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 (121937)	6/24/2005 11:07:18 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793864

Rasul wasn't a citizen. So? The larger issue deals with the subject at hand, namely, the extent to which detainees are or should be allowed to contest their incarceration and the substantive rights which they should be afforded. Rasul stands for the proposition that the Eisentrager decision is no longer good precedent, and that the courts do indeed possess jurisdiction to hear cases in which detainees contest the legality of their detention despite the fact that they are held outside the US. There is no holding that the detention is unlawful. Indeed, the Hamdi decision would make no sense if it had held otherwise. If you think that Rasul stands for the notion that non-citizen detainees are allowed the full panoply of Due Process rights, as you suggest should be the case, then all I can say is that you're flat wrong. The larger issue has not been resolved.