• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

I’m sure you banged some questionable people yourself. We’re allowed to grow past that.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!

We still have time to mess this up!

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

This country desperately needs a functioning Fourth Estate.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

The choice is between normal and crazy.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

The gop couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Books are my comfort food!

‘Museums aren’t America’s attic for its racist shit.’

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

Spilling the end game before they can coat it in frankl luntz-approved dogwhistles.

Donald Trump, welcome to your everything, everywhere, all at once.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

“Why isn’t this Snickers bar only a nickel?”

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / War on Terror / War on Terror aka GSAVE® / Detainee Ruling

Detainee Ruling

by John Cole|  July 15, 20053:04 pm| 17 Comments

This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

A federal appeals court has sided with the Bush administration:

In a significant victory for the Bush administration’s antiterrorism policy, a federal appeals court ruled today that military commissions could resume war crimes trials of detainees at the American naval base at Guant

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Interesting
Next Post: Nothing A Good Protest Won’t Cure »

Reader Interactions

17Comments

  1. 1.

    Mr Furious

    July 15, 2005 at 3:08 pm

    Ya got a little blockquote-tag problem there John.

    I guess these judges weren’t swayed by international law an opinion…

  2. 2.

    Steve

    July 15, 2005 at 3:49 pm

    The general legal concept that underlies a lot of these cases is that the courts tend to be very deferential to the President’s war powers, during a time of war.

    How the courts will handle the situation when hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan have ceased, but we are still engaged in a “war on terror,” remains to be seen. The Supreme Court has expressed serious doubts about whether we can really have a “war” that never ends.

  3. 3.

    metalgrid

    July 15, 2005 at 4:33 pm


    The general legal concept that underlies a lot of these cases is that the courts tend to be very deferential to the President’s war powers, during a time of war.

    Unfortunately, congress being the bunch of pussies that they are didn’t even declare war. Instead, they decided to do a little run around the constitution and screw things over real good. So I’m just curious, constitutionally speaking, who exactly have we declared war on and are fighting?

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    July 15, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    Let’s see. If my memory serves me right, we have declared a war on drugs, a war on poverty, a war on terror, etc.

  5. 5.

    metalgrid

    July 15, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    I qualified my statement with “constitutionally speaking” John, because I was expecting just such a response :)

  6. 6.

    Doug

    July 15, 2005 at 5:26 pm

    Bad mojo, I think. Allowing the executive branch to exercise judicial authority during a time of pseudo-war is a recipe for instability and tyranny. Is there any kind of review of the executive branch’s determination that the individual was, in fact, an enemy combatant? Or if they pick me up, throw me in Gitmo, call me an enemy combatant, say I’m not an American citizen, and say they actually picked me up in Afghanistan, am I stuck with a military tribunal?

  7. 7.

    Steve

    July 15, 2005 at 5:49 pm

    “Constitutionally speaking,” the Supreme Court has recognized many times since WWII that you can have a war without a formal declaration of war.

  8. 8.

    Bob

    July 15, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    “Constitutionally speaking”?

    What language is that? What country speaks that?

  9. 9.

    Steve

    July 15, 2005 at 8:38 pm

    So I’m just curious, constitutionally speaking, who exactly have we declared war on and are fighting?

    I don’t see what was so hard to understand about that question. Can you explain your problem a little more clearly, Bob?

  10. 10.

    CharleyCarp

    July 15, 2005 at 11:41 pm

    Doug:

    The Circuit says you can get judicial review of your military tribunal conviction after it’s run its course. What they said is that you can’t get judicial review of the procedures before it takes place.

    In any case, the Supreme Court already said you could petition for a writ of habeas corpus — exactly the right form of action for the circumstances you describe — and the Circuit’s opinion in Hamdan neither could nor does cut back on that in the slightest.

    I think the most interesting question here is the one upon which the panel split 2-1: whether the prisoners fall under the Third Common Article. This seems to turn on what international conflict means: (a) war between nations or (b) war fought in two or more nations. If the SC doesn’t take this case — and they might not, because you don’t reach the issue in Hamdan if you agree with the panel on the jurisdictional question — they’ll see the same question in Khaled/Boumediene, currently set for argument in the Circuit in early October. (They will end up taking K/B if the government wins that one at the Circuit — especially in new Circuit Judge JR Brown, who is on the panel, writes something like the stuff for which she has become famous).

  11. 11.

    Doug

    July 15, 2005 at 11:56 pm

    Thanks for that Charley. Clearly I didn’t read the opinion.

  12. 12.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 16, 2005 at 3:39 am

    “Nothing in the regulations, and nothing Hamdan argues, suggests that the president is not a ‘competent authority’ for these purposes.”

    Uhh how about the definition themselves? The whole enemy combatant over PoW claim is bullshit. I prefer not to live in a society that gives the President the complete authority to make his own definitions of what an “enemy combatant” and a “PoW” are.

    How about following the definitions outlined in the Geneva Conventions? Oh wait, I forgot, those are “quaint” and “outdated”.

    No wonder our image to the rest of the world sucks so much. First the Supreme Court’s bullshit eminent domain ruling and now this.

    I wonder just how long it will be until we live in totalitarian state…

  13. 13.

    Kimmitt

    July 16, 2005 at 3:44 am

    This is the same SCOTUS which allowed the detention camps to continue through the war. The Supreme Court is very aware of how many soldiers it commands vis a vis the Commander in Chief.

  14. 14.

    Stormy70

    July 16, 2005 at 8:22 am

    1929 Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Convention does not have bearing on the laws of the US. There is precedent for this ruling.

  15. 15.

    Kimmitt

    July 16, 2005 at 12:34 pm

    Could I get a cite, please, on that sucker, Stormy?

  16. 16.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 16, 2005 at 5:27 pm

    Yea, I’d like to see your source for this as well. I’m searching the internet and I can’t seem to find anything on it…

  17. 17.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 18, 2005 at 4:01 am

    Figures, Stormy talking out of her ass again.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • schrodingers_cat on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:42pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:42pm)
  • Nelle on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:38pm)
  • Geminid on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:37pm)
  • cain on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:29pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!