Is latest Supreme Court decision being spun as a "Bush loss"

[shance]

in order to suppress the reality of the powers it allows the Administration to take?

From what I understand, the ruling implies that the Administration can hold someone without charges and a trial, but he can *challenge* his treatment in court.

Someone explain to me how an individual who has no representation nor no one has any information of his being detained can begin to challenge his *treatment* in court?

What I am assuming from this statement is that the Administration is allowed to continue to do whatever they want because there is essentially no way to prove they have someone in custody and being that they dont have to charge someone with anything, how can the individual being held ever receive a fair trial or *treatment* as they say?

I hope I am incorrect, but from what I am reading this blatantly disregards the Constitution and/or is un-Constitutional in and of itself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Exactly

How do you request a trial? Based on what charges?

2. it's not spin

These people seem to think it's a Bush loss...

http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20040628/securitycourtdc.html

"Today's historic rulings are 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," Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said.

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the Guantanamo case, said, "This is a major victory for the rule of law and affirms the right of every person, citizen or noncitizen, detained by the United States to test the legality of his or her detention in a U.S. court."


I don't see any reason they'd be spinning one for Bush.

[shance]

4. My question is specifically HOW does it protect the rights of

someone who is taken into incarceration. Are they still allowed a phone call? Are they still allowed to an attorney?

What SPECIFICALLY are their rights?

6. How about like this

from the link I posted

"... allowed cases brought by terror suspects challenging their confinement to proceed in the American legal system.


In one ruling the court said the hundreds of foreign terror suspects at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could turn to American courts to challenge their confinement. In another ruling it said an American held in his nation is entitled to procedural protections to contest his detention."

If you can contest your detention, you've got rights. Bush was trying to argue that you couldn't contest your detention.

I haven't read the case yet, so I don't have a more specific answer.

[shance]

9. My question is, so HOW does one get to contest their detention?

Do they have a lawyer? Will their family contest it?

DOES THEIR FAMILY EVEN KNOW THEY ARE BEING DETAINED?

Questions like these are what I am interested in. This is much too broad to accept.

Perhaps they have written specifics that I am unaware of.

14. maybe you better go read the decision

I have a feeling you won't accept any answer I have.

[shance]

16. What sufficient answer have you offered?

?

19. if the person who brought the case thinks it's a victory

That's an answer.

Whether you think it is sufficient or not is really immaterial to me.

I haven't decided & I won't until I read the decision myself.

That's what you should do, but it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind.

[shance]

20. Yes, I agree with you. I just see it as all very confusing right now.

And as Ive continued to read, I think that clarity will come in time.

The back and forth changes in media headlines, along with the broad statements made me skeptical, as I have learned to be out of experience*, and I agree with you that the best thing is to wait and read it myself when it is released.

All in all, I hope, Im sure like you do, for a ruling which supports the rights of Americans and the Constitution (as it should*).

21. My bad, then

I see you haven't made up your mind. You're just worried.
Sorry for jumping to a conclusion.

[DBoon]

3. Kafka anyone?

poor Josef K, forced to attend endless hearings without knowing his charges, in the end murdered brutally.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Look at it this way: The world is looking now at this issue...

At first, the Admin. did what it bloody well wanted, but eventually, the Supremes had to rule.

So The Supremes issue a ruling that includes a lot of flowery language on rights, a confusing section that "limited extraordinary measures" will be tolerated, and a warning that if the extraordinary measures are misused, they'll rule again.

The press (and, if I might say, a large number of low-post DUers) hails this as a great victory for US rule-of-law and the whole issue goes away again.

Neat, huh?

[shance]

8. I actually posted this after reading one of your posts JD

I thought your point of the potential spin on this was an important one, and after reading up on the Padilla case, the Supreme Court ruling seems to continue to allow the Administration to conduct business as usual, AND allow for people to be taken into government custody without any knowledge or information of the incarceration taking place. One more terrorist attack to occur and who will be swept away next?

I hate to be so dire, but if this is the reality, we definitely need to know it.

Again, if Im wrong, correct me. But this certainly looks to be the case from what I am reading.

[Caution]

7. Not spin, this is a huge blow to the administration's tactics

in the war on terra. Even Scalia was on our side this time around. Bush just got bitch-slapped.

http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2004_06_27_SCOTUSblog.cfm#108844569794278207

[madrchsod]

10. goes back to the magna charta

in theory. even the supremes had a hard time overturning 500 yrs of history

[geek tragedy]

11. No spin involved

Five SC justices--Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Scalia would flat out forbid what they did with Padilla.

Charge him or release him. That's the rule for non-battlefield detentions.

Hamdi was a different story--he was caught shooting at US troops in Afghanistan. Since there are still armed hostilities underway there, they can detain him to prevent him from rejoining the battle there. In that way he's being treated the same as the other AQ and Taliban fighters. All of the detainees have the right to challenge their detention and aWol's designation of them as "enemy combatants."

It bears pointing out just how rare the Hamdi/Lindh scenario is--an American found fighting in a battle against American troops.

[shance]

12. Your thread makes no sense . It is not up to the Supreme Court five

to forbid or not forbid the Administration to do anything.

It is the Supreme Courts job to interpret laws and make judgements and rulings BASED UPON the confines and foundational implementation of our Constitution AND the previous lower court rulings on the pending case at hand.

Thats their job. It is not their job to forbid or not forbid the President as they see fit.

[geek tragedy]

13. They pass judgment on what the executive may and may not do

They clearly state that the Executive may not detain people like Padilla without charging them criminally.

They also said that the Executive may not detain American citizens as enemy combatants for the purposes of interrogation.

Courts also may issue writs of mandamus and habeas corpus, which command the executive to take certain actions.

[shance]

15. They pass judgement ACCORDING to the Constitution

and what it states, not due to the behavior and/or actions being implemented by the existing president.

Their job is not to dictate the president, it is to UPHOLD THE LAW as it is written in the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

17. Same difference

If the executive does something it shouldn't, and someone successfully challenges it, the result is the court telling the executive to knock it off.

[LeftHander]

18. I was worried but not so much now....

If habreas corpus applies to enemy combatant status then the accused must be presented before a impartial Federal court to determine if that status can be applied. To do so outside of normal legal operations would be considered a violation of due process and thus result in release.

Which form many posts and articles now on internet it does.

So Bush will have to make sure that the person slated for enemy combatant status (Not POW and not alleged criminal) can pass muster on the specific criteria for "enemy combatant" it would likely be very trial like.

The key I think is that Bush would not be able to use this on everyday citizens to do some kind of horrible Hitleresque repression that many feared he wants.