Usa Supreme Court Finally Something Correct !

[leeandrew]

I am so pleased that the democracy that we attempt to plant on foriegn soils finally got something correct today. It is refreshing to see the US Supreme Court say to the executive branch of our federal government thatthey cannot abbreviate due process for anyone.

The decision is whether the laws of this great republic can or cannot be witheld of those coming to trial in our courts and or tribunals.

Our highest court acknowledges that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and representation. Now if only that Bush Vs. Gore decision could be reversed...

The following is from the Washingtion Post.

LeeAndrew

PS Suffice to say I DO NOT support or condone terrorsit, attached replies with reference to my level of patriotism will be ignored.



Enemy Combatants' Can Challenge Detentions

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 28, 2004; 11:58 AM


In two crucial decisions today on the scope of presidential wartime powers, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's claim that it can hold suspected terrorists or "enemy combatants" on American soil without giving them a day in court.



The court said detainees retain their rights, at least to a legal hearing, even if they are held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Guantanamo is under U.S. control and thus appropriately within the jurisdiction of the United States courts, the high court ruled.

Nor does it matter whether the suspect is an American citizen or a foreigner, the justices said.

The president's constitutional powers, even when supported by Congress in wartime, do not include the authority to close the doors of the federal judiciary, the justices said.

The rulings were the court's most significant statement in decades on the scope of presidential war powers to deal with "enemy combatants," such as someone seized on a battlefield in Afghanistan. Those powers, under the constitution, are insufficient to close the doors of the federal courts, the high court said.

The decisions came in a package of cases all related to arrests after Sept. 11, 2001 of people deemed terrorists or enemy combatants by the government.

The cases were Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld and Rasul et al v. Bush. The court declined on technical grounds to rule on the merits of a challenge brought by Jose Padilla, who was arrested in Chicago after a flight from Pakistan.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[=^..^=]

i wonder that will happen in australia based on this
currently the police can hold ANY person they SUSPECT of being a terrorist - with no proof needed - for as long as they like.

it's a stupid law - because a cop just has to not liek you and say they "SUSPECT" you of terrorist acts and you're fucked