News Supreme Court Rules Bush's Military Tribunals Illegal

[Astronuc]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said the 5-3 court decision "means that American servicemen potentially could be accused of war crimes."

In that regard,

G.I.'s Investigated in Slayings of 4 and Rape in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG

The investigation is the fourth into suspected killings of unarmed Iraqis by American soldiers announced by the military in June.

The investigation is the fourth into suspected killings of unarmed Iraqis by American soldiers announced by the military in June. In May, it was disclosed that the military was conducting an inquiry into the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha last November.

NY Times, July 1, 2006

Apparently in the latest case, one soldier came forward out of guilt and gave evidence as to the crimes (or alleged crimes).

McConnell's statement seems to reflect an imperious notion that the US should not be subject to any constraints on its behavior - not even international law. In some respects, e.g. using threat of military force to enforce its belief, the Bush administration is acting in a terroristic manner, and that would mean that the US is a terrorist state. That further implies that the admininstration is participating IN the war on/of terrorism as a participating terrorist entity.

 

[Gokul43201]

McConnell's statement seems to reflect an imperious notion that the US should not be subject to any constraints on its behavior - not even international law.

I don't think he was making the former point (no constraints), but I do believe he thinks they should not be bound by Geneva. Perhaps, the only requirement he wishes be imposed on them is the pertinent code of conduct for the branch of military they serve in? Or maybe something else - I don't know.

 

[Bystander]

First off I'm growing rather disbelieving of these so called facts of the case. "This one was found with an AK-47, and we had to kill him before he shot us". Facts of the case?

I'm NOT on the tribunals --- I don't have access to the contents of the case files --- you're familiar with "instructional examples?" The capture information is all on record in what were called "spot reports" 35-40 years ago --- "blankth squad, blankth platoon, Co. blank, blankth of the blankth, blankth Bde., blankth Div., on xx-yy-zz at mnop hrs local (ijkl, Zulu), apprehended n personnel identified as follows ----"

Secondly, I think I may be misconstruing your post but would your argument be any different if prisoners were being lined up at Gitmo and "bang-bang-bang"? Would SCOTUS be out of line for ruling on the legality of something like that?

Article I, Section 8, lines 9, 10, 11 --- it IS the province of Congress, NOT of SCOTUS to decide the dispositions of this category of cases. Can Congress be strung up by the numbers by the Hague? Sure.

These are NOT citizens of the United States, nor, aliens present in the U. S. under valid passports and visas, therefore, NOT wards of SCOTUS. These are not agents or members of uniformed services of any recognized government. Very few are citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq. They have no legal status until Congress fulfills its Constitutional obligations, and/or, Geneva and the Hague sit down and deal with definitions, procedures, and acceptable dispositions for "soldiers of fortune," pirates, brigands, and all the other flavors of international outlaws. They are at present rattling back and forth between PoW status and "suspicion of war crimes" just to keep them off the streets.

And for more news on this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607030135jul03,1,7229609.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

"... not of an international character ..." Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Basques, not too many others. IRA? Definitely international. Palestine? Who hasn't got a horse, or several horses, in that race? Iraq? If that ain't international, nothing is --- Afghanistan likewise.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Article I, Section 8, lines 9, 10, 11 --- it IS the province of Congress, NOT of SCOTUS to decide the dispositions of this category of cases. Can Congress be strung up by the numbers by the Hague? Sure.

But the Supreme Court, as interpreter of the Constitution, has the power to constrain what Congress decides. And it has done so in mandating that no decision may violate either the Bill of Rights or the Law of the Land, including treaties in force. Perfectly sound.

 

[Bystander]

But the Supreme Court, as interpreter of the Constitution, has the power to constrain what Congress decides.

From Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 (wish they'd stuck to a single format from "Article" to "Article."):

... In all the other cases before mentioned (admiralty, piracy, assorted stuff "reserved" to Congress in Article I), the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

And it has done so in mandating that no decision may violate either the Bill of Rights or the Law of the Land, including treaties in force. Perfectly sound.

"Sound?" No --- noisy, perhaps. The Constitution was designed to keep the three branches at each others' throats, or perhaps in pipe dreams working together, through overlap of "reserved powers" --- this is one of the overlap areas. "Bill of Rights vs. Law of the Land vs. treaties?" This court with its "eminent domain" decision is no champion of the "Bill of Rights." This court's staunch defense of sexual predators is NOT indicative of any interest in "Law of the Land." "Treaties?" SCOTUS is not empowered to negotiate, ratify, sign, or enforce treaties.

It's bench politicking. It's divisive interference in the performances of the legislative and executive branches. One could argue that it is a public service in the sense that it serves to "encourage" Congress to take actions that have been ignored for far too long --- there are far more constructive means accessible to the court for such purposes --- is it going to provoke a "Constitutional crisis?" Kinda doubt it. Gaps in my history --- don't know if Congress has ever "booted" justices before --- we may see "tests" of the "shall hold their offices during good behavior" provision in Article III.

 

[Skyhunter]

In all the hoopla surrounding this decision, no one seems to have mentioned that the Tribunals are completely ineffectual in trying and convicting terrorists. Not only that they are hindering our efforts to fight terrorism by ruining American credibility.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060703fa_fact1

Yet, almost five years later, this improvised military model, which Addington was instrumental in creating, has achieved very limited results. Not a single terror suspect has been tried before a military commission. Only ten of the more than seven hundred men who have been imprisoned at Guantánamo have been formally charged with any wrongdoing. Earlier this month, three detainees committed suicide in the camp. Germany and Denmark, along with the European Union and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, have called for the prison to be closed, accusing the United States of violating internationally accepted standards for humane treatment and due process.

I just don't understand this administration, they just can't let go of a failed policy.

Is this what compulsive denial is all about?

 

[edward]

I just don't understand this administration, they just can't let go of a failed policy.

Is this what compulsive denial is all about?

Absolutely. They apparently think that karl Rove can turn this sows ear into a silk purse.

 

[SOS2008]

The legistlative branch makes laws, and the judicial branch interprets laws. Regardless of which branch focuses on what, the Rule of Law needs to be adhered to, and that includes the executive branch. The ruling was the first positive sign I've seen since the Bush regime took power.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3xvNAcIDhk4J:www.thecapitol.net/CustomPrograms/images/2002%2520US%2520GOVT%2520OVERVIEW%2520-%25201-day%2520Foreign%2520Delegation.pdf+Legislative+branch+-+lawmakers+vs.+judicial+branch+-+law+interpreters&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

 

[NOideaWHATimDOING]

Wasted Time

The truth of the matter is that we as a people get caught up in this "window dressing" that Bush/Rove toss out that we look like the jr officer telling a mass murderer that his tail light was out during the arrest.

Similar arguements are being tossed about over the TSA and the southern border. Both of which, are a complete waste of our time and can be taken care of without the need for the National Guard being brought to bare.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/329m-for-blimpbased-jlens-defense-sensors/index.php"
With a fleet of these blimps with their mobile teathers, a few Black Hawks and our Border Personel, we can manage the entire border, North and South, without the DRAMA QUEEN calling on our weekend worriors.

We have the technology, now we need to Vote into office some Senators and a President that are smart enough to use it.

This issue needs to become did Chaney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice commit Treason by going to war on Iraq? Did they have the REAL intelligence? Did they know days in advance about the 9/11 plot? My best guess is yes to all of it. I think we are being given the chair at the childrens table for Thanksgiving dinner. We know they lied about the 757 in the pentagon. We know that the "puts" on Boeing, United and American show real proof that the civilian world, at understood that something was happeing. The SEC won't even release their investigations. Wonder why?

 

[Astronuc]

I listened to this program this evening.

David Addington and 'Hidden Power'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5535251

Fresh Air from WHYY, July 5, 2006 · Reporter Jane Mayer's recent article in The New Yorker examines the role of David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and longtime legal adviser. Mayer says current and former Bush administration officials credit him with helping form the administration's legal strategy in the war on terrorism.

Several comments from Jane Mayer struck me - among them:

1. The CIA and military interrogators (in Iraq and Gitmo) did not want to use torture, because tortured victims will essentially say anything to end the suffering.

2. "Most of the people (detainees) in Guantanamo were not people who knew anything!" - according to a CIA investigation! (15:29-15:47) They were "farmers, old people, sick people, . . . bystanders".

Addington's opinion - "if anyone is a detainee, they are enemy combatants . . . if the president says they are guilty, they are guilty!" This is so unbelieveably unjust! Addington essentially believes that the president can condemn anyone (who is not a US citizen) without due process. That is such an aggregious violation of basic human rights!

THE HIDDEN POWER by JANE MAYER
The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060703fa_fact1

David Addington and the War on Terrorism
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5521135

Day to Day, June 29, 2006 · The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case challenges a key part of the Bush administration's policy toward terrorism suspects. A main architect of the policy is Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington -- subject of a recent New Yorker profile by Jane Mayer. She talks with Alex Chadwick about Addington's career and influence.

The revelations from Mayer are worrisome.

 

[NOideaWHATimDOING]

Thank you Astronuc, that was nice to see that Bush is STILL not the man in control. Sorta like Dan Quayle.

I also noticed that the 911 Loose change video has been taken down. So much for freedom of speech...again

After speaking to the aids in Senator Bayh's office today, I get the distinct feeling that nobody will ever take responsibility for anything. For the Dems it's "we are the minority Party" and thus we can't even call for congressional hearings on the gitmo facility.

If you call the Lugar office in DC then the Staffer blames the Chinese for the gas prices and says "they have know control". As it sets, the senators for the state of Indiana are both powerless to do anything to help their Constituency.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "BUCK STOPS HERE"

At least I'm allowed to post this.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . that was nice to see that Bush is STILL not the man in control. Sorta like Dan Quayle.

But Bush is 'in control'. Bush has let others run amok, and Congress has abdicated its responsibility for providing a 'check' on the excecutiv branch of government.

 

[NOideaWHATimDOING]

I...SOOOO Agree with Atronuc to the n'th degree. We have nobody available to stop this erosion of our government which is what frustrates me. I don't control PAC or Special Interest monies thus nobody will listen to me. As such, I have to wait out the next November.

I hate lip service, while people (likely innocent) are sitting with bags on their heads, held in conditions you wouldn't leave your DOG for years!

 

[Manchot]

Oh, now the Bush Administration is singing a different tune: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13813974/ . Flip-flopper.

 

[Astronuc]

Oh, now the Bush Administration is singing a different tune: . Flip-flopper.

Steven Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, told a Senate hearing that Article 3 is ambiguous and its use “will create a degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.”

Even so, he said, the Supreme Court imposed a standard “that we must now interpret and implement.”

Article 3 prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,” as well as torture and “cruel treatment.” It requires sentences to be passed by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

So what problem do the people in the Bush administration have with this? They don't understand “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”? Or they resent being told not to do it?

 

[Gokul43201]

They don't understand “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”? Or they resent being told not to do it?

Both, I'd think. But as for the former - lacking any kind of clarification or elucidation of outrages - it is very subjective, and hence easily lends itself to varied interpretation. But this is not the place to contest the wording of a Treaty that has already been signed by you.

 

[edward]

Article 3 prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,” as well as torture and “cruel treatment.” It requires sentences to be passed by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

As far as outrages upon personal diginity,ect.

I would think that keeping detainees naked and with bags over their heads for months at a time would be the prime example of what is not allowed.

During the Korean war the North Koreans used a new and very effective mehtod of extracting confessions and information from POW's. Essentially it was psycological torture with only moderate physical torture. (even then it depended on what information was wanted and who was in charge of the interrogations.) At first the POW's who broke under the pressure, were charged with treason by the U.S. military.

Then the military recanted on the charges of treason against the American POW's, and tropps were told that they were to maintian giving basic ,name ,rank, and serial number, only as long as they could possibly withstand the maltreatment.

It has only been under Bush and Rumsfeld that the North Korean tactics along with some new twists have been reborn.

Personally I am ashamed when I think of the thousands of Iraqi detainees who were treated in this manner, so that the Bush Administration could attempt to obtain information about WMD that they knew were never there in the first place.

 

[Skyhunter]

As such, I have to wait out the next November.

Might not do any good.

Did you see what http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts07082006.html had to say about it?

The Supreme Court, like the Pope, hasn't any divisions or a police force with which to arrest Bush. Moreover, as one reader pointed out, the majority decision against Bush was written by an 86-year old man. His decision shredded the incompetent and utterly ignorant ruling of the lower court written by John Roberts, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

An 86-year old man hasn't a lot of time left to protect our rights from executive power grabs. All Bush has to do is to appoint one more Federalist Society tyrant to the Court, and he will have a second rubber stamp of his dictatorial ways. He already has Congress which has made it clear that it is perfectly comfortable with Bush's high-handed behavior. Democrats are too intimidated by 9/11 and the phony "war on terror" to offer any opposition.

With the electronic voting machines supplied by Republican firms and programmed by Republican operatives, Bush can control election results. Don't bet very heavily that Americans will regain the constitutional protections and democratic accountability that they enjoyed in the 20th century.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

I am paranoid and suspicious of Bush/Cheney. Hearing a conservative like Roberts echo my fears is not very reassuring.

 

[Astronuc]

The fact that the Bush administration tried to keep the treatment of detainees 'secret', seemingly because they 'knew' that the civilized world would be outraged, would indicate that they do understand the concept of 'outrages upon personal dignity', and that the did it anyway.

Is that the kind of people one wants controlling the US government?!?

BTW, the argument that the secrecy is for 'national security' is total nonsense. IMO, the secrecy is solely to conceal illegal, outrageous and otherwise immoral acts in violation of basic human rights.

 

[Astronuc]

In the NY Times, July 12 - "Terror and Power: Bush Takes a Step Back" (registration required)

WASHINGTON, July 11 — From the outset, President Bush declared that the battle against Al Qaeda would be a war like no other, fought by new rules against new enemies not entitled to the old protections afforded to either prisoners of war or criminal defendants.

But the White House acknowledgment on Tuesday that a key clause of the Geneva Conventions applies to Qaeda detainees, as a recent Supreme Court ruling affirmed, is only the latest step in the gradual erosion of the administration’s aggressive legal stance.

The administration’s initial position emerged in 2002 only after a fierce internal legal debate, and it has been revised in the face of international opinion, Congressional curbs and Supreme Court rulings. Two central ideas of the war on terror — that the president could fight it exclusively on the basis of his constitutional powers and that terrorist suspects had few, if any, rights — have been modified repeatedly.

Scholars debated the meaning of a Defense Department memo made public on Tuesday that declared that the clause in the Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, “applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda.”

 

[NOideaWHATimDOING]

War is a verb to be directed toward a Pro Noun not a Noun. Anybody who uses it in any other way is a "spin doctor" You can't end drugs, starvation or terror. As such the use of this as political weight to push through unlawful unethical actions is a monumental step back for our country. To the majority that uses such tactics...a special place in hell awaits them...to the minority that use it as a shield against critics of their inaction...

The WAR POWERS ACT was violated and honestly, who really wants to give control of the largest military power to a guy who feels no urge to be governed by laws that were written specificly for ONE person...HIM