Supreme Court sides with Bush on terror detainees

Supreme Court sides with Bush on terror detainees


By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press
Last Updated: June 28, 2004, 07:22:16 AM PDT


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court delivered a partial victory to the Bush administration in its war on terrorism Monday, ruling narrowly that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but that the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.


more... http://www.modbee.com/24hour/nation/story/1461472p-8863287c.html


Yahoo Link....

Court Says Foreign Terror Suspects Can Use U.S. Courts

3 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Monday that foreign terrorism suspects at a U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba can use the American legal system to challenge their detention, a defeat for President Bush (news - web sites).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=701&e=1&u=/nm/20040628/ts_nm/security_court_guantanamo_dc

edited to add yahoo link...

:cry: Sorry, Ben. We couldn't keep it.

How can you fight in court when you don't know what you are charged with and don't have to have a trial?

Break it down for me because I am feeling really stupid right now.

I am waiting for a fuller explanation of the ruling. The use of the word "partial" is very interesting, it means the bush admin lost in some aspects but, again, no details of what was lost.

detainees can use American Legal System.

Fellers (Sixth Amendment right to counsel case): refused to determine whether Sixth Amendment protections apply when a suspect had been questioned and gave up inculpatory statements before AND after Miranda warnings. SCOTUS sent it back to the 8th Circuit to figure it out.

Newdow (under God): SCOTUS determined Dad didn't have standing to file suit, so SCOTUS let itself off the hook.

Hamdi: O'Connor paraphrased from today's "opinion"..."We trust the lower courts to act accordingly as these cases come to them"

I hope they actually make a decision when Seibert comes down... "Missouri two-step" interrogation, intentional un-Mirandized confession by cops, followed by a Miranda warning, then an "Oh, could you just repeat what you just said" from the cop, leading the suspect to believe that it can't hurt to repeat what he just said 5 minutes ago. Pretty shady...

The Trial writ large?

Another nail in the coffin of consitutional democracy...

They would only be fighting their pre-trial detention, not the main issue of whether they are or are not terrorists.

But it could be significant. The usual remedy for denial of a speedy trial is instant dismissal of all charges and release from custody.

I am not holding my breath, waiting for anything like that to happen.

Hmmmm . . . but now I am reading other posts which say the only thing they can challenge is their "treatment" rather than the larger issue of being held indefinitely without trial. Now I'm confused too. Let's check that decision out a little closer . . .

pdmike

and you are being held in secret,

HOW CAN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL???

:nuke:

Still waiting for the slip opinion to come up on the USSC's website...

Honestly, I would not have been surprised to see a 9-0 opinion in our favor. A strict constructionist like Scalia... my god... how did he rationalize this?!?!

-MR

"...ruling narrowly that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but that the detainee can challenge his treatment in court."

Hmm, you can be held without charges or trial, but somehow you challenge it in court? How can you do that without charges or a trial?

only the 'treatment', which assumes that you would have some recourse to do that somewhere down the line AFTER charges had been filed.

:cry: I weep for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights today. :cry:

You challenge the detention via the writ of habeas, which means they eventually have to charge you with something or let you go.

On the Padilla case, they took a procedural out to avoid the constitutional issue. Judging from the other decisions, they would likely rule that Padilla cannot be held without charge. But that is not surprising, since the Court rarely reaches the constitutional issue -- liberal OR conservative -- unless all the procedural i's are dotted.

Bake, Esq.

You get a public defender? This so far is very confusing and very scary.

CNN seems to be spinning this as a big loss to the administration. Maybe they're trying to soften the impact of this terrible ruling?

Hurry Froomkin, tell us what this means!

Bush and USSC just made the US a facist state.

Time to leave. Because he will start rounding up anyone for "security reasons" and they will struggle through until a "review" is scheduled. Sometime...

This is REALLY SCARY PEOPLE!

I have not yet read the opinion but it appears that, although the Court authorized an initial detention (of enemy combatants), the Court also held that the detainees are entitled to challenge their detentions via US law.

Will have to wait until the full opinion is available.

My guess is the early transfer of sovereignty may have something to do with Scalia giving Dickwad advance notice of rulings disfavorable to the administration. Indictments on the Plame case may also come down in the next several days. This is apparently going to be a horrible week for the administration.

this is what they wanted.

i hope it's the neverending nightmare.

says the govt LOST this case..matter of fact, they lost 2 out of 3 cases this am..the other they didn't rule on.

Padilla won 2-1 in the Appeals Court, and Bush was challenging that decision in the USSC.

Except for the bizarre hair-splitting in the Hamdi case, it looks like a pretty good day for the Constitution.

-MR

it means the lower court ruling stands and the bush admin lost that one. It seems it was a three case loss for the admin with the one case giving some kind of cover re President having the right but...the detainees have a right to challenge it, very weird.

"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."

(Emphasis mine)

Motherfuckers.

They originally thought that Gore won Bush v. Gore too.

My guess is that aWol just got his ass handed to him.

US Supreme Court says US courts can rule on foreign detainees
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=701&e=1&u=/afp/20040628/ts_afp/us_attacks_foreign

Enemy Combatants Win Right to U.S. Courts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=1&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_detainees

Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=2&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatants

Court: Foreign Terror Suspects Can Use U.S. Courts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=701&e=3&u=/nm/20040628/us_nm/security_court_guantanamo_dc

They essentially ruled that the Constitution protects the detainees in Guantanamo.

In other words, they told Bush to "go fuck yourself."

Ha ha ha!

and you can see which way they tried to spin it. Now it looks to be bad news for bushie. Thank Goodness.

it's about time!

ANY U.S. Citizen - without charges. PERIOD. thanks USSC.

The detainee can then "challenge" the detention.

But how long will that take?

And what happens when a new special Federal Court is set up handle the thousands upon thousands of detentions and those Judges are appointed by Bush...

Here is the scenario...

Homeland Security comes to your house in the middle of the night takes you away.

After days and weeks of torture you are finally given the opportunity to fill out some forms. (Just like in Iraq)

They go to a special Federal court, you make a brief apperance. YOu are not allowed to talk and the Judge declares your detention justified.

Back to the naked mpyramid for you.

Next step. Executions. Too expensive to keep you around so might as well startup the secret military tribunals. start handing out death penalties. After a while these will just become a formatily that is only paper...your picked up tortured then executed.

Welcome To Neocon America.

Many may think that your comments are off the mark. But you hit the nail on the head. If we sit by idly and do nothing to enlighten others, we are conspirators with these people who would eventually take away all of our rights. Pretty soon death squads will begin to serve as the measure of control.

some time ago. I wonder if it was completed, or if it has been used yet?

Bush lost on all three of these rulings


Padilla: 2nd Appeals kicked his ass. SCOTUS is letting that stand. Therefore, Bush loses.

Hamdi: Hamdi has right to lawyer and right to challenge in US court. That basically eviscerates "enemy combatent" main purpose-secret arrest with no court challenge

Gitmo: Court says detainees have access to US court. *HUGE* loss for Bush, as it extends the Courts to all areas under US control-which Gitmo is by treaty.

They essentially quoted Dick Cheney to the Bush administration.

They can't do a damn thing to anyone without the courts looking over their shoulder.

Democracy has been saved for now.

And how?

What if:

Bush starts rounding up thousands of U.S. Citizens?

How will all those cases be handled?

There is no arrest warrent.

Thers is No probable cause.

This opens the door for "political" detentions under the guise of terrorism.

When will the legal system be allowed to be used? Three, four months later...after being tortured? Then what?

Padilla is entitled to full constitutional protections. That's the US citizen on US soil.

Bush has no grounds whatsoever to round up any US citizen.

Hamdi has it that a detainee can challenge his designation as an enemy combatent in court.

But is the court is still allowing Bush to detain people?


Yes, no?

It sound like yes....so Bush can still make the "Enemy Combatant" designation until such time as that status is reviewed.

Or if say, I and detained without due process...am to be released? Or is my detention reviewed?

Did SCOTUS state that Bush cannot detain people without the gaurentees in the constitution?

"A mixed verdict on the terror war"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/scotus.enemy.combatants.ap/index.html

any rights. What a POS.

For those who want to read the opinions for Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, here is the link: Supreme Court Recent Opinions

This is a list of the recent opinions of the SCOTUS, available in pdf format. Hamdi is 822 kb, Padilla is 517 kb.

A President that tries to run rough-shod over the Constitution is a dangerous precedent.

Holy Burning Bill of Rights, Batman!

Although the Court says detainees can be held it has dealt the administration a serious blow by allowing the detainees the ability to challenge their status. We cannot sit idly by and watch the deprivation of basic human rights. We need to impress upon all whom we have influence over that this is wrong. We are on the slippery slope and the ride downward has already started. We must reverse this trend. NOW!

You're exactly right. I've got a lefty-blog. I'm on it. An editorial will be posted within the hour.

If everyone pitched in, the media couldn't bury this stuff.

The BFEE is still alive in well with this muffled rulling

Supremes Allow Detaining US Citizens As Enemy Combatants
Holy Burning Bill Of Rights, Batman!

Largely painted as a defeat for President Bush in the press, the announcement of the Supreme Court decision on Hamdi -vs- Rumsfeld will send shockwaves through this nation. Although the justices allow access to lawyers and the court system, they back the President in declaring American citizens "enemy combatants".

A quote from Justice O'Connor's slip opinion.

"We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker."

Although this did disappoint the Bush Administration in allowing accused US citizen "enemy combatants" access the American justice system, it stopped short of declaring the seizure of said citizen-combatants as being a violation of the Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is a slippery slope, ladies and gentlemen. Today, with this open-ended legislation from Congress declaring "war" on terrorism, any and all of us may be seized without probable cause and without a subpoena by a grand jury, a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Up until this point, even in cases of treason a grand jury had to hand down the indictment. No longer.

This is a sad day in America, the day the Constitution was snubbed by it's own Supreme Court.

If so, have you read the opinions yet?

Just curious.

Just a very concerned citizen. Although I did read the slip opinions issued by Justice O'Connor. I just find it amazing the SC would back a Congressional declaration that clearly violates the letter AND spirit of the Constitution.

Yeah, the US citizens got the right to a trial, but that doesn't mean that Rummy and Co won't be hauling even more people off the street without subpoenas. That's just too "gestapo" to be real.

,...jurisdictional issue(s) and does NOT reverse the lower court's ruling with respect to Padilla's constitutional rights.

If you wish, you can go read that particular opinion here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf

You may be better served to hold off on jumping to conclusions until people get a realistic handle on what the SCOTUS decisions really mean.

BTW, I earned a JD in '91 although I am not a practicing attorney.

I was reading the Hamdi -v- Rumsfeld decision.

For more information, please go here:

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

I have yet to read the Padilla case.

As I was skimming through the legalese, I found this conclusion quite impactful:

In so holding, we necessarily reject the Government’s assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circum-stances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclu-sively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.

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

In other words, if Busholini & Co believe they can rip up the constitution and balance of powers,...they are deluding themselves *hee hee hee*!!!

Obviously, I concur with that statement 100%. What truly bothered me was they didn't challenge the Congressional declaration allowing the rounding up of US citizens without issuance of a grand jury subpoena. It's such a fuzzy area in the law. (Constitutional, Federal and International)

In a combat zone, by Geneva convention, soldiers may be taken only as POWs with the limited protections that gives them. As enemy combatants, unfortunately they're not entitled to squat.

As Americans they're entitled to a grand jury and all the bells and whistles of due process.

As members of the International community we have certain reciprocity agreements with other countries, which may limit or even excuse some citizens from being prosecuted in the US at all. In some instances, these agreements are extended to people with dual citizenship.

When you mix those four elements together you come up with this huge "no-man's land" for Americans captured as enemy combatants.

Therein, for me at least, is the scary part. They're basically being allowed to skip an entire step of Constitutional rights in due process for US citizens in their indictment (a benefit of the Geneva Convention and wartime), but they're NOT calling them soldiers which would entitle them to all the rights agreed upon therein. The access to the courts is a good step, but it really doesn't address the issue of abridged rights.

,...I still encourage you to avoid being "reactive".

Thus far, from what I have read, these decisions place fabulously, well-placed reins on this administration's despotic tendencies.

In all sincerity, I believe these decisions save the experiment of democracy.

Of course, what this depotic regiment of ours will do now,...is still a concern. However, I believe they have reached the end of their ideological quest.

The biggest concern that comes across for me is any administration that looked so hard for holes in the first place probably won't stop there. I'll hope you're right on them being at the end of their ideaological quest. The reigns the SC decided to instill are important, but still not enough to rub out all of the abuses of this Administration in this vein.

Let's hope this is the small stone that starts an avalanche of legal reversals on what the government has been allowing itself to do in "our" name.

Great words!!! :)

and let Average American take care of his/hers. I know you are really proud of your legal research, but we will do ours as well.

This is a very serious situation for Americans and you telling us to settle down is insulting and reveals more your colors than anyone elses.

I certainly was not intending to insult anyone.

Of course, it is presumptuous for you to engage in a form of emotional blackmail,...accusing me of being "emotional" rather than the "rational" that I was encouraging.

At least, I wasn't being divisive,...as you are in this post which is quite a personal assault.

btw,...I know my "true colors". :bounce:

<on edit - btw - go to hell *LOL*>

I don't take any offense, because in the end, I wouldn't stomp on somebody's right to air their brain. This is one of the few countries where we still can and I think we should celebrate that.

As to whether I am reactionary or not: I probably am, but my regular readers seem to like it.

:headbang:

,...beyond what they are spoon-fed. I really do.

If anything, I would be your comrade in instigating "thought".

I merely, with total sincerity, sought to capture facts within the broad net of speculation,...which we are all LEFT with by this administration and their beneficiaries.

In other words, reveal the covers of fiction and open the pages of fact. It's time to face reality, whether we like it,...or not.

Weird.

No matter that you have posted repeatedly,...your post indicator still reads "9".

The cases are: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696) and Rumsfeld v. Padilla (03-1027).

Interesting that they would rule on one Rummy case but not the other. I think that's rather bogus of them in a very upfront sort of way. :-(

Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, called the rulings "a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."

and gave a wrong impression. It does seem better from other reports that expanded the ruling a bit.

I cannot stress this enough. Both cases were CLEAR DEFEATS for the administration.
The AP reporter erroneously reported the plurality decision in the Hamdi case of O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Breyer as governing precedential law. It is most assuredly not. The Fourth Circuit ruling in favor of the administration was overturned. The basis for overturning it is what divided the Supreme Court.

>From the Syllabus of the Decision summarizing the holding:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf

"The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE
KENNEDY, and JUSTICE BREYER, concluded that although Congress
authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances
alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the
United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful oppor-
tunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral
decisionmaker. Pp. 14–15.


JUSTICE SOUTER, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, concluded that Hamdi’s detention is
unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi
should have a meaningful opportu-nity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy
combatant. Pp. 2–3,
15."

The opinion of the four justices, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Breyer was that the detention of Hamdi was authorized, in this limited instance, by the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. That is a plurality with NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, thus it is legally meaningless. Souter and Ginsburg disagreed that there was authorization to detain them granted by Congress in that resolution but agreed they should be granted their habeas rights. Thus there is a clear SIX JUSTICE majority which says people detained by the order of the President have the clear right of habeas corpus to contest the basis for their detention, with the assistance of counsel. Stevens and Scalia contended the detention itself was unauthorized so if you include them EIGHT members of the Supreme Court have repudiated the administration's spurious power grab, albeit on different grounds. The hallowed writ of habeas corpus lives and Bush's claim of extraordinary power to detain without trial or access to the courts is legally dead. Only Clarence Thomas, the champion of totalitarianism, thought this was all peachy keen. This is a clear repudiation and should be reported as such.

Ha ha, haha, ha.

Buried in those very windy opinions are some pretty haughty "shame on you" phrases against this wacko, despotic administration.

I'm still making my way through those exhaustive writings,...but, laughing my ass off along the way!!!!

I too am plowing through the text of the voluminous opinions and, like you, enjoying seeing the administration's flimsy legal "reasoning" assailed thoroughly. I will read Thomas's dissent for a chilling reminder why the coming election is so important because the next President will shape the course of the Supreme Court. A few more justices who are appointed like him that are willing to rubber stamp everything the administration does and we can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

,...it's the environment I find myself in,...of late,...and that environment has really roughened my edges. :scared:



Sorry. :cry:


Anyway, don't you wish they would get to the point without being so,...caught up in verbiage,...and legalese windiness? It's exhausting trying to whiddle away to the holding.

...with a variety of different legal boots but the posterior is quite red. Now we see why Olsen resigned because he saw this one coming. I agree about the use of language. The clarity of reasoning exalted by Occams razor as applied to Judicial Opinions would be most welcome! The Gettysburg Address, though not a legal opinion, is a prime example that sometimes when it comes to language less is more.

In my humble view, it's just way too much self-absorption.

Being "complicated" is no indication of being integral or knowledgeable or compassionate, moral or wise.

Being "complicated" seems to me merely a means of diminishing others in order to "feel" more important and/or powerful.

BAH.

There is no reason whatsoever that these opinions couldn't be a third to a quarter the length with the same impact and significance and relevance.

...and join in your well reasoned rationale on the subject.

,...what's your take on that?

Have you reached a short-form explanation behind the CYA?

I would really appreciate your perception on that.

But I think his credibility took a huge hit when the matter of torture came up during oral argument of the Hamdi and Padilla cases. His deputy solicitor assured the court that there were adequate safeguards against that through international treaty obligations, laws etc. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099618 The essence of the argument was "trust us to comply with the law. We don't need oversight." That very evening the photos from Abu Grahib were released (an attorney even wrote a letter to the editor in the Wash Post speculating how those pictures would have altered the case argument.) Subsequent memos were then released indicating the adminstration's legal machinations to avoid those very same laws and treaties. Thus his credibility was severely undermined and he saw the juidical writing on the wall. I think he is now trying to distance himself as rapidly as possible from the fallout of those revelations and any consequences which may flow from the administrations actions.

Yup,..."trust us" to regulate our own foul behavior.

These people gross me out. They have no sense whatsoever of "humanity" and have made that quite obvious to the whole world. It's all about self-interest.

And, we wonder why "the west" is so hated.

Damn.

I suppose it will take this administration's "reckoning" to shake us all awake from an induced state of hypnosis. Amazing that it has gotten this far. However, there is plenty of proof that the human spirit and intellect,...has always been underestimated. :)

Their total unrestrained pursuit of maximal self interest i.e. rapacious private enrichment from the public coffers and the comcomitant aggregation of unchecked power in the hands of one individual is made more odious by their attempts to cloak their machinations with a legal imprimatur. I share,though, your belief in the fundamental resiliency of the human spirit and the triumph of reason over barbarism. This has indeed been an awakening and it is fortunate that many people have answered the call and rose in defense of liberty and justice. There is still however much work to be done before November the 2nd but this reminds us what the ultimate stakes are.

Disgusting sons of a bitches have betrayed the American people in the absolute worst of ways.

I HATE them for their gluttonous and greedy ways as they poop upon on, not only the potential of but also the best of humanity.

Perhaps, they will get exactly what they deserve. Perhaps.

So Bush can still delcare you a enemy combatant, detain you but you have the right to contest that declaration.....sometime. It still stinks to me.

Congress needs to change what ever they did to even allow Bush to make a declaration of enemy combatant status.

Resolutions in the future should spell out very clearly what they are authorizing the executive to do or not do as the case may be. They need to clarify their omission in the instant matter legislatively and spell out quite clearly a defined process and procedure for handling these types of cases with strict time limits for charges. hearings and strict guidelines for the conditions under which people can be held. Astonishingly I find myself in agreement with the opinion of Scalia joined by Stevens. The process should be narrowly constrained as it was under English common law and as endorsed by Jefferson, i.e. charge the underlying crime, be it treason, terrorism, within a specified length of time or release. However the decision is quite significant because it makes it clear the executive has no inherent right to behave in a manner unaccountable to no one or no institution as Mr Bush claimed in his legal arguments. Remember their basic argument proceeded from the astonishing premise that the Supreme Court or other courts had no authority to review their decisions. That argument is now dead. The decision is significant because it reeaffirmed the principle which undergirds habeas corpus and our entire system of Constitutional governance, namely that no one person or body is above the law and unaccountable or unchecked.

Supreme Court verdict mixed on Bush terrorism detainment

The first reports were in favor of bushie, not long afterward things started to turn, as you can see in some of my posts above.

This thing has been spun spun spun with headlines today.

n/t

and when we hear from their attorneys. Otherwise, I'll assume that this "Bush Lost" talk is all for domestic and international human rights consumption and that actually Bush got what he wants - the right to detain anyone indefinitely without a meaningful trial.

...loss for the government, by both liberal commentators (SCOTUSBlog contributor Marty Lederman), and libertarian conservatives (Volokh Conspiracy).

Among the lawyers, at least, a consensus is emerging.

The President, of course, did not lose everything he had at stake. By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled that Congress' post-9/ll declaration supporting the President's response to those attacks had authorized the Executive to capture and detain, perhaps even until the end of the war on terrorism, those suspected of being terrorist activists acting in open aggression toward the U.S. Even so, the Court did not necessarily embrace that as an enduring constitutional concept: it added that the idea of detention for the duration of a conflict had emerged from the era of traditional wars, and then commented: "If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel." In other words, a war on terrorism that has no end may turn out to be too long for the Justices to go on allowing indefinite detention.

The most important qualification on that now-acknowledged power to detain, however, is the Court's mandate that when a detainee is a U.S. citizen, the detention can continue beyond an initial (and presumably fairly brief ) period, only if the government can justify prolonging the denial of freedom and legal rights. And, such justification is to be judged by a "neutral decisionmaker," not by the President or the Secretary of Defense or a military authority.

Acknowledging that this review process may not necessarily have to be in a regular civilian federal court, the Justices suggested that such a proceeding might possibly be allowed before a military tribunal. The Court stressed, nevertheless, that such a tribunal would have to be "appropriately authorized and properly constituted." That seems to imply that it would not be enough simply to have the President sign an Executive Order, and that Congress may have to do so by legislation. Moreover, any such tribunal must have the full attributes of independence and neutrality that the Justices indicate they are demanding. (Even if such tribunals are created, their makeup, of course, will be subject to future constitutional challenge, if those that emerge seem to fall short of the standards articulated by the Court.

More...

http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2004_06_27_SCOTUSblog.cfm#108843857722244435

So they can detain you indefinately, but you have some kind of right to a trial, but no one is sure what kind of court. Fair read?

For people like Padilla, there are three choices (at best for *)

1) Bring criminal charges and subject the citizen to the criminal justice system;

2) Get Congress to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus (ha ha ha fat chance); or

3) Set him/her free.

an accident. I believe I am correct in saying this.

If it had not ACCIDENTALLY become public knowledge that Padilla was being held against his will for NO REASON, hed still be held, or who knows.

THATS the issue here. THATS how people disappear. If know one knows youve been taken, how are you going to have a trial?

In the US, the government must either charge the person or let them go.

If the executive chooses to ignore that, they're violating the constitution. But, the reality of a constitutional democracy is that a court can't physically enforce its rulings.

N/T

but they don't carry guns. It is dependent upon the executive to enforce its decisions.

If the executive decides to just ignore the law and the courts, there isn't a thing the courts can do about it except protest.

under the scope of "law" seems really odd to me. If the executive body does not adhere to the judicial body then what in someone's name is the point of the Supreme Court. >?????? I disagree, the executive body must adhere to what the court rules on then to change it they must go thru congress.

to hold more innocent people indefinitely without anyone knowing about it.

Am I wrong? Please prove it. I hope Im wrong.

I didn't see any of that language in my reading.

Interesting split!

Hamdi can be held as enemy combatant, but must be given access to courts. Scalia counters that govt. cannot hold a USC without detaining them (which affords them rights) the govt suspends habeus corpus.

Not a liberal/conservative split.

from SCOTUSBlog:
By a vote of 5-4, the Court found the 2001 congressional declaration did give the President power to detain citizens and foreign nationals, if they are found on a foreign battlefield.

By a vote of 8-1, citizens detained as "enemy combatants" have the right to a fair process under which they can challenge that designation and their continued detention.

By a vote of 6-3, the Court ruled that the foreign nationals detained at the Cuba base have a right to file lawsuits in civilian courts to contest their detention and conditions at the base.

more:
Here, in summary, is a first look at a new constitutional order that may arise from the new decisions:

1. In general, the courts are open and functioning, and they will insist upon a full partnership in judging the constitutional necessity of wartime actions that affect individuals - citizens and, sometimes, foreign nationals, too.

2. Congress would be constitutionally entitled to exercise a fuller role, if it were so inclined, as a co-manager of the war when that conflict impacts individual rights.

3. Citizens - even those deemed to be terrorist suspects - can no longer be detained indefinitely and without any rights that the Pentagon does not want them to have.

4. Even foreign nationals rounded up and placed at an offshore Navy base - in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - are constitutionally entitled to contest their detention, perhaps even when that might interfere with military interrogation of them, seeking to gain intelligence information.

In historic terms, the new rulings are at least as serious a setback as the Executive branch suffered in 1952 when the Court, in the midst of the Korean War, struck down President Truman's seizure of U.S. steel mills to keep them open to produce war materiel. (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)

"History and common sense," the Court said today, "teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means of oppression and abuse of others who do not present. . .an immediate threat."
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2004_06_27_SCOTUSblog.cfm#108843857722244435

It is quite inspirational.

The constitution is still intact,...today.

The court will have to fight for its own revelance, though,...against these "guys". They are seriously manic on their power thingy. They scare the shit out of any "normal" person. Do you get that?