Supreme Court to Consider Enemy Combatants' Rights

[PfcHammer]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040428/ts_nm/usa_court_security_dc_3

Supreme Court to Consider Enemy Combatants' Rights

2 hours, 13 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) considers on Wednesday whether in the war on terrorism President Bush (news - web sites) can order American citizens held indefinitely in a military jail without charges, a hearing or access to a lawyer.

Two cases to be argued before the high court will test the balance between civil liberty and national security, and go to the heart of the Bush administration's assertion of sweeping presidential powers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The justices examine the cases of Yaser Hamdi, a former Taliban fighter captured in Afghanistan (news - web sites), and Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member suspected of plotting with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.

<snip>

[denverbill]

1. Well, the Constitution is on trial today.

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.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

------------------------------------
It seems incredibly and blatantly clear to me that these people have the right to trials. Speedy, public, jury trials.

You know, the President swears an oath to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' when he is sworn into office. IMO, by attempting to deny the 6th & 7th Amendments, he is attempting to undo the Constitution. This should be an impeachable offense.

[belle]

5. Kick.

[David__77]

2. This is THE supreme court case.

This is crucial: will the legal foundations for fascism by solidified or undermined. There's no middle course--it's one or the other. If habeas corpus is eliminated, then we are a giant leap closer to fascism and people must heighten their vigilence and have proper security--that includes progressive organizations.

[Sandpiper]

3. I'm surprised to see so few replies to this thread

This is THE landmark SCOTUS case of this generation. The Bush administration is putting our civil rights on trial. And should they win the day, it means that Bushco can strip away your constitutionally guaranteed civil rights by slapping the label of "enemy combatant" on you.

If the fascist wing of the Supreme Court sides with Bush, this case will go right up there Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as one of the most infamous decisions ever handed down.

[Just Me]

6. I know this is an extraordinarily important case.

I guess I have simply,...burned out on considering all the potential rulings and consequences.

If the Supremes wind up raping us of civil liberties, we're screwed. But, I still think that they aren't going to go there.

What can we do other than wait-and-see what happens? Then, go from there?

[hang a left]

7. This case has been discussed many times. There is also

another active thread in LBN talking about this today. You are correct when you identify this case as THE landmark. It is exactly that. No tinfoil needed. The WH wins this one it is over.........completely over. You might as well just break out every single conspiracy theory ever debated at this site. They will, without a doubt in my mind, all be true. NWO, prison camps, forced innoculations, all of them.



on edit the link to the other thread and article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x515098

[Red_Viking]

4. Kicking this

I agree completely--hope more folks will sit up and pay attention.

With the exception of Antichrist Scalia and "Where's my Porn" Thomas, I hold out hope that the remaining justices, including the conservatives, will not follow the regime's instructions. How could they, and still call themselves Justices? There's no justice in this.

The current administration continues to overstep its boundaries, especially where the SCOTUS is concerned. I don't think they like it, with the exceptions noted above. When Rendquist voted to overturn the Texas sodomy law, I almost passed out. I doubt he likes being told how to do his job.

If they overturn habeas corpus, we're headed straight for revolution. Sheesh.

RV