a welcome victory for the Presidency, no matter who wins in November.
------------
In other statements I've read, another suggestion is that IF we want information from an enemy we've captured, we could just turn them over to another 'less sensitive' government where their 'standards' aren't the same as ours.
in their mind... I guess two sides to every store doesn't apply to them.