PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials


Braincase
06-29-2006, 09:51 AM
Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/29/D8IHUE180.html)
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti- terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.



The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.

Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Pentagon and Justice Department were planning to issue statements later in the day.

The administration had hinted in recent weeks that it was prepared for the court to set back its plans for trying Guantanamo detainees.

The president also has told reporters, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." But he added, "I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous."

The court's ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial.

"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

The prison at Guantanamo Bay, erected in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, has been a flash point for international criticism. Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban _ including some teenagers _ have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped there since 2002.

Three detainees committed suicide there this month, using sheets and clothing to hang themselves. The deaths brought new scrutiny and criticism of the prison, along with fresh calls for its closing.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.

In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

SBK
06-29-2006, 12:00 PM
In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"



But congress has written the SC that 'blank check.'

Bad decision IMO, but that's nothing new when it comes to my opinion and that of the SC.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:11 PM
I agree with the decision.
Now I think I'd disagree with it if we were under a legal Declaration of War.

I'm not surprised at Alito on this as the one area I did not like him was on issues of executive power. I would have preferred Luttig who is a conservative not afraid rebuff executive power excesses.

Roberts I was unsure on...so this tells me more.

Thomas I expected a dissent from.

WoodDraw
06-29-2006, 12:12 PM
Justice Breyer, with Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg:

Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.

oldandslow
06-29-2006, 12:13 PM
Pea...

So do I.

It's time to limit the imperial presidency.

BTW - It seems Kennedy is becoming the new O'Conner.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:17 PM
Pea...

So do I.

It's time to limit the imperial presidency.

BTW - It seems Kennedy is becoming the new O'Conner.


Glad to hear it! :thumb: :D

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 12:17 PM
The justification was a joke. Using the Geneva Conventions? Even if the justices should be using the Geneva Conventions at all (I find very suspect), to suggest that these enemy combatants fall under Geneva Conventions protection is ludicrous.

Oh, I forgot, JP Stevens doesn't believe in going by what a document says, but what the document SHOULD say.

WoodDraw
06-29-2006, 12:20 PM
The justification was a joke. Using the Geneva Conventions? Even if the justices should be using the Geneva Conventions at all (I find very suspect), to suggest that these enemy combatants fall under Geneva Conventions protection is ludicrous.

Oh, I forgot, JP Stevens doesn't believe in going by what a document says, but what the document SHOULD say.

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Yep! :clap:

jAZ
06-29-2006, 12:27 PM
Roberts I was unsure on...so this tells me more.
How? He abstained because he ruled on it once before.

jAZ
06-29-2006, 12:29 PM
It's amazing the knee-jerk ignorance that seems to dominate discussions on this board some times... and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
I'd assume most folks agressive enough to comment on a topic like this would certainly know this already... but obviously not.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:31 PM
It's amazing the knee-jerk ignorance that seems to dominate discussions on this board some times...
I'd assume most folks agressive enough to comment on a topic like this would certainly know this already... but obviously not.

Well look at the challenges I got from conservatives in another thread about treaties not being supreme law per our Constitution...and I consider myself conservative.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:34 PM
How? He abstained because he ruled on it once before.

Oh my bad! I read it quickly and obviously wrong.
I thought he had supported it before though.

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 12:34 PM
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Okay. But is the Geneva Conventions a formal treaty? I'm not sure about that, but it really doesn't matter.

Now read the Geneva Conventions. It was a multilateral, reciprocal agreement not to mistreat prisoners of war. It does not apply to non-uniformed combatants, and neither Aghanistan nor Saudi Arabia (the country of origin of many of these men) signed it.

I'm not necessarily against the decision, but using the Geneva Conventions as justification I have a big problem with. This whole idea that Stevens and especially RBG have espoused of using international opinion is not Constitutional. They are not legislators.

the Talking Can
06-29-2006, 12:36 PM
wow...this administration was actually held accountable for something....my head is exploding

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:42 PM
Okay. But is the Geneva Conventions a formal treaty? I'm not sure about that, but it really doesn't matter.

Now read the Geneva Conventions. It was a multilateral, reciprocal agreement not to mistreat prisoners of war. It does not apply to non-uniformed combatants, and neither Aghanistan nor Saudi Arabia (the country of origin of many of these men) signed it.

I'm not necessarily against the decision, but using the Geneva Conventions as justification I have a big problem with. This whole idea that Stevens and especially RBG have espoused of using international opinion is not Constitutional. They are not legislators.

My understanding from reading traditional conservative literature is that under a Congressional "Declaration of War" these restrictions don't apply as they did on the German prisoners of war of WWII. Enemy combatants is just semantics if we are at "war"...we are at "war" but not legally under our Constitution.

How I see this...is that due to our treaty with the UN, we have the UN Participation Act which bypasses our Constitution on declaring war or so it seems. ( I know some will disagree.) UN Resolutions were frequently cited in the Resolution used to go to "war" despite lack of a Security Council vote. Those resolutions had basically language to use force.

The Resolution passed by our Congress does NOT use "war' anywhere, but transfers the decision to use force aka "war", if you will, to the president instead to determine that. I believe under our treaty with the UN and the UNPA that's
not even necessary. I don't believe Truman used s/g like that. (not 100% sure) May sound like splitting hairs, but to me that's not our Consitution system either.

Other than that, the case on Lawrence vs Texas did use EU law by some of the liberal justices which I wholly disagree with.

WoodDraw
06-29-2006, 12:44 PM
Okay. But is the Geneva Conventions a formal treaty? I'm not sure about that, but it really doesn't matter.

Now read the Geneva Conventions. It was a multilateral, reciprocal agreement not to mistreat prisoners of war. It does not apply to non-uniformed combatants, and neither Aghanistan nor Saudi Arabia (the country of origin of many of these men) signed it.

I'm not necessarily against the decision, but using the Geneva Conventions as justification I have a big problem with. This whole idea that Stevens and especially RBG have espoused of using international opinion is not Constitutional. They are not legislators.

The Geneva Convention is as formal of a treaty as you are likely to find. Why does that not matter?

I have read the Geneva Convention, and you are again wrong. It specificly outlines the rules that must be followed when fighting against a non-signatory.

If the US doesn't want to be bound by international law, it should stop signing international treaties that by the constitution are given the full force of law. The SC justices are not legislators; instead, they must enforce what Congress has legislated. The Geneva convention was both signed by the President and ratified by Congress.

oldandslow
06-29-2006, 12:47 PM
Okay. But is the Geneva Conventions a formal treaty? I'm not sure about that, but it really doesn't matter.

Now read the Geneva Conventions. It was a multilateral, reciprocal agreement not to mistreat prisoners of war. It does not apply to non-uniformed combatants, and neither Aghanistan nor Saudi Arabia (the country of origin of many of these men) signed it.

I'm not necessarily against the decision, but using the Geneva Conventions as justification I have a big problem with. This whole idea that Stevens and especially RBG have espoused of using international opinion is not Constitutional. They are not legislators.

Fringe, it was a treaty. We signed it. Hell, we wrote half the thing.

As to #2, is this a war on terror or not. You tell me what it is. Your argument that a "uniform" is the only definition of a soldier that counts is suspect...

I mean if a soldier is sleeping at night without his uniform, that means he is not a POW? I am sure the combantants in our own revolution would argue that they were soldiers - but few had uniforms.

SBK
06-29-2006, 12:49 PM
As to #2, is this a war on terror or not. You tell me what it is. Your argument that a "uniform" is the only definition of a soldier that counts is suspect...

I mean if a soldier is sleeping at night without his uniform, that means he is not a POW? I am sure the combantants in our own revolution would argue that they were soldiers - but few had uniforms.

I think "uniform" means "represents a country." What country are we fighting right now?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:53 PM
I think "uniform" means "represents a country." What country are we fighting right now?
Americans who fought our War for Independence did not represent a country either. That came later. They were considered rag-tag treasonous insurgents....rebels. The colonies technically were still under the Crown. If they lost they woulda' been hung...and they knew it.

WoodDraw
06-29-2006, 12:54 PM
I think "uniform" means "represents a country." What country are we fighting right now?

If so, why did not one of the SC justices make that argument?


A poster over at The Volokh Conpiracy makes the same point:

"Bloggers (and others) can continue to say that the language of Common Article 3 simply cannot be read to apply to Al Qaeda. But not a single member of the Supreme Court agrees. That doesn't make the bloggers wrong, of course -- just lonely."

http://volokh.com/

oldandslow
06-29-2006, 12:55 PM
I think "uniform" means "represents a country." What country are we fighting right now?

What "country" was the British fighting in our own revolution?

What "country" was Custer fighting at the Little Big Horn.

I guess what I am saying is that these folks are part of an army that we don't like. Fine. But they still belong to a movement (Baathist) that was very much Iraq before we took over.

patteeu
06-29-2006, 12:58 PM
Well look at the challenges I got from conservatives in another thread about treaties not being supreme law per our Constitution...and I consider myself conservative.

The argument you were getting in that thread from conservatives, libertarians, and liberals/progressives alike was that treaties do not supercede the US Constitution. That's still the case.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jAZ
How? He abstained because he ruled on it once before.
Oh my bad! I read it quickly and obviously wrong.
I thought he had supported it before though.

Okay jaz...I just refreshed my memory.
He did support it before as a member of the federal appeals court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165187,00.html

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 01:01 PM
The argument you were getting in that thread from conservatives, libertarians, and liberals/progressives alike was that treaties do not supercede the US Constitution. That's still the case.

Sorry patteu I see that as semantical parsing.
The point was treaties are the law, and supreme law.
As such what happens when a treaty provision conflicts with another law in this country? Does the treaty overule as is happening in some areas of NAFTA or do our laws rule. If a treaty does not conflict with our law I don't have an issue. They can do an end run around sovereignty was my point. It's also happened with regarding to Congress declaring war as well.

Adding all the groups as in collective thought agreement does not make it more correct. I can find many conservatives and libertarisn that agree with my take as well and that is where I got my original data on the point.

SBK
06-29-2006, 01:03 PM
Americans who fought our War for Independence did not represent a country either. That came later. They were considered rag-tag treasonous insurgents....rebels. The colonies technically were still under the Crown. If they lost they woulda' been hung...and they knew it.

So the 'Americans' that didn't represent 'America' and were 'rag-tag treasonous insurgents' weren't fighting for the freedom of America?

I think you're an ass if you compare those men to the terrorist we are fighting in Iraq.

In our revolution the fighters (save the French that came to help) were from our country. They were fighting for freedom, and the only killing they did was that of the English soldier.

These 'insurgents' we are fighting in Iraq are primarily made up of 'FORIEGN fighters' and terrorists that have come into Iraq to fight the US. They are not fighting for freedom, but fighting so they can defeat us and take control of Iraq. They are not focused on killing US troops, they are just fine with blowing up the citizens of Iraq.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 01:29 PM
So the 'Americans' that didn't represent 'America' and were 'rag-tag treasonous insurgents' weren't fighting for the freedom of America?

I was posting that as it appeared to the govt/ Crown at the time, occupying the colonies with troops.

Get it right!

I think you're an ass if you compare those men to the terrorist we are fighting in Iraq.

"There you go again,"—Ronald Reagan

That’s you’re problem. You want to change what I posted and put words in my mouth or change the meaning of a post to suit some antagonism.

These 'insurgents' we are fighting in Iraq are primarily made up of 'FORIEGN fighters' and terrorists that have come into Iraq to fight the US.

That’s not true the foreigners represent the smallest number. Look it’s your choice to believe war propaganda.

They are not fighting for freedom, but fighting so they can defeat us and take control of Iraq.

Of course they are fighting to defeat us…to end occupation and take control of Iraq. Nothing new over there. What did you expect…flowers?

They are not focused on killing US troops, they are just fine with blowing up the citizens of Iraq.

Thought they were killing both.

Tell me how many are able to get inside the fortified, air-conditioned Green Zone that protects our troops but not most civilians?

Don’t kid yourself, what about the Shia death Squads that are also killing Sunni civilians in acts of vengeance for their rule under SH? Hmmm? Get your facts right.

Guess we all see what we want, including those on the short bus. LOL!

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 01:37 PM
The Geneva Convention is as formal of a treaty as you are likely to find. Why does that not matter?

I have read the Geneva Convention, and you are again wrong. It specificly outlines the rules that must be followed when fighting against a non-signatory.

If the US doesn't want to be bound by international law, it should stop signing international treaties that by the constitution are given the full force of law. The SC justices are not legislators; instead, they must enforce what Congress has legislated. The Geneva convention was both signed by the President and ratified by Congress.

Quote me the part of the Geneva convection that justifies non-uniformed enemy combatants protection?

Let me ask you this? Is there any conflict with anyone in the world that you think the Geneva Conventions would not apply to the U.S.? I mean suppose snipers were hiding out in a village, civilian by day...would these guys, if captured, be protected? If so, signing the Geneva Convention was ludicrous.

patteeu
06-29-2006, 01:58 PM
Sorry patteu I see that as semantical parsing.
The point was treaties are the law, and supreme law.
As such what happens when a treaty provision conflicts with another law in this country? Does the treaty overule as is happening in some areas of NAFTA or do our laws rule. If a treaty does not conflict with our law I don't have an issue. They can do an end run around sovereignty was my point.

You weren't talking about our law, you were talking about our Constitution. As for sovereignty, every treaty is a voluntary diminishment of our sovereignty, but none can give away our Constitutional foundation. It's only through the amendment process, a convention, or the whim of a group of 5 or more SCOTUS justices that the Constitution can be changed.

Adding all the groups as in collective thought agreement does not make it more correct.

True, but it wasn't offered for proof, it was offered to demonstrate the full nature of your opposition in that thread.

I can find many conservatives and libertarisn that agree with my take as well and that is where I got my original data on the point.

Who?

SBK
06-29-2006, 02:06 PM
I was posting that as it appeared to the govt/ Crown at the time, occupying the colonies with troops.

Get it right!



"There you go again,"—Ronald Reagan

That’s you’re problem. You want to change what I posted and put words in my mouth or change the meaning of a post to suit some antagonism.



That’s not true the foreigners represent the smallest number. Look it’s your choice to believe war propaganda.



Of course they are fighting to defeat us…to end occupation and take control of Iraq. Nothing new over there. What did you expect…flowers?



Thought they were killing both.

Tell me how many are able to get inside the fortified, air-conditioned Green Zone that protects our troops but not most civilians?

Don’t kid yourself, what about the Shia death Squads that are also killing Sunni civilians in acts of vengeance for their rule under SH? Hmmm? Get your facts right.

Guess we all see what we want, including those on the short bus. LOL!

You're still an ass. ROFL

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 02:16 PM
The question is what do we do with these men? Obviously, we cannot let them go, and a trial for 400 or how many ever doesn't seem feasible.

I think Justice Breyer hinted at where this is going:

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

Whatever it takes, we have to do. We simply have to remove these men from the battlefield in a manner in which is Constitutional and feasible.

This is potentially devastating to the Democrats this fall, because it puts front-and-center the issue of Congress writing a law that allows for keeping these men off the battlefield. I can see the election commercials already. "I'd vote to keep these monsters locked up."

banyon
06-29-2006, 02:19 PM
Sorry patteu I see that as semantical parsing.
The point was treaties are the law, and supreme law.
As such what happens when a treaty provision conflicts with another law in this country? Does the treaty overule as is happening in some areas of NAFTA or do our laws rule. If a treaty does not conflict with our law I don't have an issue. They can do an end run around sovereignty was my point. It's also happened with regarding to Congress declaring war as well.

Adding all the groups as in collective thought agreement does not make it more correct. I can find many conservatives and libertarisn that agree with my take as well and that is where I got my original data on the point.

To see the difference between the relationship between our Constitution relates to international treaties and a more extreme case, you might look at European Union Law. When the EU passes a law that is contrary to a member country's constitution, the member country is required to amend it.

go bowe
06-29-2006, 02:28 PM
The justification was a joke. Using the Geneva Conventions? Even if the justices should be using the Geneva Conventions at all (I find very suspect), to suggest that these enemy combatants fall under Geneva Conventions protection is ludicrous.

Oh, I forgot, JP Stevens doesn't believe in going by what a document says, but what the document SHOULD say.the primary reason for overturning the military tribunals was that they were not authorized by congress (and 4 justices suggested that congress could do so by specific legislation, iiuic)...

and the geneva conventions do apply, they are a treaty ratified by the u.s. years ago and as such part of what constitutes the supreme law of the land...

and common article 3 of all four conventions gives prisoners taken on the battlefield but who are not part of the armed forces of any nation some basic rights, but not the full protection of the conventions given to pow's...

the court didn't rule that the government has to close gitmo or that the government has to try enemy combatants in civilian criminal courts...

it just said that the procedures for the specific tribuals have to be adjusted to meet minium standards of fairness...

there still can be tribunals if congress specificaly authorizes them and they have at least the minimum standards of fair treatment during their hearing/trial before military tribunals...

and i think that there should be tribunals and they should try every one of the bastards in gitmo and not let any of them go...

even with "minimum standards", we should be able to convict all of those assholes...

i'd love to see them breaking rocks at the usdb in leavenworth for about 20 years (or more if we can get it)...

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 02:36 PM
the primary reason for overturning the military tribunals was that they were not authorized by congress (and 4 justices suggested that congress could do so by specific legislation, iiuic)...

and the geneva conventions do apply, they are a treaty ratified by the u.s. years ago and as such part of what constitutes the supreme law of the land...

and common article 3 of all four conventions gives prisoners taken on the battlefield but who are not part of the armed forces of any nation some basic rights, but not the full protection of the conventions given to pow's...

the court didn't rule that the government has to close gitmo or that the government has to try enemy combatants in civilian criminal courts...

it just said that the procedures for the specific tribuals have to be adjusted to meet minium standards of fairness...

there still can be tribunals if congress specificaly authorizes them and they have at least the minimum standards of fair treatment during their hearing/trial before military tribunals...

and i think that there should be tribunals and they should try every one of the bastards in gitmo and not let any of them go...

even with "minimum standards", we should be able to convict all of those assholes...

i'd love to see them breaking rocks at the usdb in leavenworth for about 20 years (or more if we can get it)...

I don't see how tribunals are anything but a joke. They are either obviously guilty or there is no way to prove their guilt, depending on which way you look at it. Our spy satellites are not that good yet to film the action on the battlefield. I don't see how it's feasible.

Earthling
06-29-2006, 03:03 PM
I hope someone will be able to roust our congress men and women to let them know that they might finally be needed.

memyselfI
06-29-2006, 03:33 PM
This is potentially devastating to the Democrats this fall, because it puts front-and-center the issue of Congress writing a law that allows for keeping these men off the battlefield. I can see the election commercials already. "I'd vote to keep these monsters locked up."


Nice spin. :rolleyes:

The fact is it once again shows that DUHbya is breaking the law in trying to enforce his law.

It doesn't matter anyway. DUHbya will write another executive order or signing that will sweep this decision away like he has the ED issue. He will break the law or worse write new ones to make his actions legal retroactively.

Seriously, Clinton should have done this with lying about sex...

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 03:37 PM
To see the difference between the relationship between our Constitution relates to international treaties and a more extreme case, you might look at European Union Law. When the EU passes a law that is contrary to a member country's constitution, the member country is required to amend it.
Thank you, sunshine.
I happen to think that's gross though.
Bring back the Articles of Confederation!! :p











j/k on last part

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 03:44 PM
DUHbya will write another executive order or signing that will sweep this decision away like he has the ED issue.
Are you ACTUALLY busting on Dub for NOT strong-arming people out of their property? . . . just because the SC said they couldn't stop him from doing so if he wanted to?

Tah-wihhh-hisss-ted.

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 03:46 PM
Nice spin. :rolleyes:

The fact is it once again shows that DUHbya is breaking the law in trying to enforce his law.

It doesn't matter anyway. DUHbya will write another executive order or signing that will sweep this decision away like he has the ED issue. He will break the law or worse write new ones to make his actions legal retroactively.

Seriously, Clinton should have done this with lying about sex...

So what is your solution? Let these cocksuckers go free? Fly them to the U.S. and give all 400 trials?

Whatever your opinion, I don't think most Americans think these scum deserve civilian trials, let alone be set free. Congress will have to act to do something to avoid that. It will now be one of, if not THE top priority of Congress.

Dems like taking potshots, and the running behind the press for cover, but on issues like this, they can't and they hate it. Either they vote to give power to the president and the STFU about all this, OR they vote against giving the president authority to hold these guys and get slaughtered in November.

It's put up or shut up time.

memyselfI
06-29-2006, 03:47 PM
Are you ACTUALLY busting on Dub for NOT strong-arming people out of their property? . . . just because the SC said they couldn't stop him from doing so if he wanted to?

Tah-wihhh-hisss-ted.

No. I disagree with the ruling but I don't like the King unilaterally writing new laws or disobeying old ones.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 03:48 PM
You weren't talking about our law, you were talking about our Constitution.
I most certainly was talking about our law including how the Constitution defers certain things to the states and to the SC in that thread.

As for sovereignty, every treaty is a voluntary diminishment of our sovereignty,

Thank you. Precisely my point.

... but none can give away our Constitutional foundation.
This contradicts your above point. If a treaty bypasses needing 2/3rds majority vote,needing a formal Dec of War for military action as an act of war, local laws etc. etc. then that is an eroding away of our Constitutional foundations on a gradual basis.

It's only through the amendment process, a convention, or the whim of a group of 5 or more SCOTUS justices that the Constitution can be changed.

It can also be done by signing sovereignty eroding treaties as well.
The same point is being made again by a poster in this thread and I do not see you challenging it.

go bo"...and the geneva conventions do apply, they are a treaty ratified by the u.s. years ago and as such part of what constitutes the supreme law of the land..."


Who?
True conservatives, true classical liberals...there are some more links I posted in the same thread later.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 03:51 PM
Good decision, if for no other reason than as a restraint on the Imperial Presidency as some say.

Having said that, this decision may or may not apply during an actual declared war (I doubt it,), and the President is free to seek approval of these tribunals from Congress if he sees fit--and Congress can authorize them, if they see the need.

To see the difference between the relationship between our Constitution relates to international treaties and a more extreme case, you might look at European Union Law. When the EU passes a law that is contrary to a member country's constitution, the member country is required to amend it.
As for treaties, they are supreme law of the land....but if they were to conflict with our own Constitution, we'd need to amend the Constitution. We are NOT in the EU, nor are we bound by that ridiculous provision.....thank goodness

memyselfI
06-29-2006, 03:54 PM
So what is your solution? Let these one who sucks the peniss go free? Fly them to the U.S. and give all 400 trials?

Whatever your opinion, I don't think most Americans think these scum deserve civilian trials, let alone be set free. Congress will have to act to do something to avoid that. It will now be one of, if not THE top priority of Congress.

Dems like taking potshots, and the running behind the press for cover, but on issues like this, they can't and they hate it. Either they vote to give power to the president and the STFU about all this, OR they vote against giving the president authority to hold these guys and get slaughtered in November.

It's put up or shut up time.

If they are guilty and it can be proven then the world should be able to witness a trial in the open as we have with other war criminals in history. As flawed as SH trial or the terrorists trials we've had in the US have been at least they are getting one and the world is seeing that the US is quite capable of trying terrorists and their supporters in the open and following it's own laws as well as other international laws in the process.

To arrest these individuals and then detain them indefinitely when they have been convicted of no crime is not only against our and international laws but it's bad policy.

I say we try them. 400 people is nothing. 100 times that many are likely facing some sort of trial every day in this country.

Lurch
06-29-2006, 03:55 PM
Bush pushes the envelope. The Supremes have pushed back. It's how our system is suppose to work. Bravo.

memyselfI
06-29-2006, 04:05 PM
Good decision, if for no other reason than as a restraint on the Imperial Presidency as some say.

Having said that, this decision may or may not apply during an actual declared war (I doubt it,), and the President is free to seek approval of these tribunals from Congress if he sees fit--and Congress can authorize them, if they see the need.


As for treaties, they are supreme law of the land....but if they were to conflict with our own Constitution, we'd need to amend the Constitution. We are NOT in the EU, nor are we bound by that ridiculous provision.....thank goodness

The funny thing is DUHbya's rhetoric might end up biting him in the azz. His whole 'WOT' may be an undeclared war in regards to Congress but the SC seems to be saying his saying it is a war makes it such and these individuals are then entitled to the same treatment as others detained during a war.

BTW, Kotter, what about the question I asked in the other thread?

Uh-oh, the Iraqi gov. wants amnesty for terrorists, er, insurgents? We know many CONS think the entire insurgency is comprised of terrorists and there is no actual insurgency (see Mr. Kotter) and here we have their government proposing these people go free.

Along the same line of insurgents in Iraq=terrorists, does that mean the NEW Iraqi government is now safe guarding terrorists? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 04:14 PM
The funny thing is DUHbya's rhetoric might end up biting him in the azz. His whole 'WOT' may be an undeclared war in regards to Congress but the SC seems to be saying his saying it is a war makes it such and these individuals are then entitled to the same treatment as others detained during a war.

BTW, Kotter, what about the question I asked in the other thread?


I think the whole declared/undeclared, President as Commander-in-Chief...but Congress declares war thing....is a mess. And the courts will likely have to sort things case-by-case, unless they can cast some sort of more clear guidelines.

As for your other question, sorry I missed it....


Uh-oh, the Iraqi gov. wants amnesty for terrorists, er, insurgents? We know many CONS think the entire insurgency is comprised of terrorists and there is no actual insurgency (see Mr. Kotter) and here we have their government proposing these people go free. Along the same line of insurgents in Iraq=terrorists, does that mean the NEW Iraqi government is now safe guarding terrorists?

I've never said there is NO insurgency; I've stated it's illegitimate, because it lacks widespread popular support, across the whole of Iraq.

The Iraqi's have since clarified their statement to say, those guilty of murders will not receive amnesty. I see it as a reasonable compromise, that would have to be adjudicated carefully....and monitored for some time afterward.

To clarify: illegitimate insurgents who are involved in terrrorist actions are terrorists. And given the Iraqi clarification, I would say they are not harboring terrorists....but offering amnesty to "insurgents" who have not yet become terrorists.

Adept Havelock
06-29-2006, 05:03 PM
I've never said there is NO insurgency; I've stated it's illegitimate, because it lacks widespread popular support, across the whole of Iraq.


Just to play Devils Advocate here, I have to ask if the American Revolution qualified as a legitimate insurgency, using that criteria. After all, approx. 1/3 of the nation supported it, the other 2/3 either were Tory or didn't give a damn.

Historically speaking, I guess it does. "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason." :shrug:

alnorth
06-29-2006, 05:39 PM
Well look at the challenges I got from conservatives in another thread about treaties not being supreme law per our Constitution...and I consider myself conservative.

BucEyedPea, the Geneva Conventions were signed and ratified as a formal treaty. NAFTA is not a treaty. What is so flippin' hard to understand about that?

Of course the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, because it was passed as a treaty. NAFTA merely carries no more force than any other mundane law and could be repealed just as easily.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 05:44 PM
BucEyedPea, the Geneva Conventions were signed and ratified as a formal treaty. NAFTA is not a treaty. What is so flippin' hard to understand about that?

Of course the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, because it was passed as a treaty. NAFTA merely carries no more force than any other mundane law and could be repealed just as easily.
Ya' know I do understand your point. I just don't completely agree. My point is merely that it is operating in the manner of one (see my links), if not the letter of the law. Since more infrastructure is being built around it, which there is, and some are pushing for more...then I don't have much hope of getting out it as easily as you seem to feel. I don't trust what govt officials say as much as you. K?

memyselfI
06-29-2006, 05:45 PM
I've never said there is NO insurgency; I've stated it's illegitimate, because it lacks widespread popular support, across the whole of Iraq.

The Iraqi's have since clarified their statement to say, those guilty of murders will not receive amnesty. I see it as a reasonable compromise, that would have to be adjudicated carefully....and monitored for some time afterward.

To clarify: illegitimate insurgents who are involved in terrrorist actions are terrorists. And given the Iraqi clarification, I would say they are not harboring terrorists....but offering amnesty to "insurgents" who have not yet become terrorists.

That is not how I remember it. I remember you distinctly maintaining that they were terrorists and did not meet the criteria for an insurgency. MOF, I remember posting the discription of the word to counter an argument you made about the insurgency being terrorists... :hmmm:

The difference between legitimate insurgency, and terrorists, in the minds of reasonable people is....do they represent the majority of people in that country? In Revolutionary America....at least by 1776, our insurgency against Britain was legitimate. The CURRENT insurgency in Iraq, lacks popular majority support in the nation as a whole....at this time.

That could change. However, the Iraqi insurency lacks credibility, because it does not enjoy wide-spread majority support.....as such, they are, by definition, terrrorists.

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.

alnorth
06-29-2006, 05:51 PM
Ya' know I do understand your point. I just don't completely agree. My point is merely that it is operating in the manner of one (see my links), if not the letter of the law. Since more infrastructure is being built around it, which there is, and some are pushing for more...then I don't have much hope of getting out it as easily as you seem to feel. I don't trust what govt officials say as much as you. K?

I dont have to trust the government, because I trust the people. You are trying to imply that yeah technically it could be easy to repeal NAFTA with a simple majority of the country, but that isnt going to happen.

We dont have to go further, thats it, end of arguement. If we have the ability to do whatever the bloody hell we want with NAFTA if a simple majority agree, then your arguement fails. If the people do not believe in whatever you want them to believe strongly enough to enforce at the ballot box, then thats your problem.

alnorth
06-29-2006, 06:21 PM
As for this topic's issue, Bush simply lost a turf war with Congress. He could have asked congress to allow tribunals, but he didnt believe he was required to do so. To ask for authority anyway would imply to future generations that it is a requirement, thus ceding power to Congress forever. This isnt something special or nasty about Bush, every president does it. From Truman to Clinton, every president tries to defend the power of the executive even if the executive and legislative branches might be able to agree on the issue at hand.

The court has ruled, so now we know that the president does not have the power to hold tribunals for terrorists without congressional consent. So... he will now seek congressional consent, and I wouldnt be surprised if the Congress ultimately gives consent to tribunals outside the normal criminal Court process, but perhaps with more restrictions than Bush wanted.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 06:37 PM
Just to play Devils Advocate here, I have to ask if the American Revolution qualified as a legitimate insurgency, using that criteria. After all, approx. 1/3 of the nation supported it, the other 2/3 either were Tory or didn't give a damn.

Historically speaking, I guess it does. "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason." :shrug:

Prior to 1776, the one-third, one-third, one-third analysis is generally accepted. After the Declaration and the events surrounding the Declaration, many historians report it differently. As to the precise numbers, of course they lacked scientific polling techniques....suffice it to say, there seemed a consensus in the country after the Declaration, that the tide had turned.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 06:43 PM
That is not how I remember it. I remember you distinctly maintaining that they were terrorists and did not meet the criteria for an insurgency. MOF, I remember posting the discription of the word to counter an argument you made about the insurgency being terrorists... :hmmm:

Regardless, what I meant was to differentiate between legitiimate, and illegitimate insurgency. Then I characterized the Iraqi insurgency, generally, as terrorists. I didn not intend to deny the existence of illegitimate insurgents--who have not engaged in terrorist acts. Surely, there are some of those.

IMO, they (the ones who are not terrorists,) are deserving of consideration for amnesty...as an incentive, to join a legitimate Iraq.

Call it sloppy use of the terms on my part then. Sue me. :p

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 06:53 PM
If the people do not believe in whatever you want them to believe strongly enough to enforce at the ballot box, then thats your problem.

I am letting the people know about this including letters to editors.
And I'm gonna keep doin' it. Sounds more like it's your problem.

patteeu
06-29-2006, 11:37 PM
I most certainly was talking about our law including how the Constitution defers certain things to the states and to the SC in that thread.



Thank you. Precisely my point.


This contradicts your above point. If a treaty bypasses needing 2/3rds majority vote,needing a formal Dec of War for military action as an act of war, local laws etc. etc. then that is an eroding away of our Constitutional foundations on a gradual basis.

No, it doesn't. Treaties don't create loopholes or allow people to bypass Constitutional requirements. To the extent that we don't officially declare war anymore, it's because Congress has just decided not to, not because we've signed a treaty.

It can also be done by signing sovereignty eroding treaties as well. The same point is being made again by a poster in this thread and I do not see you challenging it.

No, it can't. Which poster is saying the same thing? I missed it, but if someone else is saying it, I'd be glad to challenge them too.

True conservatives, true classical liberals...there are some more links I posted in the same thread later.

I looked at a couple of your links and nothing I saw supported your position. I saw that Phyllis Schlafly doesn't like the court decisions surrounding NAFTA, but no where did she make the case for the proposition that treaties are superior to the Constitution by design.

If you've actually got a specific source for your belief or support from among those many conservatives and libertarians who share your view, hit me with the most compelling one.

go bowe
06-29-2006, 11:47 PM
Glad to hear it! :thumb: :Dwtf?

i call you pea lady and you have a hissy fit and start calling me names, but oldandslow calls you pea, and you're thumbing and smiling?

wtf is with you, lady? :p :p :p

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 07:50 AM
No, it doesn't. Treaties don't create loopholes or allow people to bypass Constitutional requirements. To the extent that we don't officially declare war anymore, it's because Congress has just decided not to, not because we've signed a treaty.
You are changing my words to say something I did not say exactly.

I didn't say "loopholes."
I don't recall saying Constitutional "requirements" per se.
Those are your words.

( I don't want to mix the war issue in here...I don't completely agree with you and we've been through that one before using an article from Federalist Society.)

I said this misnamed “treaty” by-passes local laws because the Constitution recognizes treaties as supreme law. That implies treaties and their provisions are binding on the states as well because of the Supremacy Clause. There are, in this misnamed treaty, rules that erode our federalist system because those bypass some US laws that are either our fed govt's or state's jurisdictions. It’s no different than our Fed Govt eroding state’s rights. Use some deductive reasoning.

I looked at a couple of your links and nothing I saw supported your position. I saw that Phyllis Schlafly doesn't like the court decisions surrounding NAFTA, but no where did she make the case for the proposition that treaties are superior to the Constitution by design.

Looked at or read?

The links cover a lot more than this point as there were two posters talking to me, but it’s in there as examples of the same point. They do not say it in the same EXACT words you apparently need. You will have to use some deductive reasoning.

However Schafly does make a more direct point toward the end:

In this Supreme Court case, the government is maintaining that its decision to open up our highways to Mexican trucks is an act of executive discretion, but in fact it is simply complying with an international tribunal never authorized by any treaty. To allow the executive branch to enforce this decision would set a very dangerous precedent for permitting the rulings of other foreign courts in Geneva, the Hague or Brussels to bypass both the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. judiciary.

If you've actually got a specific source for your belief or support from among those many conservatives and libertarians who share your view, hit me with the most compelling one.

• I gave you the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
• I gave you a quote from go bo in my last post which you seem to have missed as well.
• There were two links in the very first post of that thread that was a direct quote from Nafta Chapter 11 Tribunals using UN rules,including this:

NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

Iowanian
06-30-2006, 08:16 AM
This is why I wish they guys who captured them in the first place, would have just put a bullet in their brainpan....right before they were considered pow.

The guys down there are the dingleberries of the world.

patteeu
06-30-2006, 08:20 AM
You are changing my words to say something I did not say exactly.

I didn't say "loopholes."
I don't recall saying Constitutional "requirements" per se.
Those are your words.

( I don't want to mix the war issue in here...I don't completely agree with you and we've been through that one before using an article from Federalist Society.)

I said this misnamed “treaty” by-passes local laws because the Constitution recognizes treaties as supreme law. That implies treaties and their provisions are binding on the states as well because of the Supremacy Clause. There are, in this misnamed treaty, rules that erode our federalist system because those bypass some US laws that are either our fed govt's or state's jurisdictions. It’s no different than our Fed Govt eroding state’s rights. Use some deductive reasoning.



Looked at or read?

The links cover a lot more than this point as there were two posters talking to me, but it’s in there as examples of the same point. They do not say it in the same EXACT words you apparently need. You will have to use some deductive reasoning.

However Schafly does make a more direct point toward the end:





• I gave you the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
• I gave you a quote from go bo in my last post which you seem to have missed as well.
• There were two links in the very first post of that thread that was a direct quote from Nafta Chapter 11 Tribunals using UN rules,including this:


If this is your way of backing off of your original claim that treaties are superior to the Constitution, then good for you.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 08:38 AM
If this is your way of backing off of your original claim that treaties are superior to the Constitution, then good for you.

Superior not exactly....but supreme law that can rule over our federal system and in that sense it changes our Constitutional system of federalism.

I may have chosen the wrong word, originally... but I expanded on what I meant by it for clarification. Just because, you didn't understand what I meant by it does not mean that your accusation that I was "backing" off of anything is valid. I meant the same thing all along and the links are the same throughout showing the same.

BTW Schlafly's article does start with the same premise as well:
Arguments will be heard this spring on whether the non-U.S. tribunals created by NAFTA can require our government to violate federal law in order to comply with foreign rulings...
Our system of federalism is also vulnerable, due to the deference historically given to treaties over the rights of the several states.

Mr. Laz
06-30-2006, 11:02 AM
Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

break the law ... go back and rewrite the law

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2006, 12:14 PM
break the law ... go back and rewrite the law

Push the envelope. If Congress votes to approve, then we'll decide what whether it's Constitutional if we need to, later.

It's the way things have been done for a while now....:shrug:

penchief
06-30-2006, 12:16 PM
Push the envelope. If Congress votes to approve, then we'll decide what whether it's Constitutional if we need to, later.

It's the way things have been done for a while now....:shrug:

I guess we'll get to see who the libertarian republicans are and who the establishment republicans are.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2006, 12:21 PM
I guess we'll get to see who the libertarian republicans are and who the establishment republicans are.

Or the libertarian/populist democrats or the establishment moonbat democrats are.... ;)

patteeu
06-30-2006, 01:07 PM
Superior not exactly....but supreme law that can rule over our federal system and in that sense it changes our Constitutional system of federalism.

I may have chosen the wrong word, originally... but I expanded on what I meant by it for clarification. Just because, you didn't understand what I meant by it does not mean that your accusation that I was "backing" off of anything is valid. I meant the same thing all along and the links are the same throughout showing the same.

BTW Schlafly's article does start with the same premise as well:

It's just that when the Congress passes a new law that supercedes an old law, no one describes it as "requir[ing] our government to violate federal law in order to comply with the new law." This is no different. Congress and the President have the constitutional authority to join treaties just like they have the constitutional authority to repeal old laws and replace them with new ones. Your description (and Schlafly's) hint at something more sinister than it is, IMO. That's not to say that I agree with these treaties, it's just that we aren't losing our Constitution to them. But I'll drop it now.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 01:29 PM
It's just that when the Congress passes a new law that supercedes an old law, no one describes it as "requir[ing] our government to violate federal law in order to comply with the new law." This is no different. Congress and the President have the constitutional authority to join treaties just like they have the constitutional authority to repeal old laws and replace them with new ones. Your description (and Schlafly's) hint at something more sinister than it is, IMO. That's not to say that I agree with these treaties, it's just that we aren't losing our Constitution to them. But I'll drop it now.
Well pat, that's really your interpretation. I know you're dropping the point. However, you raise another: that there's a hint of something sinister. You're right there is, but it's not a hint. I'm not about, as an American, to just willingly cede our law to new bodies over our law. I do see that as sinister. Anyone who is for borders should feel that way, I would think.

In Pastor's own words he:

• wants to establish a pariliamentay system here because he thinks that American business law and US Supreme Court precedent are due to America being a partisan nation-state with provincial self-interest and so these must be transcended.

• who says a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.”

• a man whose solution to illegal immigrants is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens

Certainly is sinister imo.
There are people in our capital that agree with him and want this.

banyon
06-30-2006, 01:52 PM
Justice Thomas, dissenting.

The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision. As such, petitioners' habeas challenge should fail, and there is no reason to remand the case. The plurality reaches a contrary conclusion by failing adequately to consider basic principles of the constitutional structure as it relates to national security and foreign affairs and by using the balancing scheme of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). I do not think that the Federal Government's war powers can be balanced away by this Court. Arguably, Congress could provide for additional procedural protections, but until it does, we have no right to insist upon them. But even if I were to agree with the general approach the plurality takes, I could not accept the particulars. The plurality utterly fails to account for the Government's compelling interests and for our own institutional inability to weigh competing concerns correctly. I respectfully dissent...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-6696


Allow me to summarize the rest


(paraphrase)"Bush said I should jump, So I said "How High?"

Seriously, this guy is an embarassment and has no business being on a court with the brightest legal minds of our country. At least Roberts appears to be as competent as advertised so far.

SBK
06-30-2006, 06:58 PM
Justice Thomas, dissenting.

The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision. As such, petitioners' habeas challenge should fail, and there is no reason to remand the case. The plurality reaches a contrary conclusion by failing adequately to consider basic principles of the constitutional structure as it relates to national security and foreign affairs and by using the balancing scheme of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). I do not think that the Federal Government's war powers can be balanced away by this Court. Arguably, Congress could provide for additional procedural protections, but until it does, we have no right to insist upon them. But even if I were to agree with the general approach the plurality takes, I could not accept the particulars. The plurality utterly fails to account for the Government's compelling interests and for our own institutional inability to weigh competing concerns correctly. I respectfully dissent...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-6696


Allow me to summarize the rest


(paraphrase)"Bush said I should jump, So I said "How High?"

Seriously, this guy is an embarassment and has no business being on a court with the brightest legal minds of our country. At least Roberts appears to be as competent as advertised so far.

Actually, this guy is one of the few that actually uses the Constitution to come up with his decisions.

He is saying that the SC doesn't have the constitutional power to take away the federal governments war power. He is also saying that congress hasn't demanded certain rules, and until they do there is no reason to demand them to, because what has been done is ok under the constitution.

banyon
07-01-2006, 09:49 AM
Actually, this guy is one of the few that actually uses the Constitution to come up with his decisions.

He is saying that the SC doesn't have the constitutional power to take away the federal governments war power. He is also saying that congress hasn't demanded certain rules, and until they do there is no reason to demand them to, because what has been done is ok under the constitution.

We should just have Thomas crown W king CeePee and get it over with, since there's nothing Thomas's court can do about anything.

SCTrojan
07-01-2006, 10:08 AM
Just for the sake of clarification, the ruling on Military Commissions does not affect what is happening in Iraq. There are no detainees in Guantanamo who were captured in Iraq. They are all from the Afghanistan theater.

Military Commissions as they are currently configured are only applied to detainees at Guantanamo. Detainees in Iraq have other processes that they are afforded.

SBK
07-01-2006, 11:39 PM
We should just have Thomas crown W king CeePee and get it over with, since there's nothing Thomas's court can do about anything.

Stoopid constitution and those dern seperation of powers. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
07-02-2006, 12:17 AM
Just for the sake of clarification, the ruling on Military Commissions does not affect what is happening in Iraq. There are no detainees in Guantanamo who were captured in Iraq. They are all from the Afghanistan theater.

Military Commissions as they are currently configured are only applied to detainees at Guantanamo. Detainees in Iraq have other processes that they are afforded.

Thanks for the redirect. Duhnise has a way of deflecting...

patteeu
07-02-2006, 12:40 PM
Far from the "stinging" rebuke that so many headlines declared, this highly fragmented decision proves that the Bush administration's legal position had substantial support at the highest levels of our judiciary. The fact that it lost by the narrowest of margins on very narrow grounds does not mean that the broad separation of powers issue has been settled, afaics.

The most important lessons to take from this decision are that Justice Kennedy is not reliable (most of us already knew this) and that the balance of power on the SCOTUS did not tip with the Alito nomination but is most likely in play with the next vacancy.

listopencil
07-05-2006, 05:38 PM
Bump.