Supreme Court Rules in favor of Administration!!!!! - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-28-2004, 11:15 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Supreme Court Rules in favor of Administration!!!!!

[Q]
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.

[/Q]

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

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 11:16 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:16 AM
One question....how is 6-3 considered narrow?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 11:20 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Indeed, while it isn't unanimous, it isn't a narrow decision either.

And while the Supreme Court does side with the administration on some issues, I think it's very important they also ruled that the detainee can challenge his treatment/detainment in court.

Quote:
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.''

The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.
C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 11:40 AM   #4
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:16 AM
It's good that they can go to court now

but why do you need 2 threads
http://forum.interference.com/t93284.html?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 11:42 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.
But that's it. The President doesn't have the power to "wage war as he sees fit." This also isn't a war, by technical definition, even if that's how it is popularly described. The power to wage war is with Congress, which the Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President the authority to do so; but that doesn't mean he has the right to shut out the judiciary at his whim. Apparently, the Supreme Court agreed with that too.

I am glad to see some clarification from the court system on this issue, even if they took their good old time to do so.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 04:43 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
It's good that they can go to court now

but why do you need 2 threads
http://forum.interference.com/t93284.html?
These are separate cases. One is about inside America. The other is about the Guantanamo detainees. Two different decisions.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 04:45 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I am glad to see some clarification from the court system on this issue, even if they took their good old time to do so.

Melon
I think the fastest they ever decided anything was the election of 2000. theis is the way it works....good or bad.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com