Gitmo Ruling: 5-3 Overrules White House

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

It's the thought that they are parsing terms and arguing exceptions and parsing terminology and classifications in attempts to utterly eviscerate any protections that may be available.

It basically makes it so that they can do what they want under arguments that any rules of laws don't apply to what they are doing by their characterizations. That is, to me, the essence of danger. They are arguing that zero procedural safeguards apply.

I think you should post this on Wikipedia under "Characterization of Bush (43) administration policy/mission statement". It's a perfect summation.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm glad the US supreme court today reaffirmed the power of that document [the US Constitution], and prevented the administration from violating some pretty clear protections it provides.

What frightens me is that those 3 justices who voted in the minority, plus the fact that Chief Justice Roberts, who recused himself because he was on the appeals panel that earlier ruled in the Bush Administration's favor in this case, would almost certainly have been a 4th minority vote for that side had he participated. That's at least 4 Supreme Court justices, 3 of whom are pretty brilliant lawyers in their own rights (Scalia, Alito & Roberts), who apparently have shockingly little regard for the fundamental, universal principles of the rule of law embodied in the Constitution. And if Bush gets the chance to appoint just 1 more justice to the SC...see my point?

It's not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to serve in that role for 20 years or more before retirement. And, of course, the real-world effects of Supreme Court rulings can last for generations. Political moderates (or cynics) who finds themselves "on the fence" (and/or disinclined to vote at all) at presidential election time and think it really doesn't matter which hack gets elected president would do well to bear that in mind.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The Constitution of the United States protects it's citizens and legal aliens. If I were to go to France, I would be subject to their laws, their trial system, and their rules and regulations. I would have little standing as a US citizen claiming my constitutional rights. If I were to run drugs in Hong Kong, I'd be subject to their laws...not the US's.

Exactl;y, so if the US snatches you from your house in a foreign country and flies you to US soil claims you are not a POW (so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply) it would naturally flow that US law would apply.

Quote

I remember when I was an exchange student in Belgium getting a brief from staffers at the American Embassy about the difference in laws, and the fact that what I was used to as an American may not apply;

Right. there is a differenc ein laws. But laws still exist and are followed. It wasn't as if on a side trip to Italy the Belgians arrested you, flew you to Belgium and declared that they all of a sudden came up with a whole different set of rules for female American exchange students.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

That was the example I was thinking of. It's been my experience that about 50% of those illegal alien arrests get deported, and don't stand trial here. I didn't make myself clear...but that is indeed what I was trying to convey.

Many illegal alien arrests do get deported, but after trial, not before. I've spent the last few months working in a prosecutor's office. We charge them, arraign them, if they plead guilty, they serve their jail time and are then deported. If they plead not guilty, they go through the trial process, if found guilty, serve their sentence, and are then deported (if found not guilty, I'm not sure, but they're probably still deported). I've never seen a case where someone's been charged but deported before trial. I'm sure it may happen, but I've never seen it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That's at least 4 Supreme Court justices, 3 of whom are pretty brilliant lawyers in their own rights (Scalia, Alito & Roberts), who apparently have shockingly little regard for the fundamental, universal principles of the rule of law embodied in the Constitution.

Folks, the issue is not as black and white as this. Despite my political and moral issues with what the Bush Administration has been doing, and despite my reservations about the "defense lawyer" mentality, there were some damned sound and legitimate arguments that they had for doing what they were doing.

The "defense lawyer" mentality is, I suppose, the same as the mentality of any lawyer - throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

I've got my own personal issues with the way the Court decided what it decided. I strongly believe that the majority in this court used a top-to-bottom approach in their reasoning, that is, they wanted a particular result and they found their reasons. I actually find the dissents to be somewhat more sound in their reasonings and logic.

As I indicated previously, this is a matter of statutory construction. I believe that, from a political, moral and policy basis, the right decision was made. From a legal and procedural basis, I'm not so sure.

What you have brought up is the reason why the court has nine justices. The government has tripartite forces with which it operates: 1) freedom; 2) order; and 3) equality. Each person's personal preference over which is most important may conflict with others. I personally put "freedom" at number one, followed by "equality" and then "order" (which may be odd, considering my career is all about the rules of an orderly society).

An totally orderly society ain't free or equal. A completely equal society ain't free or orderly. A fundamentally free society ain't equal or orderly. Thus, there is an irreconcilable tension between the three that the individual values of the justices weigh and decide.

Does the Bush admin have good arguments in support? Yes, they do. Did the Bush admin have support of past cases that supported it? Absolutely. The plurality determined that organization of the tribunals were not appropriate because the POTUS could not demonstrate a "military necessity." But, according to plain reading the statute at issue, he didn't have to.

Those are some of the issues involved. I wish the court would have approached the issue of whether the statute illegally vested power in the POTUS, or whether the statute and the procedures violated due process. But the court didn't make it that far.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Many illegal alien arrests do get deported, but after trial, not before. I've spent the last few months working in a prosecutor's office. We charge them, arraign them, if they plead guilty, they serve their jail time and are then deported. If they plead not guilty, they go through the trial process, if found guilty, serve their sentence, and are then deported (if found not guilty, I'm not sure, but they're probably still deported). I've never seen a case where someone's been charged but deported before trial. I'm sure it may happen, but I've never seen it.

Thanks, Kris. I appreciate the information, and I stand corrected.

Ciels-
Michele

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

[lawrocket 3]

One more thing:

Guys, set aside an hour and read the opinions. Here's a link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=05-184

When reading these, set your feelings aside and follow the logic of the opinions. I don't find Thomas's dissent to be one his his finer opinions - it lacks the clarity and bravado that normally charcaterize his. Scalia's actually makes good logical sense. (Most law professors I had all tended to agree that while they rarely liked the results he reached, his logic was usually near impeccable. I have to agree.)

Upon reading it, find out what particular points you agree or disagree with. And then ask "Why?" If you "feel" that a point is right or wrong, then re-examine it with "thought" and not feeling.

I'll admit that I "feel" surely the right decision was reached. And I'll readily admit that when I "think" about it I'm not so sure. I don't believe that this is an issuethat should have been disposed of with "statutory construction." On that, "think" that the SCOTUS was wrong. I think that the SCOTUS missed an opportunity to set a firm precedent for broader Constitutional concerns.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

As I indicated previously, this is a matter of statutory construction. I believe that, from a political, moral and policy basis, the right decision was made. From a legal and procedural basis, I'm not so sure.

Most Americans (I'd guess) couldn't give 2 shits about the legal and procedural basis. The important thing is, a decision was made in keeping with the tradition and spirit of American values. To me, that is the important part.

I will read the opinion when I have the time, just to see what each justice had to say, and the basis of their arguments.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Most Americans (I'd guess) couldn't give 2 shits about the legal and procedural basis.

I agree, and that's the bummer. I think most Americans also see no problem with holding "terrorists" in exile. I think most Americans have no problem with warrantless wiretapping of "terrorists." I think most Americans have no problem with any summary procedure or violation of protected rights of "enemies," "criminals" or anyone else deemed to be unworthy of consideration.

That's why we have procedures. It's why we have distinct systems and responsibilities between branches. I guess it comes down to which is better or worse: doing the right thing the wrong way or doing the wrong thing the right way.

I think the SCOTUS did the right thing. I think they may have done it the wrong way. What if there is no right way to do the right thing? Then that is left to the legislators to find it.

Our system is based on laws, rules and procedures that make court decision-making less arbitrary. If there is an indication that these guidlines and rules have not been followed, or are being done in a strange way, that leads to some doubt.

I'll put it this way - GWB posited exceptions and the like to try to make sure that the existing categories that define rules of treatment of these prisoners did not apply. The SCOTUS appeared to me to find exceptions and reasons why prior law and methods did not apply to controlling their decision.

I don't like weird method. I'm kinda anal about use of proper procedure. Bush didn't use proper procedure, and I abhor it. I don't think the SCOTUS used proper procedure, and I abhor that.

GWB's activities show what happens when established procedures are reinterpreted to meet a goal. Frankly, I find danger when courts do it, too, because that is something that does, indeed, affect ALL of us.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,124]

"These people were taken on the battlefield", GWB, 6/29/06

FACT: 95% of the Gitmo detainees were NOT taken on any battlefield. They were turned in by informers of one stripe or another.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[stoneycase 0]

yes, we found them on the streets, but in possession of a particular brand of watch....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W

therefore, it follows logically they must be terrorists

*sigh*

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[slug 1]

Quote

"These people were taken on the battlefield", GWB, 6/29/06

FACT: 95% of the Gitmo detainees were NOT taken on any battlefield. They were turned in by informers of one stripe or another.

Hi K

Stop that shit your confusing the issue with the facts.

In case the NSA is listening I like GW, I would vote for GW if he would run again for pres I support GW's decisions as long as the supreme's agree with them.

R.I.P.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I support GW's decisions as long as the supreme's agree with them.

So, Diana Ross is setting US policy now?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

I support GW's decisions as long as the supreme's agree with them.

So, Diana Ross is setting US policy now?

GW vs DR hmmm wonder who would do a better job

R.I.P.