Not quite yet, although there are distubing signs. Against this, a fair number of the d.cts that have considered the questions have been quite good about spanking the govt on these issues. jks
>
>It's getting clearer now. The US is already a police state. The US
>government "officials" quoted here don't even have a grasp of what rule of
>law entails.
I don't have much patience with the 4th Cir., a generally utterly reactionary court, but the panel clearly stated what the problem is. They did not hold that the executive has unbridled power to detain whomever it likes without access to an attorney. They remanded the question to the district court, presumably for more fact-finding.
jks
>
>A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided not to rule on
>that question, calling the issue "premature." They sent the case back to
>the lower court instead of dismissing it.
>
>"In dismissing," the judges decided, "we ourselves would be summarily
>embracing a sweeping proposition ... namely that, with no meaningful
>judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant
>could be detained indefinitely, without charge, on the government's
>say-so."
>
>That, they said, they were not prepared to conclude. But they did state and
>restate that the executive branch should be given huge deference in such
>matters:
>
>" ... any judicial inquiry into Hamdi's status as an alleged enemy
>combatant must reflect a recognition that government has no more profound
>responsibility than the protection of Americans, both military and civilian
>... Our Constitution's commitment of the conduct of war to the political
>branches of government require the court's respect at every step."
>
>So the appeals judges imply that the courts may have a role in deciding who
>is an enemy combatant, but in the Hamdi case there is no reason shown yet
>to challenge the designation.
That's not what the quotes excerpts say. We don't know what the 4th Cir. expects the district court to do. In the circumstances, in my experience, the usual reason for a remand is additional fact-finding. The appeals court has no powers to create an evidentiary record, and may have felt that there was not enough evidence about the case before it to make a decision. My bet is that the district court will be pretty quick about holding an evidentiary hearing.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com