Phaedrus

I remember you posting about the American that was being indefinately detained without charges. (forgot his name) I hear that the courts will be ruling on the consitutionality of Bush's "executive power" to do such.

Have you heard much about this? I might be off base here, but I think an anti-Bush ruling could set a great precendent for us anti-PATRIOT ACT types.

What are you thoughts on the likely outcomes of this case?

You may be referring to Jose Padilla, now held for more than seventeen months without having been charged with any crime, or even being given some indication as to if/when this will happen. No *inquiry* into the constituionality of this action is neccessary; the only thing that needs discussing is exactly what is the appropriate punishment for those responsible for the wrongful imprisonment of an American citizen for nearly a year and a half and counting, with no charges filed, no evidence produced, and the only excuse given being a quickly-retracted piece of fiction by John Ashcroft.

As I said in the above-linked thread, Jose Padilla should matter to every American, because to allow the victimisation at the hands of the state of a single individual is to give tacit approval for the victimisation of us all.


Phaedrus

If the court rules in favor of Padilla, in that he is being illegally detained (which, I hope, most of us will agree that he is) - then what (if any) would the reprecussions be? and whom (if anyone) would they be against?

I hope this would amount to criminal charges, not a petty suit against the federal gov't.

Finally found a story on this, here.

I'm not sure what the legal ramifications will be. I seriously doubt that any criminal charges would be brought against Ashcroft or any other entity. A libel case against Ashcroft would certainly be interesting -- given that Paul Wolfowitz retracted the "dirty bomb" allegations less than 24 hours after they were made, but the media still calls Padilla "alleged 'dirty bomber'" and other such things shows that there has definately been public damage done to Padilla's name.

If nothing else, I hope that it will lead to a curtailing of the government's ability to randomly designate people as 'enemy combatants' as it suits them. Ali Marri walked the streets a free man (on bail at least) for a long time before he was suddenly deemed an 'enemy combatant' and taken away (he was, in an amazing and completely unrelated coincidence, winning his court case against the government at the time.) See also: "Enemy Combatants at the Gate: An Ongoing travesty of Liberty" for an even less-publicised story along these same lines. This kind of thing has to stop, because it is not protecting Americans from anyone or anything; on the contrary it is putting them in danger of their own government, aided and abetted by the people's complacency.


Phaedrus