Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mrsmith
What do you think of the ruling?

I think it's very interesting. The stuff regarding the Non-Detention Act as a response to the detentions of WW2 is something I wasn't familiar with. A most important point that the court makes is that the Non-Detention Act was non-existent during Quirin, yet nevertheless the President had Congressional authorization for the ww2 citizen detentions.

The court says Congress needs to pass specific legislation. I have no problem with that. I'm not done reading it though. I got sidetracked by this thread.

354 posted on 12/18/2003 8:23:27 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies ]


To: Sandy; Torie
A most important point that the court makes is that the Non-Detention Act was non-existent during Quirin, yet nevertheless the President had Congressional authorization for the ww2 citizen detentions.

4001(a) post dates Quirin but the Joint Resolution post dates both and pesumably Congress considered that prior to the resolution.

Surely the language in the resolution referring to "all necessary and appropriate force" includes detention.

But even more to the point, Congress has had 18 months to reconsider and amend the reolution and has not done so. Evidently they are satisfied that President Bush is executing the war on terror within the parameters they set forth. <

357 posted on 12/18/2003 9:49:31 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies ]

To: Sandy
The real issues are the Constitutional issues that the 2nd sidestepped. Nothing Congress can pass will repeal Amendments 4-7 nor create "wartime exceptions" to those guarantees of freedom. Apparently, a large number of FReepers believe that the Perpetual War On Terror empowers GWB to declare that some citizens have forfeited those rights. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the President the power to selectively suspend or revoke the Bill of Rights for some citizens. Nothing. This is an easy case. If they don't have the goods on him to charge him, he should be let go. If they don't have the goods on him to charge him, how in the world can they have enough to designate him an enemy combatant?

Interesting, also, how no one has any problem with the little sleight of hand on his detention. He was taken into custody by Justice. BUT, to avoid these Constitutional problems, he was then handed over to DoD and socked away in the brig. That ain't America.

377 posted on 12/19/2003 8:39:11 AM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson