Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (121823)	6/23/2005 9:20:35 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793846

That's not the way I read the following (pp. 31-32) But you're ignoring the context of the opinion, and the flat out explicit holding: O'Connor: "We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual asser-tions before a neutral decisionmaker." pp 26 (my emph) That after a lenthy discussion of Hamdi's challenge of his detention under the habeas corpus statute and 4001(a) which forbids detention of citizens without Congressional approval. The issue was a citizen being detained in the CONTUS when habeas hasn't been suspended by Congress. There's plenty of language explicitly stating "citizen detainee". "Because we conclude that due process demands some system for a citizen detainee to refute his classification..." pp 30 "...one with process at least of the sort that we today hold is constitutionally mandated in the citizen enemy-combatant setting." pp 30 etc etc