Quote:

---

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.

---

Quote:

---

excerpted from http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/significance-of-hamdan-v-ru
msfeld.html
...
(1) The Supreme Court held [Sec. VI(D)(ii) of the court's opinion] that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees captured in military conflicts, including Al Qaeda members or other "enemy combatants," and not merely (as the Administration asserted) to soldiers who fight for established countries which are signatories to the Conventions.
...
(2) The Court did not rule on whether it could, in the absence of Congressional mandates, compel the administration to abide by the Geneva Conventions. The Court did not need to rule on this question, because it found [Sec. IV] that the administration was required by Congress -- as part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") -- to comply with the rules of law when creating and implementing military commissions. Thus, the Court enforced the Congressional statutory requirement that the administration comply with the rules of law with regard to all military commissions, and rejected any claims by the administration to possess authority to override or act in violation of that statute.

(3) The Court dealt several substantial blows to the administration's theories of executive power beyond the military commission context. And, at the very least, the Court severely weakened, if not outright precluded, the administration's legal defenses with regard to its violations of FISA. Specifically, the Court:

(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.
...
(b) More broadly, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized the shared powers which Congress and the Executive possess with regard to war matters. Indeed, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy expressly applied the mandates of Justice Jackson's framework in Youngstown (the Steel Seizure case) on the ground that this was a case where the adminstration's conduct (in creating military commissions) conflicted with Congressional statute (which requires such commissions to comply with the law of war).
...
(4) This decision illustrates just how critical is the current composition of the Supreme Court. The decision was really 5-4 (because Roberts already ruled in favor of the administration in the lower court). The Justice who wrote the majority opinion, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old, and as Justice Blackmun once famously warned, he "cannot remain on this Court forever." If the Bush administration is permitted to replace Stevens with yet another worshipper of executive power, the next challenge to the Bush administration's theories of unchecked power could very easily result, by a 5-4 vote, in the opposite outcome.

(5) Congress can reverse almost every aspect of the decision as it specifically pertains to these military commissions. It could abrogate any treaties it wants. It could amend the UCMJ to allow military commissions with the rules established by the President. It has already stripped the Court of jurisdiction to hear future habeas corpus challenges by Guantanamo detainees, and could act to further strip the Court of jurisdiction in these areas. We will undoubtedly hear calls by Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Tom Coburn (and perhaps Joe Lieberman?) et al. for legislation which would accomplish exactly that.

Nonetheless, opponents of monarchical power should celebrate this decision. It has been some time since real limits were placed on the Bush administration in the area of national security. The rejection of the President's claims to unlimited authority with regard to how Al Qaeda prisoners are treated is extraordinary and encouraging by any measure. The decision is an important step towards re-establishing the principle that there are three co-equal branches of government and that the threat of terrorism does not justify radical departures from the principles of government on which our country was founded.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
...This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

---

Quote:

---

File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sure, had you been around at the time, you would have told those bellyachers that what they really needed to do was to appeal to some influential Lordships... grease the wheels maybe with a few business deals... you know, USE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WORKS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Which begs an interesting question...

You guys realise you were better off under King George right...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Mostly agree here Geezer, but since most of us aren't in positions to get the Supreme Court's attention, engaging in public discussion seems a worthwhile alternative.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And nothing starts the day off right like a pot of coffee.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I thoroughly disagree. DO you really think you can change a system by using the system to change it?

---

Quote:

---

Slaves are free. Women can own property and vote. Everyone has equal rights to jobs. Accommodation must be made for the handicapped. Hey, the Alien and Sedition Acts are no longer in effect. Slowly, and with many fits and starts, for 230 years, the system works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
On the other hand, I wish Soupcatcher would play more often, because he is always civil, and makes some good points. I have to admit that, when provoked, I may get a bit rude every once in a while, but I try to respect everyones' opinions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
WTF? You think things changed because some old white guys decided one day to change things??? "The system" didn't change itself, it responded to pressure from people. For some strange reason, you think that it's unseemly for people to get involved in changing things when that is the only way things change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem is that people... well, they don't give a shit about their rights, or the system, or their government most of the time. As long as they have a job, family and some friends, a roof over their head, they're okay. The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.

---

Quote:

---

And the other thing is that even tho the Founding Fathers had a brilliant idea of pitting each part of government against the others in a self-interested fashion, they hadn't counted the corruption of all three branches of government by the same agent: money.

---

Quote:

---

"The System" in my view, includes the people and their involvement.

---

Quote:

---

Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

---

Quote:

---

Is calling me names on RWD the best use of your political capital?

---

Quote:

---

pansy ass appeasers to Islamic Fascism

---

Quote:

---

The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.
- Signy
Don't you consider this somewhat of an elitist viewpoint? -Geezer

---

Quote:

---

Whe it gets too egregious, the people finally get tired of it and kick the bastards out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems to me like "the system" could use some tweaking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever happened to voting, and marching, and buttonholing your neighbors (and internet neighbors), and organizing with your colleagues?
Why izzit that even tho you eventually concede that maybe discussion and picketing and civil disobedience (Rosa Parks) is a "valid" form of political involvement, your first reponse is to tell people to shut up and let "the system" work?

---

Quote:

---

But there's a difference between the changing the people and changing the system. One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems like "the system" needs some tweaking to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

As you noted above, most people are relatively happy as long as they can take care of their families, have a decent income, and expect a resonable amount of security. I don't see this as a bad thing. If most people are relatively happy, something is working right.

---

Quote:

---

Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

---

Quote:

---

Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

Rue: Slick, Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

Slick: QED

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
On surface, this is a very good point. But when something like Abu-Ghirab happens and is kept quiet- or when it explodes and how it gets spun is the stuff of Big Brother control, denial, rationalization.
No matter how great this country is, it will always be limited to the 'truth of the moment', which will conform to the needs of the owners (who must thank God for the short memory of the public), thus severly hampering potentially near-perfect freedom...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Now see, there you go again Slick. When all I did was point out AND PROVE that you lied about me.

And now you're going around acting like the poor little victim. Just another dirty rhetorical trick to avoid actually discussing facts.

QED

Quote:

---

Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

Rue: Slick, Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

Slick: QED

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So anyways, I thought I had put in a plug there for free political debate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

And...This "near-perfect freedom" of which you speak: do you think that your idea of what it is will agree with most folks'? What is your idea of near-perfect freedom, anyway?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
My idea of it is what we would have, right here, right now, if MONEY didn't dictate who wins court cases, gets medical attention, or becomes President. Laws to even the playing field sos a man with good ideas wouldn't be grossly overshadowed by a man w/connections and money but not a neuron to his name would be a fine start. A pool of lawyers chosen at random to prosecute or defend..healthcare payed by our taxes (which would be somewhat higher-okay), influence peddeling punishable by DEATH...

Little things like that...The Constitution's fine as it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the system'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I was wondering if you meant the judicial system, the US structure, or democracy in general.

No, I don't think the US system works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, you and I are to close to agreement on this to argue...

Chrisisall

---