Posted on 06/13/2008 9:51:30 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The White House and allies in Congress have begun exploring how to limit the scope of this week's Supreme Court ruling that says suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
Administration lawyers were digesting the ramifications of a decision they condemned as an unjustified judicial usurpation of federal and congressional prerogatives in waging war. They said the court provided little guidance for the standards judges should use in evaluating the claims of detainees seeking release, and suggested that they might press Congress to spell out new rules.
"We're looking at all options," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "One of those options is to look and see if there is any way to legislatively contain the scope of the decision. The court's language is quite ambiguous. We need to make sure that we are anticipating the questions it raises, and that is what we are going to do in the next few days."
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a key figure in detention policy on Capitol Hill, said he is concerned that detainees will shop for sympathetic judges while challenging issues including their treatment, food and lodging.
"I am hoping that there is some legislative enactments that we can pass that would protect our national security requirements," Graham said.
Some Democrats counseled patience. "There is no need for quick-fix legislation," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "No one is being released from custody. We need to study the opinion and consider next steps with great care."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Maybe Bush can issue an executive order and fire the Justices that agreed to this usurpation. Stop this country dead in it’s tracks. What’s he got to lose, he can’t be re-elected. Hey, I can dream.
Dims will run the clock out, wait for Obama (IF), and, then do everything they can to support the Supremes position in favor of enemy interests by proposing definitions that will cement with further enhancements the rights of any enemies of the US, and might even extend such considerations to an infinite variety of other anti-US interests...foreign drug cartel members for instance, who could find themselves in US hands...look back and consider how Noriega might have been handled.
Hell, why not try and stack the court?Probably would’nt go anywhere but it would be fun to watch liberals get all worked up and maybe a few heads explode.Mars attacks anyone?Cue the Slim Whitman.
In Article III, Section 2, I find this rather curious statement:
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Just a suggestion.
That good old one world government rearing it’s ugly head.
ANALYSIS Administration Strategy for Detention Now in Disarray
******************************EXCERPT**************************
By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2008; Page A01
In the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush and his advisers sought to create an unprecedented parallel system to detain suspected terrorists far from the normal scrutiny of the U.S. judiciary. The naval base at Guantanamo Bay offered a way to indefinitely hold those individuals the administration considered among the most dangerous in the world.
***************************EXCERPT*********************************
In today's front page headline, the Washington Post declares "Administration Strategy for Detention Now in Disarray." But the Post's story serves mainly to demonstrate the disarray and bias in the thinking of Post reporter Michael Abramowitz.
Let's start with the fact that the strategy in "disarray" isn't just the administration's strategy; it is the joint strategy of the administration and the Congress. The Supreme Court had, in essence, instructed the administration to collaborate with Congress in developing a strategy for adjudicating the status of terrorist detainees. When the judiciary strikes down a joint and considered decision of the elected branches of government on an important matter, a certain amount of disarray can be expected to ensue. Whether this is the administration's fault is another matter.
Abramowitz clearly thinks it is. He notes “that President Bush and his advisers sought to create an unprecedented parallel system to detain suspected terrorists far from the normal scrutiny of the U.S. judiciary.” This is a dishonest passage. Abramowtiz omits the fact that the suspected terrorists are aliens. Because they are aliens, it is false to say that the scrutiny of their status by the U.S. judiciary is “normal.” If the administration had granted the alien terrorist detainees the process to which the Supreme Court now has said they are entitled, that would have been “unprecedented.” In fact, it would have been unprecedented for the administration to have granted the process the Supreme Court has now struck down as insufficient. Abramowitz is trying to put one over on his readers.
In support of his “disarray” thesis, Abramowitz notes that “more than six years after the administration began flying suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban members to Cuba. . .only one detainee has received a verdict, hundreds have had no opportunity to challenge their detention, and the government is facing a flood of new litigation invited by the court.” But it was never the administration’s goal to try these individuals; its goal was to hold them. In effect, Abramowtiz demonsrates that the administration’s policy succeeded for six years.
If there is a problem here, it is not “disarray,” but rather a wholesale violation of constitutional rights. (Note, however, that this problem exists only if one agrees with Justice Kennedy and his four liberal colleagues). But Abramowitz doesn’t seem to be concerned about anyone's rights. For a certain type of liberal, all that ever really matters is giving President Bush a black eye or convincing people that someone else has done so.
But what about that “flood of new litigation"? I admit it’s not very attractive. Presumably, though, the same flood would have resulted had the administration voluntarily done what the Supreme Court has now ordered. By not voluntarily doing this, the administration staved off the current disarray for years.
Perhaps anticipating this argument, Abramowtz enlists liberal law professor Marty Lederman, who says “the court might have upheld a statute like this five years ago” (because of all the “good will” that existed back then). This is pure speculation, of course. But if it’s true that a plan for dealing with the alleged rights of alien terrorists would be deemed constitutional in 2003 but not 2008 (notwithstanding the addition of two Justices both of whom who see no violation), then the real disarray here is with our judicial system.
But you probably knew that already.
| 
Perhaps Mr. Bush could bring this little ditty up to date. Since 55.55555% of the Court has established its lawlessness, ignoring its own precedents, the clear authority granted to the President and the Congress in waging war, the Common Law, and elements of the understanding of sovereignty going back as far as Magna Carta, the President should simply choose to ignore the ruling.
"John Paul Stevens has made his decision (through his hand puppet, Anthony Kennedy) now let's see him enforce it."
The White House and allies in Congress have begun exploring how to limit the scope of this week’s Supreme Court ruling that says suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
Administration lawyers were digesting the ramifications of a decision they condemned as an unjustified judicial usurpation of federal and congressional prerogatives in waging war.
~~~~~
I knew they were burning the midnight oil over this traitorous subversion of our rights.
****
Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:22:11 PM · 75 of 123
STARWISE to SE Mom
Beyond nausea and fury. I wonder when
the backlashes will start.
I have a feeling Pres. Bush’s lawyers
and expert constitutional law volunteers
are burning the midnight oil right now.
Somehow, this cannot stand.
****
For all that’s holy and right, with God’s
grace and Divine Mercy, there will be a
way.
FZ, I called his Senate office and made that suggestion to his staffer. I hope they listened. Its a slam dunk.
As president Jackson "They have made their decision., now let them enforce it." To bad a real man does not occupy the white house.
Abe Lincoln where are you when we need you?
"I certainly appreciate one of the nation's three co-equal branches of government, the Supreme Court, weighing in on this important issue. However, as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible for the safety of all American citizens and I respectfully disagree with today's 5 - 4 ruling. Therefore, under my watch non-citizen enemy combatants will not be given access to the American civilian court system. Thank you."
LOL, just kidding!
(Yeah, right! - - Like Bush has a spine!)
Anyway, those "Limits to Habeas Corpus Ruling" are already available to any President (AKA, the head of the co-equal Executive branch of government) who has a spine. It's as easy as just saying "no".
Like so many things the Republicans could be doing.
McCain should be cleaning Obama's clock with gas at $4/gallon and the truly awful history of Dem votes on domestic production and the (quite surprisingly) excellent history of Republican votes on the same issue. But as of tonight McCain economic spokesbabes are saying "Senator McCain still thinks drilling in ANWR is a bad idea at this time." Duh... Or, to veer back into the instant topic: McCain suggested that we ought to "look at Robert's opinion and move on." Actually, Robert's opinion was Scalia's opinion, but perhaps McCain couldn't bring himself to identify with so iconic -- or lucid -- a conservative figure as Nino. Lindsey is McCain-light. I doubt he'll miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'd like to be wrong.
The Washington Post article states that : “Over the past six years, the administration has been riven with debate over what to do with suspected terrorists seized overseas, and it has been slapped down three times by the Supreme Court over its efforts to create a legal framework outside the regular criminal justice system.”
I’m not a lawyer but how can the Post assert that there is no “legal framework” ?
1. There has never in U.S. history been a right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.
2. There is a recent law. The Military Commissions Act enacted and passed by Congress in 2006 at President Bush’s request, explicitly denies the right of terrorists captured abroad to file habeas corpus petitions.
So five activist leftist judges trump the President, Congress, 250 years of US history and judicial precedent, and 900 years of British common law.
Go for it.
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.