Terrorists Have Access to the System!
Supreme Court Rules that Access to the System is Available even for Suspected Domestic or Foreign Terrorists, but you have to do it the right way.
In three separate cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2004, the scope of presidential power during wartime was limited to
far less than the Bush Administration had requested. In Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld and Rasul et al v. Bush the Supreme Court ruled that although suspected terrorists or "enemy combatants" could be held on American soil, they were still entitled to an independent legal hearing on the legality of their detention.
In her majority opinion in the Hamdi case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens..." Justice O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer with Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurring but arguing that the majority did not go far enough.
Justices Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas dissented but did not support the Administration's position. In fact, Justice Scalia in some respects went farther than the majority: "...Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."
Justice Scalia went on to say: "A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face of the mistrust that engendered these provisions."
Hamdi involved the detention of an American citizen. In Rasul, which focused on foreign citizens held at Guantanamo, Justice Stevens wrote for the court, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting.
In the third case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that the case was brought in the wrong forum, ruling that it should have been filed in South Carolina's federal courts rather than New York. However, the Court, although dismissing the case, ruled that it could be refiled in the proper forum.
Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in which Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Stevens dissented and was joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
American Financial Printers participated by printing Amicus Briefs.
In three separate cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2004, the scope of presidential power during wartime was limited to
far less than the Bush Administration had requested. In Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld and Rasul et al v. Bush the Supreme Court ruled that although suspected terrorists or "enemy combatants" could be held on American soil, they were still entitled to an independent legal hearing on the legality of their detention.
In her majority opinion in the Hamdi case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens..." Justice O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer with Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurring but arguing that the majority did not go far enough.
Justices Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas dissented but did not support the Administration's position. In fact, Justice Scalia in some respects went farther than the majority: "...Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."
Justice Scalia went on to say: "A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face of the mistrust that engendered these provisions."
Hamdi involved the detention of an American citizen. In Rasul, which focused on foreign citizens held at Guantanamo, Justice Stevens wrote for the court, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting.
In the third case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that the case was brought in the wrong forum, ruling that it should have been filed in South Carolina's federal courts rather than New York. However, the Court, although dismissing the case, ruled that it could be refiled in the proper forum.
Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in which Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Stevens dissented and was joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
American Financial Printers participated by printing Amicus Briefs.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home