Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Supreme Court Rules Bush's Military Tribunals Illegal!

  1. Jun 29, 2006 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo (Guantanamo) war trials

    http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

    It's about time.

    Imagine that - this president doing something illegal! Who'd've thought. :rolleyes:

    Sad though that three Justices sided with the administration.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2006 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I guess Tony Scalia opposed that ruling..::rolleyes:
     
  4. Jun 29, 2006 #3
    This is interesting:

    http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

    It's illegal under both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, but he seeking to work around that with new legislation. But how can he legislate around the Geneva Conventions, which are international treaties, without effectively withdrawing from them?
     
  5. Jun 29, 2006 #4

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Damn liberal activist judges (except three :rolleyes: ). What are they thinking, supporting the Rule of Law and all. Geneva convention? We don't need no stinking Geneva convention. I thought we threw that out! < sarcasm >
     
  6. Jun 29, 2006 #5

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    His comment is in response to Justice Breyer's opinion, which he prepared separately, even though siding with the majority:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/
    One thing I've noticed is that the justices don't seem to get along very well anymore. Thomas read his dissenting opinion from the bench - something that's rarely done and never by Thomas before. In the Kansas death penalty case, Souter's and Scalia's opinions seemed to go off on a personal debate between the two that had little, if any, relevance to the case at hand. There was another case very recently where the dissenting opinion was read from the bench, but I can't recall which case, now.
     
  7. Jun 29, 2006 #6

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    SCOTUS says, "Take no prisoners." So be it.
     
  8. Jun 29, 2006 #7
    Wow this is screwed up, look at what Clarence Thomas did:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/w...&en=1aa0983620edfa9b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

    Is that out of place or what?
     
  9. Jun 29, 2006 #8

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The Myth of Al Qaeda Bolstered by Torture

    Legality aside, these prisons are a waste of tax dollars and most of all America's reputation--including the "black" or secret prisons. Many journalists have debunked the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld myth of Al Qeada and the so-called war on terror. A must read is Ron Suskind's most recent book "THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE." From one of many reviews:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html?sub=AR

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600653/site/newsweek/

    In the meantime scores of prisoners have been released after years of detention because evidence was lacking. Yet Justice Thomas said: "the decision hobbles the president's ability to wage war against a stateless enemy fighting on a new landscape for combat." To hell with Justice Thomas and Bush. There is no excuse. We can combat terrorism and still abide by the Rule of Law and international treaties. Indeed we must, or we are no better than the lawless terrorists we condemn.
     
  10. Jun 29, 2006 #9
    What is hobbling Americas efforts against stateless enemy fighters is the huge distraction of Iraq. Thomas should read the paper sometime.

    http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/world/14926687.htm
    They are being generous when they say 8 of 10, 87% say the Iraq war is hurting the war on terror effort.
     
  11. Jun 29, 2006 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow! Unbelievable!
     
  12. Jun 29, 2006 #11
    Heh, that is nothing compared to what he said here:

     
  13. Jun 29, 2006 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In that statement, he is addressing a matter that at least ties into the legality of the case.

    The other statement (the one quoted by Rach) has nothing to do with the legality. Instead he appears to be assigning merit on the basis of factors other than legality.
     
  14. Jun 29, 2006 #13
    I agree on your assessment of what Rach presented. But as for what I quoted, I'm not sure how that can be taken as anything but an outright denial of his responsibly to check and balance the power of the other branches.
     
  15. Jun 30, 2006 #14

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, Rove's plan is a one-party state, where his party controls Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Federal and State governments. One would have to concede that it would be more efficient - no need for elections. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Jun 30, 2006 #15

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Polarization within SCOTUS? It almost looks like the Supreme Court has been reduced to one person: Justice Kennedy. A lot of 5 vote majorities will cause a lot of frustration with the other eight.

    It would probably be unfair to compare Roberts in his first year as Chief Justice to someone who held the position for years, but it will probably be a stormy court for a while.
     
  17. Jun 30, 2006 #16
    Agreed

    The fact that most Americans aren't tracking the sum of all the changes at once concerns me the most, seeing only a spreckle here and there. Lets add it up....

    Police no longer need to announce themselves when serving warrants.
    When arrested, we don't get an atty for up to 12 weeks
    They can tap any phone line THEY deem worthy, without judicial oversight
    They have pulled the complete history on more than 30,000 libraries/without any judicial device i.e. warrants or subpeona JUST the NSA letter head
    The wrong look or name can get you blocked from travel
    They are obviously in the banking industry more fully than before

    When do they issue the SS for police officers?

    Rove, who got 95% of this country to agree on a war with a country that had no Navy, Air Force or a MBT main battle tank. Ya, that was a SERIOUS threat to our freedom.

    Former Navy (FCT) Suface Warfare
    Voter
    Todd
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2006
  18. Jun 30, 2006 #17

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How did you arrive at that?

    From what I've understood, the jist of what SCOTUS said is that prisoners taken during the war must be given all the PoW privileges afforded by Geneva. If an prisoner is not a PoW, s/he must be afforded the rights given to a US citizen. And further, that the Congress has not given Bush the power to hold prisoners that can be denied protection under both Geneva as well as the US legal system.
     
  19. Jun 30, 2006 #18

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Swell post! Al Qaeda wanted to scare us, panic us, and he did it! My own test case was the reaction of Dahlia Lithwick, the supreme court interpreter over at Slate, to the Patriot Act. Although she has the rep of a real devotee of the Constitution, she was critically soft on the Patriot Act and its (to me ) unconstitutional provisions. And the reason she gave, reading between her lines, was that she was in an al Qaeda funk and ready to buy any bunkum anti-al Qaeda nostrum the Bush administration offered.

    "I do not know when fascism will come to the US, but I know that when it comes it will be called Americanism." A rough memory of Will Rogers.
     
  20. Jun 30, 2006 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    Even Bush is now quoted as saying the decision "Doesn't mean the terrorists will be put out on the street." Get with the program, Bystander!
     
  21. Jun 30, 2006 #20

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    You sum up the sources of the conclusion pretty well in your next paragraph:

    The lacunae in jus gentium under which the situation must be examined are the same as those under which the Lafayette Escadrille of WW I, the International Brigade of the Spanish Civil War, the American Eagle Squadron and AVG of WW II, several thousand Canadians in U. S. service during the Vietnam era, the FFL in several conflicts, and who knows how many others operated: citizens of "neutral" third foreign powers engaged in armed conflicts; the "neutral" foreign powers recognizing those citizens, but not barring/banning their participation in the conflicts unless they had been taken as PoWs and repatriated to be interned; and, one difference, the conflicts taking place between organized, recognized political or demographic entities (nations), or at least some semblance of same (SCW).

    Geneva and Hague recognize "free agents" to the extent that occupying powers are expected to maintain law and order, public services, and whatnot for resident noncombatants during their occupations; this is called "martial law." Hundred years ago, "military tribunals" were composed of two privates and a Pfc; take a prisoner and check for uniform, ID, and arms; "No" to first two questions and "Yes" to third? Bang. Every tenth or hundredth would get a public tribunal and execution for purposes of "deterrence."

    Until such time as Geneva and Hague revisit the questions of "martial law," piracy, brigandage, freebooting, and general hoodlum behavior within the context of the laws of war, SCOTUS is doing the world a disservice by sticking its noses into the issue. This is an international issue, not domestic. What do you do with a bunch of hoodlums who get together in Afghanistan or Iraq, or elsewhere, to shoot people, kidnap people and demand ransom, and generally raise hell to no point or purpose beyond their own entertainment.

    "Take no prisoners?" Troops have very little time to read rulings and dissenting opinions --- they tend to "condense" things to the kernel, particularly when "in contact." Has it got the potential to get completely out of hand in the field? Certainly. Again, very poorly thought through by the "best legal minds in the country."
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Supreme Court Rules Bush's Military Tribunals Illegal!
  1. Bush Supreme Court (Replies: 12)

Loading...