Posted on 08/04/2004 7:41:40 PM PDT by quidnunc
The three "war-on-terrorism cases" decided by the Supreme Court at the close of its term in June have been portrayed — especially overseas — as significant defeats for the Bush administration. This is largely because the court ruled, over the administration's strong objections, that the men, now held as al Qaeda and Taliban members at the Guantanamo Bay naval station in Cuba, may challenge their detention through the federal courts.
But in fact, when all these cases are read together — the Guantanamo Bay case, along with the court's decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla (both involving American citizens held in the United States as captured enemy combatants) — they mark a significant reaffirmation of the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief in time of war.
In the context of these cases, the court accepted the following critical propositions: that the United States is engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban, to which the laws of war apply; that "enemy combatants" captured in the context of that conflict can be held "indefinitely" without criminal trial while that conflict continues; that American citizens (at least those captured overseas) can be classified and detained as enemy combatants, confirming the authority of the court's 1942 decision in Ex Parte Quirin (the "Nazi saboteur" case); and that the role of the courts in reviewing such designations is limited. All these points had been disputed by one or more of the detainees' lawyers, and all are now settled in the government's favor.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
fyi
A "need to know" ping.
The courts meddling in the Gitmo case is a "cop out" however, but it looks like they are doing it gladly and are handling it as the court prescribed.
The anti-war crowd is certainly not pleased with the results, and that is comforting somehow.
Very good!
So when does Federal Court sentence them to death by hanging?
Does somebody want to explain to me why it took so long for the media to report this?
They would have to actually read the full report. Then their consciences would come into play to tell the truth. It was just easier to ignore. /more sarcasm
pinggggg
ping
Thanks Howlin
BTTT.
Yes, it is. Thanks for the ping.
Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.