Now that the furor has died down...

[Bullypulpit]

...And the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision has been pushed out of the headlines by North Korea and Chimpy's visit to Dunkin' Donuts, let's look at the implications of that decision on his power-grab.

<blockquote>The first three aspects suggest a far-reaching defeat for the President: (1) The decision treats World War II precedents upholding military commissions as all but dead letters, affirming the primacy of ordinary civilian courts and formally-constituted courts martial; (2) The decision utterly rejects the Bush Administration's frequently invoked and sweeping claim that there is "inherent Executive Authority" to act unilaterally in matters of national security, recognizing instead that the Constitution gives Congress the leading role in establishing the rules for treatment of captives; (3) The decision finds the Geneva Conventions applicable to suspected al Qaeda captives in Afghanistan, thus implying that methods of interrogation that have been used against them constitute war crimes. - <a href=http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20060630.html>Michael C. Dorf</a>, <i>Finlaw's Writ</i>, 6/30/06</blockquote>

The first issue deals with the the precedent of <a href=http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/ExParteQuirin1942.html>the Quirin case</a> in 1942, establishing the definition of <i>unlawful combatants</i>. This undercuts administration policy with regards to the detention of unlawful combatants. Under Quirin, the prisoners were permitted to seek review and be represented by counsel. This in stark contrast to the administration policy of holding prisoners incommunicad and denying them representation or review of their status.

The second issue dismisses Chimpy's claim to sole authority in establishing rules governing the treatment of captives as well as undercutting his arguments for a "blank check" provided by the Use of Force Authorization after 9/11. The Constituion vests authority to "...make rules concerning captures on land and water..." as well as establishing the definition of what constitutes "...offenses against the law of nations...". Chimpy's claim to a unitary executive stands repudiated in other areas as weel, particularly in his aggressive use of signing statements to sidestep bills passed by Congress which he then signed into law.

With the advice of Alberto Gonzalez, Chimpy and his administration declared that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete", and decided that any suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Aghanistan were exempt from the Article III provisions of the Conventions. Justice Kennedy, in this case, bascially said "Wrong answer!". Not only do the provisions of Article III apply, but:

<blockquote>"By Act of Congress . . . violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel," and "there should be no doubt . . . that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in" the UCMJ.</blockquote>

So, anyone involved in the use of the interrogation techniques (read as torture) can be subjected to prosecution for war crimes.

 

[Gunny]

So, just WHAT is it that you would like to take a look at? A stupid ruling that goes against the best interests of this Nation during a time of war, or what?

You libs never cease to amaze me. Let's just turn them loose. No reason why we shouldn't send the enemy reinforcements.

And EVERY President during EVERY war has been the one to act as the leader of this Nation, and has been given power to conduct such wars. For some reason, because you lives have turned into such illogical extremists and political hacks, it's "different" now.

Same with the signing statements. Clinton called it a line-item veto. Same crap. The ruling should be the same, big deal. I don't recall that Clinton was tried of some crime, found guilty and sent to prison for it. Precedent is set. Get over it.

 

[Annie]

...And the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision has been pushed out of the headlines by North Korea and Chimpy's visit to Dunkin' Donuts, let's look at the implications of that decision on his power-grab.

<blockquote>The first three aspects suggest a far-reaching defeat for the President: (1) The decision treats World War II precedents upholding military commissions as all but dead letters, affirming the primacy of ordinary civilian courts and formally-constituted courts martial; (2) The decision utterly rejects the Bush Administration's frequently invoked and sweeping claim that there is "inherent Executive Authority" to act unilaterally in matters of national security, recognizing instead that the Constitution gives Congress the leading role in establishing the rules for treatment of captives; (3) The decision finds the Geneva Conventions applicable to suspected al Qaeda captives in Afghanistan, thus implying that methods of interrogation that have been used against them constitute war crimes. - <a href=http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20060630.html>Michael C. Dorf</a>, <i>Finlaw's Writ</i>, 6/30/06</blockquote>

The first issue deals with the the precedent of <a href=http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/ExParteQuirin1942.html>the Quirin case</a> in 1942, establishing the definition of <i>unlawful combatants</i>. This undercuts administration policy with regards to the detention of unlawful combatants. Under Quirin, the prisoners were permitted to seek review and be represented by counsel. This in stark contrast to the administration policy of holding prisoners incommunicad and denying them representation or review of their status.

The second issue dismisses Chimpy's claim to sole authority in establishing rules governing the treatment of captives as well as undercutting his arguments for a "blank check" provided by the Use of Force Authorization after 9/11. The Constituion vests authority to "...make rules concerning captures on land and water..." as well as establishing the definition of what constitutes "...offenses against the law of nations...". Chimpy's claim to a unitary executive stands repudiated in other areas as weel, particularly in his aggressive use of signing statements to sidestep bills passed by Congress which he then signed into law.

With the advice of Alberto Gonzalez, Chimpy and his administration declared that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete", and decided that any suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Aghanistan were exempt from the Article III provisions of the Conventions. Justice Kennedy, in this case, bascially said "Wrong answer!". Not only do the provisions of Article III apply, but:

<blockquote>"By Act of Congress . . . violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel," and "there should be no doubt . . . that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in" the UCMJ.</blockquote>

So, anyone involved in the use of the interrogation techniques (read as torture) can be subjected to prosecution for war crimes.

Funny, we get a different take on this:

1. Congress should have declared war. They cannot escape their duty, by passing off that committment onto the executive by an 'congressional act.'

2. Bush/executive branch needed to lay out why those held met the criteria of 'enemy non-combatants'

3. Congress needs to step up and decide whether or not the US is at war and with whom.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So, just WHAT is it that you would like to take a look at? A stupid ruling that goes against the best interests of this Nation during a time of war, or what?

You libs never cease to amaze me. Let's just turn them loose. No reason why we shouldn't send the enemy reinforcements.

And EVERY President during EVERY war has been the one to act as the leader of this Nation, and has been given power to conduct such wars. For some reason, because you lives have turned into such illogical extremists and political hacks, it's "different" now.

Same with the signing statements. Clinton called it a line-item veto. Same crap. The ruling should be the same, big deal. I don't recall that Clinton was tried of some crime, found guilty and sent to prison for it. Precedent is set. Get over it.

If you'd read the analysis, you would see that "...persons who have fairly been determined to be enemy combatants can be held so long as hostilities last. Given continuing conflict in Afghanistan, not to mention the broader "war on terror," that means the Guantanamo Bay prison can remain open for business." The key words here are "fairly determined". and given that most detainees are guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, those individuals should be released. They can keep the hard cores for as long as they want.

As for the signing statements...They are not "line item vetoes", which were declared unconstitutional breaches of Congressional authority. They are a deliberate attempt on the part of Chimpy to do an end-run around the constitutional authority of Congress and the Judiciary to respectively make and interpret law. Check out the first three articles of the Constiution for the enumeration of the powers of each branch of government. You will clearly see the option claimed by Chimpy in his signing statements DOES NOT exist.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Funny, we get a different take on this:

1. Congress should have declared war. They cannot escape their duty, by passing off that committment onto the executive by an 'congressional act.'

2. Bush/executive branch needed to lay out why those held met the criteria of 'enemy non-combatants'

3. Congress needs to step up and decide whether or not the US is at war and with whom.

<blockquote><b>WAR</b>: 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations</blockquote>

Now that we've gotten our definitions straight...Al Qaeda and its loose affiliation of terrorist organizations, do not constitute a "state or nation". Instead, what we see are cells, some working in concert, some not, scattered around the world. Is military force an appropriate response to these threats? Unless special ops units are the force of choice, or the target is operating in isolation from civilians and non-combatants, the answer would have to be "No." And this latter is seldom the case. So what is left absent these two options? Police work. And from what we have seen since 9/11, it has been police work that has stymied abortive attacks, both abroad and possibly at home. Congress was correct in not declaring war, as it would result in a completely open-ended and, quite likely, permanent state of war. Much like what Chimpy and his administration are pushing for anyways.

As for Chimpy laying out criteria for determining whether or not an individual qualifies as an enemy combatant, his only criteria has, up to now been because he said so. This ruling undercuts that imperial perogative.

 

[Annie]

<blockquote><b>WAR</b>: 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations</blockquote>

Now that we've gotten our definitions straight...Al Qaeda and its loose affiliation of terrorist organizations, do not constitute a "state or nation". Instead, what we see are cells, some working in concert, some not, scattered around the world. Is military force an appropriate response to these threats? Unless special ops units are the force of choice, or the target is operating in isolation from civilians and non-combatants, the answer would have to be "No." And this latter is seldom the case. So what is left absent these two options? Police work. And from what we have seen since 9/11, it has been police work that has stymied abortive attacks, both abroad and possibly at home. Congress was correct in not declaring war, as it would result in a completely open-ended and, quite likely, permanent state of war. Much like what Chimpy and his administration are pushing for anyways.

As for Chimpy laying out criteria for determining whether or not an individual qualifies as an enemy combatant, his only criteria has, up to now been because he said so. This ruling undercuts that imperial perogative.

Regarding the definition, the word 'usually' is there, but I agree the definition will now need to be reworked. This time it's not a nation-state, but rather a 'religion' or purported version of one. We can wish it were not so, but it is.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Regarding the definition, the word 'usually' is there, but I agree the definition will now need to be reworked. This time it's not a nation-state, but rather a 'religion' or purported version of one. We can wish it were not so, but it is.

This "war" is best fought with good police work and co-ordination between intelligence and law enforcement organizations on an international basis. The only role for the military is in providing small unit special operations teams when needed. Unfortuantely, Chimpy's idea of anti-terrorist action is more akin to trying to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer. You may kill the fly, but the colateral damage is unacceptable.

 

[Annie]

This "war" is best fought with good police work and co-ordination between intelligence and law enforcement organizations on an international basis. The only role for the military is in providing small unit special operations teams when needed. Unfortuantely, Chimpy's idea of anti-terrorist action is more akin to trying to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer. You may kill the fly, but the colateral damage is unacceptable.

Treating these attacks as crimes did not work for over 20 years. It IS a war, not a series of crimes.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Treating these attacks as crimes did not work for over 20 years. It IS a war, not a series of crimes.

Funny, crimes were how the attacks of the Bader-Meinhoff gang and other marxist-leninist-troskyite wannabes were treated in Europe. National police forces as well as Interpol and special forces units handled the job quite nicely.

You can't use the sledge-hammer of the military against foes who simply melt into the civilian population. You want to deny terrorists networks new recruits, give the citizenry jobs that will let them support their families, adequate food, accessible healthcare, a good, secular education for the children a reliable working infrastructure and a fair government.

Every civilian killed by military forces accidentally, collateral damage I believe they call it, creates more new recruits for terrorist organizations. And unless you can iso;ate the terrorists from the civilians you will continue to have civilian deaths, this more recruits for the terrorists. But this doesn't really seem to matter to our current administration. They need boogey-men on the loose to justify their excesses.

 

[pegwinn]

I am not smart enough to comment on the long term ramifications of the USSC ruling. The Jarheads-eye view says that by recognizing the Al Qaeda as able to be covered by the Geneva conventions can be a good thing. Now anyone armed and wearing a bed sheet and captured can be given a quick field interrogation and summarily shot. Why? Article 4.

But of course, we are better than that which is why Gitmo exists. We could have just as easily killed em all.

 

[Annie]

Funny, crimes were how the attacks of the Bader-Meinhoff gang and other marxist-leninist-troskyite wannabes were treated in Europe. National police forces as well as Interpol and special forces units handled the job quite nicely.

You can't use the sledge-hammer of the military against foes who simply melt into the civilian population. You want to deny terrorists networks new recruits, give the citizenry jobs that will let them support their families, adequate food, accessible healthcare, a good, secular education for the children a reliable working infrastructure and a fair government.

Every civilian killed by military forces accidentally, collateral damage I believe they call it, creates more new recruits for terrorist organizations. And unless you can iso;ate the terrorists from the civilians you will continue to have civilian deaths, this more recruits for the terrorists. But this doesn't really seem to matter to our current administration. They need boogey-men on the loose to justify their excesses.

We are not talking about the IRA, skinheads, Far right 'survivalist' groups, etc., that is not the types at Gitmo. Those types of groups, that want some 'relief' from the government or whatever, have been and should be dealt with as criminals. Do they kill? Certainly. Dangerous? Redundant. Turn an army on them? No.

The difference is, they want revolution from within. The al Queda and their wannabes, are no more committed to 'freeing their homelands' than Hitler was to a 'purified Germany'. In both cases the aim is far more reaching than that. Hitler wanted Aryan domination; Islam wants a world for Islam. In neither case can most believe those kinds of goals are truly meant.

 

[Gunny]

If you'd read the analysis, you would see that "...persons who have fairly been determined to be enemy combatants can be held so long as hostilities last. Given continuing conflict in Afghanistan, not to mention the broader "war on terror," that means the Guantanamo Bay prison can remain open for business." The key words here are "fairly determined". and given that most detainees are guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, those individuals should be released. They can keep the hard cores for as long as they want.

Nothing but speculation on your part that "most detainees are guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

As for the signing statements...They are not "line item vetoes", which were declared unconstitutional breaches of Congressional authority. They are a deliberate attempt on the part of Chimpy to do an end-run around the constitutional authority of Congress and the Judiciary to respectively make and interpret law. Check out the first three articles of the Constiution for the enumeration of the powers of each branch of government. You will clearly see the option claimed by Chimpy in his signing statements DOES NOT exist.

You are correct. The line-item veto was declared unconstitutional. IF Bush's use of signing statements is also declared unconstitutional, then I guess he won't be able to use them anymore, will he?

Line-item veto being declared unconstitutional did not result in voiding each and every time Clinton altered legislation with it, nor did it result in his being charged with a crime.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You are correct. The line-item veto was declared unconstitutional. IF Bush's use of signing statements is also declared unconstitutional, then I guess he won't be able to use them anymore, will he?

Line-item veto being declared unconstitutional did not result in voiding each and every time Clinton altered legislation with it, nor did it result in his being charged with a crime.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The only goose involved here is that of the American people, which will be cooked if Chimpy's use of it remains unchecked.

His activities in this arena, in no way, resemble the line item veto, granted the President by Congress, dealing solely with spending bills. Rather than vetoing legislation he disagrees with and sending it back to Congress for further consideration, as he is permitted under the Constitution, he signs the bill into law, appending it with conditions under which he feels no compunction to abide by the provisiosn of the law.

No where in the Constitution is this authority for the President enumerated. No past president has ever used signing statements in this manner. In essence, Chimpy is stating that he and his administration are a law unto themselves, with Congress and the Judiciary relegated to irrelevancy, not the co-equal branches of government they are as laid out in the Constitution.

No matter how you want to slice it, Chimpy is subverting the Constitution with his use of signing statements. If you are unable to understand that, I'm sorry. And if too many Americans fail to understand that, then the nation is screwed...We can kiss the Constitution and the Republic good-bye.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The only goose involved here is that of the American people, which will be cooked if Chimpy's use of it remains unchecked.

His activities in this arena, in no way, resemble the line item veto, granted the President by Congress, dealing solely with spending bills. Rather than vetoing legislation he disagrees with and sending it back to Congress for further consideration, as he is permitted under the Constitution, he signs the bill into law, appending it with conditions under which he feels no compunction to abide by the provisiosn of the law.

No where in the Constitution is this authority for the President enumerated. No past president has ever used signing statements in this manner. In essence, Chimpy is stating that he and his administration are a law unto themselves, with Congress and the Judiciary relegated to irrelevancy, not the co-equal branches of government they are as laid out in the Constitution.

No matter how you want to slice it, Chimpy is subverting the Constitution with his use of signing statements. If you are unable to understand that, I'm sorry. And if too many Americans fail to understand that, then the nation is screwed...We can kiss the Constitution and the Republic good-bye.

He absolutely is not subverting the constitution. He's saying he will act in concordance with own understanding of the constitutional powers of the presidency. Why is that so scary to you?

 

[pegwinn]

The only goose involved here is that of the American people, which will be cooked if Chimpy's use of it remains unchecked.

His activities in this arena, in no way, resemble the line item veto, granted the President by Congress, dealing solely with spending bills. Rather than vetoing legislation he disagrees with and sending it back to Congress for further consideration, as he is permitted under the Constitution, he signs the bill into law, appending it with conditions under which he feels no compunction to abide by the provisiosn of the law.

No where in the Constitution is this authority for the President enumerated. No past president has ever used signing statements in this manner. In essence, Chimpy is stating that he and his administration are a law unto themselves, with Congress and the Judiciary relegated to irrelevancy, not the co-equal branches of government they are as laid out in the Constitution.

No matter how you want to slice it, Chimpy is subverting the Constitution with his use of signing statements. If you are unable to understand that, I'm sorry. And if too many Americans fail to understand that, then the nation is screwed...We can kiss the Constitution and the Republic good-bye.

Guess I've been under a rock. Never heard of such a thing.

 

[Gunny]

The only goose involved here is that of the American people, which will be cooked if Chimpy's use of it remains unchecked.

Of course. Your double-standard and blind hypocrisy where politics is concerned is well-documented. This is just another example.
His activities in this arena, in no way, resemble the line item veto, granted the President by Congress, dealing solely with spending bills. Rather than vetoing legislation he disagrees with and sending it back to Congress for further consideration, as he is permitted under the Constitution, he signs the bill into law, appending it with conditions under which he feels no compunction to abide by the provisiosn of the law.

Which is NO different that lining out what you don't like and signing a Bill into law.

No where in the Constitution is this authority for the President enumerated. No past president has ever used signing statements in this manner. In essence, Chimpy is stating that he and his administration are a law unto themselves, with Congress and the Judiciary relegated to irrelevancy, not the co-equal branches of government they are as laid out in the Constitution.

I think it's just a matter of your left-tinted glasses. Washington, Lincoln, T Roosevelt, and F Roosevelt come to mind rather quickly as strong executives who oversahdowed their respective legislatures.

No matter how you want to slice it, Chimpy is subverting the Constitution with his use of signing statements. If you are unable to understand that, I'm sorry. And if too many Americans fail to understand that, then the nation is screwed...We can kiss the Constitution and the Republic good-bye.

You are the one who doesn't understand. You are afflicted with blind partisanship just about as bad as I've ever seen it. You're Bush-hating rants do nothing but undermine your integrity. Nobody but other, like-minded lefties get your points because they are so left-slanted, they left the planet awhile ago.

 

[Gunny]

Guess I've been under a rock. Never heard of such a thing.

He just rails against the President to be railing against the President. No logic, common sense, nor evidence of wrong-doing required.

 

[theHawk]

Chimpy is a racist statement.
Bully is a racist.







Can I call myself a liberal now?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Guess I've been under a rock. Never heard of such a thing.

Here's your

<center><a href=http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html>The Constitution of the United States</a></center>

Read and learn.

 

[Bullypulpit]

He just rails against the President to be railing against the President. No logic, common sense, nor evidence of wrong-doing required.

The evidence is there, but you seem to be one of those who would continue to support Chimpy even if he to be were caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.