Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Supreme Court Rejects Jose Padilla Case"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:28 PM
Original message
"Supreme Court Rejects Jose Padilla Case"
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Jose Padilla, held as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights for more than three years, sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime detention powers.
ADVERTISEMENT

Padilla was moved in January to Miami to face criminal charges, and the government argued that the appeal over his indefinite detention was now pointless.

Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Stephen Breyer.

And three other court members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. "..."guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."
Yeah, I'm sure he'll get all the federal protections he deserves. Just like he has up until this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly. What a day for civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm not sure if you intended sarcasm; if so, I missed it
Any federal protections he might deserve are entirely irrelevant. The question is the constitutional protections the government is UNEQUIVOCABLY REQUIRED to provide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You missed it?
...held as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights for more than three years


Does it sound to you like he's had any "federal protections?"

That was my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Point gotten ;-) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. :)
Gotta remember that :sarcasm: icon.

I can be dry. Sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. so they're watching? so what? unless they have the case actively
in front of them -- what roberts and the rest do?

compare bugars they dug out while they watched?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. So they can arrest and hold me, or you, for three years with
no charges and that's ok if, in the end, they transfer you to a state court and file chages against you.

Welcome to Bushamerica.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC