Forums | MacLife

Well, I guess that's nice.
It's sad that this is the first place I've heard about this ruling, though.

bedstuy wrote:

If you read more of the ruling it also says that Bush's wide reading of Congress' war resolution is a farce, which then opens a whole can of worms regarding NSA wiretapping, etc.  It also says he's been committing war crimes (technically) by not following the Geneva conventions by allowing water boarding, etc.

Question: Weren't the war powers granted to wage war against Iraq?

If so, then why would they be used in policing against Al Queda, against whom we have not declared war.

A nation can't really declare war against a person. Nor can a nation declare war against an organization that is not a government.

The concept of war against terror is the same as war against poverty, drugs, etc.

Combatting Al Queda is a police function, not a military function. The military may be called in to assist.

sturner wrote:

If so, then why would they be used in policing against Al Queda, against whom we have not declared war.

A nation can't really declare war against a person. Nor can a nation declare war against an organization that is not a government.

The concept of war against terror is the same as war against poverty, drugs, etc.

Combatting Al Queda is a police function, not a military function. The military may be called in to assist.

Why o why do you hate America so?

Here's a synopsis from a SCOTUS blog that I'm on:

As I indicated here, the holding that the military commissions are unlawful -- although of enormous significance -- is hardly the most important holding of the Court today in Hamdan. At least three other holdings are likely of greater lasting significance:

1. That the President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty (see, e.g., footnote 23, and the Kennedy and Breyer excerpts that Orin Kerr quotes).

2. That Congress's enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict, absent contrary legislative direction.

3. That Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. (See also the AMK concurrence: "The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U. S. C. § 2441.") This ruling has enormous implications for the Administration's detention and interrogation practices, because the Administration's legal conclusion that CA3 does not apply, and that we will not apply it as a matter of practice, was the key linchpin to the entire edifice of legal maneuvers that led to waterboarding, hypothermia, degradation, etc. See my post here. Per today's decision, the Administration appears to have been engaged in war crimes, which are subejct to the death penalty. Although I don't think due process would allow prosecution based on conduct previously undertaken on OLC's advice that CA3 did not apply (after all, the Chief Justice concluded, in the D.C. Circuit, that CA3 did not apply), practices going forward are bound to change, and quick. (I'm sure the memos are being drafted and distributed in the CIA and DOD even as we "speak.")

Contrary to several blogs I've read, the Court did not hold that all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to suspected Al Qaeda detainees, or that they are entitled to all of the protections of POWs. It held "merely" that the minimum baseline protections of Common Article 3 are binding -- which is a floor far, far higher than the practices of this Administration.

Link.

Common article 3 represents a baseline of decency the world community has agreed to. Including us in better days.
If we can't even uphold that we might as well shut this country down.

charon wrote:

sturner wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

If you read more of the ruling it also says that Bush's wide reading of Congress' war resolution is a farce, which then opens a whole can of worms regarding NSA wiretapping, etc.  It also says he's been committing war crimes (technically) by not following the Geneva conventions by allowing water boarding, etc.

Question: Weren't the war powers granted to wage war against Iraq?

If so, then why would they be used in policing against Al Queda, against whom we have not declared war.

A nation can't really declare war against a person. Nor can a nation declare war against an organization that is not a government.

The concept of war against terror is the same as war against poverty, drugs, etc.

Combatting Al Queda is a police function, not a military function. The military may be called in to assist.

Actually, there was a sort of declaration of war against Al Qaeda: the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force, or something like that), which came in the wake of 9/11.  Basically it said the Prez could use all necessary force to attack whoever was connected to the attack.

I suppose we can't technically be at "war" with a non-nation entity, but, constitutionally speaking, Congress can certainly authorize the use of the military against a non-nation entity.  And there are certainly times for it.  E.g., the U.S. never recognized Taliban Afghanistan as a nation, but that was properly a military operation.

The point is, the administration's claims that it doesn't need to abide by treaty and legal statutes in the WoT are once again rendered invalid.

The dangerous sub-text to the arguments set forth by Bush and his supporters is that they really are postulating that our foundational document does not work.
That a principle based form of governance is an impediment to a nation.

If thats not unpatriotic I dont know what is.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

So...Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al. in the docket of the World Court for crimes against humanity no later than 2010?

(I know, fat chance, but I can dream, can't I? )

Well, this was a reversal...so they were acting according to court ruling prior to today, if I'm not mistaken.

robco wrote:

Nice to see that appointing strict constructionists to the court is coming around to bite the neocons in the ass.

The strictest constructionists dissented (or would have, in Roberts' case).

charon wrote:

robco wrote:

Nice to see that appointing strict constructionists to the court is coming around to bite the neocons in the ass.

The strictest constructionists dissented (or would have, in Roberts' case).

It certainly doesn't seem appropriate to paint the issue as one side versus the other on these decisions regarding enemy combatants and the President's authority.

For example, I think Scalia has been fairly reasonable...though I think Thomas's view is pretty outrageous.

opinion here

Stevens, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I through IV, VI through VI-D-iii, VI-D-v, and VII, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts V and VI-D-iv, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined as to all but Parts I, II-C-1, and III-B-2. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined as to Parts I through III. Roberts, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

I bet that if Roberts had particpated, he would join Thomas's opinion, Alito's opinion, and Scalia's opinion, and Thomas, Scalia, and Alito would each join his.

Speak for yourself!