[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I guess the Justices do have more divisions than Bush. What a whimp.

Are you honestly suggesting that Bush not comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court? And that by not doing so he is a wimp?

Please say you are kidding. My friend, you are not a conservative, you are advocating that the President break the law of the land in a manner that would require his impeachment.

Seems to me you are:

a. kidding

b. an idiot

c. a monarchist/facist

d. belong at the DU

[lepton]

My friend, you are not a conservative, you are advocating that the President break the law of the land in a manner that would require his impeachment.

Frankly, that's a politics game. If we were discussing it honestly, there would be 5 justices with articles of impeachment against them right now...not because we disagree with their opinions, but because the Constitution, the Law, and the Geneva Conventions are so clear on this that they are either illiterate (a distinct possibility), or simply dispensed with the Constitution. There really aren't any other alternatives.

The Congress in the DTA clearly and directly removed this case from their jurisdiction as of 30 Dec 2005. Article III of the Constitution directly and explicitly gives Congress that power. The Geneva Conventions explicitly exclude the detainees from coverage as illegal combatants, and the DTA provides a path for challenging their illegal combatant status(which challenge had nothing to do with this case and which did not involve SCOTUS).

The SCOTUS has invoked a Constitutional crisis and dared the other branches to deal with it. This is about as direct as it comes.

[PGP]

Actually, no majority of the Court ruled on the Geneva Convention nonsense, because Kennedy explicitly receded from those parts of Stevens' opinion, leaving only 4 justices signing on for extending Common Arttcle 3 to the Gitmo detainees. Kennedy signed on to the majority's refusal to allow executive military tribunals (and the jursidictional ruling that the Court could still hear Hamdan's case). Bush has no legal duty to follow the ruling of four justices who do not comprise a majority.

Which makes this news from the administration all the more unnecessary and offensive. The Bush people are doing serious damage to the executive's war powers for absolutely no reason.