![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"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. ... (It) would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. ... "
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
The majority in Hamdi was 6-3, stating that, even though the Administration can detain individuals who are caught on a battlefield, those individuals can go to court to challenge their detentions. Justices Scalia and Stevens dissented, arguing that as a citizen Hamdi should not even have to do that, that the government should either try him for treason or let him go. The only Justice that sided with the Administration on this case was Clarence Thomas, thereby confirming my opinion that the man is simply not fit for the post he holds.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld also came down today: Padilla lost, but only on a technicality. When he refiles, under the new Hamdi ruling, he should be able to win access to a lawyer, and he will be able to challenge his detention in court.
And U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay -- it was a closer vote, but the majority of the Court saw through the "hey, it's not U.S. territory, even though it *is* our military base" argument of the Administration.
John Adams can sleep a little sounder in his grave tonight.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
The majority in Hamdi was 6-3, stating that, even though the Administration can detain individuals who are caught on a battlefield, those individuals can go to court to challenge their detentions. Justices Scalia and Stevens dissented, arguing that as a citizen Hamdi should not even have to do that, that the government should either try him for treason or let him go. The only Justice that sided with the Administration on this case was Clarence Thomas, thereby confirming my opinion that the man is simply not fit for the post he holds.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld also came down today: Padilla lost, but only on a technicality. When he refiles, under the new Hamdi ruling, he should be able to win access to a lawyer, and he will be able to challenge his detention in court.
And U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay -- it was a closer vote, but the majority of the Court saw through the "hey, it's not U.S. territory, even though it *is* our military base" argument of the Administration.
John Adams can sleep a little sounder in his grave tonight.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
So much for patrisan appointments...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject