The Gitmo Prisoners’ Case:What the Supreme Court Really Did, And How the Press Blew the Story

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 June 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[wita]

I'm not so sure under the circumstances, that your musings are of much meaning or worth, considering the blistering brain power and blind reasoning, that the decisions are indicitive of. Take heart, I would rather have you on the Supreme court than the 5 who profess to know the law and are bound by oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America.

[kidd]

As is common in Scalia Dissents, he chastises the majority in strong language. He writes, “ Though the Court resists the Bruner rule, it cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation. By contrast, the cases granting such immediate effect are legion, and they repeatedly rely on the plain language of the jurisdictional repeal as an ‘inflexible trump....’ ”

1. What is the Bruner rule?

2. Is it Constitutional for Congress to include a jurisdiction-stripping provision in any law? While I agree that the SCOTUS has done its part in breaking down Constitutional checks-and-balances, doesn't the DTA (with its jurisdiction-stripping provision) do this as well?

[Polybius]

The ruling said that the commission process at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could not proceed without violating US military law and provisions of the Geneva Conventions

How so?

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention defines who qualifies as a Prisoner of War. If you do not qualify under the requirements set by Article 4, you are an illegal combatant. Al Qaeda members, by not carrying arms openly, by dressing as civilians and by targetting civilians have failed three of the requirements outlined by Article 4.

According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, should there be a question about whether or not a captured combatant is an illegal combatant, the question will be "determined by a competent tribunal".

According to Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention, those tribunals are Military courts:

"A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, ......Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention"

Why does the Geneva Convention require military courts?

Because the Geneva Convention recognizes that professional military men can better judge if an act was a legitimate act of war than can an outraged civilian jury who wants to lynch every captured enemy soldier.

[Just A Nobody]

If this congress had any balls, they would start impeaching judges at every level, the msm ENEMEDIA be damned. But then we all know that they lack any moral courage or guts.

Bears repeating.

[lepton]

How is it that the typical, reasonably informed American citizen knows more about, and understands better, the U.S. Constitution than the majority of the SCOTUS??

I don't know that THAT is true...but some of SCOTUS' rulings are simply examples of illiteracy.

[Stultis]

Howard Dean got his return to the 60's wish: a civil rights issue.

All that remains is too translate We Shall Overcome into Arabic.

[lepton]

Is it Constitutional for Congress to include a jurisdiction-stripping provision in any law?

It's directly written into the Constitution: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In fact, the Court recognized it, then decided that Jurisdiction was based upon when the case began. In this case, the courts lost Jurisdiction Dec 30, 2005, and no longer had any authority to deal with the case in any manner other than to deny Jurisdiction.

[goldstategop]

If the Supreme Court won't obey a law withdrawing its appelate jurisdiction over a given case, that alone is sufficient grounds to abolish judicial review altogether. The courts are supposed the interpret the laws and see to the punishment of offenders. When they get into the business of making laws instead, they overstep their bounds and undermine the very systems of checks and balances that prevents any one branch of government from excessively weakening another branch thereof. In their constitutional design, the Framers wanted to avoid that danger when they split governmental authority between three separate branches. The Supreme Court in effect seemed bent on declaring the United States is now a judghocracy. A government based on the rule of judges instead of the people.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Enterprise]

Thanks for your efforts! Brother Rush mentioned your analysis today (6/30/06).

[Thom Pain]

If Stevens, Souter and Breyer can make up stuff, so can I.

[wita]

A black ops caller to the Shaun Hannity show said as much.
"Why should I jeopardize my men and the USA by capturing terrorists only to have them be given more rights than they are granted or deserve.

[lepton]

If Stevens, Souter and Breyer can make up stuff, so can I.

hehe. Though you really should put Ginsberg on that list before Breyer. Even Breyer didn't buy the Bush v. Gore nonsense the SCOFLA dished out.

[lepton]

If Stevens, Souter and Breyer can make up stuff, so can I.

hehe. Though you really should put Ginsberg on that list before Breyer. Even Breyer couldn't stomach the Bush v. Gore nonsense the SCOFLA dished out.

[El Gato]

Otherwise (I used to laugh at this kind of talk), we are doomed.

T'aint so funny anymore, is it?

[Mia T]

Another thing: Your excellent analysis stands in stark contrast to the slop served up not only by the MSM but by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

We've become inured to such mediocrity. Still, it is alarming.

[defconw]

BTTT.

[sageb1]

Your analysis is the clearest I've heard or read. I am bothered greatly, although not surprised, that the majority admits that they were swayed by political posturing in a very partisan House and Senate.

[El Gato]

Recall that all a prisoner is required to give is name, rate, serial number, and date of birth.

I can hear it now.

Name: Abdul Mohamed

Rank: Terrorist apprentice

Serial Number 666

Date of Birth: 28 RamaDHaan 1406 A.H.

[XJarhead]

I know nothing about the law, but I can't help but think I have, at least, a clearer mind than at least 5 sitting SC Justices!

It's not that you have a more clear mind. It's that you have a more honest one. I have no doubt that the sitting Justices all understood perfectly what a fair reading of the law required. It's just that they did not want to reach the result that law required. So, they went through some convoluted legal gymnastics to make their desired result appear to be supported by the current law.

That's really the greater sin, in my opinion. It's one thing to be too dumb to render the correct decision. It's far worse to know the correct decision, but choose to rule otherwise.

[PghBaldy]

Well done, and in English to boot. Thank you.