In a double defeat for Dubya today, the Supreme Court said that a U.S. citizen captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan (Hamdi) and prisoners in Guantanamo can challenge their detention in U.S. Courts. The Court declined to rule on the Jose Padilla case (Padilla had named Rumsfeld as the respondent when he should have named the military official in charge of the facility where he is being detained) but if aliens can challenge their detention in U.S. Courts, certainly a U.S. citizen captured in the United States can bring such a challenge. I can't find a link to the full opinions yet but will post them when available. But, in the words of Justice O'Conner:

Quote:Hamdi unquestionably has the right to counsel

Quote:a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.

Once again, the principle of the rule of law rather than the rule of men, a pillar upon which our nation was founded, has been upheld. Better yet, both the Hamdi and Guantanamo decision were 6-3 so it is highly unlikely that either will ever be overturned by a future Court.

Supremes to Dubya: :chair: :chair: :chair:

Try again junior.

They ruled they have a right to legal council, but maintained that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial as part of the war on terror. That was an unequivocal victory for Bush.

If one looks at it honestly, it's a split decision. But I don't expect you and your ilk to do that.

this guy is still going to be tried for treason anyway, right?

In all honesty, these cases need to go forward regardless.

I don't think it's an attack on W...Ashcroft and the military maybe.

Anyway, they should be preparing their cases instead of finding excuses to hold these guys.

OTOH, I am concerned about the zeal of some folks to get these people releases. Doesn't sound good to me.

I have had the chance since the original post to at least browse the actual opinions. Hamdi basically held as follows:

1. Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan.
2. The government asserts he was a Taliban fighter.
3. If he was, the government has the right to continue to hold him as an enemy combatant because there is ongoing conflict in Afghanistan (implying they must either relase or try him if the conflict there ever ends).
4. Hamdi asserts he was not an enemy combatant.
5. The government asserts that the executive alone has the unchecked right to make that determination.
6. The Court rejects that position and holds that a citizen has the right to challenge, in United States courts, his designation as an enemy combatant.

Here are quotes from Justice O'Conner:
[quote]As critical as the Government ’s interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat.  “[The Founders ] knew —the history of the world told them —the nation they were founding,be its existence short or long,would be involved in war;how often or how long continued,human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power,wherever lodged at such a time,was especially hazardous to freemen

My initial reaction is the ruling is good. They don't have all the traditional rights and do not have a right to a trial, they simply have some basic rights to state their innocence, although I hope no prisoner is ever released from Gitmo, I think this decision allows for some checks and balances to stop any abuse of the law if it ever is attempted.
To look at it as a positive because Bush didn't want this is assanine, it also shows your inability to objectively reason and proves your motives are strictly political