Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Robb

(39,665 posts)
33. The Fourth Circuit's Padilla ruling did not overturn the Supreme Court.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:14 PM
Dec 2011

USSC didn't hear Padilla on a technicality, but ruled the year before in Hamdi that while they can be held as enemy combatants, US citizens must be allowed to challenge that designation in court -- Fifth Amendment, due process.

Justice O'Connor delivered the majority opinion: "We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker."

Outrage is preferable to comprehension in the minds of some. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #1
That's a little rough. I think the Feinstein amendment is inherently confusing Robb Dec 2011 #15
It's poorly written legislation is what it is Aerows Dec 2011 #32
Checks and balances. Robb Dec 2011 #34
Congress is the pack of idiots that came up with this horribly worded nightmare Aerows Dec 2011 #35
The executive branch, and the court. Robb Dec 2011 #37
The executive branch is the front line Aerows Dec 2011 #38
Yeah human rights are nothing to get outraged over SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #29
at least you comprehend that it only applies to foreigners. Some can't even understand that. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #47
Except it doesn't.. the amendment failed... SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #48
Non-citizens are human beings and deserve to have their human rights respected. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #2
^this n/t LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #3
Human rights defined by whom? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2011 #6
The answer is obvious: as defined by the "Commander in Chief", the military's Highest Power. ThomWV Dec 2011 #10
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin... Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #11
The UN Declaration of Human Rights. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16
Yes indeed. Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #28
Oh gee, the Constitution, The UN, SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #30
+1 Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #17
Rights exist because we do, not because government grants them to us. RC Dec 2011 #19
Yes! SammyWinstonJack Dec 2011 #21
Two concerns: The Doctor. Dec 2011 #4
Not to mention the fact that it MANDATES detention of non-citizens, but ALLOWS detention of citizens Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #7
The bill gives the President the discretion to do the same to U.S. citizens Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #5
I don't see how thats possible with this language. phleshdef Dec 2011 #9
From the ACLU... Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #13
But that language is in 1031. Robb Dec 2011 #14
Yes, but 1302 addresses presidential powers under AUMF Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #27
The Fourth Circuit's Padilla ruling did not overturn the Supreme Court. Robb Dec 2011 #33
Padilla was kicked back to the Circuit on a technicality. His case has never been decided by the Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #40
You understand Hamdi was a US citizen, right? Robb Dec 2011 #41
Captured in Afghanistan in battle and the SC decision rested on his circumstances Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #42
No, where Hamdi was captured wasn't relevant. Robb Dec 2011 #45
The ACLU is apparently ignoring the fact that existing law already covers that. phleshdef Dec 2011 #22
Currently, existing law does include indefinite detention. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #25
I consider it a matter put into question by things like the AUMF. phleshdef Dec 2011 #31
"Indefinite detention" is a part of "the law of war", always qualified by bhikkhu Dec 2011 #54
"Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand … Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #8
Unless the President decides DocMac Dec 2011 #12
So? People from other nations have rights too. Quantess Dec 2011 #18
we are bullies. nt abelenkpe Dec 2011 #20
I don't understand this bill. polly7 Dec 2011 #23
It gives the authority to detain people involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda only bhikkhu Dec 2011 #50
Not an expert on Geneva by any means, but I'm pretty certain that coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #51
There is a whole set of procedures and controls - some listed in section 1036: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #52
1036 (a) looks to me to be a key element, as it requires coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #57
I think the main problem is the difficulty of seeing an endpoint bhikkhu Dec 2011 #58
Visitors to the US, that part. Its kind of a dickmove to shitcan their human rights. Erose999 Dec 2011 #24
Habeus corpus and the right to a speedy trial are soooo....1787. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #26
What part of NO ONE should face indefinite detention without a trial don't YOU understand? Matariki Dec 2011 #36
We need better people in Congress Aerows Dec 2011 #39
What part of "human" don't you understand? MedleyMisty Dec 2011 #43
Non-citizens are still human beings. proud2BlibKansan Dec 2011 #44
Yup. Hell Hath No Fury Dec 2011 #46
No authority is given, unless the person is supporting the Taliban or Al-qaeda bhikkhu Dec 2011 #49
Stupid argument Spider Jerusalem Dec 2011 #53
And what part of this violates both NATIONAL nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #55
Oh, I see! If it only happens to dem furrin brown people, it's A-OK!!! backscatter712 Dec 2011 #56
I understand that my non-citizen relatives will no longer have rights if they visited and were Pachamama Dec 2011 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What part of non-citizen ...»Reply #33