Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 07:32 AM
Original message
Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians
Read this
just a snip:


A federal court has issued two rulings, the New York Times reports: One favoring President Bush's indefinite detentions of "enemy combatants," and another granting one of said "enemy combatants" the opportunity to challenge his detention in court.

The court effectively ruled that President Bush has the same right to indefinitely detain a civilian on American soil as he does an enemy soldier on a battlefield.



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Federal_court_Bush_can_indefinitely_detain_0715.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. How does the court define "enemy combatant"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It doesn't. However, the court tends to honor the king
in deference to made up terms he comes up with through decrees. It's called judicial appointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. There are documented references to the term as follows...
Enemy Combatant: The term, Enemy Combatant, is used by the Bush administration to refer to a person designated by the US President as an enemy fighter, even if he/she is not a member of an army, like Guantanamo prisoners. The term also applies to US citizens, like Padilla. The US courts ruled in 2004 that even if a person is classified as such, he/she could have access to federal courts, which means the right to an attorney, due process, and a trial.

So the last sentence from above has changed from yesterday's court ruling I take it.

Further summarized discussions of the term "enemy combatant" can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They are ruling due process can be overruled by the executive
branch it appears and thus flies in the face of the Constitution. These people should be removed from the court system. They should know the executive branch is not a law making body. It goes against everything Constitutional lawyers were taught. Drives me crazy, especially when I hear the Star Spangled Banner at a sporting event and people cheering at the words "land of the free".:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. That's what we get with 'puke-appointed jurists: fuck the Constitution, fuck the rule of law,
fuck justice, fuck reason, fuck liberty. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Holy shit that means the president can deny you the right to a criminal trial and
Edited on Wed Jul-16-08 07:42 AM by fasttense
keep you locked up forever and all the idiot in chief need do is declare you an enemy combatant. So now can we call him DICTATOR Bush? Or perhaps KING George is more appropriate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Shh!
You live in The Land of the Free.

To suggest anything to the contrary is unpatriotic and dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hoosier_lefty Donating Member (172 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I'm sure the founding fathers would be proud!
or NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. Here is the opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Any of us could end up in a gulag . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC