From My Way News:
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.
The 6-3 ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism. At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer.
The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.
"We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.
Matt's Chat
I love the bias in this AP story: "The Supreme Court narrowly ruled" 6 to 3... Narrowly. Now, a 5-4 ruling is narrow, sure; but 6-3? Come on now.This is an important decision for the administration's prosecution of the War on Terror.
1:00PM UPDATE:
Tyler of Red Line Rants seems to be seeing something different.4:00PM UPDATE:
I've changed the header for this story because, as it evolves, I am beginning to think that the original story was misleading. Here are the SCOTUS opinions (which I have not waded through yet). A number of folks, including Tyler, who's opinions I respect are not trumpeting all of these decisions as a victory for the President and the War on Terror. Michelle Malkin has an interesting take and the NRO Cornerites have been discussing it as well. Professor Reynolds has a great roundup and plenty of views too. Fox News are calling them "a mixed verdict Monday on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies."Mark's Remarks
It is a mixed verdict, because when lawyers get involved, all hell breaks loose. You are going to see soldiers subpeoned, you are going to see top secret classified documents requested, and all for the sake of Joe Terrorist getting a "fair" trial? Come on. What is fair about blowing up buildings? What is fair about killing children and maiming women? And can we expect the terrorists to treat our loved ones they are holding with the same dignity? I am all for the US taking the high road, but for heaven's sake, this is a bit ridiculous.
