Newsweek-Justice Department bracing for Supreme Court defeat

[Gothmog]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
June 9 - Justice Department lawyers, fearing a crushing defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few weeks, are scrambling to develop a conventional criminal case against “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla that would charge him with providing “material support” to Al Qaeda, NEWSWEEK has learned.
....
The reassessments of Padilla come amid a growing sense of gloom within Justice that the Supreme Court is likely to rule decisively against the Bush administration not just in the Padilla case but in two other pivotal cases in the war on terror: one involving the detention of another “enemy combatant,” Yasir Hamden, and another involving the treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the Padilla and Hambdi cases, the administration is arguing it has the right to hold the two U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial. In the Guantanamo case, the administration argues that foreign nationals being interrogated there there do not have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

Lawyers within the Justice Department are now bracing for defeat in both the enemy-combatant and Guantanamo cases, both of which are expected to be decided before the Supreme Court ends its term at the end of the month, according to one conservative and politically well-connected lawyer. “They are 99 percent certain they are going to lose,” said the lawyer, who asked not to be identified. “It’s a very sobering realization.”

[wryter2000]

1. Thank heaven for small favors

Who in hell thinks the Constitution allows them to hold someone without a trial? I wonder if even Scalia-Thomas will go with Asskroft on this one. It's a freaking no-brainer.

[Nevernose]

2. What makes you think they wouldn't?

Their keen jurisprudence? Or maybe their integrity?

:D

[priller]

3. This is great news -- finally

After so long, the Supreme Court finally starts knocking down the Asscrack's blatantly ridiculous claims.

[UpInArms]

4. YES!

:pumpingfistinair:

YES!

This mal-administration needs to be booted to the curb!

[neverforget]

5. It'll be a 6-3 decision with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

Mark my words.

[saigon68]

39. Those 3 are Criminals in Robes

Thugs and Hoodlums.

[stevedeshazer]

6. It's high time to ask for Ashcroft's resignation

He was wrong about Jose Padilla.

He was wrong about Brandon Mayfield.

He was wrong about the USA PATRIOT Act.

ZERO terrorists have been apprehended, as far as we know.

He is hiding behind an imagined immunity from the law. He is the highest law officer in the land, yet he holds even Congress in contempt.

I demand that he resign or be removed. Now. And I am writing this to my congressman and my senators right now. :grr:

[Spazito]

7. Wow, if this is correct, it will have enormous ramifications on the...

issue of torture and the contravention of the Geneva Conventions. All of the arguments in the memos were based on the premise that "illegal combatants" were not entitled to the usual protections. If the USSC rules otherwise in the cases currently before them, it, imo, would negate all question whether the torture was war crimes as defined in US Code Title 18 and the Geneva Conventions.

[geek tragedy]

8. It also means

that the guys they tortured in Guantanamo can bring lawsuits.

Reap what ye sow, motherfuckers.

[Disturbed]

9. The Constitution of the USA

At this time this is all that is holding back the USA from being a Right Wing Dictatorship.

I am waiting but not holding my breath for a leaked document that proves that the Pres. approved of Detainee Torture.

[Rex]

10. What did they expect? The law's the law.

The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land, even the Felonious Five cannot go against it in these two cases. It's almost fun watching the JD cockroaches scramble as the light of Justice shines in their direction.

[Gothmog]

11. I was pleased when I saw this article

Normally the SCOTUS is not suppose to let outside factors affect a decision. This court has allowed outside factors and political considerations affect decisions such in the case of Bush v. Gore.

It is only fair now that this happens to Bush at a big time. Ted Olsen lied to the SCOTUS when he told the justices that no torture has been used against Padilla and the detainees in Cuba. It is now very clear that both Padilla and the detainees in Cuba have been tortured.

Realistically, there is no way for any lawsuits to be filed by the detainees after a favorable decision that could get to court in time to help in November but this is a possibility.

[teryang]

12. Time for SCOTUS to rejoin the mainstream

This is the only way they could regain their credibility inasmuch as they are responsible for the entire clusterf..k.

[zydeco]

13. We really do need to demonstrate to the Iraqi's

that, in a true democratic society, no one person or group of individuals has exemption from the "rule of law". I am certain that even the rw concur and will stand up and call for justice and to uphold the "rule of law.

[Eloriel]

24. We could use a little of that demonstration to the home folks too n/t

[Just Me]

14. I swear to God, if the SCOTUS didn't rule against the inJustice Dept.,...

,...that, would finally put me at the "give up" point. I would be convinced that the experiment of democracy is finally dead.

[KoKo]

15. BUT...How does Newsweek KNOW the SCOTUS is voting AGAINST????

Isn't this a little odd? Can we believe that Scalia or Thomas put a little whisper in their ear? Can we believe this article?

[Spazito]

16. More to the point, how does the Justice Department know?

Newsweek is quoting Justice Department sources not Supreme Court sources.

[Just Me]

31. Gee,...I just friggin' wonder HOW the Justice Dept. could know!!!

BAH!!!!

They are told to find a way to get what they want,...fuck the rules,...it's about getting what they want.

They torch the principles of a republic, a constitution and all us people,...in order to just get what they want,...AND THEY KNOW IT!!

Conspirators!!!

The ultimate criminal conspirators guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors!!!

THEY BETRAYED NOT ONLY THE LAW OF THE LAND BUT CONSPIRED TO FOOL AND BETRAY ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION!!!

TRAITORS!!!! THEY ARE TRAITORS!!!!

[nolabels]

35. (as they line their pockets) "This was only for the good of the nation"

They are lowest form of criminal. Justice denied is eventually justice served..........Ronald

[Rose Siding]

17. CBS says...

Feds Exaggerated Padilla Case?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/terror/main620582.shtml

Maybe they are gearing up for such a breakthrough?

[charlyvi]

18. Will the wacko RW

Now demand that the Constitution be changed in regard to this issue as well? Flag Burning, Gay marriage, abortion and now a President's right to declare whomever he wants an "enemy combatant"? You know how they think.

[TahitiNut]

23. Yeah... the strict constructionists with fealty to the Constitution ...

... and all they can yell is "Amend! Amend! Amend! Amend! Amend! Amend!" :eyes:

[charlyvi]

25. Do you remember the days when....

...the Republican party was supposed to champion individual rights? And Democrats were supposed to be forcing Big Government into everyone's lives? Are we in an alternate universe or what?????

[TahitiNut]

30. Yup. I once voted Republican as much as Democratic.

:( But not since 1980. The only times the Federal Government has gotten smaller is in providing a "social safety net" for the very people on whose backs this country survives and in putting leashes and choke collars on monster global corporate conglomerates that now dwarf most countries.

If it were up to me, I'd be ripping the rotten guts out of these corrupt predators and feeding them to the wolves. I'd prohibit any corporation in the US from owning any other corporation and prohibit any corporation in the US from being owned by another corporation anywhere (especially the Caymans or other island "havens"). I'd strip them of even the pretense of "person-hood." I'd require corporations to "die" 50 years or less after they're born. I'd require all executive compensation of any kind to come solely from profits (or losses) ... after tax. (No profit? Then the owners have to pay whatever they're "worth.") Fuck 'em.

Once upon a time, back in the 70's, I worked for a large commercial bank. Someone told me then that the reason banks were regulated was because bank executives were too stupid to do business right without them. In the last 30 years, the wisdom of that seemingly radical remark has been proven to me too many times to count.

[Bake]

19. It'll be 6-3

It's such a no-brainer, especially in the case of Padilla, a US CITIZEN, for cryin' out fuckin' loud. We all know this, of course, but no executive can unilaterally suspend the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. No tortured (to borrow an apropos phrase) logic from Olsen and the Justice League can counter that proposition, not with a straight face. Kennedy and O'Connor, the "moderate" swing votes, will have to side with the RATIONAL justices in this regard. They DO, in fact, have some concern for their judicial legacies. Rehnquist and Scalia will of course be the Administration's hatchetmen, and Clarence will do what Massa Tony tells him to do.

It'll be 6-3. Bet on it.

Bake, Esq.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

20. It will be either 6-3 or 7-2!

Mr. Padilla is an American Citizen and gets FULL PROTECTION under the Constitution!!!

Thomas and Scalia will be voting in the minority and Reinquist might just join them.

This will be a sound defeat to the Facsists who control this country.

[struggle4progress]

21. I hope this is true. But with this wingnut court, I'm not sure. eom

[pinto]

22. Great news! If so, a constitutional chink in this admin's lawlessness.

[charlyvi]

26. If SCOTUS rules against Bush (sounds odd...

....doesn't it) do you think the wingnuts in Congress will begin to really start pushing the bill that denies SCOTUS the right to overturn any law passed by Congress? I read somewhere, sorry no link, that it has been introduced. This, of course, would totally fuck up the balance of powers.

[hedda_foil]

37. Congress can't deny the Court the right to rule on any law they make.

It flies in the face of the Constitution. If they really wanted to try it, they'd have to go the Constitutional Amendment route, where they don't have a chance in hell of getting it through either House much less through the states.

[truthisfreedom]

27. isn't it funny how "ideological" and "idiotic" seem to go hand-in-hand

in every aspect of this administration? all they have to use as a legal tool is stonewalling and stall tactics, because NOTHING THEY DO IS CONSTITUTIONAL. it's all just a matter of time, bushco, and it's looking more and more like just a few short months.

[slinkerwink]

28. good news!

[markses]

29. Any ruling in favor of the "enemy combatant" category for US citizens

is the effective termination of the American Republic. It is that simple. The judiciary would be effectively ceding its power, and the power of the legislature to the arbitrary decisions of the executive branch. That is monarchy at best, fascism at worst, and certainly the end of representative government in this country.

Jose Padilla must be tried in open court, as were the first World Trade center bombers, as was Timothy Mcveigh, as were the African embassy bombers, as was Ramzi Youssef. The enemy combatant catergory is nothing more than the assertion of arbitrary rule by the executive branch, and NO American with any sense should support it. It is an outrage. It openly relies on the personality of the various executive administrators for its checks, abandoning a rigorous system of checks and balances in favor of pure confidence in the good will of the executive branch. It is, in short, contrary to every precept on which this nation was founded.

Americans of every generation have demonstrated incredible bravery for one and only one purpose: So that Jose Padilla, whatever his alleged crimes, is tried by a jury of his peers in open court, under the laws determined by the legislature, executed and prosecuted by the executive and his or her proxies, under a system of precedence and law guarded by the judiciary. That's it. If your great grandfather died in World War I, he died for Jose Padilla's trial. If your son was killed in Vietnam, he died, if at all for "freedom," then for Jose Padilla's trial. The great writings of all American thinkers, the day-to-day pride in the flag, in our institutions, in our people, in our identity as a nation, all tend toward one fundamental assumption: That Jose Padilla has the basic and inalienable right to be tried in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, before his freedom of action can be severely restricted by the state. Period. There is no other America. There is no other hope for America. There is no other purpose for our nation. There is no other America.

[Bandit]

38. I really like how you articulated the basic concept of our freedoms.

Would love to see how the Freepers would respond to your post. I think even the brain dead would have to agree with your assertions.

[LSK]

42. excellent post

I hope Kerry is reading this, he could use this in his speeches on the campaign.

[dArKeR]

32. Feds Exaggerated Padilla Case? - CBS

The "dirty bomb" allegedly planned by terror suspect Jose Padilla would have been a dud, not the radiological threat portrayed last week by federal authorities, scientists say.


At a June 1 news conference, the Justice Department said the alleged al Qaeda associate hoped to attack Americans by detonating "uranium wrapped with explosives" in order to spread radioactivity.

But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials — such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in medicine and industry that experts see as potential dirty bomb fuels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/terror/main620582.shtml

You mean the aWol Adm. was using the death of 9/11 for political gain? You mean he was really going to donate his Taco Bell POVERTY wages to the poor?

To guess what might have happened here. Bush orders the sever torture of Afghans. They are in such pain and innocent they start making stuff up just to give the American soldiers/American Contractor torturers some infomation to make them stop. I am sure I've seen reports in the past, by GOP Whore's and moral Americans as well, that a person under torture will make up things if they don't know anything just to the torturers something to make them stop. But the shows I vaguely remember were about Africa, Central America, Vietnam or Korea.

[Beetwasher]

33. Oh THANK REAGAN!

Some sanity!!!

Thank you Reagan!!

[LeftHander]

36. Agreed!

Viewing the meltdown of Conservativism by reviewing Ron's legacy has had sobering effect on a lot of people.

34. It's a no brainer (or it should be)

If you've read any of the friend of the court briefs in either case, it looks like the Justice Department lawyers damn well should be bracing for a defeat.

heh heh heh

[struggle4progress]

40. kick

:kick:

[Joanne98]

41. The Supremes doing the right thing?

It must be O'Connor. The Nazi's in the WH aren't giving up though. I wonder how the Cheney's case is going. I'll believe it when I see it.