In the case of the UK, it does't even have to be the prime minister that uses the power - the home secretary could do it himself. Hopefully Shaun will resist for a short while before handing over our details - at least long enough for us to disappear
How would one "Let you Know" Mia The power of one: Cases to test authority of the president By David G. Savage Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has set the stage for a series of rulings on the reach of presidential power, decisions that could arrive just as voters focus on whether to endorse President Bush and his strong style of executive leadership. Since November, the justices have voted to take up five cases that test the president's power to act alone and without interference by Congress or the courts. They involve imprisoning foreign fighters at overseas bases, holding U.S. citizens without charges in military brigs, preserving the secrecy of White House meetings, enforcing free-trade treaties despite environmental concerns and abducting foreigners charged with U.S. crimes. The case taken up Friday may be the broadest of all. Two years ago, the White House said the president had the power to designate U.S. citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and hold them in secret military custody, without filing charges or allowing them to plead their innocence. Bush's lawyers said the "time-honored laws and customs of war" gave the commander in chief the power to hold captured soldiers. But not until recently had a president contended that his military power extended to arresting Americans on U.S. soil. In December, a federal appeals court in New York ruled the president overstepped his authority in the case of Jose Padilla, a New York-born Muslim who was taken into custody at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and imprisoned in a military brig in South Carolina. The judges said the administration must either charge him with a crime or release him. The justices announced Friday they will take up the issue and rule on whether the president has the constitutional power to bypass the courts and hold U.S. citizens in military custody. "The Supreme Court appears poised to issue the most important set of decisions about the scope of presidential power since World War II," said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the law and national-security program for the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights. Veteran lawyers who have argued before the Supreme Court compared the lineup of pending cases to the era when President Nixon was in the White House. "This administration has massively asserted presidential power unlike any since Nixon," said Alan Morrison, a lawyer for Public Citizen, a liberal group that has opposed Bush in several pending cases. "The thread running through all these cases is that (administration officials) don't believe the part of separation of powers that has checks and balances in it. They say they have a right to do it because it is a war, and they don't have to be bound by all these constraints in the law." There is "an amazing convergence of a lot of these cases all at once," agreed Richard Samp, an attorney for the conservative Washington Legal Foundation. "I think it's because there is a basic disagreement on what American history shows and what the (founding) fathers had in mind, in this area of the law." At their core, the disputes center on the role the Constitution gives the president in times of war and national emergency. The Bush administration's lawyers assert that since the Constitution made the president the commander in chief of the armed forces, he has the unilateral power to act. Moreover, since terrorists brought their attacks to the United States in September 2001, the president's war powers extend to the home front, they say. This view was on display in Padilla's case. He was arrested in Chicago after a flight from Pakistan and was suspected of having been involved in a plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States. Since June 2002, he has not been allowed to speak to a lawyer or to his family. No charges have been filed against him. When Padilla's New York lawyer sought a court hearing for him, the Bush administration took a stiff stand. The lawyer is not allowed to meet with her client, and the judges have no authority to hear his pleas, the administration said. "The capture and detention of enemy combatants during wartime falls within the president's core constitutional powers as commander in chief," Bush's lawyers told the U.S. court of appeals in New York. "There is no basis to second-guess the president's conclusion that Padilla is an enemy combatant." They cited as a precedent a World War II case involving Nazi saboteurs. Eight German soldiers, one of whom was born in the United States, were secretly landed on Atlantic beaches. But two of them surrendered to the FBI, and the others were soon arrested. President Franklin Roosevelt ordered them tried before a military court in Washington. They were found guilty and sentenced to death, although Roosevelt spared two of them. The Supreme Court met during the summer and affirmed their convictions, saying the "president's wartime detention decisions are to be accorded great deference from the courts." But last month the U.S. court of appeals in New York said Congress and the courts have an equal role to play in terrorism cases within the United States. Its judges looked to a much different precedent: President Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. Fearing the impact of a strike, Truman ordered the military to take control of the mills. In 1953, however, the Supreme Court reversed Truman's order and said the president had overstepped his bounds. In a key opinion, Justice Robert Jackson said that while the president has great authority when U.S. forces are fighting abroad, that authority does not extend to the home front. In Padilla's case, the appeals court quoted Jackson's opinion to reject Bush's claim of an "inherent constitutional power" to hold U.S. citizens who are arrested on U.S. soil. "We agree with Padilla that the Constitution lodges these powers with Congress, not the president," the court said in a 2-1 ruling. While Congress could authorize the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, the court noted that a 1971 law prohibited such actions by the chief executive. "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress," the law says. Separately, lawyers for Yaser Esam Hamdi, a second "enemy combatant," urged the court to review his case. A Saudi born in Louisiana, Hamdi was fighting for the Taliban when he was captured by U.S. troops. Rather than hold him as a prisoner of war, the administration sent him to the military brig in South Carolina. The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review his case and to decide on the president's authority to order military detention of U.S. citizens. A case involving the Guantánamo detainees, to be heard in the spring, tests whether the president can order hundreds of foreigners to be held without charges or a hearing. Lawyers for the nearly 600 men do not say the detention is illegal. Instead, they say the men deserve a hearing to show they are not guilty. Bush's lawyers say no such hearing is needed, and none may be ordered. "The courts have no jurisdiction to evaluate or second-guess the conduct of the president and the military," wrote Solicitor General Theodore Olson. In the White House secrecy case, the high court will decide whether a judge can require Vice President Dick Cheney to turn over documents detailing who met with the administration's energy task force early in 2001. Two groups, one liberal and one conservative, sued Cheney, contending corporate lobbyists met with the Bush advisers in violation of an open-government law known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Bush's lawyers say the Constitution shields the White House from responding to such court orders. Disclosure would "interfere with the president's exercise of core executive constitutional functions," they said. In a case involving Mexican trucks, the court will decide whether the president can sidestep environmental laws to enforce the North American Free Trade Agreement. When environmentalists sued, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government must first study the potential for pollution before it allows tens of thousands of older trucks to move goods across the border. Bush's lawyers said this decision "endangers the president's ability to act quickly and decisively in areas such as foreign affairs and national defense." And the outcome of a Mexican abduction case, which began during the war on drugs in the 1980s, is crucial to the war on terrorism today, Bush's lawyers have said. In June, the 9th Circuit ruled that a Mexican doctor who was seized in Guadalajara can sue the federal agents who ordered his abduction. In his appeal, Olson said that if this rule became the law, U.S. agents who locate Osama bin Laden would be barred from seizing him. "The use of transborder arrests — and judgments regarding the necessity of such measures — are for the executive branch to make," not the courts, Olson said. All but the Padilla case are due to be decided by the high court by late June. Administration lawyers say they are confident of winning most of the cases. However, some of Bush's critics believe the administration might have overplayed the theme of executive authority. "This president has taken an aggressive and extreme view of his power to act unilaterally without congressional or judicial review," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They have imposed maximum secrecy wherever possible, and they have asserted their actions are unreviewable by the courts. I think they will have a hard time selling that view to the Supreme Court."
They are held on evidence. And as I previously stated, I'd much rather they be held on "evidence" than returned back to finish their operations. I can understand some want them to be able to follow through on their mission before detaining. I prefer they be prevented in the first place. I believe I was very clear on this point. As much as MSM (and I'll include yours as well, as the UK has some moonbat news organizations as well) loves to paint the most negative of pictures of our countries and often times supporting (indirectly) the plight of terrorists, if there were people being held for no evidence "just because" we would hear the never ending cries of the looney left. Is that emperical evidence? Nope, but I have nothing that suggests people are just rounded up "because." Yes, there is. Many of these people have provided valuable evidence. And while some may be walking free, some that were released have since been detained AGAIN for similar reasons. You may be worried about those held indefinitely with no evidence, but I don't know of anyone being detained without evidence of wrong doing. Perhaps you are suggesting hypotheticals? Otherwise I presume you would have pointed out some who were in fact being detained without any evidence. Me personally? Prevention is a lot better than placing blame after the fact. Why wait for a mushroom cloud before taking action? Edit: Here is a list of information on those that were released, and have gone right back to terror: http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=news34304&Category=news&Subcategory=0 From a Reuters article:
Secrets about Bush Secrets are in the next article. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002198512_secrets06.html
I was arrested last night due to a clerical mistake the court made after I got a speeding ticket. Damn cop really cranked down on the cuffs for some reason. My wrists are still sore over 12 hours later. Anyway, I was only held for a while, maybe 20 minutes or so. But I can't imagine what it would be like for these people who are held without being charged and denied all rights. What a nightmare! Guilty or innocent, we have a set of laws to protect the accused. And it seems that these laws are going straight into the toilet. Terrorism = FEAR! It doesn't take long to connect the dots to see who benefits from this fear.
Sorry to hear that Crazy Rob, don't you think it is time to drop "Crazy" as your name Maybe they thought you were crazy You could always use the AnthonyCea defense, just plead insanity, it really works for some of us, I am still waiting for my nut check though
The last doctor that looked at me said I had the prostrate of a 16 year old, but that is the last time any man runs that test on me, this doctor enjoyed himself I think. I would rather die than do that again.
YIKES! I had that done once a few years ago when I was in the hospital. My girlfiend (now wife) was in the room at the time. How embarrassing!!!! "You might feel some pressure, Rob...."
You talking about his nut check, his prostrate examination or being arrested ??? I will take being beat up by the cops.....
I must admit your reference to MSM passed me by - I had no idea what you were on about (still don't) but I now assume it's some news channel or something. As for the news - I very rarely watch or read any. How would the looney left be shouting - they'd see exactley the same evidence we would (ie they'd not be allowed to see any). Would I rather potential terrorists were locked up before committing whatever act - damn right. On this I agree with you. Should these terrorists be held without trial - no. If there is evidence, then charge them - there are enough laws that they could be charged under, conspiracy to commit etc etc. I do not have proof that people are being held without evidence nor do I have proof that they are being held with evidence - and it is that simple fact that should have people worried, people simply CAN be held without evidence being presented. If a prime minister (talking about the UK here) can take a country to war on a lie (and yes it was a lie - his proof was flawed and he knew it, and admitted it afterwards) then how can we trust him (or his government) to use these draconian powers correctly. I know this isn't the situation in the US (your president cannot take the country to war without consent - I can't remember which houses consent). Many of the people in G'tmo have provided valuable evidence - prove it. How do you know that evidence didn't come from other intelligence sources - you don't (unless you're privy to that level of information - in which case you wouldn't be talking about it here ). We simply have to believe, on these matters, what our respective governments are telling us. The question comes down to - Do we believe that our governments are telling us the truth (as much as any politician does anyway). Recent history has shown us that in the UK, you cannot tell whether the government is telling the truth on sensitive matters (or contraversial matters) - therefore, you take a big risk in believing them in what they say their use of anti-terrorism laws are. My views are formed from my own experience (and others that I personnaly know) not from the badly informed shit I read in the papers or hear on the news.
Thanks, Wendy! I just didn't understand why the cuffs had to be so tight. The pain was so intense that I almost puked. And I have a fairly high pain threshold. I still can't make a fist today. [added] Did you guys check out fryman's new avatar? [/]
JL, GTech's term MSM may mean "main stream media" as you will see in this search. http://vivisimo.com/search?v:sources=Web&query=msm+michael+moore&x=56&y=12 MIA, if it is so boring why do you come back for entertainment You are sending some conflicting signals here
jlawrence MSM - Main Stream Media. I often take for granted some are not familiar with the term. So you are saying you have no proof that people are being held without evidence, but making an issue of it? So your outrage is hypothetical. A "could be," "might could happen," etc. You are entitled to that opinion. But I won't accept a personal belief without anything to back it up as anything more than that. There is evidence against those being held here. Take for example, the terrorist Anthony was trying to defend, Jose Padilla. There was plenty of evidence against him. He's not going anywhere, whether detained or convicted. So without any evidence that people are being detained "just because," I don't see it as a valid issue. I know without a doubt that "I" won't be detained. Now, if I were buying books about how to build a bomb, or hanging out on known terrorists sites screaming "Death to America" from my Kansas home, exchanging emails with others that are known terrorists, then I might be a bit worried. Since those things don't apply to me, I have no worry at all. And since you have no evidence that any of the things you are outraged over are in fact happening, I'd say it's a dead issue.