The Supreme Court Upholds the Constitution!
In a shocking display last week of respect for the rule of law, the Supreme Court held last week that the President did not have dictatorial powers to detain people at will and hold them for life without trial. In doing so, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the four “rule of law” justices in finding that the Guantanamo prisoners did have the right to challenge their detentions.
The four right-wing dissenters angry denounced the decision. If you don’t give the President the extra-constitutional power to detain anyone at will, Scalia huffed, “it will cause more Americans to be killed.”
Hitler, Stalin and other dictators have made the exact same argument as Scalia.
While Benjamin Franklin said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
So which is more important, the security of tyranny or the danger of liberty?
Who is right?
Scalia and Hitler?
Or a tenuous majority of the Supreme Court and Benjamin Franklin?
It may be the most important debate of our time.
Guest Michael Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Council of the American Civil Liberties Union
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
BLAM-BLAM June 19, 2008 10:45 am
They’ve all gone duck-hunting with Dick Cheney–and have the flesh-wounds and buck-shot burns in the butt to prove it (Whatever you’re hunting–you’re always ducking when Cheney’s around a shot-gun)
Robt June 18, 2008 3:54 am
What do Bush, McCain and SCJ’s Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito have in common?
Odd that Bush and McCain were nothing but in awe to those (lawyers) as Bush calls them. That granted Bush the Presidency when it was not their juridiction, and they overrode the will of the people.
So the same SCOTUS is going to cost us a U.S. city as Newt Gingrich says. Is the same that helped restore America to Habeus Corpus.
They did disdain the SCOTUS for selecting Bush as President did they?
Robt June 17, 2008 3:54 am
After listening then reading text of Justice Scalia’s dessent over this ruling. Especially the part where he insinuates, Americans will die at the hands of terrorists because of habeas Corpus.
I imagine Scalia has had better days of judicial reasoning and judgement than he did with this.
He absolutely sounded like he was in need of a mental health professional. Unless Scalia just returned (face in tact) from a hunting outing with VP Cheney. That they arrived together at Scalia’s outrage that also sounds very Bush/Cheney/Rovian political “scare for votes”.
The courts had no problem bringing justice to Tim Mcviegh for his crime(s) and he had the inherant right of Habeas Corpus. And I felt putting Mcveigh was jsut. Although kiling people is never an ideal to strive for and be proud of. But, Mcviegh’s conviction and execution set things accountable by law. Maybe not the best justice. The best under the circumstances at the time was served and brought to a close. And openly.
There is No Doubt that there are some dangerous murderous prisoners in Guantanamo or on some of these prison ships I am hearing about as late.
They all weren’t because they already let a large number free. Those high valued prisoners that were tortured are the problem.
Bush Adm is aware that if a fair open trial is held that tortured confessions will surface. This creates the fear of the Bush Adm two fold.
1) Tortured confessions lose their cases on truely murderous prisoners.
2) The confirmation of torture for confessions leads to world outcry (even the Hague) of War Crimes of an American President and his Adm.
I predict these trial will not be done before Bush leaves office although he is in dire desperation to perform their trials secretly with the death sentence prior leaving office.
This is in part why McCain is a strong choice for republicans for their presidential nominee. McCain will faithfully carry out Bush’s policy here and cover Bush’s embarrassing war crimes.
America already got a real GLIMPSE of a McCain presidency. When he told Obama that he will not take any consideration from Barrack on the GI Bill because Obama didn’t serve in the military.
This can also dwarf and translate later into, Well you served in the military but you were never a POW like me ! And dag-nab-bit, When I get my false teeth back in my mouth I’m going to tell you a thing or two you young whipper snapper.
Yet the ruling on Habeas Corpus by the SCOTUS actually changes what?
It doesn’t stop the military tribunals does it?
It does compell the prosecution to tell the defense the charges and there nature, right?
It does not change any crimes the prisoners may be guilty of.
Scalia and the republicans make it sound as if this SCOTUS ruling sets free all of the detainees within one day (24 hrs). It didn’t, but they make it sound that way.