'Courts Have No Authority Over Executive Branch In Time Of War ???'

[WillyT]

Anybody else hear this on NPR today? I was at work listening to one of the morning shows, and in reference to the Moussauoi Case, the reporter said that the Justice Department was going to argue this point in front of the 4th Circuit. Sent friggin shivers down my spine!

Was the reporter misspeaking? Is this point of contention limited to the Moussauoi Case? I mean, if this is what they are gonna argue, do they have a leg to stand on???

That phrase just flipped me out this morning. Anybody else hear it? And just how much power does the Executive take from the courts in a time of war?

I mean, i'm familiar with the Patrioit Act, and Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus and all, but this just hit me between the eyes. Help...

:scared::mad::nuke:

[RC]

1. At war?

I thought dim son said the war was over shortly after he landed on the Linclon.

[WillyT]

5. But He Also Said The The 'War On Terror' Could Last Generations !!!

Something to that effect, I think.

:shrug:

[Noordam]

2. We are not at War

I do not think Congress declare WAR.... I could be wrong...

6. That's what you think! and that's the danger

of the Patriot Act. We are in a war on terror, thus the war zone is anywhere and anyone can be declared a combatant technically even if they are sitting on a park bench in Peoria and have their rights stripped.
Nat Hentoff has been writing about this in the Village Voice for awhile.

[WillyT]

7. Congress Is SUPPOSED To Declare War, But Did That Weanie...

'Police Action' crap once again.

But you bring up a great point. If Congress actually did declare war, as provided in the constitution, how does it, and the Exec, balance and check against the courts???

:shrug:

[sangh0]

3. Yes, I've heard about that, and I laughed

SCOTUS is not going to be happy hearing that they have no authority to interpret the law, but the executive does.

I think the SG forget about Madison v Marbury

[Creideiki]

8. I think that keeps Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench

Remember when the supposition was that she passed Bush the ball so she could retire and he could name another conservative. I really think she regrets that.

[WillyT]

9. I'm Thinkin Ya Might Be Right About That DD !!!

Good call!

:hi:

[arewethereyet]

12. I'm not so sure its a question of interpreting the law as defending

the country. If an attacker is wailing away on you do you take a lot of time to go over the Marquis of Queensbury rules or do you just wail back ?

[WillyT]

13. An Attacker Like Iraq On 9-11 ??? --- </Sarcasm>

Look, in the intial stages of an attack against this country, the Executive is supposed to respond as necessary. But once we've decided on a course of war, DECLARED BY CONGRESS, it's the Courts job to make sure we don't do damage to our own country and constitution. And since this 'war on terra' is to last indefinitely, it already looks like we're goose-stepping in the wrong direction, no???

The courts are supposed to be there to protect us from ourselves.

:shrug:

4. this might be relevant

I posted something on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=249833

Reading between the lines on this, I think that the Executive does think that the courts do have jurisdisction, that's what they're worried about, so they are trying to keep them from getting involved.
Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your outlook, it's really up to the courts to decide if they have jurisdiction, not the executive or the legislature.

I have come across some info of a confidential nature on this, I am hoping to see some open links somewhere about it, so that I can start really detailing what I have come across. Having said that, the info I came across gives me some strong hope that the courts (high up) are going to get involved in this Patriot Act stuff and that they will scale back some of the recent excesses.

[proud patriot]

10. I heard this reported on cable news today too

The fact the reporter didn't even blink an eye
when uttering the words ...gave me pause for thought.

Ummmm ,,,, Nothing has more power that the courts ,
it says so in the Constitution .

[WillyT]

11. Hey Trish, Scary, But Not Unexpected Shit, Huh ???

:hi::scared::hi:

[dpibel]

14. This could be a clue as to where this will go

Begin excerpt:

"Without question the government's authority to engage in conduct that infringes civil liberty is greatest in time of declared war," Rehnquist concedes. But he also concludes: "If freedom of speech is to be meaningful, strong criticism of government policy must be permitted even in wartime."

Rehnquist sees some truth in the principle of Roman law, Inter arma silent leges ("In war, the law is silent"). But in general, he expects to see "the historic trend against the least justified of the curtailments of civil liberty in wartime" to continue. "The laws will thus not be silent in time of war," he writes, "but they will speak with a somewhat different voice."

End excerpt.

From: http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1998/10/29/p56s2.htm

The words of the Chief Justice in his 1998 book All the Laws But One. Read 'em and weep.

[WillyT]

15. Thanks For That, I'll Check It Out !!!

:hi:

[truthspeaker]

16. wrong x2

A) That's not in the constitution.

B) We are not legally at war anyway.

BZZT. Wrong on both counts. Thanks for playing, Chimpy. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.