The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the "military commissions" illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva convention.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
SUPREMES: MILITARY TRIBUNALS ILLEGAL
The vote was 5-3. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself. The Associated Press breaking lede:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Bring on the pundits.
There are a number of times throughout our history, when at time of war, the Executive Branch exceeds its authority.
During WW I Woodrow Wilson released federal prosecutors to indict opposistion party leaders and "pamphleteers" under the Espionage and Sedition Acts alledging they had attempted to impeed the government's war efforts.
When a Chicago newspaper printed that American forces had cracked the Japanese code during WW II, FDR wanted to send in Marines to seize the paper and shut it down. He did not of course.
FDR had a ruling handed to him by SCOTUS which was a harsh rebuke of his tactics. The court said "Because he thought that his motives were always good for the things he wanted to do, he found difficulty in thinking that there could be legal limitations on them."
Hey did Bush screw up? The court says he did. Conservatives will live with their decision because it is the law. Did Bush hurt US citizens by doing this? No, but he did to the enemy, and this is war.
But, if you libs are so inclined, go burn a flag and celebrate.
And while I'm Burning the Flag, I'll troll through your personal info, find out who you paid money to last week, where you been placing calls to and just for good measure, lock you away with no way to have anyone contact you, including your lawyer.
The more interesting thing is that you make no decision on whether what the other presidents' did was right or wrong, just that they did it. To quote everybody's mother, "If your friends were jumping off a cliff........"
Go ahead. I've done nothing wrong.
As for pointing out what other presidents have done, I was simply using language a liberal can understand. Justify bad behavior with other bad behavior.
The way the left operates in this country, that cliff looks better and better.
Well then adios!
Liberal Blogger: We have to say goodbye to these guys one funeral at a time.
"Did Bush hurt US citizens by doing this? No, but he did to the enemy, and this is war.
You kind of avoid the larger question here. Without due process how can it be determined if they really are the enemy.
The ruling today isn't a victory for any particular political group, it's a victory for the principles our country was founded on.
Bush has hurt ALL U.S. citizens by doing this. It will be hard for certain conservaboobs, if not most of them, to reconcile this.
But consider:
Most likely a fair number of current Guantanamo detainees will be transferred for prosecution in U.S. courts and military tribunals. Some will be convicted, and some probably won't. Some of the detainees probably won't face prosecution at all, and the Justice Department--whether under Bush or some successor in the Oval Office--will have to decide where and how to either release them, or legally transfer them to the custody of other nations. In short, some of the bad guys (PLEASE NOTE, I am not proclaiming any of them as innocents, although some may be) will eventually walk free.
And when they do walk free, whether through the gates of Guantanamo or the gates of some foreign embassy or foreign prison, they will carry in their guts a level of hatred for our country, and for our people, and for our democratic system, that can only breed further acts of terrorism and violence.
Bush, by usurping the most basic principles of our nation of laws, has been cultivating a hardcore cadre of terrorists inside the walls and fences of Guantanamo for years now.
Soon many of them will be free to "move about the cabin."
And that, Newtster, is how Bush has placed ALL of us in greater harm.
Amen. This is the same thing as the Flag burning amendment. Holding people in secret prisons without charges can be justified by some as a necessity for security, while it erodes the fabric of what gives us, as Americans real security. That is, the knowledge that Government cannot just put you away and throw away the key. W, like FDR may think what he is doing is for the greater good but that doesn't make him right. The Flag Burning amendment was the same sort of backend swipe at true freedom of speech. After all what is the flag but a symbol of our freedom. It is not itself freedom. So burn the flag, denounce America if you want. But by doing so you cannot touch what America truely is, which is the Greatest country on Earth. If we need an Amendment lets make one to protect us from misguided politicians and their ignorent supporters who want to debase our rights and our legacy for their own short sighted gains and call it patriotism.
1:55 PM
It is so easy to give away other peoples' freedoms. We may not like those our Government is mistreating at any given time but, as Newster makes clear, one administration's overstepping can always be used to justify the next set of injustices. That's why we have to care about the principle, even if our narrow bigotry makes it hard for us to care about the people (there are many people, if we can still call them that, at Gitmo, by the way, who are related to "evil" in only the most tangential ways).
I think this administration suffers from two problems (in this area; problems in other areas are legion): first, it was psychologically wounded in the days after September 11, and it is often genuinely unable to shake its bunker mentality. Second, its bunker mentality has served it well -- it has learned the power of making the country afraid, and it is willing to use that power to wrest power from the legislative branch and to win elections.
The solution to both problems, one understandable, the other contemptible? Legislative and judicial branches that aren't afraid to stand up for the principles this administration spits on every day.
A final thought on some of the posts, which reference TheNewtster's comments.
DUE PROCESS. I have a problem extending due process to enemies of the United States. Why should Osama get the same legal protection as you? You as an American are protected under the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Osama and his boys are not. Sure, they're people, biologically speaking, but that's about where the similarities end....in my book.
FLAG BURNING. If it's okay to burn the flag, is it then OK to shoot a Bald Eagle? It too is a symbol of our country. See, I have a real problem with flag burning. Many men and womeen died to protect that flag and the freedoms associated with it. It ignites me just as fast as when France told us to come dig up our rubbish, speaking of the remains of the US guys who died liberating Europe.
I guess I'm just from the old school. Everything about this country is worth defending. Even the flag.
Relieved I was to read a hammering of the "Flag Desecration Amendment."
Jar-Jar Binks could not come up with a more empty headed idea.
Would a Dad send his son into a burning and collapsing building to save the family portrait?
Who above the age of 4 does not know that the material item representing something valuable is never more important than the thing the item represents?
Yet a majority of American lawmakers tried to erode a basic American principle, the freedom of expression, to protect the material object which symbolizes that sacred principle.
As leaders, those lawmakers were not leaders.
They parroted the cries of the uneducated.
Better that they would use the force to educate their constiuents as to why a flag desecration amendment is UN-American and UN-patriotic.
It would be as simple as proposing two simple questions:
1. If tomorrow, China adopted the United States' flag as its flag, but made no other changes, what would be different in China?
2. If tomorrow, China adopted the United States' Constitution, what would be different in China?
The answers are, of course:
1. Nothing
2. Everything
The flag desecration amendment placed NOTHING ahead of EVERYTHING in terms of importance.
A see the Dark Side's hand in this.
Newtster, you are wise beneath your years.
Fear for you crossing the street I do.
An Eagle is a living thing.
A flag is a piece of cloth.
An Eagle can not be manufactured.
A flag can.
An eagle can feel pain.
A flag can not.
And you say "everything about this country is worth defending."
Include the Constitution you should.
Above all.
Why is the Newtster a nincompoop?
Good question I'm glad you asked.
#1 We are not talking about extening the full benifits of citizenship to the "evildoers". We are talking about upholding the principles this country was founded on. Newtster you ignorent self-rightious swine. Who gives you jackasses the moral authority to torture people and imprison them without trial? I bet you think it's god right? I would bet you are the kind of dirtball who thinks you speak for jesus when you condem people.
#2 It's just an f'n piece of cloth. It is not what people fight and die for.
If you can't figure it out go dig up a IED and quit wasting our time. Too many people have died becuse of biggoted idiots like you and your little president not having the forthought to do anything but play into the hands of our enemies. If you believe that the US has done anything other than what OBL wanted your a dolt. But we know this.
The US has been laid low by stupid policy. I for one have had it with people like you. You are all guilty of treason to the values of this nation.
Take a friggin civics refresher.
"#2 It's just an f'n piece of cloth. It is not what people fight and die for."
Just to add to what notafinga said, is that flag we're discussing even manufactured in this country anymore? I suspect not. That symbol that our men and women are dying for is manufactured in China.
Funny, I never considered burning a flag until I discovered this.
No. I don't speak for Jesus. I'm not nearly as smart as he.
Why can't a flaming liberal such yourself ever debate the issues with facts?
Let's see, I'm supposed to go kill myself with an IED so you won't hear opposing thoughts.
I'm a biggoted idiot. A dolt. A jackass. A swine. Oh, a dirtball and I'm also guilty of treason. All of that hate wrapped into just two itty bitty paragraphs. Mercy.
It's amazing how well the left can weave lucid, well thought-out logic and facts when they discuss such hot button issues.
I may need a friggin civics refresher, but after using words like that, you need a trip to the wood shed.
"...go dig up a IED..." Is this the new version of "go play in the street?"
And notafinga might want to be careful threatening the life of Shattenkirklethingy. I hear he contacts the police and WILL PROSECUTE YOU TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW. "course he then has to apologize repeatedly on the air to avoid lawsuits. Idjets never learn.
Notafinga fyi: Never voted dem until W.
came along. I love Mccain, and was a huge
Bush 1 fan. Voted for Dole.
All is not as it seems my tiny minded friend. Even your good budy Newt is a smart guy who could be a great leader. But you in the flock are just kind of lost. I really feel sorry for you guys.
Maybe you should try some yoga or read about Buddism? Maybe just try reading books that aren't about liberals.
Hmmm. newtster says "There are a number of times throughout our history, when at time of war, the Executive Branch exceeds its authority."
Then cites one, count them, ONE time.
"During WW I Woodrow Wilson released federal prosecutors to indict opposistion party leaders and "pamphleteers" under the Espionage and Sedition Acts alledging they had attempted to impeed the government's war efforts."
Then provides us with an example of when a president WANTED to exceed his authority, but DID NOT.
"When a Chicago newspaper printed that American forces had cracked the Japanese code during WW II, FDR wanted to send in Marines to seize the paper and shut it down. He did not of course."
For someone to then claim another "can't . . . debate the issues with facts" is the pot calling the kettle black.
Why should Osama get the same legal protection as you? Because it is one of the priciples upon which the United States was founded. You know, one of those things newtster says he believes is worth defending. It also helps prevent things like torturing captured American soldiers. Or it did before King George the Dubya.
boo ya! take that jagass
So, what do we do with these non-soldier combatants... hire big-shot attorneys for them, or do they get public defenders? Jury trials with wall-to-wall CourtTV coverage?
It's a shame Johnny Cochrane's dead...
The Newtster said...
Go ahead. I've done nothing wrong.
The problem is Newt --- you don't get to decide if you have done something wrong under George's system. Someone else will decide that for you. Maybe the FBI, maybe the DEA, maybe the ACLU, maybe George hisself. It doesn't matte if you have actually done anything wrong ... all that's needed is for someone else to think you have done something wrong.
Dear Newtster:
You state: "DUE PROCESS. I have a problem extending due process to enemies of the United States. Why should Osama get the same legal protection as you? You as an American are protected under the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Osama and his boys are not. Sure, they're people, biologically speaking, but that's about where the similarities end....in my book."
Sure, it can be hard to grant civility and due process to those we who may be inclined to hate and despise. That is a natural human response.
Let us remember how and why our country came to leave Europe and settle elsewhere.
But the Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That is all not some. And if one is a follower of Christ, then his teachings are clear about how to treat those who hate us.
That is where integrity, and convinction come in. Sometimes doing the right thing is very, very hard. Hating Osama and other terrorists (and I do see them as terrorists and not freedom fighters) is easy. The path of least resistance is fighting those terrorists with total disregard to our own Constitution and our foundation of faith. (While not everyone has a personal foundation of religious faith those principles are the bedrock of our Constituion.)
Fighting our response to hate and kill is very hard, but it is the right thing to do. And for folks such as myself who also try to follow Christ, we are commanded to do so ... based on blind faith. We trust that Christ's command to love those who hate and spit on us is the right thing to do.
All this talk has made my tummy grumbly.
Actually, Jack, the Constitution protects even FOREIGNERS in this country and not just US citizens. Courts have consisently ruled oner the years that foreigners may not be treated in an arbitrary manner by the government: they have a fundamental right to FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT.
"With liberty and justice for ALL" Sound familiar"
Wanna go for coffee and donuts?
"With liberty and justice for all" Yeah, where have I heard that before?
The pledge.
It's odd isn't it. You pledge liberty and justice for all to something that you can burn.
Does that mean the liberty and justice for all is just another symbol?
Sorry Newty no points for this stinker of an argument. I can see Aristotelian logic is a challenge here. When you get out of civics class go enroll in a logic class. It will help you learn to craft clear arguments which make sense to others.
MSU has a good one check it out.
Newtie, Newite. Your flag-waving response is misguided.
So far as I know, NOT ONE civil servant and NOT ONE member of the Armed Forces in the entire history of this country has EVER sworn to protect and defend the flag. They swear to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION.
Give it up!
Any high school English course will provide a refresher on what a SYMBOL (flag) and how it is DIFFERENT from the THING IT SIGNIFIES (liberty and justice for all.
Listen closely to that last post, and you can hear the strains of "O, Canada!" and "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," in the background.
Boy, I guess I grew up in a different time.
Congrats to the left. So far, you've done a wonderful job of screwing up this country.
By the way, I was viewing tv a night or two ago (I have to phrase things just right as to not offend DocLarry) and it was a debate about the high school girl out west who had her microphone cut-off when she began speaking about her faith. Maybe you guys could help me out here. I've read the Constitution and for the life of me I can't find the phrase "separation of church and state" Can someone point me in the right, or left, direction?
The Left has screwed up this country? Hmmm, for six years who has controlled every branch of government? And what has that government accomplished? An ill-conceived war with 2500+ American soldiers dead, thousands more maimed, an ever-increasing national debt which will bankrupt the next several generations, the shredding of the Constitution which has moved the U.S. away from democracy and toward fascism, millions without basic health care likely to lead to epidemics, an environment destroyed perhaps beyond repair, a disgusted world-view of the U.S., no energy policy other than the increasng of oil company profits, and vast corruption within the majority party.
But I'm sure it's Clinton/Gore?Moore's fault.
Ill concieved war? Are you nuts? We were attacked by Islamic radicals on 9/11. And don't give me the crap that UBL's boys weren't in Iraq at the time of the attack. That's like saying Mickey Mouse wasn't at Disneyland.
You lefties love to compare Iraq to Vietnam, and the reason is your boys gave us Vietnam, so you should have great experience in recognizing a failure when you see one. But Iraq is no failure. The war on terror is no failure.
Yes we've controlled the Congress and the White House for six years. But since 1960 you guys controlled both sides for 20 years. And controlled Congress for 32 years. Don't hand me that.
LBJ have us "The Great Society" which was nothing more than a big welfare state so taxpayers could pay for people not to work.
Carter gave us an 18% prime intrest rate and a 400+ day stand-off with the same towel headed assholes we're fighting now.
Clinton gave us a surplus on paper. Two missed chances to kill UBL and a sperm stained blue dress not to mention perjury and impeachment.
Yeah, you guys have quite the legacy.
So FigBoy, when will you be leaving for Iraq to fight the "towel heads," as you so hatefully refer to them? Or are you one of the Yellow Elephants hiding under your bed wetting your pants every time dear leader talks about the War on Terra? If you truly believe this war is justified and a good thing there is no reason for you not to enlist. The military is taking just about anyone these days. Are you a chickenhawk?
Hey, Anon ... the Army says you can enlist up until age 42 now ....
The recruiting office address can be found in the phone book. Get your ass out there and put it on the line like us lib'ruls did.
Until you do ... my friend ... you are pure and simple bullshit.
Soirry .. .that should be directed to figboy ... not our anon --who sound a lot like him .. there are other anons who don't.
Tell me figboy, do you live in the same skin as your namesake, or Dick-Dick, or VD(J)?
It pisses me off for people who have never put themselves in the slightest bit of danger say that those of us who have, are something less than good Americans for critizing Operation Fuckin' Disaster.
Stoner,
Thank you for having served.
DocL ... do you know that you are the first person who has ever said that to me? Even when I call Woot-woot -wooten, who knows of my history, he doesn't say that, even though he says it to everyone else, particularly those who agree with him.
As a matter of fact a friend that I took to Branson asked me why I didn't stand up for recognition when Stafford asked. I told her I thought the whole thing was stupid and self-indulgent. I had one hell of a lot of fun flying airplanes .. .right up until the last ... I don't need thanks ..
I won't hold my breath until VD(J) says it ... and then, I might flush him again...
There are too many goddamn self-pitying, crazy, lying Vietnam vets out there right now who are capitalizing on this whole thing.
If you go in a vets bar on Commercial Street you would never realize that there were cooks, truck drivers and clerks over there. Just guys who went on LURPS and saw some really horrible things. And that's why they are crazy, worthless drunks.
That's why I jump figboy's ass.
You jumped my ass? I must have missed that.
I would enlist you asshole if I wasn't in this chair.
But it's just like a liberal to stand up for the towel heads over an American citizen like me. You CSers do it all the time.
OK, now FigBoy has jumped the shark. "I can't enlist because I'm in this chair." Bullshit. Damn chickenhawk Whiny Ass Titty Baby.
Well, I am in a chair. I never said wheelchair. There you go again. Jump a guys ass without even knowing the facts, but that's a liberal for you.
By the way anon, I can't figure out why the left refers to me as a chickenhawk when you are the spineless pricks that want us out of Iraq.
bawk,bawk,bawk.
And bullshit right back at ya.
All commenters:
Vigorous debate is one thing. Devolving into unnecessary profanity is another.
Keep it clean and refrain from profanity and name calling. If you can't, get your own blog and get lost.
Mr. Davis, sir, I believe I was keeping it clean until profanities were thrown at me.
In my case, I believe you are preaching to the converted.
Newtster: I don't care who started it. I'm ending it. Smart debaters can make their points without stooping to profanity.
Ronbo may remember this. Back in the old days of ORION there was a guy on who was a lot like figboy, who pretended to have served. One day someone, maybe Ron can remember who, maybe Tom Knapp, maybe Clell Harmon, asked him for his SPN number off his DD-214. He asked what a DD-214 was. No one, and I do mean no one who has actually been in the military will ever forget getting that form in the mail. It means a lot of money down the road, if nothing else.
I guess now I know he was in a chair. Or the loo ...
Well this has all been fun but I think we can now all agree that there are two sides to this debate and we may never convince one of the other. On one side people who sit in desbeleif at how a guy who never actually got a mandate from voters could so radically alter our world and put our country in the toilet. One the other side we have his supporters who apparently sit on that toilet. Next issue.
Post a Comment