PDA

View Full Version : the president, the supreme court, and powers in the era of terrorism




Thanatoast
Apr 29, 2004, 12:05 AM
link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatants&cid=558&ncid=716)

Some choice paragraphs:
WASHINGTON - The war on terrorism gives the government power to seize Americans and hold them without charges for as long as it takes to ensure they are not a danger to the nation, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Two-and-a-half years after the Sept. 11 jetliner attacks that killed thousands, the nation's highest court considered far-reaching questions about civil liberties, law and America's security in a changed world. By their words in court, a majority of justices seemed to give at least qualified support to the Bush administration.
"We've had war on our soil before, and never before in our nation's history has this court granted the president a blank check to do whatever he wants to American citizens," lawyer Jennifer Martinez argued on behalf of Padilla, a former gang member and alleged al-Qaida associate arrested at O'Hare Airport on suspicion of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb.
Representing the government in both cases Wednesday, Clement referred often to the congressional statute passed a week after the 2001 attacks that gave the president authority to use "necessary and appropriate" means to fight terrorism.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) worried that a broad reading of the language could give a president unlimited power.

"What is it that would be a check against torture?" she asked.

Clement said that a U.S. president wouldn't do that.

But "what's constraining? That's the point," Ginsburg replied. "Is it just up to the good will of the executive? Is there any judicial check?"

Clement responded a president should have the authority to use his military powers to fight terrorism, without "judicial micromanaging."
Judicial micromanaging? How about Presidential power-grabbing. Personally, and I know this counts for bupkis, I don't think *anyone* should be held without charges or access to the judicial system, regardless of their citizenship or where they happen to be on the face of the planet. Our legal system is built on certain values, and those values are supposed to be universal. The current administration is underminig the very principles they claim to be defending.



Sun Baked
Apr 29, 2004, 12:14 AM
WASHINGTON - The war on terrorism gives the government power to seize Americans and hold them without charges for as long as it takes to ensure they are not a danger to the nation, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.Sounds a lot like one of the powers that was abused and led to the invasion of Iraq.

Now all the President needs, is the power to execute and torture these individuals without a trial.

Sayhey
Apr 29, 2004, 01:02 AM
Now all the President needs, is the power to execute and torture these individuals without a trial.

I think he believes he already has it.

zimv20
Apr 29, 2004, 02:44 AM
Now all the President needs, is the power to execute and torture these individuals without a trial.
anytime there's a power grab (and this one by the WH tops them all, imo), instead of seeing how it punishes others, i look at how it could be applied to myself.

if the supreme court rules in favor of the WH, it means, on bush's word, i could be secretly locked up and denied access to the courts, a lawyer, my family and be denied the right to face my accusers. further, i need never be charged w/ a crime. these are all things supposedly protected by the constitution.

if this ruling goes as above -- is this even america anymore?

numediaman
May 1, 2004, 01:46 PM
Sounds a lot like one of the powers that was abused and led to the invasion of Iraq.

Now all the President needs, is the power to execute and torture these individuals without a trial.

Torture? Mission Accomplished.

Can we impeach Bush now? Please.

Dont Hurt Me
May 1, 2004, 02:22 PM
Pretty scary when the president who is sworn in office to protect & keep the Constitution tramples it constantly. November is not far away. :cool:

skunk
May 1, 2004, 02:43 PM
Pretty scary when the president who is sworn in office to protect & keep the Constitution tramples it constantly. November is not far away. :cool:
Clearly, his shoulders are not broad enough to bear the burden of proof.

Thanatoast
May 1, 2004, 05:08 PM
it would be funny if it weren't such a serious matter

Sun Baked
May 1, 2004, 07:17 PM
>Thanatoast

Sounds like the scruffy undercover MIB, already missed their first chance to make a Justice vanish...

Supreme Court justice suffers minor injuries in assault (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0501justice-ON.html)

Associated Press
May. 1, 2004 02:55 PM

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice David Souter suffered minor injuries when a group of young men assaulted him as he jogged on a city street, a court spokeswoman and Metropolitan Police said Saturday.

The attack occurred about 9 p.m. Friday, and Supreme Court police took Souter, 64, to a Washington hospital, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said. He was examined and released about 1 a.m. Saturday.

Neither Arberg nor police would detail the justice's injuries except to say they were minor. Nor would they give other details about the assault, except Arberg said Souter was not robbed...

pinto32
May 1, 2004, 08:45 PM
I would post a comment, but I think John Ashcroft is peeking in my window

zimv20
May 1, 2004, 10:05 PM
I would post a comment, but I think John Ashcroft is peeking in my window
cover your statues

ethernet76
May 2, 2004, 04:14 AM
Here in kent we have someone being held on pretty much the same grounds. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/8445103.htm?1c

zimv20
May 2, 2004, 04:58 AM
Here in kent we have someone being held on pretty much the same grounds. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/8445103.htm?1c
eek! it wants me to register. can you post some of the article? thanks!