Friday, December 10, 2004
the measure expanding police powers
The washington post writes at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53452-2004Dec9.html
that the intelligence package that Congress approved this week
includes little noticed measures that would broaden the government's power
by loosening the standards for FBI surveillance warrants and allow
the DOJ to more easily detain suspects without bail.
The article goes on to say that civil liberties groups voice their
concern about the measures.
At the present time, the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004) would prevent suspects from being held without a
hearing concerning the veracity of the charges. The Court has held that
"...although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the
narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen
held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful
opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a
neutral decisionmaker." at p. 2635.
Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas dissented, Justices Ginsberg
with Justices Souter and Ginzburg concurring and dissenting.
It would appear that the right to have a factual determination
of whether the charges are true in a hearing may be upheld.
However, this may change, if the make up of the Supreme
Court changes. The question would be, what would the Supreme
Court do, say if Justice Scalia becomes the Chief Justice?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53452-2004Dec9.html
that the intelligence package that Congress approved this week
includes little noticed measures that would broaden the government's power
by loosening the standards for FBI surveillance warrants and allow
the DOJ to more easily detain suspects without bail.
The article goes on to say that civil liberties groups voice their
concern about the measures.
At the present time, the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004) would prevent suspects from being held without a
hearing concerning the veracity of the charges. The Court has held that
"...although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the
narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen
held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful
opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a
neutral decisionmaker." at p. 2635.
Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas dissented, Justices Ginsberg
with Justices Souter and Ginzburg concurring and dissenting.
It would appear that the right to have a factual determination
of whether the charges are true in a hearing may be upheld.
However, this may change, if the make up of the Supreme
Court changes. The question would be, what would the Supreme
Court do, say if Justice Scalia becomes the Chief Justice?
