Good Special Comment Options

[Timbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

Nice.

[Trespass]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which this new legislation finds the power FROM THE SUPREME COURT to enact the law

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, a citizen-detainee and his father, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered the petition dismissed, finding that the citizen-detainee's detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. Certiorari was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in a plurality opinion (notice that this is a plurality opinion not a majority, meaning that only a larger portion of the court agreed with the decision... not over half as would be a MAJORITY opinion).

OVERVIEW: The citizen-detainee was born in the United States, detained in Afghanistan during the United States' military action against the Taliban regime, and transferred to the United States. Pursuant to a government official's declaration, the Government contended that the citizen-detainee was an enemy combatant. Aside from unspecified screening processes and military interrogations, the citizen-detainee received no due process. The Court determined that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224, authorized the detention of individuals in the citizen-detainee's circumstances and that the AUMF satisfied 18 U.S.C.S. § 4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress." However, under the Mathews analysis, the Court determined that the citizen-detainee, seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant, was entitled to receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. The Court rejected the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandated a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances.

OUTCOME: The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

CORE TERMS: detention, enemy, combatant, military, plurality, suspension, detain, detained, authorization, imprisonment, writ of habeas corpus, captured, wartime, terrorist, detainee, due process, Act of Congress, national security, authorize, prisoners of war, emergency, detaining, hostility, prisoner, capture, treason, habeas corpus, war powers, rebellion, invasion

The Actual Statute: 109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)

Despite this mans obvious passion for what he views as a horrible man doing a horrible thing, one should look at the actual language of the statute being enacted as well as the supreme court case that lead to the bill in question.

You may find the supreme court ruling wrong (which i wouldn't do lightly since the magnitude of the question fitted with the massive knowledge of the law by the justices leads me to believe they thought long an hard about it.) and thus you would find the statute wrong.

BUT you can also find the supreme court ruling CONSTITUTIONAL and still hold the statute wrong.

GOOD news is that the supreme court still gets to look at this statute and rule on its constitutionality, so if this trully is against the constitution... it can be rectified.

Anyhoo, im not gonna try to break down the statutes for you (god knows i have enough case briefs and statutes to read in law school) but here is the law in question... have fun.

.... or trust this guy is smarter than you and have him make up your mind, either way