SCOTUS Decion Has MUCH BIGGER IMPLICATIONS

[Beetwasher]

Than is currently being discussed in the Corporate Media. See this blog for more details:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/hamdan_summary.html

--snip--

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

--snip--

There's much more there, I suggest you read the whole thing.

[Recursion]

1. Get the popcorn

Because now we get to watch * say that as Commander in Chief he can ignore SCOTUS decisions just like he ignores Congressional decisions. It will be interesting to see what happens then, to say the least.

[gkhouston]

4. I wonder if * will try to slither out from under it by not saying anything

about this decision. IMO, that would be the "smart" thing to do, but I suspect he'll try to bully his way out of this situation by playing the "Commander in Chief" card yet again. He may discover that there is a limit to the effectiveness of that ploy with the SC. It will be interesting to see which side the NYT decides to come down on.

[MADem]

9. Yep, I sense a "lie, then cover up" about to go down!

Hell, the dumbshit didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam, why should we expect him to have mastered the lessons of Nixon, either?

[Recursion]

13. What can SCOTUS do?

It's not like they can do anything if he just ignores their ruling. They can't even issue a warrant.

[gkhouston]

14. see post #11. n/t

[BR_Parkway]

2. Wow, wow, wow - I am so glad they clarified that finally. K&R

[spindrifter]

3. Yes, bringing the U.S. back in

line with international law is probably the biggest thing in the decision, as well as the most repugnant to the likes of the proposents of the Unitary Exeuctive. BushCo has been trying and trying to get us extricated from oversight by international law--we don't participate as members governed, rather we do by fiat as the Unicorn President sees fit. Well, this is a foot in the door to the other side. The prosecutions should focus on all those neocons and the toadies they used to set up their illegal procedures--one who comes to mind is Albie G.

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Interesting that the corporate media have ignored this. Ordering

Bush to obey the Geneva Conventions as a valid treaty? Of course he won't. And then what will happen?

One more bushie judge, and all vestiges of not only democracy, but civilization, would disappear.

K & R

[negativenihil]

6. k&r!!!!! n/t

[Soloflecks]

7. Until

they are in handcuffs and charged with their crimes this won't mean a thing. It's not like they weren't breaking any laws or agreements before the SCOTUS ruling, so is this really going to get the job done? But, yes, it should be interesting. Maybe they'll threaten the "treasonus" media for "leaking" the decision, ha ha.

[Avalux]

8. But will Bush abide by the SCOTUS ruling?

I highly doubt it. Forgive me for being skeptical, but this ruling will change nothing in the way the executive branch operates, just as nothing has before. They'll figure out a way around it, or just completely disregard. "Who's gonna make me?" I imagine Bush saying that to himself all the time. x(

[bluethruandthru]

12. I'm sure right now george is

trying to find out how to issue a "signing statement" on a SCOTUS ruling! HAH!

[ArbustoBuster]

22. "How many (army) divisions does the Supreme Court have?"

George "Decider" Bush paraphrasing Joseph Stalin.

[papau]

10. No one is released - they just become enemy combatants again

:-(

[leveymg]

11. The implication: SCOTUS won't shield BushCo from torture prosecution

That's the way I read the way this plays out. A Grand Jury could indict Bush-Cheney officials, or an International tribunal could indict them, and the Administration couldn't claim that what they did was legal under U.S. law and precedent.

You're right. This is enormously ominous.

[hootinholler]

17. Ominous?

Nay, this is wonderful news. I now have hope returning.

-Hoot

[leveymg]

18. Ominous for them. eom

[gully]

15. This mans Bush and the gang should be TRIED for war crimes.

Won't happen, but it's a thought.

[cascadiance]

16. Yup, send them to the Hague!

[sofa king]

19. Treaty law, schmeaty law.

That, supposedly, is the key to the whole decision, that the treaty obligations of the Geneva convention compel the U.S. to follow those agreements with regard to al Qaeda.

However, I have spent a good part of my adult life watching the United States abrogate its treaty obligations as a matter of policy with respect to American Indians. Those treaties that were agreed to in perpetuity by the United States with American Indian tribes are supposedly just as strong, valid, and airtight today as the Geneva convention is, and until recently the Supreme Court occasionally reminded the United States of it. But the fact of the matter is that nobody gives a damn, and not giving a damn is all the justification the United States needs to keep doing whatever it wishes.

No, wait. People do give a damn. As long as there's a nickel to fleece from the Indians, there's someone working long paralegal hours finding ways to erode the sovereignty of Indian tribes, and to facilitate that end they've steadily been rubbing away at treaty law itself, day after day, for centuries. Now there are dozens of ways to rip off Indians and keep their stolen property, even though there are treaties which explicitly say you can't do that and never could.

The simplest way to avoid the Supreme Court's decision is to ignore them, and I fully expect that's what the White House will do. Should the Supreme Court get angry about that, the White House will get Congress to intervene in this one particular case, to ensure another five years of breathing room. Then this one case will be held forth as a precedent by the Attorney General in a secret and legally weightless opinion, and the AG in turn will pull every bureaucratic and legal trick in the book to prevent the case from ever returning to the Supreme Court.

Mark my words: those same rules will be applied to this case.

Somewhere along the line, after the last of the Guantanamo prisoners have died of old age--in prison--the argument will be put forth that there is nobody left alive who suffered damages, and it would be unfair to punish the United States now for something the United States did way back when, and that will be the justification for doing it again the next time.

All that assumes that the Constitutional United States survives the next eighteen months, which I doubt. Most of you don't realize how far down the tubes we've already gone.

[anarch]

20. yep...I think this will be ignored, just like the laws themselves were

That sound you hear is the very last bit of the Constitution being ripped up.

But we'll see...maybe this will at least get some more peoples' attention. Although that last 29% or whatever seem utterly hopeless.

[Disturbed]

21. The Taliban prisoners must be released

The US invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban Govt. defended itself. The Taliban Govt is no longer officially the Govt. so legally the Taliban in GITMO should no longer be POWs.

[sofa king]

23. Sigh, yeah.

The saddest part of all is that those 29%ers have earned comparison to a very dumb (but much beloved) dog I knew. Every morning, she'd tip over the trash can and eat the garbage. Every evening, her master would come home, find the trash in the kitchen, and punish her. The dog (and the master) just couldn't make the association between the two events.

Those dorks are doing the same thing: voting against their own best interests and in favor of Republicans, then hating the Democrats for the disasters visited upon them. Maybe we can teach them to play fetch.

[glitch]

26. that dog wasn't dumb but the owner sure was.

why would a dog associate an action in the morning with a reaction in the evening?
the owner could've saved everyone a lot of grief with a lidded garbage can.

[Cleita]

24. Considering that the only criteria they were using is anything goes

as long as it doesn't cause organ failure, really moves this administration into the same ranks as Torquemada of the Inquisition.

Seems like even the RW SOTUS couldn't condone this. First card in the neo-con house of cards has been removed. What's next?

[Senator]

25. Try this implication: The 3 Dissents were War Crimes in Themselves

They certainly were considered, willful acts intended to aide and abet continued violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Fascists just don't get it that everything is not a matter of opinion/belief (i.e., self-delusion).

Judges were tried at Nuremberg too.

--

[glitch]

27. excellent point. nt

[Avalux]

28. And, they can be impeached by us.

A Supreme Court Judge can be impeached for voting in a manner that is unconstitutional.

[wiley]

29. Brilliant Timing. With the GOVT in the hands of lying, corrupt Repukes

They could pass laws making Bush's crimes LEGAL. This ought to be really ugly. Wish we controlled all the state legislatures about this time.

[JCMach1]

30. it opens many legal doors, including civil lawsuits!!!

that's the best part about it...

[Beetwasher]

32. It's Nothing Less Than A Stinging Rebuke of the "Unitary Executive" Theory

This ruling clearly states that Chimpy cannot ignore Congress at his whim, that doesn't only apply to these Military tribunals. Think of all his signing statements.

[MiniMe]

31. And Hannity and the right says that Geneva doesn't apply....

because the combatants weren't wearing uniforms. Besides, the other side isn't following Geneva.

How low can they go? Um Sean, if Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you feel like you had to jump off a bridge too? Didn't your mommy teach you anything except to be a selfish bastard? We are supposed to be better than they are, so complaining that they are bad, bad, people and they are doing it to us doesn't justify the US acting that way.