SCOTUS: The Bush Administration's 'Outrageous Impertinence"

[suedanim]

Well! Bush demanded a court who'd uphold the letter of the law, strict Constitutional interpretation and thats what he and his buttboy McCain, who NOW claims this is a horrible mistake, got.... imo.... this is a most joyful ruling which protects Americans from unlawful imprisonment.

McCain... ever the flipflopping sellout wanted to close down Gitmo not long ago. What a fraud.

I am not convinced the Bush/Cheney wars, torture or imprisonment of hundreds of Arab descent people thwarted any terrorist attacks anywhere. I am convinced, instead, that those activities will be the cause of the next attack.

The Bush Administration's 'Outrageous Impertinence'

For the third time in a row, the US Supreme Court has rapped the Bush administration on the knuckles for its treatment of Guantanamo inmates. Perhaps it is time to impeach President Bush, says one German paper.


It was another major legal setback for the Bush administration in its war against terror: The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their dentention in US federal courts.


The ruling is a further blow for the US government, which has tried to keep detainee cases under militrary control and out of the hands of US judges. It was the third consecutive Supreme Court ruling against the Bush administration's controversial policies regarding its treatment of prisoners detained in the against terror.

The 5-4 ruling overturned a 2006 law that had denied federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees. The ruling marks the latest example of the Supreme Court rejecting the Bush administration's argument that the detainees were enemy combatants and therefore did not have the right, under the US Constitution, to challenge their dentention in a civilan US court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the five judges to vote down the earlier ruling, wrote in a 70-page opinion: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law." The decision effectively removes the legal foundation for the existence of the Guantanamo prison camp.

Despite the small majority, the two sides were strident in their opinions. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling would have "disastrous consequences." He said, "ít will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

Speaking from Italy, where he was on Thursday on part of his week-long trip through Europe, President George W. Bush said he would abide by the court's decision but "that doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

German media commentators saw the ruling as further proof that the Bush administration's policy regarding the prosecution of Guantanamo inmates has been wrong. One newspaper even went even so far to suggest that the ruling paved the way for Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes that by continually breaching the rulings of the country's highest court, the Bush administration had broken away from the idea of a constitutional state:

"Instead of keeping to the law and applying it indiscriminatively to all its people, the Bush administration has behaved like a regime that ignores the rule of law. In fact, the administration for quite some time has mocked -- and with outrageous impertinence -- the highest administer of justice in the US.

"Against any person who breached the law in this manner, the state would have at its disposal mechanisms to punish the individual. But they seem to be missing when it comes to punishing the state. According to the logic of the US Constitution, the judgement of the Supreme Court offers an extremely sound reason for the US Congress to launch impeachment proceedings against the president.

"That will not happen, of course, just half a year before the end of the Bush administration. However, there is still a job to do for Congress. The Democratic majority can at least oppose any new attempt by the government to introduce unconstitutional legal principles."

SPIEGEL ONLINE writes about the impact the Supreme Court ruling will have on the race for the White House:

"For both candidates the reaction to the ruling is a tough balancing act. (Republican candidate John) McCain has often promised to close Guantanamo: by doing so, he wants to distance himself from the Bush legacy.... However, he has to be careful not to anger the right-wing base of the Republican Party, which continues to support Bush's war on terror.

So McCain has continued to support the controversial military tribunals, whose glaring shortcomings the Supreme Court gave as the reason for granting Guantanamo inmates the right to US court hearings."

"(Democratic candidate Barack) Obama, however, does not want to appear weak in the war against terror. The fact there has not been a new terrorist attack in the US in the past seven years is one of the few successes the Republicans can still claim. Yet, Obama has not yet convincingly stated what should happen to the Guantanamo inmates, who include alleged members of the al-Qaida leadership, such as Abu Zubaida, a confidant of Osama Bin Laden's."


The Stuttgarter Zeitung writes:

"What happened in the camp always was political and psychological grist to the mill for those who believe Western legal principles are contemptible and dishonest. The current trial (eds: last week five detainees, including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed appeared before a military tribual in Guantanamo) will not collapse as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, but it will become a farce. Regardless of who becomes the next president, the legally-questionable direction taken at Guantanamo has reached a dead end."

"But the real test of the rule of law is still to come. For all his faults, there was no second terror attack in the US during the presidency of George W. Bush. It is very doubtful whether Guantanamo helped prevent another attack. But just much Constitutional values are truly respected will only become clear should the terrorists strike again."
-- Mark Waffel; 2:30 p.m. CET

[tecoyah]

In my opinion, this is an example of the reason our system will stand the test of time. I see the systematic erosion of the constitution halted by the very checks and balances placed to prevent such horrific actions.

[Drocket]

Don't worry, the Bush administration has already declared that it intends to obey the ruling - by changing absolutely nothing. They plan to continue their agenda of splitting hairs and ignoring everything that goes against them in their eternal quest to flush America's moral center down the toilet.

He added: "I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed. Instead it addresses the procedures that the Congress and the president put in place to permit enemy combatants to challenge their detention."

Link

Edit:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

In my opinion, this is an example of the reason our system will stand the test of time. I see the systematic erosion of the constitution halted by the very checks and balances placed to prevent such horrific actions.

Checks and balances only mean something when Congress has the balls to impeach a president when he violates them. As long as Bush continues to snub his nose and get away this it, "checks and balances" is nothing more than a joke.

[suedanim]

The military, depending on the whim of the CIC, is exempt requirement to follow the US rule of law?

[lily]

First of all, I don't know why this had to go in front of the Supreme Court three times and second of all his consiglierò seems to have him covered!

Speaking at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers
in Tokyo, Mukasey said, "I'm disappointed with the decision, in so far as I
understand that it will result in hundreds of actions challenging the
detention of enemy combatants to be moved to federal district court."

He added: "I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not
concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed. Instead
it addresses the procedures that the Congress and the president put in place
to permit enemy combatants to challenge their detention."

He said the Justice Department would comply with the ruling while studying
the decision and "whether any legislation or any other action may be
appropriate."

[apdst]

The fact that the supreme court would make a decision that took away our military's effectiveness in detaining enemy fighters is the the most outrageous decision they've made since Dred Scott.

[dgun]

The fact that the supreme court would make a decision that took away our military's effectiveness in detaining enemy fighters is the the most outrageous decision they've made since Dred Scott.

It does no such of a thing. And if the Bush Administration would abide by the Geneva Convention, I doubt this would have ever come up.

Former AG Gonzales is on record saying that Americans essentially don't have a right of habeas corpus. And this is the Bush administration's view, that they can do whatever the hell they want simply by distorting language and words and invoking bizarre and twisted logic.

Remember, the Bush administration wanted to classify American citizens as enemy combatants and, on the same grounds as the prisoners in Gitmo, deny them constitutional protections. This cannot be allowed, regardless of what you think of the individuals in question.

And if we can limit in anyway these dishonorable criminal thugs in the Bush administration, we should.

And I also agree with Drocket that congress has no balls, and is therefore complicit with Bush and his goons.

[ptif219]

Explain to me how war criminals have access to our constitution.

Isn't the constitution for US citizens not terrorist.

Are these the type of prisoners we want to release?


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/r...-kill-7-iraqis


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico—A Kuwaiti who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo for more than 3 1/2 years carried out a recent suicide attack in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in one of three suicide bomb attacks last month in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, said U.S. Navy Cmdr. Scott Rye, a military spokesman.

It appears to be the first time someone who was held at the prison at the U.S. base in Cuba has carried out a suicide attack, said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon.

Al-Ajmi, 29, was transferred in 2005 to Kuwait, where the government was supposed to ensure he would not pose a threat. In May 2006, a Kuwaiti court acquitted him and four other former Guantanamo prisoners of terrorism charges.

Dubai-based al-Arabiya television, citing a cousin of al-Ajmi, last week reported that he had carried out a suicide attack, but the U.S. military could not confirm it until Wednesday.

Rye said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that al-Ajmi’s family has confirmed his death and that authorities determined he entered Iraq through Syria.

“It is unknown what motivated him to leave Kuwait and go to Iraq,” Rye said. “His family members reportedly were shocked to hear he had conducted a suicide bombing.”

[suedanim]

Originally Posted by apdst

The fact that the supreme court would make a decision that took away our military's effectiveness in detaining enemy fighters is the the most outrageous decision they've made since Dred Scott.

Absolute rubbish. ..and whats really a trip.. THIS is the Supreme Court you rightwingers prayed for, had a collective orgasm over.

This decision actually displays what a great nation the United States is and MAY restore some faith the world USED to have in us.

[suedanim]

Originally Posted by dgun

It does no such of a thing. And if the Bush Administration would abide by the Geneva Convention, I doubt this would have ever come up.

Former AG Gonzales is on record saying that Americans essentially don't have a right of habeas corpus. And this is the Bush administration's view, that they can do whatever the hell they want simply by distorting language and words and invoking bizarre and twisted logic.

Remember, the Bush administration wanted to classify American citizens as enemy combatants and, on the same grounds as the prisoners in Gitmo, deny them constitutional protections. This cannot be allowed, regardless of what you think of the individuals in question.

And if we can limit in anyway these dishonorable criminal thugs in the Bush administration, we should.

And I also agree with Drocket that congress has no balls, and is therefore complicit with Bush and his goons.

Excellent post.

I have nothing to add... just wanted to throw that out there.