09-09-2005 22:54									#1
	Hey...activist judges really ARE a threat Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Bush said something right! Those last couple hundred years of requiring, you know, trials and evidence and such, have been overturned by those nasty progressive judges with no respect for the constitution! Whatever shall he do?

Oh yeah, that's right, one of these judges is rumored to be getting a supreme court nomination. Guess that's what he'll do...get rid of them through promotion!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9268598/

quote: The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al-Qaida. “The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war,” Judge Michael Luttig wrote. “We conclude that the president does possess such authority.”

	09-09-2005 23:17									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Not activist here, since the panel is following precedent, it was the lower court whoses ruling was reversed that was 'activist".

	09-09-2005 23:20									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

So your head of state can now single handedly arrest people without using the judicial system?

And some people complain about Russia...

	09-09-2005 23:31									#5
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ecthy So your head of state can now single handedly arrest people without using the judicial system?

It is not an arrest, not in the relm of crimminal law, it is a capture of a combatant under the law of war, the same law as on the battlefield.
What I am concered about is the rather feeble level of due process that comes at the madated subsequent hearing to confirm/overule his status as a combatant.

	09-09-2005 23:31									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Not activist here, since the panel is following precedent, it was the lower court whoses ruling was reversed that was 'activist".

There was a distinction to be made that it could happen on U.S. soil, though. Until now, it only applied to people who were captured on the 'battlefield'...such as it is. This is a US citizen, arrested on US soil, who is being held indefinitely without charges. There's nothing stopping Bush from declaring any random person on the street a combatant and dropping them in a hole, never to be heard from again.

I hope somebody's keeping an eye on Michael Moore...

	09-09-2005 23:32									#7
	Remove this text

Get a shave, man.

	09-09-2005 23:35									#8
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi There was a distinction to be made that it could happen on U.S. soil, though.

Not so, there was precedent (at the distric level only, IIRC) from as recently as WW2, regarding a citizen who had assisted some German sabateours who landed in NY. There is mounds of precedent from earlier, mostly in the Amercian Civil War.

	09-09-2005 23:38									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

That is why I think the anglo-saxon system of law is a bit bent. How can one seriously compare a situation under which Congress had declared war, or one in which the nation was facing clear insurrection, to the amorphous and opaque "war on terror"?

	09-09-2005 23:52									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Not so, there was precedent (at the distric level only, IIRC) from as recently as WW2, regarding a citizen who had assisted some German sabateours who landed in NY. There is mounds of precedent from earlier, mostly in the Amercian Civil War.

If you're talking about Ex parte Quirin, only one of them was a US citizen, and he was given over to a military tribunal and subsequently charged.

In any case, as GePap says, there's a bit of a difference involved.

	09-09-2005 23:53									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

due process

Bush

4th Circuit Cracker Court

	10-09-2005 00:10									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi There was a distinction to be made that it could happen on U.S. soil, though. Until now, it only applied to people who were captured on the 'battlefield'...such as it is. This is a US citizen, arrested on US soil, who is being held indefinitely without charges. There's nothing stopping Bush from declaring any random person on the street a combatant and dropping them in a hole, never to be heard from again.

Drawing a bit of conclusion here aren't we. Since when does detainment preclude the remainder of due process, especially considering the precedent the supremes established granting hearings to the enemy combatants at Gitmo..

	10-09-2005 00:50									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

He's been in solitary for three years without charges..you tell me.

	10-09-2005 00:55									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't like this at all, but there does appear to be ample precedent for it. The only saving grace here is that Bush appears to be just protecting presidential perogatives with this test case rather than going hog wild locking people up.

	10-09-2005 00:56									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Not so, there was precedent (at the distric level only, IIRC) from as recently as WW2, regarding a citizen who had assisted some German sabateours who landed in NY. There is mounds of precedent from earlier, mostly in the Amercian Civil War.

It was in Florida, not far from where I used to live, interestingly enough. The American in question turned himself in as soon has he hit the beach and alerted authorities to the presence of the other sabetuers. In recognition of his service to the Republic, the Feds prompty executed him.

	10-09-2005 00:56									#16
	Get a bigger avatar today!

AFAIK, Slavery had ample precedent.

	10-09-2005 01:02									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

[contrarian mode]

AFAIK, Infanticide had ample precedent.

[/contrarian mode]

Note: I am pro-choice.

	10-09-2005 13:04									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Umm, Ogie those Civil War precedents actually turned out to overrule the President's capability to lock US Citizens without Habeas Corpus. Outside the direct area of conflict even Lincoln's new Surpreme Court (he got to appoint several new judges) overruled him, but not before the Copperhead Clement L. Vallandigham was tried in Ohio and banished by Lincoln to the South (find me banishment in the Constitution).

Now the President can suspend Habeas Corpus in the case of rebellion. Say it very slowly, and very carefully. Rebellion. Now read ex Parte Milligan. I am tired of people who don't know their Civil War history claiming Lincoln justifies Bush's actions.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/s...71_0002_ZS.html

This is a lousy decision, and will hopefully be overturned as per the more recent SCOTUS decisions. Remember who supports the idea of trying him (and permitting a writ of Habeas Corpus to be served), with the specific example treason (which includes the Death Penalty in the Constitution no less) - Stevens and Scalia! However, the 4th Circuit may be banking on a new court, and the justice writing this is in the running for one of the new SCOTUS judges - maybe just maybe the bastard is using his position to grandstand?

	10-09-2005 13:11									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: This is a lousy decision, and will hopefully be overturned as per the more recent SCOTUS decisions.

Why would SCOTUS overturn a decision based on the precedent they themselves set with Hamdi?

	10-09-2005 13:17									#20
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola It is not an arrest, not in the relm of crimminal law, it is a capture of a combatant under the law of war, the same law as on the battlefield.

Sure, except when they are innocent.

You know, like has already happened several times, including when the UK demanded we return their citizens that we locked up without a fair trial.

This enemy combatant crap is immoral and violates the Geneva Conventions.



Nice slimy lawyer/weaselspeak though.

	10-09-2005 13:18									#21
	Got spare money?

SCROTUM

	11-09-2005 01:42									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap That is why I think the anglo-saxon system of law is a bit bent. How can one seriously compare a situation under which Congress had declared war, or one in which the nation was facing clear insurrection, to the amorphous and opaque "war on terror"?

1. Because congress passed a war powers resolution for said conflict (war on terror).
2. A state of war exist when holtilities a commneced without without a resolution by congress, the declaration of war or war powers authoriztion is not necessary for a state of war to exist, what they do is add some powers to the excutive to wage war, but he already has some war waging powers without the declarations/authorization.
The rsolution after 9/11 was very similar to the resotuion in Dec 1941, Niether created a state of war, both recognized that a state of war has existed since the time of the enemy attack. Both authorized additional war powers to the executive.

	11-09-2005 01:48									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It was in Florida, not far from where I used to live, interestingly enough. The American in question turned himself in as soon has he hit the beach and alerted authorities to the presence of the other sabetuers. In recognition of his service to the Republic, the Feds prompty executed him.

I was thinking of the Long Island case, but Quinn is another example.

	11-09-2005 02:15									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Drake - the 4th circuit decision flies in the face of Hamdi. Hamdi states they have to get around to Habeus corpus, the 4th circuit say they don't, period. Scalia and Stevens were very irritated at their fellow justices for waffling on Hamdi, which is why I am hopeful the jerk who is grandstanding on the 4th circuit DOES NOT get nominated. Even with two new justices appointed by Bush I can hope at most one will want to go with this abuse of federal power - Thomas almost understands the point that you cannot have your cake and eat it, while Scalia and Stevens have a clear understanding, IMHO, about the implications of this.

	11-09-2005 02:57									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ecthy Get a shave, man.

	11-09-2005 03:04									#26
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Drake - the 4th circuit decision flies in the face of Hamdi. Hamdi states they have to get around to Habeus corpus, the 4th circuit say they don't, period. Scalia and Stevens were very irritated at their fellow justices for waffling on Hamdi, which is why I am hopeful the jerk who is grandstanding on the 4th circuit DOES NOT get nominated. Even with two new justices appointed by Bush I can hope at most one will want to go with this abuse of federal power - Thomas almost understands the point that you cannot have your cake and eat it, while Scalia and Stevens have a clear understanding, IMHO, about the implications of this.

Haven't read the case, but if they don't allow a habeus hearing on his status, it definetly flys in the face of Hamdi, no question about it. There is, as has been mentioned by others on the thread, concerns that Luttig is ruling contrary in order to impress the President to get himself nominated for O'Connor's sport.

	11-09-2005 04:39									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

On a more bizarre note: Governor Schwartenegger just vetoed a gay marriage bill. His reasoning is that this issue is the proper provence of the judiciary.

Danged activist Legislatures! Don't they know it's the judges' duty to write laws?!

	11-09-2005 05:22									#28
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yeah, I'm glad he vetoed that bill, when the majority of Californians voted in favour of a bill to keep marriage between one man and one woman. What ever happened to parliaments that respected the will of the people?

	11-09-2005 05:42									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What ever happened to people who respected the Equal Protection Clause?

	11-09-2005 06:58									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Now the President can suspend Habeas Corpus in the case of rebellion. Say it very slowly, and very carefully. Rebellion. Now read ex Parte Milligan. I am tired of people who don't know their Civil War history claiming Lincoln justifies Bush's actions.

Oh Taney you had no idea how right you were.