Supreme Court could bring Ashcroft down....

[veracity]

Here's why the SC appointments under the next president can make or break the nation. This is what they're deciding to take up, - and what may set the tone for American "justice" for decades:

The SC "justices will decide whether to hear the appeal of U.S.-born terrorism suspect Yaser Esam Hamdi. The government won its argument in a lower court that Hamdi may be kept incommunicado and without access to a lawyer or U.S. courts, even though he is a citizen."

Two other cases are up for review. One is being joined by a group of journalists and other media reps.

Here's the Ashcroft crap line:

"The government maintains that the detentions of terror suspects, without legal rights, are necessary for national security."

Now, don't you feel SAFER already?


Full story:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/news.html#USDOMESTIC

1. if you want to look at the Hamdi case

it can be found here.
http://www.eurolegal.org/pdf/hamdirums100103pet.pdf
It's very interesting reading.
I have an instinct that no matter how conservative the Supreme Court may be, that there is a good chance they will rule in favor of Hamdi. The case looks pretty air tight to this layman. The public defender is quoting Alexander Hamilton for example

[enough]

2. Very interesting.

Thanks for that post.

Here is Page 2 of the document, summing it all up:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the Constitution permit Executive officials to detain an American
citizen indefinitely in military custody in the United States, hold him
essentially incommunicado and deny him access to counsel, with no
opportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before any
impartial tribunal, on the sole ground that he was seized abroad in a
theater of the War on Terrorism and declared by the Executive to be an
“enemy combatant”?

2. Is the indefinite detention of an American citizen seized abroad but held
in the United States solely on the assertion of Executive officials that he
is an “enemy combatant” permissible under applicable congressional
statutes and treaty provisions?

3. In a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the indefinite detention of an
American citizen seized abroad, detained in the United States, and
declared by Executive officials to be an “enemy combatant,” does the
separation of powers doctrine preclude a federal court from following
ordinary statutory procedures and conducting an inquiry into the factual
basis for the Executive branch’s asserted justification of the detention?

[DebJ]

5. Alex Hamilton one of my favorites....I don't have time to read 53 pages

can you point me to the quote(s)? I bet these were from his cases when he was representing Tories who were being mistreated by the states (specifically NY for Alex cases) in violation of the peace treaty.

7. at the very end

in the conclusion, they quote Hamilton --

"In support of ratification, Alexander Hamilton quoted from Montesquieu: "There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." Federalist no. 78.

So, it was in reference to ratitication of the Constitution, not an actual case Hamilton was involved with.

3. kick

This is, in my opinion, the number one reason to stop Bush from getting reelected. The implications of this case, if you read it carefully,(see the website link I provided in my other reply) are that any one who is in a war zone can be declared an enemy combatant and held without right to counsel based solely on the presdident's say-so. In the war on terror, everywhere is a combat zone, which means that any U.S. citizen could be picked up and arrested without any civil liberties even if you were walking down the street of your hometown. This must be stopped.

[ComerPerro]

4. The interesting thing here

Is that they have changed the rhetoric already so that anyone they want can be labled as a "terrorist" or as an enemy.

Hell, at one point last spring Ashcroft referred to marijuana users as "narko terrorists".

[i_am_not_john_galt]

6. This negates constitutional rights in one fell swoop

Bush has said repeatedly that this is a "war without borders" - so you are correct that the government can now (unless saner minds prevail) detain virtually anyone, at any time, without recourse, for an indefinite period.

Is anyone here knowledgeable about how this compares with other suspensions of habius corpus - during the Civil War or WWII with Japanese citizens? Did the courts determine that the executive branch can suspend constitutional rights by fiat?

8. response to 4 & 6

This is exactly what the public defender is arguing (I think it is interesting that this case is being brought by the federal public defender -- at least there is someone in the executive branch who understands what is at stake and is trying to fix it)

Look on page 18 & 19 of the case (which is page 31 & 32 of the pdf), and you'll see what I mean.