Bush Seeks Quick Ruling on U.S. Detainees

[cthrumatrix]

Bush Seeks Quick Ruling on U.S. Detainees
46 minutes ago


By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to decide by summer whether national security justifies detention of American citizens indefinitely and without charges.

The administration filed papers Friday asking the high court to take on the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and convert to Islam arrested in May 2002 in an alleged plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."


Padilla is closely associated with the al-Qaida terrorist network and "represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote.


The government separately asked a federal appeals court in New York to suspend a court order for Padilla's release from a military brig where he is held incommunicado and without access to his lawyer.

snip

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040117/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatant


Is the first paragraph taken "word for word" ...the intention?

[leetrisck]

1. A little late for a quick ruling,

I do believe.

[RedCloud]

2. And they get to wait til summer

Amazing how "quick" ties in with stall for my SC5 reannointing campaign.

[J B]

3. I did way too much thinking about this last night.

Almost had the friend I was explaining this to throw things at me..

The bottom line is... does Ex Parte Milligan stand, or does Bush have permanent Lincoln Civil War-era authority to act like a king (like the monarchs of England) because US soil is, as Bush's lawyers have argued, a permanent battlefield and in a constant state of war?

Or do the rules of peacetime apply to war as well?

I don't think there's many people in the Bush White House who actually believe Ex Parte Milligan is anything but a post-facto repudiation of inherent, natural, and just presidential authority.

But what I think will happen is that the courts will say that indefinite waiving of habeas corupus is ok but a parallel system of corrupt justice isn't, i.e. military tribunals to pass sentence, because that would permanize a shelving of civilian courts in any serious criminal matter relating to terrorism and would undermine the majesty of the law and the authority of the courts (and themselves, since it would permanently remove their jurisdiction to review abuses and permanently remove Congress' last form of redress, short of impeachment which WOULD NOT solve the problem).

So rather than permit visibly corrupt justice to be done, the supreme court will allow no justice to be done at all, killing the tribunals on US soil and, if relevant, in Guantanamo. However, they'll call indefinite detention an unlimited war power.

As long as Bush can provide a life sentence without actually calling it a life sentence, the majesty of the legal process is thinly maintained, and I think that'll be enough for the judges.

[pinkpops]

4. why?

so he can ignore it?

[gate of the sun]

5. I thought this was already ruled on?

in regards to the people who are being held after 9-11 am I wrong about this?

Or is Padilla a "special" case...

the supreme court should uphold our "constitutional rights".
or we don't have any......

[pfitz59]

6. Scalia-Cheney Duck Hunt....IE

"The fix is in!" SCOTUS will ALWAYS rule in favor of Bush*. Never mind the law!