Supreme Court to rule on 'combatant' rights

[knight_of_the_star]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the Constitution forbids the Bush administration from holding U.S. citizens indefinitely and without access to lawyers or courts when they are suspected of being “enemy combatants.”

MORE...http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4313349/

I HOPE that they rule in the RIGHT direction on this, the Constitution is CLEARLY against this, see the 14th Amendment.

[sallyseven]

1. The problem is

who judges them to be enemy combatants. I think asscroft thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him or bush is an enemy combatant. I cannot rely on their judgment.

[knight_of_the_star]

2. Sadly

I do not think there is a definition, but if the SCOTUS rules that they have the same rights as citizens guarunteed under the 14th Amendment, then they won't be able to use that to lock people up, at least not without getting in some SERIOUS shit. That and the ruling should be out by this summer, so they won't be able to lock us up to keep us from voting, at least not long enough to keep us out of the polls.

[mac2]

4. Asscroft...ha ha...funny but fitting

Was on CSPAN today. I couldn't watch him very long.

[saigon68]

7. You mean this SCUM BAG

[GreenNADER]

3. Supreme Court to rule on 'combatant' rights

do you mean the same Supreme Court that selected chimpy.

[teryang]

5. "Suspected" of being a terrorist?

This is a pretty low threshold for stripping a citizen of his civil rights.

Suspicion doesn't even meet a probable cause threshold. I guess pre-trial detention and the draconian Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure aren't a secure enough legal system to punish spies and saboteurs.

That's the funny thing about the chimp dictatorship, all of our previous laws and all the expertise of numerous generations of American legal scholars isn't up to their standards. Just what are their standards? Some unconstitutionally vague standard called the "war on terror" which allegedly necessitates making citizens the target of a military apparatus.

[gate of the sun]

6. Very important issue...

What scotus says in this case represents the future america. The framework is loose on the part of the bushistas, but this case has been appealed to this level because it kept losing... The rights of man are in some do-do... well, have a great day!

[bpilgrim]

8. the last time the term illegal combatants was used was during wwII

by the IMPERIAL JAPANESE.

it is simply unamerican, imho.

peace