Posted on 12/07/2007 4:41:25 PM PST by neverdem
Throughout yesterday’s argument in the Guantanamo detainee cases, all eyes were focused, of course, on Justice Kennedy. With the Court presumably divided 4-4 along ideological lines, Kennedy once again is at the wheel, deciding where he’s going to take the car.
He’s taken a left in the past, joining with liberals to rule against the Bush Administration in earlier legal challenges in the war on terror. And last spring, after the Court first decided it was premature to take up the detainees’ case, Kennedy later took the highly unusual step of switching his vote to jump into it (as did Stevens). So most people, including me, thought he was a sure bet to again abandon fellow conservatives in this highly significant case.
But after hearing yesterday’s arguments—and Kennedy’s questions--I’m much less confident of his leftward course. And when you factor in the emerging dynamics of the new Roberts Court, it seems even less certain.
First the argument. The few questions Kennedy asked seemed to suggest he was surprisingly sympathetic to the government. At a minimum, he appeared open to Solicitor General Paul Clement’s contention that Congress had created an adequate enough substitute for habeas review that the Court was best to stay out of it at this point.
At issue in this important case is whether the detainees can more fully challenge their detentions in federal courts or whether military tribunals, which now determine whether detainees can be held indefinitely and are subject to limited review by an appeals court, are adequate.
Those tribunals take place in Guantanamo, in a small hearing room before three military officers. The only lawyer in the room typically is on the panel—the detainee does not have legal counsel, but a “representative” provided by the government. The detainee doesn’t have access...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
It is not a suggestion that the SCOTUS can take or not at it's whim.
Just to be fair, it's entirely possible that they are joining the fight for the first time... we have released many thousands of detainees after admitting they were not guilty. And I certainly don't want to hamstring our troops by forcing them to be more selective in their detentions.
The Constitution was ratified in conventions by the states.
It is not a suggestion that the POTUS or Congress can take or not at its whim.
And that's why the SCOTUS is involved...to determine if the DTA violates the Constitution.
It's funny that there's all this talk about whether something is Constitutional, when we ignore the Constitution in our own country as well as in those we invade!
Just so long as doesn't drive off the bridge with his squeeze
in the back seat and kill another woman.
Really now, and what part of the Constitution does DTA violate?
Which Constitution?
The one that actually exists on paper or the “living” one that exists in various judges heads as invented to support whatever trendy political argument they feel inclined to side with that day?
The judges have been very consistent at refusing to hold up the First Amendment guarantee of religious expression. That’s one of the more obvious and egregious examples of long standing tradition of SCOTUS perfidy.
Is it a substitute for habeus?
That's my point.
POTUS, SCOTUS, COTUS...all have done this.
That word "compelling" is dangerous, when it comes to the state restricting individuals.
drinking tonight?
Nor can the SCOTUS confer full citizenship rights to foreign nationals who are illegal combatants on a whim.
There is only one reason for SCOTUS to take this case: to shoot down -- forever -- the idea that civilian courts have jurisdiction over battlefield decisions based on some kind of supranational rights conferred by the Constitution.
Yep. I agree.
But, just in a knee jerk sort of way, I will hold to the opinion that any judge that finds for these rabid dogs currently in confinement is either a deluded fool or an enemy sympathizer.
Giving this scum access to our civil criminal courts will cause great harm to our war effort and ourselves, and will ensure that we lose all assistance in gathering intel on these psychopaths due to those already having helped being rounded up and slaughtered as their names are disclosed in court.
Judges such as that are just another force multiplier for our enemy.
Pomegranate 7UP (100% Natural Flavors)
I'm so glad that pomegranates have gained popularity recently because of their reputed health effects...I've been a fan since I was a young lad, and it's great that they're in so many things now!
The lack of a hyphen in 7UP confuses me, though, since they quite clearly have that "dot" in there...and have used the dot so much in marketing. Oh well, one of those little mysteries, like why 7-ELEVEn's signs have all but the last letter capitalized. Maybe someday I'll check to see if they had a name change at some point.
So, I ask you...drinking tonight?
;-)
LOL!
Are Lindsay Graham and John Kyl faking the Congressional Record again for this case, does anyone know?
Habeas is not a civil right reseved solely for citizens.
Our troops detain these folks and then things are sorted out later...and I don't want us getting into a mindset where "detainee" = "guilty" because that means our troops are spending too much effort "being sure" they have only the right targets.
That being said, I realize that Gitmo detainees are ones who have been through the sieves, and are unlikely to be innocent. Still, I think we need to use caution when applying an ad hoc solution that is not in strong alignment with our values...especially when we are trying to teach Iraqis, for example, the importance of civil rights and the rule of law.
And especially when we consider that the next administration might not be so restrained in its application of power. Secret tribunals set a bad precedent, even if they are only against non-Americans. For example, what if Hillary decides to crack down on those durn protesting monks who upset her Chinese buddies?
Question...What do you think would happen if they were deemed Prisoners of War?
Yep. And we are so confused and clueless in how this current wave of predators has come to the conclusion that we’re too weak, spineless and stupid to protect ourselves.
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.