Johnny Coli Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Surprised no one posted anything on this yet. SCOTUS ruled 5-3 that Bush overstepped his authority with regards to the military tribunals at Gitmo. Three of the RATS on the court, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (Roberts recused himself) were in dissention. Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo 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. (emphasis mine) Here's the opinion. Hamdan v Rumsfeld (pdf) It's 185 pages long and I'm off to a lengthy meeting in about 30 minutes, but Marty Lederman at SOTUSblog has a very detailed summary for those that care. Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes). (emphasis his) For a more detailed background on the case, here is the Wiki link to Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Here is the Wiki link to the Third Geneva Convention, which is relevent to the ruling and any discussion. The Volokh Conspiracy has a discussion on the Geneva article three interpretation, and the uproar over it in the conservative blogosphere. Bloggers (and others) can continue to say that the language of Common Article 3 simply cannot be read to apply to Al Qaeda. But not a single member of the Supreme Court agrees. That doesn't make the bloggers wrong, of course -- just lonely. This should make for an interesting couple of days before the holiday break. Well, to some at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 ... detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Maybe someone should send a memo to 'AQ in Iraq.' Do they have email? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. 716254[/snapback] That is straight-up absolute nonsense. The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to non-signers, for starters. What's more, the Geneva Convention is an international treaty that, by definition does not apply to a non-nation. Arguing that an international treaty must apply to an extra-national organization that did not and could not sign the treaty is the biggest load of geopolitical bull sh-- I've heard in a long time. I haven't yet formed an opinion on the SC ruling...because I haven't yet had time to delve into it. But if the above statement is their basis for their ruling, it's a really sh------- decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 AP NEWS WIRE SPECIAL BULLETIN: A US Military transport C-130 cargo plane carrying all the terrorist detainees from Guantanamo has crashed in the Atlantic Ocean. In route to Iraq and Afghanistan to stand trail. All Guantanamo Bay detainees are presumed dead. Surprisingly, all 25 US Military crew members survived, and were picked up by the USS Ronald Reagan, which just happened to be in the area. Rescue efforts were called off 2 minutes after impact. The US Navy reports that all 25 US military crew members from the C-130 were in good shape and in a surprisingly great mood. END SPECIAL BULLETIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 What the monkey said. The silliest part of the ruling is that SC didn't rule Gitmo to be illegal, just the tribunals. So, in effect, they just handed everyone in Gitmo a life sentence. Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 What the monkey said. The silliest part of the ruling is that SC didn't rule Gitmo to be illegal, just the tribunals. So, in effect, they just handed everyone in Gitmo a life sentence. Sweet. 716277[/snapback] I hasten to add - again - that I don't know that that was the basis of the court's decision. Coli was quoting a blog there. But IF it was, it's a really poor decision. If. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I hasten to add - again - that I don't know that that was the basis of the court's decision. Coli was quoting a blog there. But IF it was, it's a really poor decision. If. 716290[/snapback] Oh Stevens addresses that, by arguing that according to Geneva, the rules still apply if the battle is waged on the ground of a country that is a signatory (Afghanistan). Never mind that Stevens uses war to apply the Geneva convention rationale, but also says that US military commissions can't apply to Hamdan, because he isn't a soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 From what I heard, it was that the president established the tribunal. The cangress can pass a law establishing them, and they can go on. I guess one of the gods of liberalism, FDR. was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 From what I heard, it was that the president established the tribunal. The cangress can pass a law establishing them, and they can go on. I guess one of the gods of liberalism, FDR. was wrong. 716329[/snapback] When I read your posts, I can't help picturing you wearing a beanie cap with a propeller on top... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 From what I heard, it was that the president established the tribunal. The cangress can pass a law establishing them, and they can go on. I guess one of the gods of liberalism, FDR. was wrong. 716329[/snapback] He was. I did a ton of research on some of the tribunals in the 40s, especially the Nazi spies case. It was one of the biggest scams and shams in American history, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 When I read your posts, I can't help picturing you wearing a beanie cap with a propeller on top... 716335[/snapback] Lederhosen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 When I read your posts, I can't help picturing you wearing a beanie cap with a propeller on top... 716335[/snapback] What is your problem? Why don't you discuss or what I said instead of making fun of me. If I'm wrong, tell me why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 What is your problem? Why don't you discuss or what I said instead of making fun of me. If I'm wrong, tell me why? 716416[/snapback] cuz wut u say isn't worth discussing most of the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 cuz wut u say isn't worth discussing most of the time? 716429[/snapback] And yours, or mine, or anybody else's is ALL the time? Eh, Mr. Vince Young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 And yours, or mine, or anybody else's is ALL the time? Eh, Mr. Vince Young? 716442[/snapback] wtf read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 wtf read 716448[/snapback] I was trying to be nice. My point was, that you seem to think that what you post here has any more merit here then Wacko's. Got it? But you jumped in on CTM shot. Got it? Read! What are they teaching you in Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I was trying to be nice. My point was, that you seem to think that what you post here has any more merit here then Wacko's. Got it? But you jumped in on CTM shot. Got it? Read! What are they teaching you in Texas 716473[/snapback] again, wtf read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 again, wtf read 716479[/snapback] What the !@#$ is over you head here? Break it down for the Mic from New York? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 What the !@#$ is over you head here? Break it down for the Mic from New York? 716480[/snapback] ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 What is your problem? Why don't you discuss or what I said instead of making fun of me. If I'm wrong, tell me why? 716416[/snapback] Because all you ever post is "Democrats bad". You can't manage any sort of discourse without pointing out how bad the Democrats are. Everything is "Democrats bad". I don't particularly want to discuss "Democrats bad" in every post. It's boring as sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts