Pre-emptive lawsuit challenges Bush plan (Bush sued over terror bill)

[truthpusher]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_ot/detainees_lawsuit_1

Pre-emptive lawsuit challenges Bush plan

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

18 minutes ago

Attorneys for 25 men being held in Afghanistan launched a pre-emptive strike Monday against President Bush's plan to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects.

Court documents filed Monday demand that the men be released or charged and allowed to meet with attorneys. Such a filing, known as a habeas corpus petition, is prohibited under the legislation approved by Congress last week.

(snip)

Monday's filing initiates what is likely to be a drawn-out legal fight similar to the one over detainees at a military prison in Guantanamo Bay. Detainees there have dozens of petitions pending.

In civilian courts, the government is required to tell people why they are being held and allow them access to attorneys. People accused of crimes are then afforded speedy trials before juries of their peers.

"With the move that Congress made, the capitulation it made to the president, those rights are in danger of being curtailed," said Vincent Warren, executive director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the lawsuit.

(snip)

link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_ot/detainees_lawsuit_1

[Lone_Star_Dem]

1. Is this enough to get it before the SCOTUS?

[rodeodance]

6. depends on how fast the lower court(s) act.

[apnu]

13. and that depends on which lower court they started this in (nt)

[mom cat]

2. Kick for the wonderful work of the Center for Constitutional Rights!

:kick:

[fooj]

10. Right on!

This is GREAT news! Go get those treasonous, rat bastards!

[stillcool]

3. that's good to see..

[rodeodance]

4. YO> WAY TO GO

[last1standing]

5. The question is what the likes of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito will do.

I honestly believe these monsters have no scruples and will rubberstamp this heinous legislation. And as 12 "Democrats" voted to destroy our constitution it's very unlikely that a new Dem majority will be able to repeal it.

What can we do to stop this monstrosity? I really don't know.

[Brundle_Fly]

7. THAT WAS FAST!

expect a ton of these flooding the courts in the upcoming months.

[0rganism]

8. haha - sweet! Plaintiffs have standing to sue, from the looks of it

At first I was worried that no one would be able to get at it, but it reads like these guys already had their cases going before the neo-cons pushed through their enabling act. Now we'll see just how dedicated Scalia and Thomas are to "strict constructionism"...

[Nictuku]

9. Problem is

... doesn't this bill cover claims 'retroactively' ? (which in itself I question for legitimatcy). If not, then this is great news.

Also, I didn't hear about Bush 'signing into law' the Bill yet, has he? (I avoid my TV these days)

[Tellurian]

11. Right, Bush hasn't signed it as of yet..

This might be the window of opportunity, I've been hoping for..
If the matter of Habeas Corpus is in play, this lawsuit might be the inroad
to publicize the stripping of our Constitutional Amendments regarding Due Process.

This opportunity may provide time for the media to take hold and snowball this travesty
on every media outlet.

[0rganism]

12. but he will soon, oh you bet he will, very very soon

It's not like he's one to turn down absolute power...

[Tellurian]

14. I know you're right, Org..

I started buying canned goods yesterday, just in case.
Chef Boyardi, is my new best friend..