posted
I am thankful the majority had some clear waverers among it. The tendency to accept the gov't's facts in the matter (though without considering them decided) may well have swayed some of the justices. If, as seems to be, the gov't is proceeding without possessing any similar facts in the wiretapping instances, it may go worse for them.
Furthermore, the court may well look askance at the gov't's treatment of facts across cases such as Hamdi and Padilla, where dangerous terror suspects are suddenly much less so as it suits the gov't's legal position.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [snip] Some strong proof you haven't comprehended the decision. There were 2 dissenting opinions. Thomas's upheld the gov't's view.
Scalia's, joined by Stevens, totally rejected the gov't's position. It dissented because the plurality allowed continued detention without criminal charges. It said Hamdi was due the full package of due process rights which the plurality denied him.
In other words, Scalia's dissent, had it been the majority opinion, would pretty much destroy the gov't's position regarding these wiretaps. Thomas's dissent would have pretty much guaranteed the government would win.
The majority makes the constitutionality of the wiretaps unclear. Which, of course, has been my point all along.
Thank you for your answer, and the explanation. I admit I am a little confused by your contention that this is applicable to the current situation. This is why:
Hamdi was apprehended on a battlefield in Afghanistan.
Hamdi was fighting against fellow Americans in that battle.
At least on the surface, Hamdi's case concerns battleground treatment of an American citizen fighting against his own country on foreign soil.
Comparing whether Hamdi still had constitutional rights (under those circumstances) to the current Spygate controversy (involving 'fishing' for information amongst ordinary Americans in America living their ordinary lives) seems like comparing apples to oranges.
Why do you say that decision bleeds over to nullify Rights to Privacy?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not saying that it is applicable. He's saying the court could easily pursue a similar line of reasoning in this case, which is abundantly obvious. Read what he says, don't invent things you think he says.
Not to mention that, as this particular permutation is previously undecided, they wouldn't even need to "take away" existing rights, since its never been clarified that those existing rights apply in this situation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: At least on the surface, Hamdi's case concerns battleground treatment of an American citizen fighting against his own country on foreign soil.
Comparing whether Hamdi still had constitutional rights (under those circumstances) to the current Spygate controversy (involving 'fishing' for information amongst ordinary Americans in America living their ordinary lives) seems like comparing apples to oranges.
This is more fully explained in the other thread, but in essence, your characterization of the case as concerning "battleground treatment of an American citizen fighting against his own country on foreign soil" is inaccurate. Hamdi was being held in the U.S. and this was very relevant to SCOTUS's decision.
The key is that the authorization contains no mention of indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and yet SCOTUS read it as if it did.
Please tell me you don't consider freedom from indefinite detention - the paradigmatic deprivation of liberty - to be greater than freedom from wiretap when making international phone calls.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and I love the bits where people try to paint reasonable qualms as extremeism from loonies.
And I love the part where people who have clearly not acknowledged the legal complexities decide this is an impeachable offense.
It's the only reason I bothered discussing this here.
Arguably, believing one shouldn't rush to label this an impeachable offense is also a reasonable qualm. I just dislike the derrogatory attempts to dismiss a point of view out of hand.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: At least on the surface, Hamdi's case concerns battleground treatment of an American citizen fighting against his own country on foreign soil.
Comparing whether Hamdi still had constitutional rights (under those circumstances) to the current Spygate controversy (involving 'fishing' for information amongst ordinary Americans in America living their ordinary lives) seems like comparing apples to oranges.
This is more fully explained in the other thread, but in essence, your characterization of the case as concerning "battleground treatment of an American citizen fighting against his own country on foreign soil" is inaccurate. Hamdi was being held in the U.S. and this was very relevant to SCOTUS's decision.
The key is that the authorization contains no mention of indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and yet SCOTUS read it as if it did.
Please tell me you don't consider freedom from indefinite detention - the paradigmatic deprivation of liberty - to be greater than freedom from wiretap when making international phone calls.
Now more than ever, I hope that this wiretapping issue goes to court. We need clarification of the domestic authority of the President, before we find out that his successor is named the Fuhrer.
I appreciate the clarification of these issues and the time you took for sharing your point of view.
You've made me think, and that's something I like doing. Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Illegal or not, "Better to ask forgiveness than permission" is not the attitude you want in your world leaders...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
