Replies

CAPITAN_REFUGIO LOST IN SPACE AGAIN

[capitan_refugio #1279] (emphasis added)

To: nolu chan
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell. I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet, so I will limit my comments.
"The Fourth Circuit’s ruling also is entirely inconsistent with this Court’s long experience with the review of Executive branch seizures. In Mitchell v. Harmony, this Court reviewed and rejected the military’s seizure of a citizen’s property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war. 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 128-29. The plaintiff, a naturalized American businessman, filed an action against a U.S. colonel to recover the value of his property seized by the military. The government responded that the businessman had a “design” to trade with the enemy, and that the decision of the military commander to seize the property “must be entitled to some respect.” Id. at 118, 120.
"Rejecting these arguments, Chief Justice Taney’s opinion for the Court found the government’s defense to be based on “rumors which reached the commanding officer.” Id. at 133. “Mere suspicions of an illegal intention,” the Court stated, “will not authorize a military officer to seize and detain the property of an American citizen. The fact that such an intention existed must be shown; and of that there is no evidence.” Id. If an Article III court, consistent with separation of powers principles, can inquire into the seizure of a citizen’s property by the military within a country at war with the United States as in Harmony, these same principles surely pose no barrier to an inquiry into the seizure of the citizen himself."
It seems that Mitchell is not applicable to the situation of the South in the ACW. By their insurrection, the southern rebels forsook their claim to United States citizenship. I do not see how they could assert legal protections, if those protections were even applicable, from the document and country they renounced.
1,279 posted on 09/16/2004 11:39:32 PM CDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1277 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF HAMDI V. RUMSFELD MAY BE FOUND AT THE BELOW LINK.

THE QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO IT MAY NOT BE FOUND THERE.

FINDLAW link to decision

HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit

No. 03-6696. Argued April 28, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004

YOU WILL FIND CAPITAN'S QUOTE "From the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision" HERE.

THIS IS THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

THIS IS WRITTEN, IN ITS ENTIRETY, BY ATTORNEYS FOR HAMDI.

FINDLAW link to PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT

FIRST PAGE OF THIS PDF FILE

BOTTOM OF PAGE 24 AND CONTINUATION ON PAGE 25

Caught YET AGAIN presenting material from outside of the decision as if it were the majority ruling, eh capitan? How many times is that now?

You did it with the attorney arguments in the Prize Cases.

You did it with the dissent in Bollman

You did it with the dissent in Hamdi

Now you're doing it with the petition in Hamdi.

Simply put, it would seem that you are intentionally perpetrating a fraud and hoping that nobody will double check your work to catch it. But we all know that perpetrating frauds is what Stalinists do, so you get caught every single time.

see 1434.

free dixie,sw

Good catch.. CR has a habit of citing other than the justices opinion as fact.