Supreme Court rules against Bush Admin, again

June 29, 2006

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials

Good job!

/Bevin

June 29, 2006

This shows that in America, the system of checks and balances works. It is no wonder Americans are so patriotic. In his zeal to protect Americans and bring terrorists to justice, Pres. Bush went into a gray area that the Supreme Court had to clarify. The system works. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

June 29, 2006

Shane, is this a TIC post? <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

The system works - having taken at least 4 years from the lives of the detainees, giving them no legal status, and the article seems to imply that the administration is looking for another kind of military tribunal which will be technically acceptable. Those detainees fortunate enough to have British nationality have been released because their government chose to intervene. The rest have been deprived of the basic rights of the Geneva convention.

It looks to me that the Supreme Court ruling, to the current administration, is a legal hiccup they will try to get around. They cannot go down the planned path but will see how else things can be arranged. Obviously that would not include a trial in an open court where all rights must be maintained.

Does that make Americans so patriotic?

June 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The rest have been deprived of the basic rights of the Geneva convention.

No, they have not been deprived. When they took up terrorism and "asymmetrical warfare," they placed themselves outside the Geneva Convention, which applies only to uniformed soldiers in time of war, and then only to signatory nations, which Afghanistan is not. They have not been deprived, by their actions they repudiated the Geneva Convention. It simply never applied.

Recent articles on 'Londonistan' show that the British Government has abdicated its responsibility to protect its actual citizens, in order to uphold a multicultural fiction.

The court also held that the government can detain them as long as hostilities continue. Something which happened in WWII, where captured combatants were held, without trial, until hostilities ceased. In some cases this could have been six years or so.

Someday we'll hear some real compassion from the "professional compassionates." They'll care just as much about honor killings and whole populations kept in terror by their governments, about predators who target innocents and behead helpless people, as they do about vicious terrorists who are kept out of circulation. Until then, such "compassion" does not recommend itself.

It's possible such people are morally superior to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and C. S. Lewis, but highly unlikely. Oh, and neither of those fellows were Americans.

The fact that the opinion runs to 185 pages and was written by Justice Stevens is a good indicator that it has little to do with the law, and a great deal to do with the policy preferences of the 5 justices.

June 29, 2006

not all who were detained were/are terrorists...

June 29, 2006

I think it is erring to treat these men as if they were forgien soldiers that were serving in another nation's military. These guys are international thugs. I would compare them to Mexican drug runners that come accross the river and shoot at our border patrol.

Pres. Bush's error was not getting Congressional approval for the program. The Supreme Court has basically told him he needs Congressional approval. While the Attorney General does not believe the Geneva Convention applies, and I tend to agree, five justices on the Supreme Court disagree. However, the US only has to abide by treaties because we have agree to them. Specifically, the President and the Senate agreed to them. So if Congress agrees with the President, that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, then the President is free to set up the military tribunals.

This is the American system at work. It is a system of checks and balances. Certainly it is something to be proud of. And what is really neat, this ruling comes just before the 4th of July.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

...The fact that the opinion runs to 185 pages and was written by Justice Stevens is a good indicator that it has little to do with the law, and a great deal to do with the policy preferences of the 5 justices.

If length is to be the evaluative criteria to discern an opinion having "little to do with the law" and merely an empty pile of palaver about personal "policy preferences" than your men on the wrong side of this decision apparently excel in that regard well beyond the majority opinion. The Court's opinion written by Stevens is actually 73 pages. The dissenting opinions are 10 pages longer at 83 pages. The concurring opinion of Kennedy is 20 pages. The remaining 9 pages is the unofficial headnote summary of the opinion known as the Syllabus. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/1poke.gif" alt="" />

And lest you try to weasel out of that by claiming the focus of your partisan comment was on Stevens, I would simply suggest you sit down and read through all 185 pages before your start pointing your partisan pen at anyone. I think you might be surprised at who goes off on the old "policy preferences" tangient and who sticks to the law of the matter.

Tom

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Recent articles on 'Londonistan' show that the British Government has abdicated its responsibility to protect its actual citizens, in order to uphold a multicultural fiction.

Of course form your perspective it is "show" but from the perspective of those who love the multicuturalism of the UK understand that its falsely suggest! The mono-cultural racism that I hear on the airwaves of America and from vertain politicians neither protects its citizens or makes America stronger in the long run.

To have men tried where they cannot see the evidence against them or question their accusers is the kind of justice that that despotic regimes would be proud of.

June 30, 2006

Long term: It does not serve America well to have men held for years untried, uncharged, languishing in jail. This is not WW2. This is not the same cultural and political situation. Governments are more accountable today for their actions.

It has been reported that many of these men were "sold" to US forces by Afghan bounty hunters. No evidence has been presented as to their terrorist activities. To blindly accept the Bush admin's explanations and frames of reference does American democracy and the real fight against terrorism damage.

June 30, 2006

Actually, I have read the opinion.

Not only that, but I have experience in writing legislation, passing it, implementing it through administrative code, administering it, and living under it.

Although not a lawyer, I have represented individuals in legal hearings at several levels.

The law, like the Bible, requires exegesis. In fact, they are similar skills.

But you don't have to be a legal scholar to understand what happened here.

Using some sort of alchemy, the court has read a statute that says no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction, to mean that every court, justice, or judge has jurisdiction. Clearly a trip through the looking glass. This is not interpretation, but de-construction.

This splintered opinion is more evidence that the court has yet to return to its constitutional moorings.

Despite postmodern cant, texts do in fact have meaning, and while that meaning may not be ascertainable with mathematical precision, still, the range of meanings is not infinite. But the court has spent decades breathing the fumes of penumbras, and has become addicted to the unbridled exercise of power.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Of course form your perspective it is "show"

Please read carefully. I did not say that it was a "show." I said it shows, as in demonstrates.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Of course form your perspective it is "show"

Please read carefully. I did not say that it was a "show." I said it shows, as in demonstrates.

I did not say " from your perspective its a show". Please read carefully!!!!! I was refereing to your use of the word show. Obviously, you believe what the articles suggest about "Londonistan". I do not.

I love the way the right seem to suggest that the Brits are new to fighting terrorism!!!!

June 30, 2006

Re: " . . . the Geneva Convention, which applies only to uniformed soldiers in time of war, . . . "

I have kept mostly out of this. But, I think it is important to respond to the above statement:

a) The Geneva conventions apply to the conduct of war. They are not limited to uniformed personnel who are fighting the war.

The Geneva conventions apply to personnel identified as civilians, persons in custody identifed as "retained," and those identifed as "detained" persons. While it is true that some of those may be uniformed personnel, it is true that others will not be uniformed personnel, and will not be members of a military force.

c) As I have stated before: I was once assigned to a military police brigade, in a combat zone. As such, I personally walked through the area where the U.S. forces were holding detainees (I do not believe that any retained personnel were being held.). None of those detainees were either uniformed, or members of a military fighting in that war. But, my memory may be inaccurate, and there may have been some retined persons in that group. Anyway, as I was saying, I have personally walked through that encampment at the side of a member of the International Red Cross, from Sweden, who was there to inspect our treatment of those people to see if we had complied with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He reported his findings to his superiors, who properly reported our compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

d) I do not fault those who have inaccurately stated that the Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed military personnel fighting in combat. The Geneva Conventions are exceedingly complex, and people who have never personally read them, or formally studied them are quite likely to make inaccurate statements about them. But, with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is time to clairfy that point. The Court has ruled that the prisoners that we have at our base in Cuba must be given their rights under the Geneva Conventions. They have some rights regardless of the fact that they are not uniformed members of the military. That reuling is a very important one.

On another point:

It has been stated that the Geneva Conventions only apply to member nations that have signed them. A case could be made that such is accurate, and I understand that position. I am not going to say that it is wrong.

But, the Geneva Conventions are a statement by the world as to what is allowed in the conduct of war, and what is not allowed. These conventions are expected to be followed by all nations, regardless of whether or not they have signed them. But some nations have not signed any of the Conventions, and some nations have signed some, and refused to sign others. One can argue that the Conventions only apply to the nations that have signed them, and then only to the ones that they have signed.

As a case in point, the United States of America has not signed certain of the Conventions. [As I expect that you will ask, the USA has not signed certain Conventions relating to chemical warfare. But, the Presidents have ordered the military to comply with those Conventions.] As we have not signed them, it could be argued that they do not apply to us.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The Court has ruled that the prisoners that we have at our base in Cuba must be given their rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Nothing is surprising, when we have a forty year history of rulings based on emanations and penumbras.

I'm amazed at how blythe Christians are to accept such things, not seeing the profound theological consequences.

the Supreme Court of New Jersey rules that 57 = 0. The Massachusetts Court rules that John Adams and the Massachusetss Legislature of the 18th century intended to require that gays can marry. And we wonder why the average person under 40 believes that a text means-- well, whatever the reader wants it to mean.

Life is not easily compartmentalized. Habits of thinking encouraged in one are will spill over into others. That's why silly charges of partisanship, or gratuitous charges of racism on this tthread are so misplaced. The principle being taught by such things has had and is having devastating results on our children. I encounter it almost daily.

My concerns aren't about this war or the current political situation, those are only symptoms of a deeper disease which concerns me greatly.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The Massachusetts Court rules that John Adams and the Massachusetss Legislature of the 18th century intended to require that gays can marry.

That is NOT what the court ruled.

A nation would have to have nationalized stupidity to let the opinions of people that are 200+ years dead decide the details of daily life today.

/Bevin

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It has been stated that the Geneva Conventions only apply to member nations that have signed them. A case could be made that such is accurate, and I understand that position. I am not going to say that it is wrong.

This is what I understand. From my understanding, even if soldiers are not uniformed, such as many of special forces units do not wear uniforms, they still have rights under the convention. Often times civilians are also taken as POWs, like Eric Hare was during WW2 by the Japanesse, and these too have rights that are to be protected.

I have a problem extending more rights to terrorists than we give to an illegal immirgrants caught swimming accross the Rio Grande river.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The Massachusetts Court rules that John Adams and the Massachusetss Legislature of the 18th century intended to require that gays can marry.

That is NOT what the court ruled.

A nation would have to have nationalized stupidity to let the opinions of people that are 200+ years dead decide the details of daily life today.

There's so much wrong in that sentence it's hardly worth trying to salvage.

1)The court ruled that denying gay marriage was unconstitutional.

2)The Massachusetts Constitution was largely written by John Adams and was adopted by the legislature at that time.

3)Only the proposed European Union constitution consists of a bunch of "opinions." The Massachusetts Constitution and the U.S. Constitution are not comoposed of "opinions." They are composed of specific policies and procedures that form the basis for law in their respective realms.

So the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (I forget what it's called) peered into this document and divined that those policies and procedures mandated that Massachusetts must allow a man to marry a man; that if the legislature of the time could be resuscitated and consulted, they would agree that their document mandated such an outcome.

Of course, this is pure moondust. The court has neither text nor legislative history to back this up. They just invented it out of thin air.

Stupid is not relying on a foundational document to form the basis for law; stupid is looking into the law and saying "57=0;" or, "cruel and unusual" = capital punishment. That's stupid.

Of course, we're perfectly free to amend the constitutions and change the statutes. We can vote through referendum and/or legislature to legalize "gay marriage" or outlaw capital punishment, but that requires more than a handful of people to decide what's best for everyone.

4) John Adams died on July 4, 1826, saying "Jefferson still lives." He was mistaken. Jerfferson had died three hours earlier. 2006-1826- 180

180<200+

June 30, 2006

Died

1793 Roger Sherman

1798 George Read, Sr

1789 William Pierce

1790 Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

1796 Daniel Carroll

etc etc etc

It doesn't matter what any of them would have thought of gay marriage or indefinite detention without trial.

We, as a society, have decided to use this particular piece of writing to slow down and guide the way we create and enforce laws today. They are our laws, we make them, we enforce them, and we live with them.

If you don't like it - tough, welcome to a representative democracy.

/Bevin

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

We, as a society, have decided to use this particular piece of writing to slow down and guide the way we create and enforce laws today. They are our laws, we make them, we enforce them, and we live with them.

Yes. But the Massachusetts court did not use any contemporary law. It used the Massachusetts Constitution. And words have meanings. If they mean whatever we want them to, then they mean nothing at all, and we have de facto abandoned the notion of laws at all. Go back to Monarchy or Oligarchy, where one or a few rule by fiat.

That's what happened with the Massachusetts court. They decided that words mean whatever they want them to, not what they meant when written. That's not representative anything, it's a few individuals appointing themselves above the law.

And one day, when everyone respects the law-- these words of dead men that we call laws-- in exactly the same way those judges did, chaos will reign. Representative democracy will have died by assisted suicide.

June 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

This shows that in America, the system of checks and balances works. It is no wonder Americans are so patriotic. In his zeal to protect Americans and bring terrorists to justice, Pres. Bush went into a gray area that the Supreme Court had to clarify. The system works. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court and got away with it. He showed that the office of the President, during a time of war, has the power to do things that even the Supreme Court is powerless to stop. We are in a time of war. The difference is that Bush is not Lincoln and the current war is not viewed as serious a threat to the nation as the Civil War was.

July 1, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That's what happened with the Massachusetts court. They decided that words mean whatever they want them to, not what they meant when written. That's not representative anything, it's a few individuals appointing themselves above the law.

Do you see many people demonstrating in the streets about this issue? No. There is a bunch of rabble rousing evangelicals and RC's, but even in the Christian community in general in Mass, there is not a big kick-back against the court on this.

The constitution, both of the US and of MA, sets principles. The fact that those principles lead to results that go beyond the personal and cultural bigotry of the constitution's framers is a good thing, not a bad one.

It amazes me to see Christian's supporting the robbing of gays. Christian's vote to make everyone pay for courts and insurance and welfare, and then try to deny gays access to them. That is actively promoting theft.

/Bevin

July 1, 2006

No. It showed that the Supreme Court only makes recommendations, and relies on others to enforce them.

In this case, most of Capital Hill is agreeing with the Supreme Court and is happy to see this reeling in of Bush's grab at being Caesar.

/Bevin

July 1, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Christian's vote to make to make everyone pay for courts and insurance and welfare

Some Christians (by the way, plurals don't need apostrophes) vote for and some against.

It's the left that votes to make everyone pay. The right prefers to let people choose.

So your premise is in error. The notion that someone wants to "rob gays" assumes that they hold legal possession of something that someone else wants to take away. That's also false. I certainly don't want anything they have. So your sentence is gibberish.

As far as principles go, there is no principle in existence which can make gays capable of procreation with each other. Procreation has always been one of the primary purposes of marriage.

So the Massachusetts Court divined a principle which is nonexistent.

As far as no riots, demonstrations, there are two reasons. 1) Most people are more civil and civilized than the left, adn 2) it's the frog in the kettle syndrome. People are so accustomed to court decisions emanating from penumbras that they no longer can tell the difference. As, for example, yourself.

It's almost a matter of nostalgia to see you throw around labels such as bigotry. But then, it was more effective than the gibberish.

July 1, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Some Christians (by the way, plurals don't need apostrophes) vote for and some against.

ROFLOL Most people know that on Internet forums spelling and punctuation are not regarded as critical items.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It's the left that votes to make everyone pay. The right prefers to let people choose.

Yeah - right. I notice exactly how much choice the Bush administration is giving me about wasting my money in Iraq and on many other boondogles.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

So your premise is in error.

Nope - your facts are.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The notion that someone wants to "rob gays" assumes that they hold legal possession of something that someone else wants to take away. That's also false.

Its called MONEY, it is taken away by TAXES, and is used to fund a LEGISLATURE and a COURT SYSTEM and a SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I certainly don't want anything they have.

You want their MONEY to pay for YOUR RETIREMENT and YOUR LEGAL SYSTEM and YOUR WELFARE SYSTEM.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

So your sentence is gibberish.

Nope - just deeper than you can understand.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As far as principles go, there is no principle in existence which can make gays capable of procreation with each other. Procreation has always been one of the primary purposes of marriage.

ROFLOL. You don't need to get married to procreate. Maybe you should go back and read some elementary childhood sex education books about birds and bees.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

So the Massachusetts Court divined a principle which is nonexistent.

What? A principal that requires society to not rob minorities?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As far as no riots, demonstrations, there are two reasons. 1) Most people are more civil and civilized than the left, adn 2) it's the frog in the kettle syndrome. People are so accustomed to court decisions emanating from penumbras that they no longer can tell the difference. As, for example, yourself.

Yeah, right. That is why the right supports shooting doctors and burning abortion clinics and indefinitely interning people in detention centers deliberately set up off shore and flying people to countries where they can be tortured.

Civilized?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It's almost a matter of nostalgia to see you throw around labels such as bigotry. But then, it was more effective than the gibberish.

Isn't it great fun to be hi-faluting insulting. Maybe you think it distracts people from the fact that you don't have a solid argument.

/Bevin

July 1, 2006

If it is your position that all taxation is robbery, then I suppose you favor eliminating taxes. Or at least cutting them.

As far as paying for a legislature and a court system, everyone pays for that, on the principle that everyone benefits from them. Are you trying to say that gays 1)do not participate in the legislature? or 2) do not have access to the court system? and 3) do not have access to the social welfare system?

If so, then it is self-evidently mistaken. If not, your position is incoherent.

Since you mention the retirement system, why not allow gays and everyone else to keep the money that would otherwise be taxed for social security, and allow them to invest it for themselves. That would be my preference. I don't want their money, you see, for my retirement, either.

If you're in favor of eliminating the legislature, et al, that would be an interesting position, a sort of extreme libertaian/anarchist position. That doesn't appear consistent with other positions you've taken.

Sign In

Supreme Court rules against Bush Admin, again

Recommended Posts

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tom Wetmore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lazarus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lazarus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lazarus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

John317

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse