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
Mr Furious
Ya got a little blockquote-tag problem there John.
I guess these judges weren’t swayed by international law an opinion…
Steve
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.
metalgrid
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?
John Cole
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.
metalgrid
I qualified my statement with “constitutionally speaking” John, because I was expecting just such a response :)
Doug
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?
Steve
“Constitutionally speaking,” the Supreme Court has recognized many times since WWII that you can have a war without a formal declaration of war.
Bob
“Constitutionally speaking”?
What language is that? What country speaks that?
Steve
I don’t see what was so hard to understand about that question. Can you explain your problem a little more clearly, Bob?
CharleyCarp
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).
Doug
Thanks for that Charley. Clearly I didn’t read the opinion.
The Disenfranchised Voter
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…
Kimmitt
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.
Stormy70
1929 Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Convention does not have bearing on the laws of the US. There is precedent for this ruling.
Kimmitt
Could I get a cite, please, on that sucker, Stormy?
The Disenfranchised Voter
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…
The Disenfranchised Voter
Figures, Stormy talking out of her ass again.