High Court to Mull 'Enemy Combatant' Rule

[CatWoman]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the Constitution forbids the Bush administration from holding U.S. citizens indefinitely and without access to lawyers or courts when they are suspected of being "enemy combatants."

The justices will consider the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen, former Chicago gang member and convert to Islam who was arrested in his home city after a trip to Pakistan. The government alleges he was part of a plot to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States.


The Padilla case is a companion to another terrorism case the court was already set to hear this spring. Together, the Yaser Esam Hamdi and Padilla cases will allow the high court to take its most comprehensive look so far at the constitutional and legal rights of Americans caught up in the global war on terror.


Lawyers for both men claim their treatment is unconstitutional. Hearing the cases together will simultaneously address the rights of U.S. citizens captured abroad and at home.


At issue is the president's claim of authority to protect the nation and pursue terrorists unfettered by many traditional legal obligations — and outside previous precedents for government conduct in wartime.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20040220/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatant

[indepat]

1. We can take comfort knowing the f*******s five will render a decision

upholding the Constitution of the United States.

[damnraddem]

2. Why would anyone think that the Consitution would allow it?

Of course, the Busheviks are asking a different question: whether they can get away with it anyway. So that's the question: whether the SCOTUS will let them get away with it.

At least the SCOTUS took the case. One way they could have let the Busheviks get away with it would have been to refuse to rule. So, is there a chance that a majority will rule against the Bushistas? Or does a majority want to kill more constitutional rights?