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: carranza2 who wrote (121945)	6/24/2005 12:01:08 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

Nobody is arguing that the detention is unlawful, at least not on this board. I have no idea what you mean by "the full panoply of due process rights." It's a meaningless argument because "due process" means whatever is due under the circumstances of the case. Your argument is that Hamdi is only limited to cases where the detainee is a citizen -- I argue that it's applicable to all cases involving enemy combatants, and certainly Souter and Thomas saw it that way. Further, every court to cite Hamdi so far cites it as a generic due process case, especially the DC District Court, which is the court that has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases filed by the detainees in Guantanamo. If you're arguing that the SCOTUS upheld habeas corpus rights in Rasul but won't uphold the right to due process in those habeas corpus hearings - that's nuts. I have yet to see any US court tell litigants that they're not entitled to fundamental due process. The only quibble is how much process is due, and that always depends on the particular case. Always. If you're predicting that the SCOTUS is going to carve out an exception and say, "these guys are entitled to a habeas review but NO due process of any kind whatsoever" -- your crystal ball is on the fritz.