(BushCo's) Wartime Powers Under Review (by Supreme Court)

[sabra]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-guantanamo-trials-summary-box,0,4044138.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Summary: Wartime Powers Under Review

WEIGHTY CASE: The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a case in which Osama bin Laden's former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.

HIGH STAKES: Analysts say if the high court rejects President Bush's plan to hold such trials, it could rein in the president's powers in pursuing and punishing suspected terrorists.

CHIEF IS OUT: Chief Justice John Roberts will not participate in the case because he was on a three-judge appellate court panel that ruled unanimously last year against the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

[ladjf]

1. Hmm. Let me see. What will Roberts and company decide?

Let me guess.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Did you read the part about Roberts not taking part in the decision?

[ladjf]

3. No, but even if he doesn't vote, he's still the chief justice with

lots of pull. No matter. There is still a majority of judges that vote to back up Bush's powers, just as the voted to appoint him to the Presidency in 2000. The fix is in.

[HuffleClaw]

4. 'under review' my ass

a rubber stamp.

[DELUSIONAL]

5. Since war has NOT been formally declared

how the hell can bushie have "war powers"??

Unless bushie is at war with every living thing in the world??

[goforit]

6. Oh no, another threat from Darthchenny saying "my way or nukes for all"

[ericnave]

7. Are wiretaps really wrong?

While I agree in general with what is said here regarding the war powers act, has anyone considered that Bush's wiretaps make sense because there is a very real threat posed by al-Qaeda sympathizers based in America who threaten our way of life?

I mean, shouldn't we consider that possibility?

[CatholicEdHead]

8. Unchecked wiretaps are bad

If there is accountability and checks and balances there is no problem. Yet BushCo's style is to have unchecked wiretaps.

[Guaranteed]

10. FISA gave the executive the wiretapping ability that they needed.

What's the problem with getting a warrant within 72 hours after the fact?

Don't you think that 220 years of tradition is important, and that law enforcement should have probable cause before (or, at least 72 hours after) they are allowed to invade our privacy?

[Orangepeel]

12. Who is he wiretapping, that he can't get a FISA warrant?

the argument of time sensitivity doesn't hold water because they could go to the FISA court retroactively, if they bothered. IIRC, the FISA court (which was specifically set up for this purpose) has only denied one warrant EVER.

It isn't wiretapping per se that is wrong. It isn't even wiretapping of Americans that is wrong. The government wiretaps lots of suspected criminals. It is wiretapping American citizens with no court oversight whatsoever. (remember when bush joked that running a dictatorship would be easier, as long as he was the dictator?)

That is wrong. It is also illegal.

[Sydnie]

15. illegal is illegal no matter what the intent was/is

He has a law on the books that he must follow. Nixon already tried "If the President does it, it's not illegal" defense and it was bogus then just as it is now.

[wordpix2]

16. it's not only illegal, it's dumb if he's "fishing" via wiretaps & comes up

with so many names it would take an eternity to check them all out. Most of the fish caught in the net aren't the deadly sharks dimson is looking for and as he's sorting though the multitude of names, the sharks get away.

[flyarm]

18. is christine amapour a terrorist??is she al queada?? answer no

and she was supposedly wiretapped illegally..and it just so happened that her husband was a kerry's election campaign advisor...enough said..

* must follow the law period..no one..absolutely no one is above the law..we learned all about that about a blow job didn't we??

fly

[Auntie Bush]

20. That wasn't a v ery good question to start out here with.

But Welcome anyway and good luck. I think your're going to need it.

[Toucano]

24. There is no threat from al-qaeda and no reason not to get a warrant.

#1. There is no "very real" threat from al-qaeda that wasn't invented by the neocons.
#2. Repeat #1 until you understand it.

[CJCRANE]

25. It's not about wiretaps..

the problem is unlimited warrantless wiretapping without oversight.

B*sh can basically spy on anyone and everyone.

[tanyev]

26. Good question, ericnave.

And would you also support President Hillary Clinton having the power to wiretap anyone she wanted to without asking for proper authorization?

Welcome to DU.

[hyphenate]

27. Yes, they are

Unless they have been obtained by a proper warrant and by proper determination by an officer (judge) of the court.

What--are you so eager to let Dickless Wonder and Puppet Boy have the authority to wiretap and spy on just anyone they chose? Without proper cause and without solid reasons?

Enjoy your stay.

[VelmaD]

28. Go read the Constitution...

then come back if you still need to ask this question.

[tabasco]

29. Yeah, let's just trust the government.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and included the Bill of Rights. The whole idea is that we cannot trust the government.

But now we have Bush - bots coming out of the woodwork saying search warrants are unnecessary. TRAITORS !

It is so easy for the feds to get a warrant when they need one. They even passed the FISA law to make it easier. But Bush ignores that too.

One word of advice to you - be loyal to your country, not your political party. If you want to be a brownshirt, following your leader into the toilet - go right ahead. You'll have lots of company.

We LOYAL AMERICANS will be there to clean up the mess, as usual.

[Triana]

9. This is the same court that appointed Lord Pissypants...

...with the exception of two bu$h loyal new justices that he appointed specifically to cover his crimes should they make it to the highest court in the land - to cover his ass, in other words.

One doesn't need to be a Mensan to figure out where this is going: absolutely nowhere.

[whalerider55]

11. folks, really...

let's take a look at this.

roberts is off the vote.
let's assume that the pro-aristocracy bloc vote in lockstep that bush has the powers he believes he has.

Scalia. Thomas. Alito.

Let's assume, consistent with their record, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens go with a nonimperial vote. (they've already voted against Bush in the Gore case)

Hmmm. That leaves Kennedy. Who has been increasingly skeptical about giving the president powers greater than G-d. Kennedy, who held the middle with O'Connor, who just gave a speech about the improtance of seperation of powers.

worst case, deadlocked court. best case 5-3 against the imperial presidency.

doesn't seem like a doomsday scenario to me. sounds like a potentially precedent-setting dodged bullet.

whalerider

[freethought]

13. I think that's a pretty good prediction of how this court will

go on this case. Although I would hope, perhaps beyond all reason, that maybe one of the terrible three will side with against the Uncurious George.
Do I have any proof that one of them will? Absolutely, positively, unequivocally not. It's just a slight shred of hope.

[wordpix2]

17. hope you're right. Maybe King George won't get his monarchy after all

[WhiteTara]

31. let's hope n/t

[54anickel]

14. A Bellwether for the Power of a President

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/weekinreview/26mahler.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

TAKE a good look at the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, an admitted member of Al Qaeda who may soon be sentenced to death, after pleading guilty to conspiracy in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. It may be the last time a suspected terrorist will enjoy the full panoply of rights — a jury of civilians, an independent judge, the guarantee of an open trial — accorded to criminal defendants in the United States.

Instead, the government plans to try accused terrorists before special tribunals in which the judge is appointed by the Pentagon, the jurors are military officers and certain canonical rights in our civil system — like the right to be present at all sessions of the trial — are absent. The future of the tribunals will be up to the Supreme Court, which will rule on their legality in Salim Hamdan v. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which is to be argued on Tuesday.

Salim Hamdan, born in Yemen, was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and has confessed to working as a driver for Osama bin Laden. Like Mr. Moussaoui, Mr. Hamdan was charged with conspiring with Al Qaeda to commit acts of terrorism. The critical distinction, though, is that Mr. Hamdan was charged as a war criminal, meaning he was designated for prosecution before a military tribunal rather than in a federal court. His lawyers, led by Neal K. Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University, have sued to block the tribunal; hence Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

There is much more at stake here than the fate of one detainee. Mr. Hamdan's case will test a broader strategic shift in the American approach to fighting terrorism. By treating terrorism as an act of war rather than a crime, the Bush administration is hoping to end an embarrassing string of botched criminal terrorism prosecutions, including those of Mr. Moussaoui — where the judge recently rebuked a government prosecutor for improperly coaching witnesses — and Sami al-Arian, who is accused of being an Islamic Jihad activist and who was acquitted of various charges by a Florida jury several months ago.

The administration is also trying to ease the burdens of proof on its prosecutors, whom the government believes are at a disadvantage in the post-Sept. 11 era, when the emphasis is on prevention of terrorist attacks rather than their prosecution. "If you are serious about stopping people before things take off, then necessarily your evidence is going to be more ambiguous," said Andrew McCarthy, the lead prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

more...

[wordpix2]

19. again the Constitution is at stake, Amend's 5 &14

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I find it interesting that the last statment of Amend. 14.1 above says "shall not deprive any person...without due process of law" because any u]person could mean either a citizen or non-citizen. The other statements in this section clearly refer to citizens.

[confrontationclaws]

21. Soon enough

we'll have a "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it" moment and the republic will truly be history.

These people must be stopped.

[Hissyspit]

22. WaPost: Court Case Challenges Power of President (Osama's Chauffeur)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032501106.html

Court Case Challenges Power of President
Military Tribunals' Legitimacy at Issue

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 26, 2006; A01

Seized by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur is now seeking victory over President Bush in a new arena: the Supreme Court.

In oral arguments Tuesday, an attorney for Salim Ahmed Hamdan will ask the justices to declare unconstitutional the U.S. military commission that plans to try him for conspiring with his former boss to carry out terrorist attacks.

Significant as that demand is, its potential impact is much wider, making Hamdan's case one of the most important of Bush's presidency. It is a challenge to the broad vision of presidential power that Bush has asserted since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

- snip -

From the outset, the commissions have been plagued by questions about their fairness and workability. Critics argued that the commissions were flawed because, as Hamdan's brief, written by Georgetown University law professor Neal K. Katyal, puts it, they would try suspects "for crimes defined by the President alone, under procedures lacking basic protections, before 'judges' who are his chosen subordinates."

MORE

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. Good Thing Chief Justice Bob Robets Is Sitting Out The Case

The way that bushbot decided the appeals case was what won him the job in the first place.

[Orsino]

30. 'Great' Powers or 'Greatest' Powers?

Under review, my ass.