It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bleys
Wow! This is a huge decision that contains 3 different mind-sets involving detainees. Most significant is that Justice Scalia's opinion is the most liberal. He basically came out and said that if you're going to detain someone, charge them with something or release them.
"It follows from what I have said that Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless 1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or 2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, it is hard to see what scalia is trying to do. The majority decision was to vacate the decision and remand it back to the lower courts, a victory for Hamdi, therefore despite Scalia’s words, he still voted to support the government position.
Writing for an 8-1 majority in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the Court has "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." Four of the Justices (Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia and Stevens) said that they would go further and order Hamdi’s immediate release, and Justice Souter in particular said that holding Hamdi incommunicado is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 03-6696.
Originally posted by Phoenix
As is apparent from posts so far one could read this decision either way as it relates to Gitmo type prisoners they get the right to be charged or released and if charged it would seem they could be held somewhat indefinitely.
The one clear loss to the government that I see in this is the advantage of recieving intelligence from one of these individuals without other parties concerned knowing of it. This could have a detrimental effect on catching or breaking up terror cells.
I guess we have to balance the intell loss against keeping our freedoms.
from the decision: JUSTICE O’CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE
KENNEDY, and JUSTICE BREYER, concluded that although Congress
authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances
alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the
United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful oppor-
tunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral
decisionmaker. Pp. 14–15.
JUSTICE SOUTER, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, concluded that Hamdi’s detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportu-nity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2–3,
O’CONNOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.