« Azucah! | Babalu Blog - Main Page | The New Man vs. The Obsolete Man »

As one who used to practice law, but escaped, I see the decision as even more depressing than you set out - the opinion actually makes Al Qaeda a party to the Geneva Conventions - ruling, in effect, that the US and Al Qaeda have enterend into a treaty. That's something neither the executive department nor the Congress have done. This may be the worst decision I've ever seen.

Well, Ive got a pretty good suggestion: Since the SCOTUS has decided that we basically should no longer capture prisoners, then lets do as they say. Take no prisoners.

Surely somewhere someone versed in the law can dig up something proving the Supreme Court can be tried as putative terrorists...or at least, tried as putas.

In all fairness, although I disagree with the ruling, it does seem to sort of tell congress "well if you enact a bill and make it legal then you can do it". I'm sure the congress and senate can get it through.

I'm a lawyer. Cheer up, or I'll sue.

Ventanita makes a good point!
Now let's see how the fact that this is an election year influences the vote of our elected officials ... can't wait!
:) Melek

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Respectfully folks, have anyone of you read the opinion? I did. It is not a victory for the terrorists, it is a victory for the rule of law. What the opinion holds is that the legislation created by Congress did not authorize the Executive Branch to give these scumbags military trials. Neither is the authority vested in the Code of Military Justice. The opinion does not in any way challenge the detentions. It only pertains to military type trials. The concurring opinion is pretty clear on this: Go to congress and have them give you the authority. Remember folks, the war powers are vested in the congress under the Constitution. Further, the due process issue dealt with the application of the 2005 act to pending cases. The 2005 legislation did not clearly indicate that it was going to be applied retroactively, and if it did, there are ex post facto issues as well.

Everytime the Court issues an opinion that one side does not agree with, those sides tend to rely on pundits rather than reading the opinions and the the rationale for the decision.

For example, yesterday's decision reversing a conviction under 6th amendment jurisprudence. If you listen to the pundits, you will think that the criminals got away with another one. Interestingly, it is Scalia who wrote the opinion and using strict construction ruled that the government's denial of a defendant's choice of counsel automatically violates the 6th amendment's right to counsel.

Last week the Court ruled against the Government on wetlands issues. While I disagree with the results, in reading the opinion, and the statutory construction, I see the majority's point. Hence, if the government wants the expansive definition of wetlands, they need to amend the law.

I have no sympathy for the scumbags in Gitmo. But I have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. I've also in the last 4-5 months, read some great historical treatises on the formation of the Country: 1776; John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; etc. The interesting theory that arose in those days is the fight between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. A battle between the executive power getting to strong v. the power of the states and the people.

If the executive branch is given a blank check, perhaps in the hands of a noisome individual, (a hard core lib - Heaven forbid), whose to say what abuses of power can be done.

Frankly, the Padilla case is an example. He is a US citizen who was imprisoned without trial. I don't care what you think of the scumbag, but the precedent, had it gone the government's way, (they backed down when they saw the writing on the wall), should frighen anyone, especially conservatives and libertarians. All US Citizens are entitled to due process. Either you try the defendant, or you let them go. To hold otherwise, would turn our Constitution on its head. What's to prevent the government to one day imprison someone on a trumped up charge, say to challenge one's political ideology if they could effectively prevent you from speaking to counsel and having the right to a trial. If Americans could be imprisoned indefinately without trial and counsel solely on a government's allegation of terrorism, how is that any difference than what they do in Communist countries.

Remember, unlike in most countries on the planet, the Government has the burden of proof to demonstrate that one has committed a crime. If they got the proof, then try the bastards.

Look at the example of that Chinese guy in New Mexico who got the shaft by the Clinton admin. on espionage charges, which proved to be bogus; he was released when it came out they had no evidence against him.

So, I say, put aside your emotions people and be like Mr. Spock and look at the situation logically. And while we may not like the result, we have to respect the law and above all, the Constitution of the United States.

There you go George, you have my 2 cents ;-) There is no reason to be depressed. No one is getting off and no terrorist is being let go. Simply stated, they have to fix the legislation.

And if all else fails, send them to a foreign prison.

respectfully,

Cigar Mike

Thanks, Mike. I knew you'd help my thinking on this. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I just can't stand the gloating in the press about this.

Whenever a case comes out from the Supremes, the worst place to learn about what it holds is by reading the press. They misinterpret everything to give biased tilt against the conservatives on the court (if they write the majority opinion) or against the Republicans, if the opinion goes against them.

Sometimes it is best to get on the Supreme Court site, and read the briefs so you can get an idea of the issues and then the opinion. The only thing the press is good for (other than the WSJ), is for wrapping mullet or lining bird cages or for puppy training. The NYT is best for starting a BBQ fire.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: