Posted on 07/02/2006 4:24:37 AM PDT by edpc
THE SUPREME Court's rejection of the Bush administration's plan for terrorist trials has rightly been seen as a rebuff of the president's unilateral legal approach to fighting al-Qaeda. But in a subtler way, it is also a profound rebuke to Congress. The nation's legislature has mostly sat on the sidelines for the duration of the war on terror, letting the administration make its own rules -- and ride roughshod over the law as well as fundamental American values. The court's action forces the administration to invite Congress into the process of designing trials for enemy combatants. This presents a major opportunity to bring the legal framework of this conflict -- and the country's political system -- back into balance.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sure, let's box ourselves in with 'rules' on fighting people who observe no boundaries. This 'legal' and 'law enforcement' approach is the same impotent, failed policy of the Clinton administration in the '90s. We know how well that worked.
Why don´t you try these inmates all for "membership in a terrorist organisation"? Give each 20-30 years and the affair is over. You know that none of them will be executed by the US, so such a solution would serve the US´ interests at best, especially regarding the descending popularity of America. And please spare us "we don´t care about world opinion" - it makes a differences when a majority of people in allied countries consider the US a bigger threat to peace than the PR China!
The irony is the Court intentionally misinterpreted the Detainee Treatment Act that Congress passed to reach the decision.
No, Congress did not. Congress specifically said that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction in this case, but SCOTUS ignored that. And the WashPost cheers on the usurpation.
"and ride roughshod over the law as well as fundamental American values"
When it comes to American security and values, the Post and its filthy America hating fellow media wouldnt know our values if they hit them in the face.
We DON'T care about other countries opinions.
I love it when the press characterizes this President making a decision as "(ride roughshod over the law)" When no laws are on the books that apply to the handling of Al-Qaeda terrorist enemy combatants, i.e., non members of the Geneva Convention. So he makes a decision as CINC in war time the SCOTUS says it isn't the right decision so Congress passes a law noting more then a healty democracy at work here...
"And the WashPost cheers on the usurpation."
Of course the Washington Post is excited. Judicial Actitivism at the highest level. A dream come true for the MSM. Only the courts can reject those things that most mainstream Americans vote for again and again. The Dems have managed to set the stage for a system where elections are meaningless by stacking the courts with stooges.
Now that you´ve proven that you can write, you just need to prove that you can read.
Freud might think they are exhibiting "Chiefness Envy."
The MSM takes the position that USSC's recent decision is a slap at Bush (or a slap at Congress).
If it is a slap at anyone, it could be a slap at Roberts.
Send them for trial and imprisonment in Iraq or Afganistan far beyond the reach of our court system.
It makes a difference to whom? If a majority of people in allied countries have this opinion, perhaps they should not be considered allies. Also, if a majority of people hold an incorrect opinion, it's not incumbent upon us to risk our security to appease their misguided fears.
Let there be law, unless it's just about sex.
The Supreme court abandonded the Rule of Law when they
divorced our law from the General law of Nature dictated by God Himself-and the positive priciples of divine Law reflected in Scripture. When the divided Supreme Court erected a "wall of separation" they divorced themselves
from Law and mandated the nation to join them in their apostacy.Now the "despotic branch" claims Law ( as only they can interpret it) over the reason these enemies have been detained?
 |
| I think it would be safe to say that terrorists are the most dangerous criminals on the planet. The USSC proclaims that they are to be given the protection of the Geneva Conventions. All this leads me to one question. What is the point of being a signatory to the Geneva Convention? |
Interesting, isn't it, that the least known fact about the decision is that the Congress took jurisdiction away from the Supremes, and they asserted the right to decide it anyway. Congress should immediately pass an amendment to that law saying, "no, we meant to take away jurisdiction from pending cases, too." In addition they can pass a law that the Geneva convention does not apply to enemy combatants, and deny jurisdiction over the issue to the courts, "and, by the way, that means pending cases you jerks."
One of the things that people need to realize about our system is that each of the three branches, including the judiciary, is capable of violating the constitution. The other branches have to protect themselves when this happens, through their vaunted checks and balances. When the judiciary does it, the executive is duty bound, by his oath of office and his need to preserve the President's powers for his successors. A President should explain what he is doing and why, and if he is clearly right, as he is in this case, he can get away with it and make the court look bad in the process. That will tend to deter the court from overstepping its bounds.
Well, the government of Spain has withdrawn its troops from Iraq and so does the new government of Italy. The US should not forget to keep the standard level we use(d?) to have in the western hemisphere. If you think you can live without allies - you´re about to start the party! Recklessness has never brought many fruits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.