The Supreme Court ruled AGAINST BUSH today

[geek tragedy]

The sky is not falling. The SC specifically limited its finding to situations where an American citizen is on the battlefield shooting at US troops. Under those very limited circumstances, the US has the right to detain that citizen as an enemy combatant. Which makes sense.

The US, however, does not have the right to hold such people indefinitely.

They do not have the right to grab people off the streets in the United States and hold them as enemy combatants.

They did hold that anyone held by the US government inside US territory, including at Guantanamo, can get the courts involved.

Bush won NOTHING today.

The government is not going to come into your home, office, or school and throw you in detention as an enemy combatant.

[Trajan]

1. I take it your a glass-half-full kinda guy ....

Im glad your so sure ....

[geek tragedy]

6. I've read the actual opinion

This is not a victory for Bush.

The only thing Bush won was really unremarakable--that a US citizen caught shooting at US troops on a battlefield in Afghanistan can be locked up with the rest of the enemy combatants.

The court was keeping its nose out of the battlefield itself, where it has no place.

But, it also made it clear that it was talking only about those limited circumstances--where there are still active hostilities going on in Afghanistan.

The bigger issue was judicial review--the courts can supervise and order the release of prisoners now.

[Kong]

12. Bullshit

"The court was keeping its nose out of the battlefield itself, where it has no place."

The Supreme Court of the United States has its place anywhere and everwhere the Government of the country has authority over its people. I do not give a rats ass if it is on a battle field, in a courtroom, in the prisons, or on the street. If its an american citizen and the governement is exercising control then it is the court's business to enforce the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those legitimate laws which support those rights. It is absoltly absurd to say that the Court does not have business on the battlefield, just as it would be to say that they have no sway when a person is driving on an Interstate.

[geek tragedy]

15. No US court will ever try to exert control over battlefield operations

The courts don't have authority to do so, and they've always held that.

Once the battle is over, and the detainees have been shipped somewhere else, then they'll get involved.

Not before.

[redqueen]

2. Thank GOD!

All these other posts... I hope to God you're right.

*sigh*

:(

[Eric J in MN]

3. The Supreme Court delayed ruling on whether Bush can

The Supreme Court delayed ruling on whether Bush can order Americans arrested in the US held as enemy combatants.

[Dookus]

8. Correct

they said Padilla shouldn't have sued Rumsfield in a NY court - said he should sue the commander of the brig he's in in South Carolina (I think).

They punted on that, but given their other rulings today, they clearly mean to restrain the government's power to detain people with no access to courts.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. There is a broad spectrum...

...of reliable, liberal, legal types, like Jack Balkin of Yale Law School, that seem to think Bush went 0-3 today.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. ......................

[orthogonal]

7. "Guilty until proven innocent"

The Court also ruled that it's legal (Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the contrary) to hold "enemy combatants" without trial.

In other words, the Reichsminister Ashcroft can still throw you in a brig and deny you a trial -- and all this ruling establishes is that you get a chance to ask for a court to review your imprisonment.

More succinctly, the Supreme Court has thrown out the American tradition of "innocent until proven guilty", replacing it with the Stalinist "guilty until proven innocent".

The Court has ruled that the Government need not prove anything in order to indefinitely detain persons without trial. The person detained simply gets a chance to ask a court for review.

If the burden were, as is traditional, on the Government, the court review (note, review, it's not a trial) would be merely pro-forms: "Judge, I haven't been accused of anything, let me go". Now, clearly it would make no sense to make it so pro forma.

So the Supreme Court is clearly saying that the accused must prove that he's not being legitimately held -- he has to prove his innocence.

And so the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty", of the burden being on the State to deprive a person of his liberty, goes out the window.

When I was recently being voir dire'd for jury duty, the (Federal) Judge made it very clear: "You understand that the defendant doesn't need to say anything, right? He doesn't need to make a case or disprove anything. Unless the prosecutor meets his burden beyond a reasonable doubt, he's not guilty."

But this decision says that the Government doesn't need to say anything -- and the person being held does.

And you still call the Bush Administration "conservative"? I thought conservatives were all about limited government and maintaining traditions. This Administration is all about a "Brave New World" or permanent war and liberty in name only.

[geek tragedy]

10. No, Asscroft can't do that

The military can if they catch you shooting at them in Afghanistan.

And people suspected of guilt are held without trial all the time. Especially if they can't post bail.

[tjwash]

9. Umm...

"The government is not going to come into your home, office, or school and throw you in detention as an enemy combatant.

Actually they can still bust down your door, with little or no evidence, and haul you off to GTMO as a suspect and hold you there, while you wait for a trial date, but at least you CAN take it to court for a trial now.

I still am undecided whether they are throwing the people a bone, or if they are starting to distance themselves from B* because he is doomed.

[geek tragedy]

11. There's nothing more that

a court can do, other than reviewing an action the government has taken.

This was a clear defeat for Bush. The only real good news he got was the punting of the Padilla matter.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Yeah...

..and armed with the ruling in Hamdi, Padilla wins a civilian process, or as seems more likely, walks, because the gov't got dick against him they can actually use.

Bush goes 0-2, and will lose on #3.

[Guaranteed]

14. Yes, they CAN just pick you up off the street

as long as they call you a terrorist.

They can hold you as long as they like without charges filed or a trial.

The SC only said that AFTER the fact at SOME POINT you have the right to a lawyer and a "day in court"- whatever that means. But, of course, who's going to listen to the prisoner once he's been locked away from his family and counsel? What, the prisoner just says "I want my lawyer!" and they say "OHHhhhh damn...the guy wants his LAWYER..." and they just give one to him? WHY NOT GIVE HIM ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

YEAH RIGHT. NO ONE is going to give those detainees SHIT.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. uuuuhhhhh

Nope sorry you are wrong. What they did was say..."you no longer have rights under the US constitution. Now you have to petition the courts for your rights and if you get a right wing judge or just a generally moronic POS judge...too fucking bad."

[Guaranteed]

18. That's right.

You get your rights AFTER THE FACT, IF they decide to give them to you.

[geek tragedy]

20. I read the opinion, and it said nothing of the sort

Liberal legal commentators are happy, while the administration isn't.

Check out this site:

http://www.discourse.net

[enough]

17. ACLU says:

snip>

Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, called the rulings "a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."

snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/politics/28CND-SCOT.html?hp

[Cheswick2.0]

19. people people ,...................

read the disenting opinions. That is where you are going to find the truth in this.

[geek tragedy]

21. Dissenting opinions don't mean crap

eom