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 (125069)	7/13/2005 5:09:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793881

I can see this as being relevant to the conversation but I'm not sure what specific point you are using it to support. More generally while I am not at this time asserting a specific disagreement with the courts decision, I don't accept a court decision, even a supreme court decision, to be automatically decisive as to what someone's rights are, or even what the law says. The supreme court decision is final (barring an overturn by a new decision or a constitutional amendment) as to how the law will apply. If it says the law say X, and Y, and Z, the law will be treated as if it did say X, and Y, and Z, but that doesn't necessarily mean it actually does say X and Y and Z. Getting back to the specific issue, if some form of hearing determining that the person in question is an alien enemy captured during a state of war, is all that is necessary to consider the detainee to have had full habeas corpus rights and full due process, I don't think I would object to that on either legal or practical terms. However most people who make an issue of due process rights for detainees are seeking a lot more than that. Tim