Gitmo Ruling: 5-3 Overrules White House

[Michele 1]

Interesting development...SCOTUS has ruled that military war crimes trials are not the way to go...

Forbes link
(from the link):

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions. "

More at link.

Checks and balances, people. That's the system. It will be very interesting to see the ruling itself, and what comes of it.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

More:

CNN Link
From link:
"The 5-3 ruling means officials will have to come up with a new policy to prosecute at least 10 so-called "enemy combatants" awaiting trial -- it does not address the government's right to detain suspects."

So. Gitmo doesn't seem to be ordered closed, and military tribunals are out. Regular court trials? If guilty, then Fed prison? Not sure...but very interesting ramifications of the decision.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Obviously the SCOTUS doesn't know what they are talking about.....The Supreme Leader does not make mistakes, nor does He do anything wrong....EVER...stupid edumacted idiots....

One of two things will happen:

1. Bush will say, hell I was going to close it anyways, 'cept for these couple of guys who we will just quickly convict.

2. Bush will claim that the Supreme Court does not hold jurisdiction and continue on anyways.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Obviously the SCOTUS doesn't know what they are talking about.....The Supreme Leader does not make mistakes, nor does He do anything wrong....EVER...stupid edumacted idiots....

?

It's the system working. Someone is perveived to have overstepped their bounds, a legal challenge is made, the case winds it's way up through the courts, and SCOTUS rules in favor of one side or the other. I don't understand your comment at all.

The way it worked is the way it's supposed to work; I'm not necessarily taking a position on the judgment, just that the system works the way it's designed to...which should reassure some folks here who believe we're sliding down a slippery slope.

Checks and balances.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

More:

CNN Link
From link:
"The 5-3 ruling means officials will have to come up with a new policy to prosecute at least 10 so-called "enemy combatants" awaiting trial -- it does not address the government's right to detain suspects."

So. Gitmo doesn't seem to be ordered closed, and military tribunals are out. Regular court trials? If guilty, then Fed prison? Not sure...but very interesting ramifications of the decision.

Ciels-
Michele

Yea. I'm curious where the trials will go. The government's hurt itself in that regard. If they go to civilian court and if there is proof of torture in any way then the evidence collected through any interrogation will be inadmissible. What I'm really concerned with though is the detention of the other 400 people and what the SC has to say about it. Is that on the docket any time soon?

[livendive 8]

Quote

2. Bush will claim that the Supreme Court does not hold jurisdiction and continue on anyways.

Think he's got someone already trying to figure out how he can add a signing statement to the ruling saying just that?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It's the system working. Someone is perveived to have overstepped their bounds, a legal challenge is made, the case winds it's way up through the courts, and SCOTUS rules in favor of one side or the other. I don't understand your comment at all.

The way it worked is the way it's supposed to work; I'm not necessarily taking a position on the judgment, just that the system works the way it's designed to...which should reassure some folks here who believe we're sliding down a slippery slope.

It is a little too arly to claim that. Not until the administration (Bush) has reacted can a conclusion be drawn.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

2. Bush will claim that the Supreme Court does not hold jurisdiction and continue on anyways.

Think he's got someone already trying to figure out how he can add a signing statement to the ruling saying just that?

Blues,
Dave

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The President doesn't "sign off" on a SC ruling.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

2. Bush will claim that the Supreme Court does not hold jurisdiction and continue on anyways.

Think he's got someone already trying to figure out how he can add a signing statement to the ruling saying just that?

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The President doesn't "sign off" on a SC ruling.

I know that. That's why I said "trying to figure out"... I was being sarcastic.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,108]

>Checks and balances, people.

Yes indeed. Good to see the system working as designed.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The President doesn't "sign off" on a SC ruling.

Why? He doesn't seem to be too concerned with ignoring the Geneva Conventions or any off the bills he signs into law. They have been holding people for four years down there. I would be flat out shocked if this hasn't been planned for.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I was being sarcastic.

What's your opinion on this?

Quote

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Michele 1]

Quote

It is a little too arly to claim that. Not until the administration (Bush) has reacted can a conclusion be drawn.

No, it's not. As far as I know, the White House does not get to "overrule" or (as said above) "sign off" on a ruling. It's an independent part of the government, and the system was specifically designed to be independent of the White House/Executive Branch.

It's not too early to draw the conclusion that the system is working as it was designed to...and that is a good thing.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The President doesn't "sign off" on a SC ruling.

Why? He doesn't seem to be too concerned with ignoring the Geneva Conventions or any off the bills he signs into law. They have been holding people for four years down there. I would be flat out shocked if this hasn't been planned for.

Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

What's your opinion on this?

Quote

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

I think the bolded part should be just as subject to legislative and judicial review as his other actions (checks and balances), and that the practice ought not be abused.

Here's a more learned opinion on the matter.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind.

That would be great and all, but do you think that is even remotely likely to happen. These guys are going to be transferred overseas and then who knows. FWIW, I agree completely with the decision. These guys should have been put on trial years ago. I seriously doubt we will see that happen. The problem is who gets to decide which combatants are "illegal". In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant", there are only combatants. If you catch them, put them on trial. That used to be what America - the leaders of the free world - was all about. Now we conveniently ignore whatever laws and treaties currently don't suit our needs. When the captives are transferred from Gitmo, it will be done expressly to continue ignoring the laws and treaties that currently don't suit our needs. Sad, sad state of affairs.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind.

Honest question: Who's civil court? If the combatants were not US citizens and not on US territory, why would they be subject to US law?

Cynical question: Who gets to decide whether someone was an "illegal combatant" and what sort of review is that decision subject to?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Michele 1]

Just for clarification purposes, when you all are saying "civil" you mean non-military, right? 'Cause there are two court systems here - civil, which is all about monetary punishment and not loss of freedom, and criminal, which is about loss of freedom (incarceration). Also, the margin of "proof" is different; much less for civil (preponderance of the evidence) v. criminal ("beyond reasonable doubt" ).

So when you all are speaking of "civil", you mean non-military, yes?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind.

Honest question: Who's civil court? If the combatants were not US citizens and not on US territory, why would they be subject to US law?

Cynical question: Who gets to decide whether someone was an "illegal combatant" and what sort of review is that decision subject to?

Blues,
Dave

This is kind of a side bar, the reason we hold the captives on Gitmo is expressly for the purpose of circumventing American law.
I believe the administration defines illegal combatant as: whatever we say it is, now shut up and let us keep you safe from terrorists.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No, it's not. As far as I know, the White House does not get to "overrule" or (as said above) "sign off" on a ruling. It's an independent part of the government, and the system was specifically designed to be independent of the White House/Executive Branch.

yeah yeah, that is how it should work in theory. Same with the Geneva Convention....practice is sometimes slightly different from theory.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind.

Honest question: Who's civil court? If the combatants were not US citizens and not on US territory, why would they be subject to US law?

Cynical question: Who gets to decide whether someone was an "illegal combatant" and what sort of review is that decision subject to?

Blues,
Dave

That's a good point... I think they should be extradited and tried by their home countries... unfortunately, there's no way in hell the home countries would prosecute.

As for who decides, I will refer you (and JohnnyD) to the Geneva Accords... it's defined there.

Michelle: I was referring to non-military courts.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

No, it's not. As far as I know, the White House does not get to "overrule" or (as said above) "sign off" on a ruling. It's an independent part of the government, and the system was specifically designed to be independent of the White House/Executive Branch.

yeah yeah, that is how it should work in theory. Same with the Geneva Convention....practice is sometimes slightly different from theory.

Prove your cite

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[narcimund 0]

Quote

the reason we hold the captives on Gitmo is expressly for the purpose of circumventing American law.

The sentence deserves repeating.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The President doesn't "sign off" on a SC ruling.

Why? He doesn't seem to be too concerned with ignoring the Geneva Conventions or any off the bills he signs into law. They have been holding people for four years down there. I would be flat out shocked if this hasn't been planned for.

Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind.

Yes, the Geneva Convention does apply (regardless of whether the US is acknowledging that). The Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. They're either a soldier or a civilian. Geneva 4 makes it very clear that it is intended to cover all persons not covered by Geneva 3.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

As for who decides, I will refer you (and JohnnyD) to the Geneva Accords... it's defined there.

Oh, you mean the Geneva Conventions that don't apply to us?

Quote: "A secret 2002 Justice Department memorandum cleared by Gonzales argued that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the president's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants", and that the pain caused by interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions — in order to constitute torture".

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/jash20102ltr.html