Bush and war crimes

[Cali Coug]

In a fantastic ruling today, the Supreme Court determined that the President is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty in conducting the war on terror. The Court specifically held that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does, in fact, apply to al-Qaeda prisoners. What this means is that any form of torture which we have been utilizing (such as waterboarding, hypothermia, etc.) is illegal under our treaty obligations. Violation of these obligations constitutes war crimes and exposes the violator to the death penalty.

Quite clearly, the floor of conduct established by the President for interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners is illegal. Further such interrogations would be war crimes under US law (through our treaty obligations). Past conduct isn't likely to be prosecuted since Bush was working under the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, though there have been some of us who claimed all along that what he was doing was illegal and that Bybee's torture memo was bogus. In fact, Justice Kennedy in his opinion even noted the Youngstown sliding scale of authority that I said would apply here. Is this to say I am brilliant? Far from it. What it IS to say is that if a fledgling lawyer like myself can figure it out, the brilliant men at the DOJ should have too (and I think did, but caved to political pressure to provide a different, wrong result).

This ruling has HUGE implications for the administration.

[Cali Coug]

Here is a great write-up, by the way, for anyone interested.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/06/h...-decision.html

This post focuses more on the illegal use of military tribunals to try al-Qaeda prisoners.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks for the link. Here's what I put on CB this morning, shorn of legalese and writing down to the infidels over there:

I read Thomas' dissent and I hear echoes of all the rationalizations supporting internment of Japanese Americans. It's this sordid part of our past that hung over the justices as they considered the detainees' appeal. And I have to ask myself: Are Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito smarter, more moral people than FDR and the Supreme Court justices who sanctioned the WWII interments on the same rationalization that Thomas cites in his dissent? I think not; I don't have much reason to believe that as a nation we're better people now than our ancestors were then. Certainly Bush is not FDR's caliber on any ground, and he's the one, the Supreme Court included, whom we have to trust that these wretched prisoners will recive due process. There's already a dicrediting stench of power abuse emanating from Guantanamo. So I think that given this reasoning, and the indubitable fact that nothing should be a higher priority than that our country protect civil liberties and due process rights of outcast even loathed minorities, I support the decision.

[Archaea]

I have not read the decision, but wonder why a military cannot make a distinction between a legitimate prisoner of war as opposed to noncitizens threatening our country out of terror. The distinction is clear to me, and threatening noncitizens who are not making war but merely killing does not concern me as much as far as civil liberties of citizens or legitimate prisoners of war.

Noncitizens who have not entered this country, who have not paid taxes should not receive the same protections as our citizens.

[il Padrino Ute]

It's fantastic only to liberals. The point of war is to win. The terrorists are not beholden to any rules of war, yet you're happy that the US now has to treat them as if they are protected by the Genevea Convention? I was unaware that Al Quaida was there that day. I'm not saying that it is right to torture them - I'm jsut saying that if we want ot win the war against terror, we need to be able to do what is necessary to win it. On which side is the left in this war?

My question is when has the Supreme Court ever had the power to usurp the Office of the President during war?

Will the left be this giddy if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Certainly Bush is not FDR's caliber on any ground

You're right, Bush hasn't rounded up all US Citizens of mid-east decent and put them in internment camps.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You're right, Bush hasn't rounded up all US Citizens of mid-east decent and put them in internment camps.

FDR was the single worst president in the history of this fine nation.

[Archaea]

Reading it, it's not that startling, only to newsguys.

I can see why the justices would have gone either way.

Big to do about almost nothing.

The President tried to set up military commissions different for persons he considered not bound by the Geneva Convention or uniform rules of war.

I see the distinction between a formal war of two or multiple armies, and nonuniform aggression against population centers not claiming the military rights of a sovereign nation.

When did Al Quaeda sign the Geneva Convention?

The President now needs to work with Congress on issues concerning terroists. Politically it can turn out to be a good thing, as who in Congress wants to be seen on the side of terroists?

This is NOT about civil liberties of citizens, or legally immigrated aliens.

This is NOT about prisoners of war, but

about some ethereal rights of non-aligned alien persons as deduced by the Court, forcing a square peg in a round hole.

Politically, the left, and those on the right or center disgusted with Bush, want anything to emasculate Bush's power.

I have critisized the President for starting the war in Iraq and believe he made a mistake, but hope we can make good out of it. But I do not wish his power to be emasculated and find no satisfaction in today's decision, but also do not find it so catastrophic. It's just a legalistic decision by a bunch of pinheads trying to look smart.

It really could have gone either way.

And ps., I'm completely against the Patriot Act for intrusions into the civil liberties of CITIZENS and legal aliens.

I don't believe non-aligned alien persons focusing aggression against our peoples and populace have earned any rights to these civil liberties or protections.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It's fantastic only to liberals. The point of war is to win. The terrorists are not beholden to any rules of war, yet you're happy that the US now has to treat them as if they are protected by the Genevea Convention? I was unaware that Al Quaida was there that day. I'm not saying that it is right to torture them - I'm jsut saying that if we want ot win the war against terror, we need to be able to do what is necessary to win it. On which side is the left in this war?

My question is when has the Supreme Court ever had the power to usurp the Office of the President during war?

Will the left be this giddy if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Come on, Il Padrino. Yes, we are trying to "win" the war on terror. I fail to see how banning torture on human beings prevents us from winning.

Scientific (not to mention anecdotal) evidence indicates that torture is useless. You do get some information, but you have no way of knowing if that information is accurate or not. In fact, psychology studies show that people will almost inevitably say whatever it is that they think the interrogator wants them to say in order to prevent the harm from occurring.

Furthermore, I want this country to be recognizable after the war. I don't want to be a part of a society that has come to believe that torture is a valid form of interrogation. We entered into the Geneva Convention precisely to avoid becoming that kind of society, and to stand as a model for the rest of the world.

When can the Courts stand up to the President during war? When he breaks the law. Are you of the opinion that ANYTHING the President does is permissible? I doubt it. So who should check his authority? The courts should. Congress has attempted to check his authority on multiple occasions, and they have been met with ridicule and contempt by the Bush administration. Bush's legal arguments have been laughable and it is nice to see the Court call him on it.

Why would anyone presume that the executive has absolute authority to wage war today? It hasn't ever been the case before. How can anyone reconcile that view with the powers given to Congress during times of war in Article I? If those constitutional provisions have no effect during times of war, when do they have effect? If the President oversteps his bounds (as he clearly has done here), why shouldn't the Court step in and correct the issue, since the Constitution gives them that authority?

Don't try to change the subject with Roe v. Wade. I am tired of conservatives trying to use that case to destroy all credibility of the judiciary. They should be far more cautious in tearing down a branch of government. Think of how conservatives discuss the judiciary today- activist court, base decisions on foreign law, ignore original intent, liberals, etc. Be careful in your attacks. If the credibility of the judiciary disappears, the entire system of checks and balances goes with it- something conservatives apparently wouldn't mind if it would secure them a few more votes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

FDR was the single worst president in the history of this fine nation.

I would LOVE to hear how you came to that conclusion.