Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Breaking...
Update:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a body guard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo...
Excerpt. Read more at: Fox News
Thank you.
Wasn't Mr.Duranty given The Pulitzer for writing of the glories of Stalinist Russia?
One Worldish, huh?
On the advice of AG Gonzales?
Is he the mastermind of the gradual caving in on Gitmo starting about a year ago?
The only reason we take prisomners is because we are civilised and are playing nice.....And we get very useful intel from them.
Remember, O'Connor was speaking admiringly of international law shortly before her retirement.
Only as a reference point... heh.
--the administration has some hard decisions to make in light of this SCOTUS ruling.---
That leads to a bigger point. We conservatives sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. Such is the case here. The forest--or elephant in the living room--that is being ignored is the entire concept of JUDICIAL REVIEW. The US Constitution does not authorize judicial review. Such an authority is nowhere to be found in its text. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the first time judicial review was invoked by the SCOTUS, and it basically was a constitutional coup d etat by CJ John Marshall. Why Pres. Jefferson did not call Marshalls bluff I will never understand. The Framers would have detested judicial review. It takes power away from the general will of the American people (infallible) and gives it to nine all-to-fallible unelected oligarchs. Judicial review has caused injustice (Plessy, Korematsu, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo) and even war (Dred Scott). Judicial review is a concept which does our conservative movement no good. Our movement is about the PEOPLE and their sovereignty; judicial review only takes that away. There is a great article calling for the abolition of judicial review on townhall.com by a brilliant young political scientist named Ben Shapiro. To put it bluntly, instead of b*tching about this SCOTUS decision or that, or praying that the right justice gets on the bench, we conservatives should push to reverse Marshalls constitutional coup and abolish this odious doctrine once and for all. Let people elected by the people, who swear to uphold the Constitution, decide what is constitutional.
"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
It sounds like the court is placing the administration under the authority and control of the congress.
here is what is going to happen, many soldiers, like myself, after all what's is been going on, will do, what is called," Field Justice" and what happens in the field, well stays in the field, it is a shame what the Supreme Court has done, giving rights to camel jockeys, which do not wear an uniform, or fight for a country,
Describe the Detainee Treatment Act.
The Supreme Court seems to have the solution for terrorist so I'm sure they won't mind if President Bush gave them all pardons and let them out at the steps of the Supreme Court Building?
[Wasn't Mr.Duranty given The Pulitzer for writing of the glories of Stalinist Russia?]
Yes.
You can read about Walter Duranty, the NYT and its bogus Pulitzer here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford050703.asp
It appears on the Rush Limbaugh website under "Rush's Stack of Stuff".
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
This is bad news for future prisoners, they will simply be shot. What is wrong with SCOTUS, did they take a drink of weebily sauce?
The US is not a Signatory to the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Convention.
>/i> It gets more interesting than that. When Nixon unilaterally abrogated our treaty with the Chines, and negotiated with Red Chinese, the Supreme Court rule that a President has the Constitutional power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty. Does anyone have a cite on that?
for freedom,
"When Nixon unilaterally abrogated our treaty with the Chines, and negotiated with Red Chinese, the Supreme Court rule that a President has the Constitutional power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty. Does anyone have a cite on that?"
Jimmy Carter did this in 1979, not Nixon. Carter was sued by Congress and the Supreme Court ruled on it in Goldwater v. Carter:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/143/
True, they do sing quite nicely.
Screw it. Declare defeat, turn everybody loose, and suck the troops out of wherever they are. Let the world go to Hell, and let them come and destroy all we have. Nothing we can do, so I'm heading for the mountains. Eff 'em.
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.