Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo

Those black-robed, activist unelected renegades are throwing their authority...oh, wait, this is a good thing huh? Nevermind :rolleyes:
 
Rich,
It was sort of a 'spray 'n' pray :D
Just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of crying 'judicial activism' when they enforce rights that certain members don't like.
Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled rant.
Dubya says he's going to keep fighting this. First obvious question: who can he appeal this decision to?
 
If Dubyah and Gonzales are smart thay will fix what the Justices told them too then they can have thier commision or tribunal. If they toe the "I can do what I want because I am President" line they will be wasting our tax dollars. This is not the first tribunal that the courts have overturned.
 
Last edited:
My eyes glazed over once I saw "Dubya" and "smart" in the same sentence....
Click to expand...
Two gratuitous driveby-s in three posts. Wanna try for a third?

My own posts demonstrate that I'm no fan of GW. But I would prefer you make a point or hold your counsel.
Rich
 
President Bush did not say he would keep fighting this. He said that he would continue to work with the Congress to fix this. The court also put in its decision remedies for this problem, which leads me to believe they jsut want the problem fixed, and not special rights for terrorists. I'm no law scholar this is just how I read the part I read. Tough to call activism here. Maybe I'm learning, I can see the point of the majority. Of couse it helps to try hard not to let emotion cloud reason. ERIC
 
Does anyone wish to address my last few questions?
Click to expand...

The opinion gives the precedents... and the reasons why this tribunal has been stopped in the majority opinion.

right out of the horses mouth as they say.......

no translation needed.

I guess folks are hammering that sight because I have been unable to get it here so I could save it on my computer.....
 
I didn't ask you about the precedents. I asked you about the laws being violated. I understand the need for congressional approval, but you have stated that these tribunals violate the GC. I would like to know what aspect of the GC is being violated. I would also like to know if any of your 10 points are different than the terms of preceeding tribunals.
 
I didn't ask you about the precedents. I asked you about the laws being violated. I understand the need for congressional approval, but the justices in the majority have stated that this tribunal violated the GC. I would like to know what aspect of the GC is being violated. I would also like to know if any of your 10 points are different than the terms of preceeding tribunals
Click to expand...
.

I have not been able to pull up the opinion on my comp tonight sight must be getting hammered....that was just a quick laundry list based on the majority opinion and the regurgitation of the justices opinion that it violated the GC

when I am able to digest it at leisure...I might be abe to give you an answer.

each tribunal was different, some were upheld while others overturned. So would we be comparing oranges to oranges with each tribunal? or would we be comparing apples to oranges in some cases? The justices in the majority have made that comparison with the precedents they used in this case as it applied to other tribunals...

just need some reading time...but feel free to give me your answer to the your question.

simply put I dont have an honest answer to your question yet
 
I understand that this ruling is particular to these specific tribunals. In reference to the differences between these and preceeding tribunals, I would only ask you compare them to tribunals that were upheld.

Thanks for your effort.
 
This link seems to work pretty well:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/05-184.html

Forgive me if I'm repeating an earlier point, but it basically holds that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.

The only authority the president has to establish a war commission is under his authority as CinC during wartime. As such, the trials must conform to the laws of war, which include the Geneva Convention and UCMJ.
To answer the question directed to Eghad it would seem pretty ironclad that this ruling applies to all of the commissions.
 
Does it bother anyone that the Supremes decided to ignore a law passed by Congress (in accordance with its Constitutional authority to restrict the jursidiction of federal courts) restricting jurisdiction over Gitmo and these cases? The Court didn't say Congress didn't have the authority to do so; it simply said Congress didn't mean for it to apply here. Yet, the legislative history, according to the authors of the law, is precisely in support of the limitation on jurisdiction the Court said it wasn't.
 
For the best example of what the Court is saying, see Justice Kennedy's concurrance in part. Pages 83 to 102 of the PDF.

By the way, most legal scholars have now concluded that Kennedy's opinion is the controlling and operative opinion of the Court.

You would do well to read it, as Kennedy answers your questions as it revolves around the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Kennedy further points out the irregularities of the tribunal as the President wishes to hold, against the common status of Courts Martial. Kennedy even argues his position without much reliance upon the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

The whole thrust of Kennedy's opinion is that the Executive must follow the law, where law has been provided by Congressional Acts. In the case of Courts Martial, Commissions and Tribunals, the Congress has taken an extensive roll in providing law upon which to constitute these courts. Therefore, the Executive cannot lawfully dismiss it obligations under the UCMJ or arbitrarily convene Courts, Commissions or Tribunals that do not satisfy current law (he may not contravene the UCMJ).

The President may only achieve the goal he wants by Congressional Acts and not mere Congressional approval.
 
Forgive me if I'm repeating an earlier point, but it basically holds that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.
Click to expand...

So in addition to congressional approval, they're also saying that prisoners need a trial with full GC protection to decide what kind of prisoner they are before they can be prosecuted for offenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top