fyi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

6/30/2006 9:54:40 AM

Does he read TWW?

6/30/2006 9:56:22 AM

lock

6/30/2006 10:05:48 AM

ibtb

6/30/2006 10:12:17 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket

6/30/2006 10:15:12 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief

6/30/2006 10:46:25 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_war_on_terror_is_such_a_bullshit_war_and_will_probably_never_actually_end

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 10:48 AM. Reason : l]

6/30/2006 10:47:57 AM

Good ole Bush got smacked around by some judges. Love it!

6/30/2006 10:55:13 AM

why the hell would this get locked? it was supposed to be a serious discussion about our system of checks and balances and how the supreme courts ruling is a perfect example of this system in action.

I find it interesting that everyone suggesting this thread be locked are conservatives.

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ]

6/30/2006 11:06:11 AM

lock this crap

6/30/2006 11:13:20 AM

i didnt think there were any conservatives on TWW

6/30/2006 11:15:22 AM

Quote :

"Ruling prompts Bush to press for new laws to try Cuba detainees THE Bush Administration and senior Republicans will press Congress to pass laws so that Guantanamo Bay detainees, including David Hicks, can be tried by military tribunals that do not offer the same legal rights as US courts or courts martial. The move comes after the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling that the military commissions set up after September 11, 2001, to try "enemy combatants" contravened the Geneva Convention and the American Military Code of Justice. Administration officials have made it clear that President George Bush is determined to push ahead with tribunals that offer "terrorist killers and war criminals" less than the protections and rights available at courts martial and in US courts. The officials said that the court's decision was "narrowly based" and was not a judgement on the limits of presidential powers in war time. But few legal experts agreed with them. Some Administration officials admitted that the ruling throws into doubt the whole strategy for fighting the so-called war on terror. That includes the CIA prisons where senior al-Qaeda members are held with no access to lawyers, and interrogation techniques approved by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials. Senior Republicans said they would push Congress to pass laws that would allow Mr Bush, in the words of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, "to keep America safe in the war on terror". But Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner said there would have to be an "acceleration of efforts to return detainees to their own countries". Mr Bush, clearly stunned by the ruling, said that "to the extent that there is latitude to work with Congress … we will do so". Senior Democrats responded cautiously to the proposal that Congress should pass laws for military tribunals. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said they would not support legislation that failed to take into account the court's ruling. Some Democrats said that any new laws were likely to be challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Bush had no power to set up the military commissions without Congressional approval and legislation. Additionally, the commissions contravened US and international law. Military defence lawyers for Guantanamo detainees were jubilant. Major Michael Mori, the military lawyer for David Hicks, said Hicks was always prepared to be tried by a proper court martial or in a federal court. "Today, the Supreme Court found that the system Australia supports is illegal and fails to provide basic fundamental rights required for a criminal justice system," he said. The ruling that even al-Qaeda suspects are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention is likely to have the biggest long-term impact on the Bush Administration. It limits Mr Bush's power to wage the war on terror and may affect other Bush-sanctioned programs, including the phone-tapping operation run by the National Security Agency without court approval. Andrew McBride, a former federal prosecutor and an Administration supporter, said the decision was a blow for the President. "It takes a very narrow view of the President's authority," he said. "

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ruling-prompts-bush-to-press-for-new-laws-to-try-cuba-detainees/2006/06/30/1151174396035.html

6/30/2006 11:21:42 AM

6/30/2006 11:31:46 AM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 ^I'm with stupid 33580 Posts user info edit post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief"

I guess if you define war any way you want to....

6/30/2006 11:39:54 AM

I find it interesting that, only a few months ago, the Supreme Court was out-of-control conservative after being packed with Alito and Roberts. Now, that same court is being lauded as holding up the system of checks and balances.

I also found it interesting that one of the articles I read mentioned that the three dissenting Justices were nominated by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Yet, the article failed to mentioned that three of the majority Justices were also appointed by Republican Presidents.

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

6/30/2006 11:56:39 AM

you guys do realize that they can still hold all of the Gitmo prisoners for as long as theres still a war going on

the supreme court ruling only has to do with how the prisoners are tried

I hope Bin Laden's bodyguard rots in their for the rest of his life

Quote :

"I guess if you define war any way you want to...."

im pretty sure its a fairly simple concept that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the military during a time of war

we are at war you know

6/30/2006 12:00:40 PM

I guess if you define war any way you want to....

6/30/2006 12:09:34 PM

i guess if you forget 9/11 because you hate the president...

6/30/2006 12:10:46 PM

Quote :

"you guys do realize that they can still hold all of the Gitmo prisoners for as long as theres still a war going on the supreme court ruling only has to do with how the prisoners are tried "

anyone who's read a single article about this decision should be able to deduce that.

Quote :

"I hope Bin Laden's bodyguard rots in their for the rest of his life"

Don't we all. This decision/process affects many more people than just Osama's driver/bodyguard.

Quote :

"I find it interesting that, only a few months ago, the Supreme Court was out-of-control conservative after being packed with Alito and Roberts. Now, that same court is being lauded as holding up the system of checks and balances."

Often the rule of law takes precedence over any political affiliations. Thankfully this one of those situations

6/30/2006 12:18:09 PM

Congress can vote to essentially ignore the Geneva Convention as far as these detainees

Hopefully they do

Since Al Queda essentially ignores any rules of war or laws governing war

6/30/2006 12:20:10 PM

that'd be all well and good if this was a war against al-Qaeda, but it's not. it's a war against an ideology, which is impossible to "win".

6/30/2006 12:22:31 PM

Quote :

"Since Al Queda essentially ignores any rules of war or laws governing war "

Quote :

"that'd be all well and good if this was a war against al-Qaeda, but it's not. it's a war against an ideology, which is impossible to "win"."

Freaking exactly. Which is why classifying it as a "war" is bullshit so that normal beuracratic processes can be subverted under the "during wartime" veil power the commander in cheif has.

6/30/2006 12:26:03 PM

so its not a war? what would you call it then 1CYPHER?

i mean why are so many people bitching about the "unjust war in Iraq" if we're not even at war???

6/30/2006 12:31:17 PM

I'm talking about "the war on terror", not Iraq.

6/30/2006 12:39:53 PM

so what would you call the "war" on terror if its not a war

6/30/2006 12:41:28 PM

Quote :

"Since Al Queda essentially ignores any rules of war or laws governing war"

right, because every single person in gitmo is a member of al queda.



war on terror
war on drugs
hmmm

6/30/2006 12:50:28 PM

Quote :

"Does he read TWW?"

6/30/2006 12:52:42 PM

^^right because every single prisoner in Gitmo is innocent

and 1CYPHER i'm waiting to see what you would call the war on terror since you dont think its a war

6/30/2006 12:56:11 PM

arent they condsidered innocent until proven guilty?

6/30/2006 12:57:33 PM

would you consider Usama Bin Ladin's bodyguard as innocent?

6/30/2006 12:58:11 PM

dont answer questions with a question.

by law, arent they considered innocent until proven guilty? if thats the truth, then until guilt is proven, osama's bodyguards are innocent.

6/30/2006 1:01:03 PM

i guess osama is innocent too since he hasnt been proven guilty

also "innocent until proven guilty" is a familiar concept of domestic / consitutional law

i dont know how much that applies to international law when our enemies dont follow the rules of war

6/30/2006 1:01:41 PM

by american law, you are correct.

agreed...i dont know how the laws are used with war....but i was orginally talking about the criminals at guantanimo, which as i understand, is under the jurisdiction of american law.

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 1:04 PM. Reason : df]

6/30/2006 1:03:38 PM

so do you personally think osama is innocent?

^i didnt think they were under the jurisdiction of american law since they are not being held on american soil

6/30/2006 1:04:14 PM

of course not, but my opinion doesnt, and shouldnt, matter.

6/30/2006 1:05:46 PM

well i personally think the commander in chief's opinion should matter during wartime

and we are at war

6/30/2006 1:07:23 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=417869

Quote :

"It means that at the very least, the Pentagon will have to set up standard courts martials for detainees, with all the protections afforded by US law. "

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 1:08 PM. Reason : df]

6/30/2006 1:08:07 PM

gitmo is american soil, is it not?

and if they are tried, i dont think it would be by some international war tribunal

im pretty sure they would be tried under the american justice system

6/30/2006 1:09:25 PM

i believe so....thats why i originally asked the question...im not sure.

6/30/2006 1:10:08 PM

Congress can still change that if they want

but the Supreme Court's ruling, to me, will just get Bush and friends to keep the prisoners locked up as long as possible instead of even considering trial until the war is over

Quote :

"gitmo is american soil, is it not?"

its in Cuba so...

even though its on a US military base, its still in Cuba

but i too am not completely sure about how that works

6/30/2006 1:10:31 PM

US embassies are in other countries, but on "american soil"

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2006 1:11:28 PM

if there are still violent conflicts going on that are part of the war on terror

then yes they'll probably just keep them locked up until they die

because they are able to, by law

^do we ship them soil from the continental US

6/30/2006 1:12:45 PM

Quote :

"well i personally think the commander in chief's opinion should matter during wartime "

apparently the supreme court didnt. ahhh, the joys of checks and balances.

6/30/2006 1:13:08 PM

ok well they'll just stay locked up until they die

ahhh the joys of the supreme court not addressing the fact that the gitmo prisoners never have to be released

6/30/2006 1:14:06 PM

Quote :

"^do we ship them soil from the continental US"

be serious dude. NO, its not soil from america.

it's still considered american territory, and i cant see how a military base would be any different

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2006 1:14:31 PM

sounds like Cuban soil to me

6/30/2006 1:14:57 PM

you amaze me more and more everyday.

6/30/2006 1:16:08 PM

just because i like our president more than i like our enemies?

6/30/2006 1:17:05 PM

exactly my point.

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : maybe i should html so no one can see that i edited my post.]

6/30/2006 1:17:33 PM

maybe i should hate our president and feel sympathy for our enemies

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 1:18 PM. Reason : oh look an edit wow]

6/30/2006 1:18:31 PM