Hey! The system works yet again!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, July 6, 2006 13:49
VIEWED: 3845
PAGE 1 of 8
Quote:
Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials
By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=343&sid=614852&sidelines=1
This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. That's huge.
Looks like the Geneva Convention is back in play (at least according to the Supreme Court). Anybody know if Yoo or Gonzales have commented on this ruling?
Since I'm not a constitutional law expert, I follow my usual practice of finding someone who is and then reading their opinion. Glenn Greenwald has written a post on what he sees as the significance of this decision. I'll excerpt a big portion but I highly recommend reading all it. And also picking up a copy of his book (more a pamphlet really) that itemizes how far this administration has diverged from the idea of the executive branch as outlined by the founding fathers. Here's some of his preliminary observations:
Quote:
excerpted from http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/significance-of-hamdan-v-ru
msfeld.html
...
(1) The Supreme Court held [Sec. VI(D)(ii) of the court's opinion] that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees captured in military conflicts, including Al Qaeda members or other "enemy combatants," and not merely (as the Administration asserted) to soldiers who fight for established countries which are signatories to the Conventions.
...
(2) The Court did not rule on whether it could, in the absence of Congressional mandates, compel the administration to abide by the Geneva Conventions. The Court did not need to rule on this question, because it found [Sec. IV] that the administration was required by Congress -- as part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") -- to comply with the rules of law when creating and implementing military commissions. Thus, the Court enforced the Congressional statutory requirement that the administration comply with the rules of law with regard to all military commissions, and rejected any claims by the administration to possess authority to override or act in violation of that statute.
(3) The Court dealt several substantial blows to the administration's theories of executive power beyond the military commission context. And, at the very least, the Court severely weakened, if not outright precluded, the administration's legal defenses with regard to its violations of FISA. Specifically, the Court:
(a) rejected the administration's argument [Sec. IV] that Congress, when it enacted the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda ("AUMF"), implicitly authorized military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. In other words, the Supreme Court held that because the AUMF was silent on the question as to whether the Administration was exempt from the pre-existing requirements of the UCMJ, there was no basis for concluding that the AUMF was intended to implicitly amend the UCMJ (by no longer requiring military commissions to comply with the law of war), since the AUMF was silent on that question.
...
(b) More broadly, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized the shared powers which Congress and the Executive possess with regard to war matters. Indeed, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy expressly applied the mandates of Justice Jackson's framework in Youngstown (the Steel Seizure case) on the ground that this was a case where the adminstration's conduct (in creating military commissions) conflicted with Congressional statute (which requires such commissions to comply with the law of war).
...
(4) This decision illustrates just how critical is the current composition of the Supreme Court. The decision was really 5-4 (because Roberts already ruled in favor of the administration in the lower court). The Justice who wrote the majority opinion, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old, and as Justice Blackmun once famously warned, he "cannot remain on this Court forever." If the Bush administration is permitted to replace Stevens with yet another worshipper of executive power, the next challenge to the Bush administration's theories of unchecked power could very easily result, by a 5-4 vote, in the opposite outcome.
(5) Congress can reverse almost every aspect of the decision as it specifically pertains toNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.
Mostly agree here Geezer, but since most of us aren't in positions to get the Supreme Court's attention, engaging in public discussion seems a worthwhile alternative. Persuading that two or three percent of voters who make the difference between majority support or not is the crucial step in booting the neo-cons out and reversing the damage they've done.
It's nice when the Supreme Court does their job as well, but they wouldn't need to be reversing these kinds of policies if they hadn't been inacted in the first place. If those of us doing the bitching and moaning had been more effective, had bitched and moaned louder and more persuasively, we might not be in the situation we're in.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then why do you continue to do it, then bitch when your proven wrong?
Originally posted by Geezer:
This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.
File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I thoroughly disagree. DO you really think you can change a system by using the system to change it? OUR system was set up as a RESULT of bitching- or have you forgotten all those infamous diatribes from the Founding Fathers about King George? Ben Franklin's press working overtime cranking out those sheets? "Give me Liberty of give me Death?"
I'm sure, had you been around at the time, you would have told those bellyachers that what they really needed to do was to appeal to some influential Lordships... grease the wheels maybe with a few business deals... you know, USE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WORKS.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which begs an interesting question...
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sure, had you been around at the time, you would have told those bellyachers that what they really needed to do was to appeal to some influential Lordships... grease the wheels maybe with a few business deals... you know, USE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WORKS.
You guys realise you were better off under King George right...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You mean PN is wrong and the US ISN'T under control of the British-Jewish NAFTA CAFTA SHAFTA mafia?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which begs an interesting question...
You guys realise you were better off under King George right...
Uh. No. Were not. Neener neener neener.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME