Posted on 06/12/2008 12:06:11 PM PDT by kellynla
President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.
"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." The court's decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of of Guantanamo.
In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.
"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."
Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind _ to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
The president, meeting with allies in a farewell tour of Europe, was reminded again that his time in office is fleeting. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was asked which U.S. president he would like to see next _ Sen. John McCain of Arizona or Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.
"I suppose I could express my own personal preference for one of the candidates, the Republican candidate," Berlusconi said. "And this is for a very selfish reason, and that is that I would no longer be the oldest person at the upcoming G-8 (meeting) because McCain is a month older than me." McCain is 71.
On soaring oil prices, the president made clear that the United States would send a high-level official to a summit recently announced by Saudi Arabia. The upcoming meeting is designed to gather oil producing countries and consumer nations. Bush made clear he would not be the one attending.
The Saudis are concerned that sustained high oil prices will eventually slacken the world's appetite for oil, affecting them in the long run. Saudi Arabia holds the world's largest oil reserve.
"The prices of gas are high and the American people don't like it and I can understand why they don't like it," Bush said.
"I said it's an interesting idea, I need to get home and study it," Bush said of the oil summit. "We'll send someone high-level here."
Bush's trip, which stretches from Slovenia to Northern Ireland, has largely been dominated by the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. He has also confronted matters of climate change, Mideast peace and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But he made a point to show those watching and listening in the U.S. that he was not overlooking the devastating weather that has hit back home.
In an opening statement at the news conference, Bush said, "My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the terrible tornadoes and flooding, especially those who've lost loved ones. We've been inspired by the stories of heroism, neighbors helping neighbors and communities coming together. It's a really tough time for the people in the midwestern part of the United States and they'll have the prayers of the American people."
Bush praised Italy for committing troops to trouble spots around the world, including more than 2,000 Italian troops toward the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. Italy, along with Germany, France and Spain, have restricted their troops to less dangerous areas in northern Afghanistan _ and that has caused a rift because other NATO members are deployed in the more violent regions of the nation.
Berlusconi said during the news conference that he and Bush had discussed these restrictions; Bush seemed to go further, saying he was pleased to learn under Berlusconi's instruction, "the caveats that have restricted your forces in Afghanistan have been removed."
Unlike other European leaders, such as former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former French President Jacques Chirac, Berlusconi supported Bush on Iraq from the start. The 71-year-old media mogul defied domestic opposition and dispatched about 3,000 troops to Iraq after the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Those troops came home, and Berlusconi, recently elected to his third stint in power since 1994, has pledged not to send any back.
Europe likes it? OK. Close Gitmo and send the 270 there right now to Europe. Randomly settle them among the countries that have bitched the loudest. Then sit back and watch the fun.
}:-)4
One more excellent example of why we desperately need one more good Supreme Court Justice (5 - 4). The question is where we’re going to get one from in the next four years.
Perfect timing. One more issue to fire up the base.
Well if Obama is elected, forget it, because he will appoint liberal judges.
McCain promised to appoint conservative judges, but, with Democrats expected to increase their margin in the Senate in the November elections, it might be tough to get a strong conservative judge confirmed. Ginsburg and Stevens are the 2 liberals likely to retire in the next four years. Would be nice to tip the balance of the court. But with that at stake the Democrats will fight hard, I’m sure.
This Republic is going beyond Bizzaro land!
My flag has flown in front of my house since I took occupancy in Feb. 02. This evening at sunset, it will be lowered for the last time. Our government has surrendered to our enemies.
Can GW formally declare them POWs and therefore outside of the courts’ jurisdiction? Or wouldn’t that work?
A Declaration of war would solve all legal conundrums. Unfortunately, Bush never asked for such a declaration.
You will get us all killed. With a pacifist congress, there will never be any war.
So do I.
C’mon George...grow a pair. Tell the butt wipes on the court that they made their decision, now they can enforce it.
We can be certain it won't be Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama, says of his nominees, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”
John McCain says of his nominees, “The duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines to be observed when it’s convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t. In federal and state courts there are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary and I intend to find them and promote them. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”
The Bill of Rights is a suicide pact: Supreme Court
You give me more influence than I could ever imagine to have. But if following our Constitution gets “us all killed” perhaps it (the Constitution) should be changed or our young heroes volunteering to protect us should just say, “Hell no, we won’t go!”
“Can GW formally declare them POWs and therefore outside of the courts’ jurisdiction? Or wouldn’t that work?”
Don’t know but we can certainly fly them back to wherever the hell they were captured and of course if they fall out of the plane on the way back...well...tuff Shiite! LOL
Send them back to their country of origin.
It will be like sending Russians back to the USSR post WWII.
“It will be like sending Russians back to the USSR post WWII.”
Not if we have the keys to the cells. BIG SMILE
Not a bad strategy. People sometimes act like SCOTUS is the highest authority and whatever they say goes. It doesn't have to be that way. We have a three-part government, and as far as I know, each part is of equal power.
If SCOTUS says terrorists have all the rights of US citizens, and if the Executive branch feels differently, then perhaps Congress should vote on it and break the tie.
Yeah -- have Congress cast votes that terrorists need our legal protection. See how that plays in November.
Au contraire.
The Iraq War Resolution and the original War on Terror resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan have the full weight of a Declaration of War. There is no specific requirement in the Constitution for any particular language in order to wage war.
Bush could ask for a Declaration of War now, but it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the legality of the action.
Nor, evidently, would it have any effect on the insanity that four radicals plus a wuss are perpetrating on the Supreme Court.
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.