On 10/11/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > strange then that wikipedia seems to think their cases both revolve around > Hamdi v > Rumsfeld, which is the decision that the current legislation is trying to > address: > > "eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch > does not have > the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process > protections > enforceable through judicial review"
You're assesment and assertion is both right and wrong. It's correct in the fact that Lindh and Padilla's cases are also for US citizens as was Hamdi's. It is incorrect in the assertion that the legislation passed pertains to any of them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:217353 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
