The GTMO facility, is quite possibly the most scrutinized detainment center in the world, where by some reports detainees are confined in relative comfort by comparison to prison or prison-like facilities of the present and past, or in other regions of the world.
The Supreme Court attempted to, and for the moment has blocked the appointing of military tribunals. It was not a defeat as many of the lunatic left fringe fishwrappers scream in the boldest possible print. What the Supreme Court did today in my opinion is to take another step in affirming the assertion that our Supreme Cout is evolving into a political body and is delving deeper into the legislative arena, an arena they have absolutely no business in.
The decision enraged alot of Americans including me, for I never thought I'd see the day that a ruling like this would come from the Supreme Court, but then again, I never thought I'd live to see the day that the Supreme Court would approve of state and local governments using eminent domain to steal private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenue either.
As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion: "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."
But for a far superior opinion, read the dissent penned by Justice Thomas here and here . His opinion is based upon two hundred years of precedent, the rule of law, the constitution and the Detainee Treatment Act passed by congress in 2005.
And this is precisely what President Bush stated he will do, responding to the ruling he said he would seek legislation explicitly authorizing the mililtary tribunals. He could also ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court as well.
Before the book closes on this chapter, giddy Democrats who have cheered this ruling as some kind of victory will find the spot light shining brightly on them, and they will be forced to pony up, to go on record as really supporting the GWOT or not. Considering the fact that the congress voted twice on two separate occassions recently to set some form of a timetable for the withdrawl of troops; the result was the same both times; overwhelming defeat. If these votes are an accurate barometer on how the congress truly feels about the GWOT, congress will give the president the authority to appoint military tribunals. And the liberal newspapers will eat a healthy portion of crow; again.
What concerns me about the ruling however is the fact that some members of the Supreme Court do not seem to understand basic facts that should have impacted on thier decision to even hear this case. First of all, Salim Hamdan a Yemini citizen claimed that military tribunals are unconstitutional because they allow the president and his subordinates to define the crime, prosecute the case and choose the judges who act as the jury. Mr. Hameden should not have opportunity to bring up the constitutionality of the situation because he is not a citizen and is not protected by our constitution. In fact, it is not clear that the detainees are even covered by the Geneva Convention. Incredibly, the Supreme Court cited both in it's decision.
Justice Ginsburg recently announced that the Supreme Court should, and has, sought precedent in some domestic cases through reviewing international law. WHAT?! Did I hear that correctly? How can this happen? The Supreme Court and the US Constitution, seems pretty simple to me. Its about the constitution stupid! Nothing else matters.
The Supreme Court is not perfect. The justices of the Supreme Court are human and are just as prone to be influenced by public opinion as anyone. And I believe strongly that public opinion seeped into the court regarding this ruling, eminant domain and more, public opinion; and politics that is.
2 comments:
So you are in favor of the unchecked power of the Executive Branch? You are in favor of a "blank check", to quyote one of the dissenting justices, for our President?
I think it you who does not understand the rule of law, and the right of due process. Doi you realize how many innocent people have been scooped up and held without trial? Without any representation because some neo-con deemed them an "enemy conbatnat" without any rights? Are you saying that our system is foolproof and that we only "detain" terrorists?
I am infavor of 230 years of freedom, I'm not in favor of 6 years of governmental abuse of executive power.
Sad that there are those who would issue this "blank check", ignoring the Bill of Rights and the framers of our Constitution.
I support the concept that the president is the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces and that Military Tribunals fall under his pervue as commander in chief, not the Supreme Court.
Over two hundred detainess have been released. This does not constitute being held indefinately.
What "rights" should be recognized to someone who fights against us in an organization that does not answer to a nation/state? Has no recognizable chain of command, wears no uniform and considers the murder of innocent civilians as a legitimate military operation?
No, I'm not saying the system at GITMO is foolproof, far from it. However, I do believe that erring to the side of caution is warranted. Our judicial system isn't perfect either, we do the best we can.
Six years of abuse of governmental power? That statement reveals your stand as simply political. You aren't interested in national security here.
You have the audacity to mention terrorist suspects and the Bill of Rights in the same breathe? I believe the document you should refer to in this case is the US Constitution.
The fact of the matter you conveniently did not mention was the Detainee Treatment Act which expressly forbade the Supreme Court from taking the action it just did; this case should never have made it to the Supreme Court. This act was passed in 2005, but the Supreme Court side stepped the effective date of it's passing, ignoring over two hundred years of precedent and deaming themselves capable of reading the mind of congress as to when it intended the act to become effective.
Post a Comment