United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general88/supreme.htm
Published: Dec 21, 2009
Author: naked capitalism
Post Date: 2009-12-21 19:46:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 1539
Comments: 22
Reader Walter passed along this distressing sighting from Chris Floyd's blog. American civil liberties were gutted last week, and the media failed to report it. Anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." The development? If the president or one of his subordinates declares someone to be an "enemy combatant" (the 21st century version of "enemy of the state") he is denied any protection of the law. So any trouble-maker (which means anyone) can be whisked away, incarcerated, tortured, "disappeared," you name it. Floyd's commentary: (http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887- dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html) After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever - save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials. It is hard to overstate the significance of this horrid decision. The fact that the Supreme Court authorized this land grab says we no longer have an independent judiciary, that the Supreme Court itself is gutting the protections supposedly provided by the legal system. Per Floyd: In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence. Now Floyd saw this mainly as an issue of the treatment of enemy combatants and Obama hypocrisy about torture, which is bad enough: The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of "national emergency." And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law. And yet this is what Barack Obama - who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer - has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution.let's be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand - in court - that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities. Yves here. The implications are FAR worse. Anyone can be stripped, with NO RECOURSE, of all their legal rights on a Presidential say so. Readers in the US no longer have any security under the law. Roman citizens enjoyed a right to a trial, a right of appeal, and could not be tortured, whipped, or executed except if found guilty of treason, and anyone charged with treason could demand a trial in Rome. We have regressed more than 2000 years with this appalling ruling. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/supreme-court-guts-due-process-protection.html
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Have you seen an opinion other than Chris Floyd's? I would like to see a citation and a case name.
I am almost certain this article is pure bullshit and political spin because this finding was about guerillas captured in foreign lands. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights do NOT apply to foreigners in foreign countries,and they do not apply to un-uniformed insurgents fighting a guerrilla war. The Genevea Convention only applies to uniformed troops,not insurgents. This would be outrageous if it were about US citizens inside the US being treated this way,but it's not. According to international law and the Geneva Convention it is perfectly legal to execute guerrillas caught fighting in civilian clothes right where and when you catch them. They have no rights,period.
Just stumbled upon it. You think it isn't true?
Center for Constitutional Rights I cannot find a citation or case name.
I do not believe that is an accurate statement. Jose Padilla is an American citizen who was arrested at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, declared an illegal enemy combatant by George W. Bush on June 9, 2002 and transferred to a military prison. He was tortured for three and a half years before having the enemy combatant charge dropped against him. He was then transferred back into civilian custody. Now it is inarguable that Padilla was a complete dirt bag who likely deserved everything he got, but the fact remains that he was an American citizen on American soil who was stripped of ALL of his constitutional rights on the whim of the executive. If it can happen to him it can happen to anyone, and considering that the government ALWAYS abuses its authority it WILL happen for unjustifiable reasons. It's just a matter of time.
Nope, I doubt it. I looked at the US Supreme Court web site and didn't see anything.
Update on this, I did find where the court denied them a hearing.
I am only VERY vaguely familiar with Padilla,but if what you say is true and the case IS about him OR ANY OTHER US CITIZEN ARRESTED IN THIS COUNTRY,you are 100% on target with your comments. Any government that has the power to do it to him has the power to do it to thee and me. We are either all free and all have the same rights,or none of us are free and have any rights.
"Them" who? Could you please provide a link on this thread?
Any government that has the power to do it to him has the power to do it to thee and me. We are either all free and all have the same rights,or none of us are free and have any rights. The Bush Administration's Torture of U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla If you have the time it would be well worth the effort to read this article about what happened to Padilla. Like I said earlier, the fact that he likely deserved everything he got is besides the point.
Fibr Dog started me on the right path with his link to Center for Constitutional Rights, which says this happened on Dec 14th. The article has this quote: The four former detainees – Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith – were held from 2002 to 2004 at Guantánamo before being sent home to England without being charged with any offense. Going back to the Supreme Court website, I looked at the 2009 Court Orders and when I clicked on the link for 12/14/09, I got this PDF document. On Page 3, there it is. CERTIORARI DENIED . . . 09-227 RASUL, SHAFIQ, ET AL. V. MYERS, RICHARD, ET AL. For info on Padilla try the wiki link here.
Its also the hypocrisy of any that criticized Cheney and Bush for such while giving Odinga a pass.
----------------------------------------------------------- Partisan's are partisans be they Republicrat or Democan. There were plenty of people who predicted that the Obama supporters who bitched about the war on terror, torture, etc., etc., would embrace it once Obama took office. They were right. Just look at Robin's forum "the people forum" for an example.
What does that mean?
Hey yukon, can you see Russia from your house? LOLAY!
From the tech law journal: Certiorari is a Latin word meaning "to be informed of, or to be made certain in regard to". It is also the name given to certain appellate proceedings for re-examination of actions of a trial court, or inferior appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court still uses the term certiorari in the context of appeals. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ. Writ of Certiorari. A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Cert. Denied. The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited. Someone with a legal claim files a lawsuit in a trial court, such as a U.S. District Court, which receives evidence, and decides the facts and law. Someone who is dissatisfied with a legal decision of the trial court can appeal. In the federal system, this appeal usually would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is required to consider and rule on all properly presented appeals. The highest federal court in the U.S. is the Supreme Court. Someone who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeals can request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. This request is named a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court can refuse to take the case. In fact, the Court receives thousands of "Cert Petitions" per year, and denies all but about one hundred. If the Court accepts the case, it grants a Writ of Certiorari. "Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but a judicial discretion. A petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Rule 10, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari process is covered in Rules 10-16, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. The effect of denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is often debated. The decision of the Court of Appeals is unaffected. However, the decision does not necessarily reflect agreement with the decision of the lower court.
Absolutely! Governments,ALL governments have the bad habit of using outrageous cases to establish bad legal precedents. The problem is that once these precedents are established,they are no longer used exclusively against the bad guys. They expand their reach and expand the list of what qualifies somebody to be a "bag guy". It happened in Russia in the 1920's and in Germany in the 1930's,and look at what happened in both nations. Just because we are Americans that doesn't mean it can't happen here if we're not vigilant.
Thanks. Then those 4,at least,weren't US citizens. On Page 3, there it is. CERTIORARI DENIED . . . 09-227 RASUL, SHAFIQ, ET AL. V. MYERS, RICHARD, ET AL. What does that mean?
See Post #15 above.
Two words: Patriot Act.
The precedent was established by the handling of German Americans accused of spying during WWII, according to some of the reading on this case.
Thanks.
Two more words: Jorge Bush
#2. To: A K A Stone, *Military or Vets Affairs* (#0)
#3. To: Abcdefg (#1)
#4. To: Abcdefg (#1)
Have you seen an opinion other than Chris Floyd's? I would like to see a citation and a case name.
#5. To: sneakypete (#2)
This would be outrageous if it were about US citizens inside the US being treated this way,but it's not.
#6. To: A K A Stone, Fibr Dog (#3)
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: Fibr Dog (#5)
the fact remains that he was an American citizen on American soil who was stripped of ALL of his constitutional rights on the whim of the executive. If it can happen to him it can happen to anyone, and considering that the government ALWAYS abuses its authority it WILL happen for unjustifiable reasons. It's just a matter of time.
#9. To: Abcdefg (#7)
I did find where the court denied them a hearing.
#10. To: sneakypete (#8)
I am only VERY vaguely familiar with Padilla,but if what you say is true and the case IS about him OR ANY OTHER US CITIZEN ARRESTED IN THIS COUNTRY,you are 100% on target with your comments.
#11. To: sneakypete (#9)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Now Floyd saw this mainly as an issue of the treatment of enemy combatants and Obama hypocrisy about torture, which is bad enough
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#13. To: WhiteSands, A K A Stone (#12)
Its also the hypocrisy of any that criticized Cheney and Bush for such while giving Odinga a pass.
#14. To: Abcdefg (#11)
On Page 3, there it is. CERTIORARI DENIED . . . 09-227 RASUL, SHAFIQ, ET AL. V. MYERS, RICHARD, ET AL.
#15. To: We The People (#14)
Certiorari
#16. To: Fibr Dog (#10)
the fact that he likely deserved everything he got is besides the point.
#17. To: Abcdefg (#11)
The article has this quote: The four former detainees – Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith – were held from 2002 to 2004 at Guantánamo before being sent home to England without being charged with any offense.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
CERTIORARI DENIED . . . What does that mean?
#19. To: Abcdefg (#1)
I would like to see a citation and a case name.
#20. To: Bickus Dickus (#19)
#21. To: Abcdefg (#18)
#22. To: Bickus Dickus (#19)
Two words: Patriot Act.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]