Respect for the law?
Oct. 8th, 2004 08:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI watched part of the debate... I was less undewhelmed with the President than I usually am, though I didn't exactly thrill to his delivery, the way the girl who asked the question taxes and abortion was.... I don't think I've seen such a cross between calf-love and simpering lust in one place before.
But it was his comment on the Supremes which got me... He wants a, "strict constructionist" (which phrase makes me reach for my wallet, to make sure my pocket's not been picked), but his Justice Dept. seems to think the strict construction of the Constitution is for, "girlie men."
Viz: Scotus Blog
4:40 PM | Lyle Denniston
U.S. v. Detainees -- "No rights at all"
(This is one of a continuing series of reports on the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling June 28 in the combined cases of Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S.)
The federal government, in its first full response to the challenges to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has made clear how little it believes it lost when the Supreme Court last June gave the detainees a chance to seek their release. Relying as the Justice Department often has on a sweeping claim of presidential warmaking power, the 75 pages of legal argument filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday urge a dismissal of all the detainees' challenges with no relief whatsoever.
It goes on, basically arguing the point made by the office of the White House Counsel that the President has inherent powers which make this whole question moot.
A bit more, from the Blog
The basic legal point of the brief, of course, is that, now that a government response has been filed, the habeas petitions should simply be dismissed, as a matter of law, without even an evidentiary hearing. But, the brief goes on to argue that, if the District Court decides to proceed any further, "any role that the courts have in reviewing the substantive bases for the Commander in Chief's exercise of this authority to determine the combatant status of detainees is extremely circumscribed."
How circumscribed? The brief contends that, at most, "the only proper role for the court with respect to an enemy combatant status determination" is to rely with great deference upon the findings of the combatant status review tribunals that the military is now conducting at Guantanamo -- proceedings in which detaines have no lawyers. The Court, it says, could do no more than "confirm that a factual basis exists supporting the military's determination." In other words, it says, if there is any court review at all, the standard to be applied is that "some evidence" is sufficient. That, it assures the Court, will mean that "an individual is not being detained merely arbitrarily."
The brief also addresses the specific constitutional and statutory arguments that the detainees' lawyers have advanced, and finds each of them to be "meritless." Among its arguments is the assertion that, if the detainees have any due process rights at all, they are being satisfied fully by the status review tribunals at Guantanamo.
So the only thing the Court meant, when it said the detainees have a right to make Habeas petitions, according to the Gov't, is the right to make them... they can't have any expectation of actually having them heard.
I am afraid, very afraid, of what will happen if the present occupant of the White House wins this election.
But it was his comment on the Supremes which got me... He wants a, "strict constructionist" (which phrase makes me reach for my wallet, to make sure my pocket's not been picked), but his Justice Dept. seems to think the strict construction of the Constitution is for, "girlie men."
Viz: Scotus Blog
4:40 PM | Lyle Denniston
U.S. v. Detainees -- "No rights at all"
(This is one of a continuing series of reports on the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling June 28 in the combined cases of Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S.)
The federal government, in its first full response to the challenges to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has made clear how little it believes it lost when the Supreme Court last June gave the detainees a chance to seek their release. Relying as the Justice Department often has on a sweeping claim of presidential warmaking power, the 75 pages of legal argument filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday urge a dismissal of all the detainees' challenges with no relief whatsoever.
It goes on, basically arguing the point made by the office of the White House Counsel that the President has inherent powers which make this whole question moot.
A bit more, from the Blog
The basic legal point of the brief, of course, is that, now that a government response has been filed, the habeas petitions should simply be dismissed, as a matter of law, without even an evidentiary hearing. But, the brief goes on to argue that, if the District Court decides to proceed any further, "any role that the courts have in reviewing the substantive bases for the Commander in Chief's exercise of this authority to determine the combatant status of detainees is extremely circumscribed."
How circumscribed? The brief contends that, at most, "the only proper role for the court with respect to an enemy combatant status determination" is to rely with great deference upon the findings of the combatant status review tribunals that the military is now conducting at Guantanamo -- proceedings in which detaines have no lawyers. The Court, it says, could do no more than "confirm that a factual basis exists supporting the military's determination." In other words, it says, if there is any court review at all, the standard to be applied is that "some evidence" is sufficient. That, it assures the Court, will mean that "an individual is not being detained merely arbitrarily."
The brief also addresses the specific constitutional and statutory arguments that the detainees' lawyers have advanced, and finds each of them to be "meritless." Among its arguments is the assertion that, if the detainees have any due process rights at all, they are being satisfied fully by the status review tribunals at Guantanamo.
So the only thing the Court meant, when it said the detainees have a right to make Habeas petitions, according to the Gov't, is the right to make them... they can't have any expectation of actually having them heard.
I am afraid, very afraid, of what will happen if the present occupant of the White House wins this election.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: 3 questions
Date: 2004-10-09 02:20 pm (UTC)So much of it seems to be against interest... Fred Clark, at Slacktivist pointed to a piece about Kansas, and how they vote against interest... how the Right paints a picture, which makes it seem they are helping the little guy. Orcinus says its trappings are fascistic, and that the ever present war was being waged, before That Tuesday, on Liberals.
There is some substance to what he says. Rush, et al, have been harping on how "un-American" liberals are, how the values of a liberal society are bad for people, and how Liberals want to destroy America. And they've been successful.
I think that no matter who had beaten Bush Pere, the attack machine of Scaife, et al, would have gone into high gear... it was to their benefit that Clinton was such an easy target. It was to our benefit he was such a solid politician that he could survive that.
For those who don't read... well Bush lied to them last night. He said the 9/11 comission endorsed his actions... that we were safer, but not safe. His minions do the same. One went on the air, sometime in the recent past, and used the trick of specificity, repeating that "page "x" of the report said the Administration was doing well, when in fact, it said no such thing. Did the host of the show get a copy of the book and check, call him on it? No... the lie went unchallenged, and that makes the people who watch believe it.
Things like this... they are arcane... and presented as, "legal shennigans of, "activist judges," and who is there to challenge it.
They believe because so few speak out, and silence equals assent.
TK