Bush's Powers Again Under Review by Court

[FormerRepublican]

"WASHINGTON - His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court, President Bush could take a second hit in a case in which Osama bin Laden's former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.

At stake is more than whether Salim Ahmed Hamdan, after nearly four years at the Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, goes on trial for war crimes before a special military commission.

Analysts say if the high court rejects Bush's plan to hold such trials for the first time since the aftermath of World War II, it could rein in the president's expanded powers in pursuing and punishing suspected terrorists.

In addition to special military trials for Hamdan and others, the Bush administration since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has claimed it has the authority to eavesdrop on telephone conversations without court oversight, aggressively interrogate foreigners and imprison people without giving them traditional legal rights."

Yahoo link

This paragraph of the story seems very interesting:

"The administration hopes to get Hamdan's appeal dismissed altogether, on grounds that Congress last year stripped the Supreme Court's authority to consider it. A law passed late last year bars Guantanamo prisoners from filing petitions to fight their detentions; the administration claims this law retroactively voided hundreds of lawsuits."

I have a couple of questions about this for any legal experts out there. First of all, can Congress bar the Supreme Court from reviewing these cases - is that constitutional? Also, can a law retroactively bar appeals (I thought retroactive law was itself unconstitutional)? Secondly, what effect might it have on Bush's powers if they don't overturn this? My concern is along the lines of give Bush an inch and he'll seize a mile...

This whole thing makes me feel a bit... :scared:

[LiberalPartisan]

1. Under this SCOTUS, I'm not encouraged one iota....n/t

[ThomWV]

2. The Bill Of Rights Is Inviolate

That means that the Congress can not pass any laws that infringe on the basic rights of every individual (usually refered to as US Persons) walking around on ground we call ours.

So in this case to go to:


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[FormerRepublican]

3. Assuming the Supreme Court doesn't rule away all our rights.

Which is something that I fear since Alito and Roberts got on the court.