June 29, 2006
Nuremberg War Trials Ruled Unconstitutional; Descendants Of Executed Nazis May Sue US For Millions
— Ace Anthony Kennedy. What a guy.
— Ace Anthony Kennedy. What a guy.
In his own separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'""Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
All right then, go back to Congress, ask for the power.
Posted by: Ace at
08:20 AM
| Comments (32)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
1
eh. Screw it.
This basically tells us to take no prisoners. Enemy combatants are to be given no quarter.
More dead terrorists makes kittens happy.
This basically tells us to take no prisoners. Enemy combatants are to be given no quarter.
More dead terrorists makes kittens happy.
Posted by: krakatoa at June 29, 2006 08:23 AM (gx/Pf)
2
I love Breyer's opinion-- he spends half the time arguing how this ruling SHOULDN'T be interpreted as outlawing the principle of military tribunals, even as SCOTUS goes ahead and does it.
Not how the media is spinning it, of course.
BTW, you're a law-talking kind of guy, Ace-- tell me what this all means WRT the Geneva Conventions. At first glance, it reads to me like the Court believes we're party to a treaty with Al Qaeda and/or Al Qaeda is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
I can understand the military tribunals not complying with U.S. *military* law, but why would they have to comply with the Geneva Conventions when Al Qaeda doesn't qualify as a protected enemy under its definitions?
Madness lies this way. It's like SCOTUS snuck in some Necronomicon passages into their opinion today, just to mess with right-thinking heads.
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Not how the media is spinning it, of course.
BTW, you're a law-talking kind of guy, Ace-- tell me what this all means WRT the Geneva Conventions. At first glance, it reads to me like the Court believes we're party to a treaty with Al Qaeda and/or Al Qaeda is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
I can understand the military tribunals not complying with U.S. *military* law, but why would they have to comply with the Geneva Conventions when Al Qaeda doesn't qualify as a protected enemy under its definitions?
Madness lies this way. It's like SCOTUS snuck in some Necronomicon passages into their opinion today, just to mess with right-thinking heads.
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at June 29, 2006 08:26 AM (4P9aC)
3
My kittens won't be happy 'til all the islamofascist terrorists are dead. Let's get crackin'.
Anthony Kennedy: Willing to sacrifice a few American lives** in order to preserve our system of laws. After all, it's not clear the guys we picked up in Afghanistan with RPGs were actually bad guys. Probably just returning the weapons under some buy-back program.
**Except when the defendant has been rightly charged with a crime they, you know, actually committed but where the defendant is either A) mentally retarded or B) a juvenile.
Then we can't sacrifice those lives. 'Cause that would violate international *ahem* law.
Anthony Kennedy: Willing to sacrifice a few American lives** in order to preserve our system of laws. After all, it's not clear the guys we picked up in Afghanistan with RPGs were actually bad guys. Probably just returning the weapons under some buy-back program.
**Except when the defendant has been rightly charged with a crime they, you know, actually committed but where the defendant is either A) mentally retarded or B) a juvenile.
Then we can't sacrifice those lives. 'Cause that would violate international *ahem* law.
Posted by: Birkel at June 29, 2006 08:31 AM (KAPYU)
4
Confirming sensible judges matter. Never forget that.
Nothing would become Stevens so much as to announce that he is retiring. NOW.
Karl Rove just got handed a Louisville Slugger the size of Texas to beat the Democrats with from now until election day.
Nothing would become Stevens so much as to announce that he is retiring. NOW.
Karl Rove just got handed a Louisville Slugger the size of Texas to beat the Democrats with from now until election day.
Posted by: Harry Callahan at June 29, 2006 08:32 AM (Xroyb)
5
Where the heck is bbeck? She commented on this a while back in re: how the military apparently does afford AQ terrorbots Geneva protections, based on what she was told by a relative who is or was serving, so I bet she could speak to this finding. Because it sounds an awful lot like what she was talking about in re: working (as opposed to theoretical) interpretations of the GC...
Posted by: Scott at June 29, 2006 08:34 AM (f8958)
6
Geneva Conventions allow summary execution of combatants who are not in uniform.
Let's execute the Gitmo detainees and be done with it.
Let's execute the Gitmo detainees and be done with it.
Posted by: Reddish Jode at June 29, 2006 08:39 AM (KeOQp)
7
Where the heck is bbeck?
Truly, she chewed me pretty thoroughly on this point and I'm still incredulous that the court could disregard the plain text of the convention and say that stateless actors and effectively criminals should be treated as EPWs. Does this mean that robbers and rapists qualify for GC protection? I don't know about you guys, but anal rape in prison would seem to be against the human dignity of the prisoner. And what about their scientific equipment needs?
This decision is just incoherent IMHO.
Tob
Truly, she chewed me pretty thoroughly on this point and I'm still incredulous that the court could disregard the plain text of the convention and say that stateless actors and effectively criminals should be treated as EPWs. Does this mean that robbers and rapists qualify for GC protection? I don't know about you guys, but anal rape in prison would seem to be against the human dignity of the prisoner. And what about their scientific equipment needs?
This decision is just incoherent IMHO.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at June 29, 2006 08:44 AM (ATbKm)
8
Its time to vote to remove that jerk ANTHONY KENNEDY and then have him sent to live for the rest of his life in little america time to strip him of his power SQUARK,SQUAWK,SREEEEEEKKK
Posted by: spurwing plover at June 29, 2006 08:45 AM (vnSBY)
9
Geneva Conventions allow summary execution of combatants who are not in uniform.
Let's execute the Gitmo detainees and be done with it.
I agree getmo was a bad idea to begin with. Summary execution on the battlefield should have always been the standard.
Let's execute the Gitmo detainees and be done with it.
I agree getmo was a bad idea to begin with. Summary execution on the battlefield should have always been the standard.
Posted by: jones at June 29, 2006 08:47 AM (lJUwT)
10
SCOTUS just said we have to abide by Geneva Convention standards...
MARINE: "Where's your uniform?"
Mooji: "My what?"
BLAM!
MARINE: "Where's your uniform?"
Mooji: "My what?"
BLAM!
Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at June 29, 2006 08:50 AM (kd/kM)
11
This ruling is unconstitutional? For all intents and purposes, the Supreme
Court has entered into a treaty with a foreign, non-governmental entity.
The constitution expressly gives this authority to the President and congress.
Also this sets up a constitutional crisis because congress
passed the Detainee Treatment act which expressly
said that no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider
`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--
`(A) is currently in military custody; or
`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'
I believe the president should follow the actions of Andrew Jackson and tell
Justice Stevens to stick it were the sun don’t shine.
Court has entered into a treaty with a foreign, non-governmental entity.
The constitution expressly gives this authority to the President and congress.
Also this sets up a constitutional crisis because congress
passed the Detainee Treatment act which expressly
said that no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider
`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--
`(A) is currently in military custody; or
`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'
I believe the president should follow the actions of Andrew Jackson and tell
Justice Stevens to stick it were the sun don’t shine.
Posted by: Radical Centrist at June 29, 2006 09:01 AM (iWRYt)
12
This is a gift to republicans if they don't go all wobbly. As an election year issue, voting to give pres authority to keep terrorists in gitmo beats flag burning and gay marriage with a fierceness.
Posted by: Bubba at June 29, 2006 09:06 AM (iU+uF)
13
All right then, go back to Congress, ask for the power.
This is going to be fun, watching the poltroon congressional Democrats. They'll have to either (a) argue for the expansion of civil rights for Al-Qaeda terrorists who have sworn to kill us or (b) meekly vote Bush's way, which will then set off their Kos/DU base into a howling, screaming agony fit. Either way, we win. Fun times ahead, folks.
This is going to be fun, watching the poltroon congressional Democrats. They'll have to either (a) argue for the expansion of civil rights for Al-Qaeda terrorists who have sworn to kill us or (b) meekly vote Bush's way, which will then set off their Kos/DU base into a howling, screaming agony fit. Either way, we win. Fun times ahead, folks.
Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2006 09:06 AM (UXBVD)
14
Or the President could abide by the Supreme Court ruling and take the advice from Stevens and go to Congress and get the authority ....
Posted by: Krondor at June 29, 2006 09:08 AM (UMaIO)
15
If the scenario drawn by OregonMuse unfolds, all I can say is: wow, that KKKarl has even those 9 black-robed high-priests working for him!
Posted by: Tushar D at June 29, 2006 09:27 AM (h76y6)
16
I am curious as to what Robert Bork's opinion is on this decision if you know what I mean.
SC appointments. One of the most important thing a President will ever do.
SC appointments. One of the most important thing a President will ever do.
Posted by: roc ingersol at June 29, 2006 09:35 AM (m2CN7)
17
I have to agree with Bubba on this one. If the Republican's stand strong on this one they can use it as a club to beat the Dems over the head ever day till November. Pelosi is already crowing about this being a victory for the rule of law.
I would also like to see Bush go to Congress, tomorrow if not sooner and ask for Congressional approval. Put the Dem's on the spot just like the Iraq pull out votes.
I would also like to see Bush go to Congress, tomorrow if not sooner and ask for Congressional approval. Put the Dem's on the spot just like the Iraq pull out votes.
Posted by: JackStraw at June 29, 2006 09:40 AM (J8+2b)
18
Pelosi is already crowing about this being a victory for the rule of law.
Wow. Nancy Pelosi wouldn't know the rule of law if it showed up in her weekly Botox and Virgin's blood gift basket delivery. By all means, Nancy, let's cheer yet another gross Supreme Court overreaching, especially when it's another knife between the shoulder blades of the war effort. I'm glad to know where you stand on this, it was so vague before.
Wow. Nancy Pelosi wouldn't know the rule of law if it showed up in her weekly Botox and Virgin's blood gift basket delivery. By all means, Nancy, let's cheer yet another gross Supreme Court overreaching, especially when it's another knife between the shoulder blades of the war effort. I'm glad to know where you stand on this, it was so vague before.
Posted by: UGAdawg at June 29, 2006 09:58 AM (9DumO)
Posted by: The Machine at June 29, 2006 10:16 AM (L/jMX)
20
I'm afraid I only caught the tail-end of the local news report but I'm pretty sure it said that the President has already asked Congress to so something about this.
Posted by: ErikW at June 29, 2006 10:24 AM (0m1lu)
21
to DO something about this, I mean. Jesus, for a guy who types with two index fingers and a thumb while looking at the keyboard, you'd think I wouldn't make a mistake like that.
Posted by: ErikW at June 29, 2006 10:27 AM (0m1lu)
22
Well, it does pose some problems for existing "detainees". However, it should simplify things in the future:
Take.no.prisoners.
Take.no.prisoners.
Posted by: LarryLion at June 29, 2006 10:33 AM (rK4rF)
23
I've read that Graham, Kyl and Cornyn have already been making noise about legislation to give the President exactly the power that this decision says they need to give him. Hopefully the House won't be far behind. I'm sure Maxine Waters will be claiming the Democrats have been "trapped" again.
Posted by: NCVOL at June 29, 2006 11:47 AM (py/jP)
24
NCVOL: You can add to that list JD Hayworth (my man in the House) and Bill Frist himself.
Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich at June 29, 2006 12:01 PM (9pkhB)
25
Indeed, lets have a vote, lets have the congress establish the rules by law - in other words, let's have the Democrats go on record that they want to protect the terrorists and enemies of the US.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2006 12:42 PM (Pwzb0)
26
I'd like to add, however, that congress has no power over what the president does with the military or what the prisoners of war are treated like. Zero.
The problem is people are so sketchy about the constitution and what it says that they might be outraged by the President asserting this.
The problem is people are so sketchy about the constitution and what it says that they might be outraged by the President asserting this.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2006 01:48 PM (Pwzb0)
27
To LarryLion -
By the Geneva convention, these are illegal combatants and spies. They can be shot whenever you want, not just at the time of capture.
Ask the Germans who dressed in GI uniforms to mess up traffic at the Battle of the Bulge.
By the Geneva convention, these are illegal combatants and spies. They can be shot whenever you want, not just at the time of capture.
Ask the Germans who dressed in GI uniforms to mess up traffic at the Battle of the Bulge.
Posted by: Oldcat at June 29, 2006 03:14 PM (z1N6a)
28
A wonderful opportunity for the Republicans to put Democrats on the spot. Draft a bill. Send it up.
Posted by: Steve O at June 29, 2006 04:38 PM (R0Csm)
29
Can judges be impeached? can they be fired? lets dump these jerks
Posted by: spurwing plover at June 29, 2006 05:52 PM (UdEnh)
30
Yes, but it's very, very difficult to impeach judges. No Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, although it's possible.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2006 07:19 PM (Pwzb0)
31
МTS Конвертер предоставляет
богатый многочисленные функции: захват изображений, установка
разнообразных передовых профилей, создания видео из фотографий,
разделить один исходный файл на несколько или выход определенный
сегмент, установив точную длину времени и т.д.
Posted by: xuefei at May 04, 2011 03:16 AM (Gp2dj)
32
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson, "The Supreme Court has made its ruling, now let them enforce it
Posted by: Coach Outlet at May 20, 2012 09:17 PM (8jW5E)
78kb generated in 0.0624 seconds; 50 queries returned 163 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
