Supreme Court gets it right!

[FlaSoxxJim]

Link to ABC news story:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2133924

 

Synopsis from Raw Story

 

Supreme Court rules against Bush over Guantanamo tribunals

 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority in denying terror war detainees civilian trials...

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. The administration had attempted to argue that the "combatants" had no rights under U.S. or international law, or that only certain rights under each applied.

 

The Supreme Court disagreed.

 

The trials had been challenged by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, former bodyguard and limo driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan has been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years, eventually being charged with conspiracy. The court pointed out that there is no international law against conspiracy.

 

The ruling is not likely to result in the release of Hamdan, or other Guantanamo prisoners. In fact, it may result in longer detentions, while the United States attempts to put another system into place.

 

The 5-3 decision overturns a lower court ruling in the government's favor by Chief Justice and Bush appointee John Roberts. Roberts did not participate in the decision.

 

A complete overhaul of the system for Guantanamo Bay detainee trails is now expected.

 

Developing...

 

So, the big story:

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

 

That ruling again:

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

 

What shoud we take away from this?

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Link to ABC news story:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2133924

 

Synopsis from Raw Story

So, the big story:

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

 

That ruling again:

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

 

What shoud we take away from this?

 

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

Flaxx, you get the 'devil weed' and I'll go get the cookies and milk for Osama -- since only terrorist supporting hippies can be happy about this clear declaration that executive authority is not taffy to be exerted whenever and wherever Bush thinks it can.

 

It's a resounding victory for logic, reason, facts and dignity.

[BigSqwert]

[Gregory Pratt]

We should impeach hese Activist Terrorist Loverists!

[BigSqwert]

We should impeach these Activist Terrorist Loverists!

How dare you question our conservative Supreme Court!

[FlaSoxxJim]

You think Roberts (recused) is happy about seeing his lower court decision overturned?

[kapkomet]

Part of me agrees with this and the other part doesn't. These people shouldn't be guaranteed CONSTITUTIONAL rights, and that's exactly what they're being granted. That's what troubles me.

 

Geneva convention is one thing, but constitutional rights is another, and this (from what I skimmed) seems to give these detainees those rights.

[FlaSoxxJim]

These people shouldn't be guaranteed CONSTITUTIONAL rights, and that's exactly what they're being granted. That's what troubles me.

 

I don't know if that is what the decision does.

 

Yes, the decision upholds the Constitutional separation of powers, and in so doing it points out tthat the President has no legislative authority to create the military tribunals as in existence at Guantanamo. That is my interpretation from Justic Bayer's opinion, which acknowledges that the Executive can seek authority from Congress to create such tribunals.

 

"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."

 

I interpret this as saying that the now established right to the military justice protections of Geneva and the Presidential lack of legislative authority together mean that the military commissions cannot stand as legitimate. I don't see that the detainees are being granted rights under the Constitution.

[NorthSideSox72]

Nice to see SCOTUS call the Administration on trying to have it both ways - they either are allowed protections under Geneva, or under our own laws. They can't simply invent a legal crack for them to fall into.

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't know if that is what the decision does.

 

Yes, the decision upholds the Constitutional separation of powers, and in so doing it points out tthat the President has no legislative authority to create the military tribunals as in existence at Guantanamo. That is my interpretation from Justic Bayer's opinion, which acknowledges that the Executive can seek authority from Congress to create such tribunals.

I interpret this as saying that the now established right to the military justice protections of Geneva and the Presidential lack of legislative authority together mean that the military commissions cannot stand as legitimate. I don't see that the detainees are being granted rights under the Constitution.

 

 

Im no supreme court justice but Geneva establishes a lot of parameters for falling under its protection and terrorist groups do not qualify.

 

Not a huge deal really. At the end of the day all this ruling is saying is that we can't create tribunals for these people without legislatiion to back it up. Look for Bush and the Congress to fast track legislation to deal with this issue here soon.

[WCSox]

Im no supreme court justice but Geneva establishes a lot of parameters for falling under its protection and terrorist groups do not qualify.

 

Not a huge deal really. At the end of the day all this ruling is saying is that we can't create tribunals for these people without legislatiion to back it up. Look for Bush and the Congress to fast track legislation to deal with this issue here soon.

 

I pretty much agree with this.

[Soxbadger]

The biggest problem was that they tried to create a loop hole where by they were not protected by the Geneva Convention, nor by US law.

 

Whether or not the legislature will allow these tribunals is irrelevant, they will no longer be operating under the cloak of darkness.

 

But then again, I have a feeling that this ruling was timed with the fact we are releasing GITMO detainees and most likely do not have that much more further use for it.

[minors]

Im no supreme court justice but Geneva establishes a lot of parameters for falling under its protection and terrorist groups do not qualify.

 

Not a huge deal really. At the end of the day all this ruling is saying is that we can't create tribunals for these people without legislatiion to back it up. Look for Bush and the Congress to fast track legislation to deal with this issue here soon.

 

 

Yep look for this to be dealt with quick, this ruling is not nearly as bad as leftist would like to believe. Boy I thought I could see some of them jump for joy when they first seen it.

[KipWellsFan]

Yep look for this to be dealt with quick, this ruling is not nearly as bad as leftist would like to believe. Boy I thought I could see some of them jump for joy when they first seen it.

 

Leftists? You're really not getting it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yep look for this to be dealt with quick, this ruling is not nearly as bad as leftist would like to believe. Boy I thought I could see some of them jump for joy when they first seen it.

 

"Not as bad"? No, it's not a bad decision at all. It's quite a good one, actually. :rolly

[Gregory Pratt]

When I first seen this ruling, I new that this news was good, boss. It means we have less executive powers boss and more terriers. I like terriers. Terriers are nice boss.

 

I was very happie with this here, happy happy joy joy even.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

"Not as bad"? No, it's not a bad decision at all. It's quite a good one, actually. :rolly

Jim, it's only good if you love terrorists.

 

BTW, are you coming over for the BBQ with Zawahiri later?

[kapkomet]

I don't know if that is what the decision does.

 

Yes, the decision upholds the Constitutional separation of powers, and in so doing it points out tthat the President has no legislative authority to create the military tribunals as in existence at Guantanamo. That is my interpretation from Justic Bayer's opinion, which acknowledges that the Executive can seek authority from Congress to create such tribunals.

I interpret this as saying that the now established right to the military justice protections of Geneva and the Presidential lack of legislative authority together mean that the military commissions cannot stand as legitimate. I don't see that the detainees are being granted rights under the Constitution.

That makes sense. And I agree with the sentiment that this basically was a "go get the law done right" message.

[minors]

What I meant is this decison is nothing terrible to the President.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Jim, it's only good if you love terrorists.

 

BTW, are you coming over for the BBQ with Zawahiri later?

 

You bring the Kakalosh, and I'll bring the Crab Juice!

[mr_genius]

wiat, how can this be possible! everyone knows the supreme court is composed president Bush's puppets! I mean they even stole an election for him!

 

lol

 

seriously though, this is a good decision

[Rex Kickass]

So I think I'm beginning to understand the scope of this decision.

 

1. The President can not create rules of law that he has a duty to enforce. That is something that is only creatable by the Legislative branch.

 

2. There are codes of law already established for this. The Geneva Convention and the UCMJ. The Supreme Court clearly seems to think that foreign held fighters enemy combatants or otherwise qualify as prisoners of war, especially if they're being held in wartime internment camps and being charged with war crimes.

 

3. The Supreme Court did say that the legislative branch could enact a set of rules. How able they are to do so, is left to question. Chances are it'll pass the house and get choked off in the Senate once people forget about this ruling. From what little I know of the ruling, if the Congress rubber stamps a process similar to what the Bush administration has, it may be leaving itself in jeopardy as the Supreme Court implicitly recognized Geneva Convention standing for enemy combatants.

 

4. This is a case based on processes of justice. The people currently facing these special tribunals were not able to see the jury who would determine their fate, be there for the jury selection, nor would they be able to see the evidence brought up against them. Many military law experts equate the invalidated process as kangaroo court-like. They cite that there are provisions for war crimes Court Martials. And that they would probably do the job quite well, and give these trials a level of transparency that ultimately might help a war on terror in the long run.

 

5. Finally, it should also be noted that of the approximately 450 or so people held in Gitmo, only 10 have been charged with anything. The military command of the camp has said that at most 40-80 more prisoners MAY be charged with some form of war crime. This leaves approximately 350 people detained against their will that we have no intent to charge with any crime. Some of them are detained because they can not get the right to return to their home country. Others are just being held for no good reason. By our own admission. The supreme court ruling does not address this, although there may be another decision that might in the near future from the high court - IIRC.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Good summary, Rex, thanks.

 

I'll add that I've seen a couple of other reasoned assesments that reiterate that Congress should not just be able to rubber stamp a tribunal that remains more or less along the lines of the current one, because as they exist now they do not pass Geneva muster in a few areas. If the White House is going to stand by GWB's word today to abide by the court ruling, those issues will have to be addressed before Congress can greenlight any new-look tribunal.

 

Also, intriguingly, some people are starting to wonder about the broader implications of SCOTUS saying that the post 9/11 Congressional AUMF is not a "blank check" for the Executive. That is, if Congress didn't specifically say a power is authorized, then it is NOT authorized. Specifically, should this not directly bear on the legal arguments of the White House that the authority to conduct the NSA warrantless surveilance programs derives from Executive powers granted by the AUMF.

 

It sure seems like a no-brainer that when Congress specifically denied the White House request for increased powers to conduct surveilance a just few days befor the AUMF, that it's rather inconceivable they intended to grant those Presidential powers with the AUMF. Still, that has been the administrations justification, all logic to the contrary.

 

Now, though, when SCOTUS has said specific Congressional authorization is necessary in the case of Gitmo military tribunals, does it not also follow that specific Congressional authorization is necessary in te case of the NSA domestic spying programs?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Glenn Greenwald says it better than me. The reasoning seems rock-solid.

 

The whole interpretation is LONG but insightful:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06...v-rumsfeld.html

 

The crux of the buscuit, re the ISA violations:

 

(a) rejected the administration's argument [sec. IV] that Congress, when it enacted the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda ("AUMF"), implicitly authorized military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. In other words, the Supreme Court held that because the AUMF was silent on the question as to whether the Administration was exempt from the pre-existing requirements of the UCMJ, there was no basis for concluding that the AUMF was intended to implicitly amend the UCMJ (by no longer requiring military commissions to comply with the law of war), since the AUMF was silent on that question.

 

This is a clearly fatal blow to one of the two primary arguments invoked by the administration to justify its violations of FISA. The administration has argued that this same AUMF "implicitly" authorized it to eavesdrop in violation of the mandates of FISA, even though the AUMF said absolutely nothing about FISA or eavesdropping. If -- as the Supreme Court today held -- the AUMF cannot be construed to have provided implicit authorization for the administration to create military commissions in violation of the UCMJ, then it is necessarily the case that it cannot be read to have provided implicit authorization for the administration to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

Edited June 30, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[AbeFroman]

I think this is a fantastic ruling.

 

Frankly, I think justice is best served when we go through all due process and find the bastards guilty. I see nothing wrong with bringing them to trial using our existing, time-tested rules of evidence and law.

 

BTW, it may be challenging for Congress to pass a bill containing the appropriate judicial procedure to circumvent this ruling... The legislature's impending action should be interesting.

Edited June 30, 2006 by AbeFroman