Supreme Court Rules in favor of Administration!!!!!

[Dreadsox]

[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]

One question....how is 6-3 considered narrow?

 

[Popmartijn]

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.

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

 

[Klaus]

It's good that they can go to court now

but why do you need 2 threads
http://forum.interference.com/t93284.html?

 

[melon]

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

 

[Dreadsox]

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]

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.