quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 There's a really interesting history of the McCain Amendment (Detainee Act) Well shucks, darn luck that. Guess those folks at NRO are gonna have to do a bit of reviewing on the case itself before attempting to pass on such utter bullshit to its minions. Of course most of their minions will bite into it regardless, but can one do?

seriously is this all you have? this is the equivalent of crying over spilt milk. does this somehow negate SCOTUS's stepping all over Congress' legisalation after the fact?

maybe those five justices were looking for some retribution? scary stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo one, by invoking powers explicitly left to the Executive by the Constitution.

Incorrect. Bush had clearly exceeded his powers by somehow believing his 2001 AUMF supposedly meant he could do whatever the fuck he wanted , especially authorizing military commissions in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This could not be made any clearer by their ruling. Furthermore, his Executive powers cannot exceed and deny Common Article 3 of Geneva, which we must have a minimal application towards all detainees.

quote:

two, by forcing statutory mandates upon the Executive ahead of the Executive's Constitutional mandate to wage war.

Those powers were never meant to be above that of the Legislative AND Judicial branches. Sorry. And furthermore, any changes to the military commissions that follow current UCMF MUST be made through Congress, which Bush clearly did not do at all.

The majority opinion outlines this with respect to Quirin:

quote:

The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional Act. Quirin held that Congress had, through Article of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions to try offenders or offenses against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 28. UCMJ Art. 21, which is substantially identical to the old Art. 15, reads: “The jurisdiction [of] courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions … of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by such … commissions.” 10 U. S. C. §821. Contrary to the Government’s assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognized that Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution and the common law of war, the President already had to convene military commissions-with the express condition that he and those under his command comply with the law of war. See 317 U. S., at 28-29. Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific, overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF’s text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21. Cf. Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 105. Likewise, the DTA cannot be read to authorize this commission. Although the DTA, unlike either Art. 21 or the AUMF, was enacted after the President convened Hamdan’s commission, it contains no language authorizing that tribunal or any other at Guantanamo Bay. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution and laws, including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, this Court’s task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan’s military commission is so justified. Pp. 25-30. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72. http://www.scotusblog.com/movablety...mmary.html#more [QUOTE]forget about the legality of military tribunals for these people(which you cannot tell me is illegal under Con-Law without trumping up and twisting Article 3 of the GC) this is clearly about 5 Justices who over-stepped their boundries.

The court decision made it quite clear such tribunals set forth by Executive mandate were illegal, and they MUST be consistent with Geneva since any international treaties like Geneva are "the law of the land" once signed by us. What more need be said?

quote:

why don't we just expose them to our civil courts? lets enter into discovery all we know thats classified information of on-going operations. fuck it! bottom line is you don't f**king trust military tribunals for these people do you?

Did you know that the UCMJ allows military tribunals? Did you even know that they can and have been consistent with Article 3, up until Bush felt it necessary to violate that? There's no need to go to civil courts, nor would it be appropriate. They simply must follow UCMJ, which it was clear Bush was not at this time.

So what exactly more need be said?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo seriously is this all you have? this is the equivalent of crying over spilt milk. does this somehow negate SCOTUS's stepping all over Congress' legisalation after the fact?

Well was this Congressional legislation or Executive authority? Prior to this post you said it was Executive. Now it's Legislative?

Which is it that SCOTUS supposedly stepped on? Because the majority opinion made it clear that Bush didn't utilize Congress whatsofuckingever here, which is why he overstepped his boundaries.

And I'm sorry if you seemingly don't have a problem with Congressional abuse from those like Graham and Kyl who were deliberately trying to deceive SCOTUS with their flagrantly false colloquy about DTE INCLUDING Hamdan v Rumsfeld into the record after the bill passed, and that the majority opinion picked up on this with the footnote I posted, but I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from you at this point.

Again, the majority opinion addresses this so-called dilemna:

quote:

The Government’s motion to dismiss, based on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), is denied. DTA §1005(e)(1) provides that “no court … shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider … an application for … habeas corpus filed by … an alien detained … at Guantanamo Bay.” Section 1005(h)(2) provides that §§1005(e)(2) and (3)-which give the D. C. Circuit “exclusive” jurisdiction to review the final decisions of, respectively, combatant status review tribunals and military commissions-“shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is … pending on” the DTA’s effective date, as was Hamdan’s case. The Government’s argument that §§1005(e)(1) and (h) repeal this Court’s jurisdiction to review the decision below is rebutted by ordinary principles of statutory construction. A negative inference may be drawn from Congress’ failure to include §1005(e)(1) within the scope of §1005(h)(2). Cf., e.g., Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 330. “If … Congress was reasonably concerned to ensure that [§§1005(e)(2) and (3)] be applied to pending cases, it should have been just as concerned about [§1005(e)(1)], unless it had the different intent that the latter [section] not be applied to the general run of pending cases.” Id., at 329. If anything, the evidence of deliberate omission is stronger here than it was in Lindh. The legislative history shows that Congress not only considered the respective temporal reaches of §§1005(e)(1), (2), and (3) together at every stage, but omitted paragraph (1) from its directive only after having rejected earlier proposed versions of the statute that would have included what is now paragraph (1) within that directive’s scope. Congress’ rejection of the very language that would have achieved the result the Government urges weighs heavily against the Government’s interpretation. See Doe v. Chao, 540 U. S. 614, 621-623. Pp. 7-20. http://www.scotusblog.com/movablety...mmary.html#more

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

And on another note that's not specifically related to this ruling, regarding the argument that the DTA of 2005 supposedly protected detainees of torture, how does one reconcile with Bush's signing statements that he has continually attached to bills that indicates he can essentially abuse and ignore those bills whenever he fucking chooses?:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ew_torture_ban/

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo shocked? about what? stacked the court? even if Rhenquist was still on board it would have still come out the same way. even your bias makes no sense. you got life and bullshit all f**ked up. this was pretty much a disasterous decision...for the detainees! think about it logically. leave aside your hatred for a second. what exactly did the court say, and what does Bushitler do now with'em?

It's slightly amusing to me to think back over the years to some of the bush proponents who blindly followed and believed only in party politics.

What would you do if, back then, you could have looked forward to your future?

No use playing the blame game or being shamed forever, but remember this so you can self-improve and not make the same blind mistakes in the future. Politics are made to trick you into believing that you need to follow, tooth and nail, a single idealogy... this is not how dynamic human beings function, but we are made to function this way after seeing it in the news and coming from all sides for so long. We believe that we need to have hardline opinions on everything in order to preserve some imaginary entity or morality, both subjective.

Food for thought.