Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo

MSNBC ^ | June 29, 2006 | Associated Press

[libstripper]

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.

[MNJohnnie]

Roberts had to recuse himself because he previously heard the case on the DC Circuit. He would be overseeing his own decision. I don't agree but them is the rules

[KC Burke]

ping me after you have read the decision and the dissents and posted your thoughts, if you would.

[MNJohnnie]

Thus in the long run this may be a good ruling in that it will keep the next Democratic President in check and not permit him or her to detain people without due process.

They are not citizens. A Military Tribunal IS Due Process under US and International Law. The 5 Leftist Judges just ignored Starie Decise to impose their emotional whimsy on the law.

[tort_feasor]

Here Thomas destroys the Geneva Convention Argument
"In any event, the Court’s argument is too clever by half. The judicial nonenforceability of the Geneva Conventions derives from the fact that those Conventions have exclusive enforcement mechanisms, see Eisentrager, supra, at 789, n. 14, and this, too, is part of the law of war. The Court’s position thus rests on the assumption that Article 21’s reference to the “laws of war” selectively incorporates only those aspects of the Geneva Conventions that the Court finds convenient, namely, the substantive requirements of Common Article 3, and not those aspects of the Conventions that the Court, for whatever reason, disfavors, namely the Conventions’ exclusive diplomatic enforcement scheme. The Court provides no account of why the partial incorporation of the Geneva Conventions should extend only so far—and no further—because none is available beyond its evident preference to adjudicate those matters that the law of war, through the Geneva Conventions, consigns exclusively to the political branches."

[AmishDude]

Well, I had to know this was a ruling by the stupid caucus in SCOTUS. It should be noted that these 5 justices overturned a ruling made by the Chief Justice. I think Roberts should consider giving Stevens and Ginsberg new office space in a cold, damp basement.

[AmishDude]

You know, everybody loves the Scalia dissents, but Thomas has a pretty poisoned pen himself.

[MNJohnnie]

Thanks for posting this Tort. Great stuff.

[hellbender]

"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."

Gee, I was unaware that al Qaeda was a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, and that their stateless terrorists were entitled to the same rights as uniformed "prisoners of war" from recognized nations. Good thing we have such legal geniuses as Stevens to inform us of such things.

[Verginius Rufus]

Anthony Kennedy wouldn't be on the Court at all if it had not been for the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination...which was largely due to Edward Kennedy. So letting him skate for the killing of Mary Jo continues to have consequences today.

[colorado tanker]

CB, the key opinion seems to be Kennedy's concurrence, in which several libs also join. He doesn't go nearly as far as Stevens, and expressly does not join the parts of the opinion dealing with the Geneva Convention, for example.

Basically, he seems to agree the President has the power to convene tribunals, but thinks the constitution of the tribunals and their procedures do not conform sufficiently to the UCMJ requirements for tribunals. If I'm reading this correctly, DOD could re-write the rules to conform more closely to the rules applicable to Courts-Martial, and use military judges, and they'd be OK. Is that how you see it?

[William Tell]

ZULU said: "Bush should simply IGNORE the Supreme Court ..."

Such would only be justified if there was no way, within the system, to achieve the desired goals. If I understand the decision, it really just requires that Congress make explicit what the expectations are. Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. Congress has the power to legislate the structure of the lower courts, not the President.

The failure of Congress to act is to be addressed by holding periodic elections. Not by granting the powers of Congress to the President.

Politically, this is a great decision. If the Demoncrats want to interfere it will be timely for the upcoming election. Let's see the anti-war Demoncrats expound on why we should not hold these terrorists accountable.

[onedoug]

ROFLMAO.

[Socratic]

You're right. It is a ridiculously funny notion.

[ZULU]

"Congress has the power to declare war, not the President."


But once the Congress has granted the President the authority to take military action, which I believe did, after 9-11, HOW he does so should be HIS call, not Congres' or the Courts.

Nevertheless, your point about forcing the Democrat pacifists into a corner is an intersting one and I hope it plays out as you and I hope.

[libstripper]

Good point. A lot of DemonRat Senate nominees are trying to run as though they were conservative Republicans. Harold Ford, Jr. here in Tennessee really stands out as an example; he's even advertising on the "Rush Limbaugh Show" here in Knoxville. We must confront him and every other DemonRat who's trying to look conservative with this horrible decision and ask what kind of justices he wants on the Court.

Of course we now know why AQ didn't run a plane into the SCOTUS building--they'd have been murdering their best allies.

[libstripper]

Absolutely. It also shows why we must ignore our frequent differences with President Bush and do our best to elect Republicans this fall--our very existence as a nation and the physical survival of many of us depend on it.

[MNJohnnie]

If Ford is a "Conservative" why did he vote to cut and run from Iraq with all the other Leftist Democrats?

[libstripper]

I'm not saying he is; I'm saying he's pretending to be one. His ads don't even say he's a DemonRat. It's the lying that makes him dangerous.

[William Tell]

ZULU said: "HOW he does so should be HIS call, not Congress' or the Courts."

I see nothing wrong with Congress providing any level of oversight that they wish. I don't believe that the President has the authority to wage war if Congress withdraws that authority. From a practical standpoint, that gives Congress great power over the President. At the same time, the practical issues dictate that there is much that Congress cannot do. They can't make decisions that the commander in the field can make because they are not in the field.

The relationship between Congress and the President during war time is very similar to that between a customer and a businessman. The customer may not be able to dictate everything about a product, but if they choose not to buy, then there is no sale. Without funding, there is no war.

[ZULU]

"I see nothing wrong with Congress providing any level of oversight that they wish."

You can only have ONE commander in chief, not a 600 plus committee. The President is commander in chief, not 600 plus congressmen.

While Congress CAN withdraw funding for a war they have previously granted the authority to conduct, this sets a very bad precedent. It undermines our credibility with friends and foes.

Having Congress direct the conduct of a war is, clearly, unworkable, and unconstitutional.