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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What part of non-citizen don't you understand? [View all]Robb
(39,665 posts)33. The Fourth Circuit's Padilla ruling did not overturn the Supreme Court.
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."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
at least you comprehend that it only applies to foreigners. Some can't even understand that.
MjolnirTime
Dec 2011
#47
Non-citizens are human beings and deserve to have their human rights respected.
Odin2005
Dec 2011
#2
The answer is obvious: as defined by the "Commander in Chief", the military's Highest Power.
ThomWV
Dec 2011
#10
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
Padilla was kicked back to the Circuit on a technicality. His case has never been decided by the
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#40
Captured in Afghanistan in battle and the SC decision rested on his circumstances
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#42
The ACLU is apparently ignoring the fact that existing law already covers that.
phleshdef
Dec 2011
#22
"Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand …
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#8
It gives the authority to detain people involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda only
bhikkhu
Dec 2011
#50
Visitors to the US, that part. Its kind of a dickmove to shitcan their human rights.
Erose999
Dec 2011
#24