SCOTUS Blocks Bush on Guantanamo Military Tribunals

AP via New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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….

Here is the WP coverage.

Author: HOLLY IN CINCINNATI, Copy Editor

Copy Editor

7 Comments

  1. Despite what some may expect from me, I think is an outstanding set of rulings. It is restoring some of my faith in the checks and balances of our Constitutional government.

    While overall I have supported many of the Bush administrations anti-terrorism efforts, the suspension of the Constitutional right to a trial was not one of them. I don’t want to live in a society where the government can jail me without charges, indefintely, without access to legal representation, and without charges. That is the very definition of Totalitarianism.

    It is noce to see the court rule so correctly on this. It is also VERY interesting that they held that the “Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda” (from SCOTUSblog.

    I do agree that treating terrorism as a criminal act through the courts is wrong, but if you are going to launch governmental wartime activities against a foe (even a non-governmental one such as Al Qaeda), then to the extent reasonable and possible the rules of wartime conduct should be followed.

  2. Austin, how do you feel about the warrantless wiretaps, and snooping allowments in the patriot act?

    Btw, you are dead on correct in your post above about this particular issue the SCOTUS adressed today.

  3. I don’t agree with them, but I do think they were legal, and the courts will hold that so.

    The wire taps are really on the line – they could break against the administration, and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if they did. I would welcome it in fact. But again, I don’t think that is what will be decided.

    As for the recent brouhah about SWIFT, that is a no-brainer to me. Bush was right, the NYT was wrong.

  4. But what about the LA times, and Wall Street Journal? They both put out the exact same story on the same day, of course TWSJ gets a pass from teh right wing since it’s a pro-right paper.

    That story is all spin anyways since this “covert” program has been known since 2002 posted on the gov’s own website by Dick Cheyney….this story is nothing but right wing garbage for faux outrage, so pick the NYtimes as the punching bag.

  5. I used the NYT as a generic term for this. You can add the AP, LA Times and others. The basic pont on that item is that it was obviously legal, and it was wrong to expose more details. i have posted on that previously as to why.

    I am willing to concede, however, the wireless tapping is much closer to the line, and may indeed be found wanting. I don’t like it, but i think it will prevail in the courts.

    Kind of like random urinalysis. Never in a million years will anyone be able to convince me it is not an obvious 4th Ammendment violation (what in God’s name could be more obvious than the explicit ‘secure in their persons’ should cover, well, your body?), but it was upheld.

    What is legal is not necessarily just, and what is just is not necessarily the law.

  6. Ahhhhhhhhhh the age of IT Information Technology, anything and anyone for sale for a price to anyone willing to invest and half of the U S GDP is based on this crap.

    I have always said that Information Technology is two things.

    1. False economy base.

    2. Breeder of corruption.

    As just one for instance, the Texas Department of Public Safety sells out Texas Citizen information to all comers for $.50 a pop and cites it as legal sell citizen information under the Texas Open Records Act.

    And people wonder why they get so much local, state, and out of state junk mail and the like.

  7. I didn’t say the Ap was involved Austin. The other source was The Wall Street Journal, a right wing biased paper that strangely enough republicans are leaving out of their mock outrage. It is only legal if they are tracking incomming foreign money transfers, not transfers on US soil which I’m sure they are doing illegally, since they are bitching so much.

Submit a Comment