Supreme Court destroying habeas corpus.(Insider Report)

Writing on behalf of the 8-1 Supreme Court majority in the case Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor upheld the power of the president to detain citizens, under "very limited circumstances," as "unlawful combatants." However, O'Connor's opinion continued, due process requires "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 decision-maker."

Accordingly, the High Court sent the case back to federal district court, where Hamdi will be permitted to challenge the Bush administration's claims. Although clearly holding that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," the court upheld the power of the president to suspend habeas corpus protections through decree. It also specified that while a citizen designated as an "unlawful combatant" can challenge that designation, the burden of proof in such a case rests on the accused.

Yasser Esam Hamdi, an American-born Saudi claiming U.S. citizenship (a claim contested by some authorities, but stipulated to by both the Bush administration and the Supreme Court), was captured by Northern Alliance fighters and taken into U.S. custody shortly after 9-11. He was designated an "unlawful combatant" by presidential decree, and the sole evidentiary basis for that decision consists of an undocumented "declaration," written by an executive branch appointee named Michael Mobbs, that is described in the Hamdi decision as "second and third hand hearsay."

In an unusually ...