Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040628/D83G2UC81.html

----------------------

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator, 42 B.C., Speech in the Roman Senate

The Republic is now firmly finished and caput! It's every man for himself at this apex. The law will no longer protect you, your family or your wealth .... Good Luck Folks!

These headline-responding histrionics are remarkable even for Stoolville.

Are you purposefully choosing to ignore the part where the Court says detainees have a right to legal redress their detention through normal legal proceedings?

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.
Collapse of the Republic, My Ass

This decision is important enough that we should find the link on the SCOTUS website and read it.

Frankly, the decision sounds like a punt to me. SCOTUS is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Yes, the president has 'limited' authority to declare U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, and hold them without charges, counsel or trial. But it's not 'unlimited' authority, and the courts at some future date may draw some kind of bright or fuzzy line between the two.

Well of course, this is just gibberish. SCOTUS has punted the ball past the Nov. 2004 election, while cautiously sticking an index finger into the wind to see whether the crypto fascists or the outright fascists win the election (if there IS an election).

Then, depending on the election result and what the next set of overlords desire, 'limited' authority to hold citizens without trial might be defined as anywhere from 6 months (as in Singapore) to 'renewable indefinitely.'

What DIDN'T happen today was any clear, principled statement that the Bill of Rights prohibits this type of behavior on the part of the government -- that holding U.S. citizens without charges or trial spits in the face of the principles this government was formed to guard and protect.

The policy remains the same: instead of openly declaring martial law, just chip away at the Constitution, piece by piece by piece, while proclaiming that nothing has changed, and all of our rights are protected. The frog has reached boiling temperature, and is no longer capable of jumping out of the pan.

Note: It appears that more than 1 relevant opinion was issued today.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

Listen to the discussion now on Cspan2 for free at www.cspan.com.

Oral arguments from Rasul v. Bush right now.

Also, can download judgments at www.cspan.org.

Thanks for the link, Jimi.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, it's mentioned that Souter and Ginsburg felt that Hamdi's detention was unauthorized. But they joined the majority in agreeing that Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to submit evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.

WHOA! Wait just a damn minute here.

Suddenly the burden of proof is upon the citizen to prove that he is NOT an enemy combatant? Otherwise the government (probably using secret, unavailable evidence) prevails in declaring that he IS an enemy combatant?

Haven't had time to read the whole decision yet. But I can sniff the flavor already. While theoretically Constitutional guarantees still exist, the burden heaped on the citizen to obtain them has just gotten dramatically heavier.

Proving a negative ("I am not an enemy combatant") is now a requisite to obtain Sixth Amendment due process which heretofore was universal and beyond question? Doesn't sound very positive to me.

SCOTUS has been interpreting away the Bill of Rights for 70 years now, and it smells like they just did it again ... although this particular sellout is a 'work in progress' designed to grind on until the next election, coup d'etat, SCOTUS personnel change, terror attack, or whatever. Keep those options open ...

14th Amendment Ignored: Unequal treatment of citizens

"breaking", no wire articles yet: just announced on CNN that on the Padilla Case, widely considered the more important case, the court has ruled that this case has to be refiled...

Under status of forces agreements with host governments, the US exercises
minimum dominion over the areas a base occupies. Conversely, where no
status of forces agreements exist...such as Gitmo.....the US has exclusive
dominion, the same as an Embassy.

When Gitmo was chosen, it was an attempt to muddy the jurisdictional waters
while the laws were revised.

Fundamentally, political prisoners, at least those that are known, whether domestic or foreign, have have access to courts. This SCOTUS ruling just turned
justice upsidedown and essentially distroyed the theory behind habeas corpus.

An chainsaw has been taken to the Constitution....the same Constitution that
everyone who holds any sworn office swears to protect and defend. The dicotomy is not lost on this writer.

Divide and conquer!!!!!!!

Fascists are dealt a blow!

Judicial Branch has a role overseeing the arrogant President

Quote: The arrogant, outrageous, and meritless "military claim must subject itself to the judicial process of having its reasonableness determined and its conflicts with other interests reconciled" 28/98

Quote: We find that "it does not infringe on the core role of the military for the courts 0to exercise their own time honored and constitutionally mandated roles of reviewing and resolving claims like those presented here."

Banning the courts from reviewing a fascist-President is at odds with the notion of separation of powers and allows power to be condensed into the hand of a fascist dictator

Quote: "Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government." 29/98

War is no excuse for a fascist dictator in the White House to ignore the constitution

We may be at war ... "But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties" 29/98

The President, regardless whether he is a moron or a fascist, must respect "...the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns."

War is not a blank check to commit abuses in the name of nebulous principles, "We have long since 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." 29/98Arrogant dogs in DoJ, DoD and the White House staff may not rely on memoranda from any attorney creating excuses to ignore the laws, the constitution, or our liability to honor treaties through Article VI. If anyone advocates ignoring these laws they have committed impeachable offenses.

Writ of Habeas Corpus has not been revoked by the Patriot Act

The fascists in DoJ and the White House are creating a ruse, pretext and non-sense to suggest that "special situations' warrant keeping people detained anywhere, worldwide without a right to trial or ability to talk to counsel. The court emphatically stated, "All agree suspension of the writ has not occurred here.' 8/98

Meaning: The lying dogs in DoJ, White House, and DoD are making up non-sense to justify avoiding accountability for their ruses, non-sense excuses, and ridiculous arguments about why the citizenry of this country should put up with their lawlessness, arrogance, and complete disregard for the constitution.

There is no difference between the Taliban and the fascists in DoJ, DoD or the White House.

They ignore the laws, create excuses, and use force to manipulate a civilian population. Do not forget that the constitution comes first, before the White House, before the fascists in DoJ and before the monkey-heads in law enforcement and the military. They have guns because their minds are weak--they have inadequate mental powers to persuade the world of their merits. They do not deserve to be applauded, but jailed and treated with the same contempt they show toward those they allegedly "serve": Like dogs.

Let the arrogant violators of the constitution in DoJ and local law enforcement be thrown into the prisons they have committed abuses. It is to this end that motivates law enforcement to commit greater abuses and avoid consequences. Let the dogs in DoJ suffer the consequences of allowing an abusive prison system to remain unreformed and out of control.

What can be done

Law enforcement dogs need to be tracked and monitoried at a Federal Level: Public safety means respecting the constitution, not creating barriers to accountability.

Remanding Padilla means to send the case back. This isn't over, folks.

"We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice." 27/44

When the court says "without prejudice" this means, "To set aside the present action but leave open the possibility of another suit on the same claim."

Translation: It means, "You have learned from your error. Do it over, make it better, and we'll let the claim/complaint start over at the point of entry into the legal system as if there were no errors. Now, go forth, slay dragons. May the force be with you."

In Rasul v. Bush, the majority held that two Australian and twelve Kuwaiti petitioners held in Guantanamo had the right to have their habeas corpus plea adjudicated.

The Court had to explain the differences from a 1948 case, where German war prisoners in Landsberg Prison, Germany, were denied habeas review in the U.S. courts.

One issue cited is that under its 1903 lease, the U.S. exercises total jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay, though Cuba retains "ultimate sovereignty." Even the Administration agreed that the U.S. courts would have jurisdiction over the habeas petition of a U.S. citizen imprisoned in Guantanamo. The question was whether the jurisdiction extends to aliens. The Court said it did.

Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, dissented. He argued that Guantanamo is Cuban territory; it's not in any U.S. court district, so the Court (under the same logic as the 1948 decision regarding the German prisoners) should not entertain a habeas petition from aliens detained there. He argued that it will undermine the war effort.

Scalia was so pissed that he refused to follow the standard "I respectfully dissent" formula. Instead, he signed it "I dissent" ... as Justice Ginsberg did in the case which installed Bush to the presidency in 2000. As hip-hop culture spreads, one can imagine future Supreme Court dissents signed, "Up yours, MFers!"

You know what bothered me most about this decision? In describing the background of the case on page 1, the Court referred to the four airplanes hijacked on Sept 11. It stated that only one of the them, Flight 93, was diverted from its target by "the heroic actions of the passengers."

WHY does SCOTUS make such presumptions, when there is no need to? The 9/11 commission hasn't even issued its report yet. The 'heroic passengers storming the cockpit' scenario is one possible explanation of what happened to Flight 93. Given the miles-long debris trail, a military shoot down (by a pilot who has now been named on the internet) is another possibility.

Whatever the reality of Flight 93 may be, it struck me as highly unprofessional for the Supreme Court to pronounce one theory of Flight 93's demise as fact, when it wasn't pertinent or necessary to resolving the Rasul case. To me, it is another not-so-subtle indication of bias, of having already swallowed the "official" explanation of events. If the heirs of the Flight 93 victims should ever find evidence confirming a military shootdown, the Court has already prejudiced itself by adopting another version of the event. Scandalous.

As if we needed one more reason to throw these guys out of the House... I still have a button from 2000 that says "it's the supreme court stupid"

Let me quote a couple of passages from Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which runs 99 pages. The first quote is from the main opinion, page 14:

Mr. Machinehead;

I believe that Lincoln reacted to Chief Justice Taney's pronouncement, that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, by signing a warrant for Taney's arrest.

However, I don't believe that the warrant was executed or that Taney was ever detained or imprisoned.

'Chine, is there also legal training in that quiver of yours?

nice work MH, you lawdog you

Jorma - I believe you are mistaken. I just listened to the arguments on C=span. "Court rules that US citizens can be held indefintely without charges or trial". That means that US citizens already arrested in Chicago, Indiana and New York - and all future such "enemy combatants" may have the right to challenge the charges before a military tribunal in a closed courtroom ( because of national security), but can be charged on hearsay evidence and may hire counsel, but will not be provided counsel, and will be assumed to be guilty with the burden of proof falling on them. As for me, I am leaving the US forever. NOW

In a Counterpunch essay, lawyer Elaine Cassel takes a dim view of the Supreme Court's decisions:

A completely opposite reaction from the McPaper channel of the lapdog press:

If indeed the spirit of the law has been brought around to something compatible with the Orwellian drivel that characterizes most every word from this administration's foul mouth, then in the end it won't matter what the Court said or didn't say. As seen in some of the reactions in this thread, the rules at issue here go to the very heart of the social contract in this country. If blackletter rules and dubious political maxims will replace the spirit of the constitution in the nation's courtrooms, then truly all is lost. The abuses committed by Bushco can be possibly redressed with an election and perhaps a trial for war crimes. If the Court is going to start clearcutting the old growth law, however, then there's nothing left to do or say. But it makes me, an innocent person, scared to be found anywhere on this earth by a power that still espouses the notion of manifest destiny while allowing hallowed principles of constitutional law to be trumped by the tripe spewing from a moron so complete as Dubya.

You know MH, if you keep this up, we are going to build a little room for you at Guantanamo.

Trust W. He knows what’s best. He has God on his side and was nearly elected president.

You’re for him or you’re against him. Its easy to get Christ and W mixed up.

I once served Justice Scalia a scotch and water. What a little toad he is. I keep thinking I should have poisoned his sorry ass when I had the chance. But Bush would have installed someone worse, as hard as that is to believe. It is OVER for our republican govt. Dictatorship, probably a military one, is on the way. We print money like a banana republic, why not have a "generalissimo" for a ruler as well?

Whatever became of the duck-hunting scandal with Scalia and Cheney?

The Supreme Court seems to be getting a bit of an unfairly bad rap here today. A number of commentators – none of whom could be regarded as friends of this administration – see things very differently:

"Today's historic rulings are a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts," said Steve Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "The administration designed its war on terrorism in an effort to insulate its actions from judicial review, but the Supreme Court today clearly and overwhelmingly rejected that strategy," he added.

"By recognising Mr. Hamdi's right to challenge his detention in court with a lawyer, the Court reaffirmed that the independent judiciary remains a very real check on presidential power – even over issues of national security," said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security program at Human Rights First (HRF).

In my brief layman’s perusal of the actual judgements I found nothing to contradict these interpretations. Indeed the Rasul v. Bush judgement struck me as a stinging rebuke of the government’s position. The majority in their opinion reject all elements of the government’s case and seem to me to go out of their way to interpret the reach of writs of habeas corpus as broadly as possible. Their wording in finding that the petitioner’s claim that their alleged treatment would in fact constitute a violation of the Constitution or laws and treaties of the United States could not in my view be stronger:

“Petitioners ’ allegations —that,although they have engaged neither in combat nor in acts of terrorism against the United States,they have been held in Executive detention for more than two years in territory
subject to the long-term,exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States,without access to counsel and without being charged with any wrongdoing —unquestionably describe “custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’”

MH refers to Scalia’s finger to the majority but the majority opinion has some pretty caustic things to say about him as well. I haven’t read a lot of Supreme Court cases but the following language strikes me as probably about as critical as they’re likely to ever get:

“The dissent also disingenuously contends . . . . . ”

and

“But resisting the practical consequences of his position,he suggests that he might nevertheless recognize an “atextual exception ” to his statutory rule for citizens held beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the federal district courts”.

I think we have to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has to work with the law and with precedent. They’re not free to simply ad lib. It was Congress that in an act of supine and shameful stupidity granted effective warmaking powers to the executive and the Supreme Court has to deal with that reality in reviewing these petitions. Let me just finish with a few relevant quotes from the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld judgement:

“In so holding, we necessarily reject the Government ’s assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances.Indeed,the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers,as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since 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.”

“Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict,it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.”

“Thus,while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action,it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the
factual basis for his detention by his government,simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge.”

“Any process in which the Executive’s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short.”

“He [Hamdi] unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand.”

No doubt many uncertainties remain as to how all this will turn out but it seems to be putting at least a decent spoke in the administration's wheel.

regards

Basho

So Basho, How does someone prove that they're innocent if there's a presumption of guilt? This sounds like the philosophy of preemption that backed Saddam into a corner. As in, "prove you don't have weapons of mass distruction". Prove you don't beat your dog. Prove you aren't a complete pervert.

As far as incarceration without legal representation and the ensuing torture, I had a thought about orange alerts the other day. Remember the standard explanation? The administration was alerted that "noise" indicated a particular act of terrorism could take place. The noise was probably coming from Gitmo, and other facilities. Torture techniques are designed to make someone say just about anything, true or false. And "noise" is probably a really good word for it, as when a prisoner finally "admits" he was planning to blow up the Panama Canal, he's either neatly arranged in a human pyramid, or screaming at the top of his lungs with a rottweiler firmly attached to his ass.

Remember the exploding beer cooler story? Some poor dude probably had the thumbscrews on for hours and had run down the whole list of possible terrorist acts until he finally comes up with this beauty.

Dissent is patriotic

(originally posted under Fahrenheit 9/11)

Dissent is patriotic

Many people cried during the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie brings us back to the tragedy of 9/11 and examines the on-going Iraq War. It's painful to look back, but we must.

After 9/11, the nation was in grief, shock, and anger. People looked to the President for leadership. The public supported him with a historic approval rating of 92%. But Bush used the public trust during this crisis to pursue a secret agenda. He misled the country into an illegal invasion of Iraq.

Bush couldn't have done it all himself. Most democrats voted for the war without questioning it. The Democrats voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it! The so-called opposition party capitulated. For almost 2 years, we have had only one party: opposition in appearances only. The legislative branch has become a rubber stamp for the Administration.

The media has done even worse. With just six media conglomeration controlling virtually everything seen, it is the owners of media who control what goes out. The result is either outright censorship or self-censorship by reporters who want to hold onto their jobs. (A good portion of footage in Fahrenheit 9/11 was filmed by the mainstream media, but was never broadcasted.) The media didn't question; they didn't publish anything dissenting. Fox News anchors even announced publicly that they were proud to be biased. They deserted their duty as journalists. They reduced themselves to a propaganda machine for the Bush Administration and we are left with only one voice.

The United States has turned away from the very freedom and democracy it proclaims to defend. With only one party and one voice in the United States, and with the U. S. possessing the world's most lethal weapon systems, the result has been predictable and tragic. At the time, America cheered and rallied behind the President when Bush declared to the world:

"You are either with us, or against us."

"No country in the world can tell America what to do or what not to do. We are going in. … The only thing we will talk to this Iraqi regime is unconditional surrender."

Many felt it was necessary to have a strong President no matter what.

On the opening night of the Iraq War, when people watched as bombs dropped on Baghdad and Iraqis were killed, we cheered. Many felt that we were getting our revenge for 9/11. We bombed the terrorists into submission, and we were told that freedom and democracy had prevailed.

Fahrenheit 9/11 re-examines this same period of time we all experienced. With footages and information that were withheld from public, we can now see what really happened:

Bush took advantage of the tragedy of 9/11. In the name of fighting terrorism, Bush deceived the nation into invading a sovereign nation for its oil. Bush betrayed the trust of America. He betrayed the sacrifice of soldiers fighting and dying for the country: all for profit.

What have we done? What went wrong? Why didn't we know so many of the facts that the movie presented BEFORE the war?

It is because America abandoned freedom and democracy. We embraced one party and one voice. We don't think critically any more. We don't ask questions any more. We embrace what we are told. Fascism has quietly conquered America, during a crisis, using scare tactics and the sugar coating of patriotism.

When the whole nation rallied behind the President while infected with patriotic fever, giving Bush 92% historic approval rating, we still had 8% of the population who held out and asked the tough questions.

The nation had gone mad in herds, but the 8% of dissenters helped us wake up from this nightmare, one by one. Fahrenheit 9/11 is one of the successful efforts which came from this 8%.

Yes, dissent is patriotic, AND necessary.

I've read of some of the absurd confessions extracted by the OGPU (as they called it in those days) from tortured Russians in the '30s:

A semi-literate moujik confessed to attempt to blow up a bridge -- with a box of rat poison.

An elderly scrubwoman confessed to seducing a foreign ambassador.

If there must be torturers, at least let them have a sense of humor.

"Put down that keg of Budweiser and come out with your hands up!"

Jimi, thanks for those most interesting quotes. He seems to make a lot of sense and adds what I think in the current debate is an important clarification of our sometimes simplistic notion of what the presumption of innocence really means.

Now, to Threadbare’s and MH’s very reasonable and well argued disagreements.

In layman’s terms it seems to me the Supreme Court’s key task in each of these cases was to rule on whether the compainants have the right, despite the peculiar circumstances arising from Congress’ grant of exceptional powers to the executive, to challenge their detention openly, and with independent legal representation, before a neutral court. As noted in the earlier post, the answer broadly was an unequivocal yes.

“Whether and what further proceedings may become necessary after respondents make their response to the merits of petitioners ’claims are matters that we need not address now.What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive ’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. Answering that question in the affirmative,we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for the District Court to consider in the first instance the merits of petitioners ’ claims.” (Rasul v Bush)

Now, it may turn out to be of real concern that in their summing up in Hamdi v Rumsfeld the majority left open the possibility that in cases of “enemy detainees who assert prisoner-of-war status” appropriate standards of neutral review could be met by “an appropriately authorised and properly constituted military tribunal”. Since the regulations for these already exist, one doesn’t have to be a cycnic to guess that the government will in future cases of this kind take that route. Some protection may be provided by the court’s comments on what would constitute appropriate due process:

“An interrogation by one’s captor, however effective an intelligence-gathering tool, hardly constitutes a constitutionally adequate factfinding before a neutral decisionmaker.”

“ . . . one is entitled as a matter of due process of law to an adjudicator who is not in a situation which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge ...which might lead him not to hold the balance nice,clear and true. ”

“Likewise,we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive’s discretion in the realm of detentions. See St.Cyr, 533 U.S.,at 301 (“At its historical core,the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention,and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest ”).”

The other potential clanger hidden in there – and elsewhere in these cases – is the regular assertion by the court that Congress has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Hmmmm . . . . .

As to Padilla’s case, my first reaction was very much like that of MH. To reject the suit on the basis of jurisdiction did seem like an exercise in pure pettifoggery. Lovely word, MH. Here too, only time will tell but I do wonder whether given the clear precedent of Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Padilla’s lawyers won’t be able to make very short work of a reapplication in the appropriate court.

As MH rightly points out, the devil will be in the detail.

On a personal note, and so that my comments yesterday and today are taken in context, I have thought -- like so many on this board – that ever since 9/11 America has been flirting with the abyss. The laws, precedents and traditions built up over centuries which we all tend to take for granted are in danger of being dissolved in an noxious stew of fear, patriotism, desire for vengeance and, of course, political chicanery. I have also always believed that very few realise just how fragile the cornerstones of a civilised society really are. As a salutory reminder, we need look no further than the rapid descent of Germany in the 1930s into the hell of a totalitarian state. All by quasi constitutional means. For those interested, here is an article describing the relative ease with which the transition occurred.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/zfd0403a.asp

Whether America follows a similar course or pulls back from the brink will I suspect in large part be decided by the actions – or inactions – of a very few who are still tending what has become a rather feeble flame. As does Bag Holder who described so well the insidious process that has brought America to the point where many on this board are understandably on the verge of despair. My guess is that the reaction that has set in post Abu Ghraib represents the best hope of pulling back from the brink.

The Supreme Court judgements are another tug in the right direction. How their determinations are debated may go far towards determining whether the critical underlying issues that have in the last 2-3 years been largely obscured in general public and political discourse gain an appropriate prominance. It’s in this regard that I think it’s important to clearly celebrate what’s good in these decisions as well as pointing out potential pitfalls. A sense of pointlessness and despair amongst the best will surely only serve to further confuse the common man and empower those who seek to exploit the darkness.

regards

Basho

Thanks, Depends. I haven't read all the opinions yet -- and I'm not sure I will! -- but if I come up with any thoughts, I'll jot them down on this thread.

regards

Basho

Ashcroft: Supreme Court Giving More Rights To Terrorists
U.S. Attorney General In Miami, Says Government Weighing Ruling
http://www.nbc6.net/news/3479259/detail.html

MIAMI -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court gave more rights to terrorists in three recent decisions, and Justice Department attorneys are poring over the rulings to determine their consequences.

"The Supreme Court accorded to terrorists, in a variety of cases this week, a number of additional rights," he said. "We're digesting those opinions in terms of making sure that we adjust or modify what we do, so that we accommodate the requirements as expressed by the Supreme Court."

That picture of Ashcroft scares the bejeezes out of me.

So much so, I'm gonna go to Ixtapa for a week about it.