Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law

[Joeychgo]

June 13, 2008 | For the third time in four summers, the U.S. Supreme Court has slammed the Bush administration's detention policies at Guantánamo Bay -- locking up terrorist suspects indefinitely and beyond the law. And this time, some real progress might even come out of it. In a 5-4 decision drafted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus -- that is, to challenge the legal basis for their detention in a federal court.

Let's be clear, the decision doesn't do a number of things. It doesn't shut down Guantánamo. It doesn't order all detainees who have not been charged with an offense to be released. And besides saying that the detainees are entitled to a "prompt habeas hearing," it doesn't even say what factors the courts should consider when deciding whether the U.S. government can hold them.

But the decision does achieve things that the Bush administration has been fighting against tooth and nail for years.

First, the court upholds the fundamental right to habeas corpus, which has been part of the common-law tradition for centuries and was held dear by America's Founding Fathers. More than any other protection, habeas corpus means that the executive branch cannot arrest and detain you without a legitimate legal reason. The Bush administration wanted to whittle down that right. The Supreme Court said no.

Second, the court makes clear that Guantánamo can't be a law-free zone. The main reason the administration started sending those apprehended in the "global war on terror" to Guantánamo in 2002 was so that it could hold people without intrusive lawyers and courts getting in the way. The court said no; detainees can challenge their cases before the courts.

Third, the court said that laws enacted by Congress at the administration's urging in response to earlier Supreme Court rulings are no equivalent to the right to habeas. Under the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) and Military Commissions Act (2006), detainees who sought to challenge their being held as "enemy combatants" were entitled to bring their claims in special proceedings before the D.C. Court of Appeals. But the court said that this was no substitute for a regular habeas appearance: To require those who have been held for six years to complete this "before proceeding with habeas actions would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay."

Because the Boumediene decision is rooted in the Constitution and not federal statutes (as well as the political realities of the lame-duck administration), it will be much harder for the Bush administration to railroad through Congress new legislation to keep the courts out of the process.

Finally, the ruling may have important implications for the military commissions recently under way at Guantánamo. The administration seems hell-bent on pushing through the military commission trials of several 9/11 suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, before the November presidential elections. The inability of the military commissions to provide anything resembling a fair trial has long been clear. The Boumediene ruling has no direct effect on the commissions, but they might have difficulty proceeding if the very basis for their jurisdiction -- that the defendant is an "unlawful enemy combatant" -- is still subject to litigation.

In the end, Boumediene says that the U.S. president cannot be a law unto himself. It says that anyone held in what is de facto U.S. territory -- no matter what crimes he may have committed or where he is from -- is entitled to challenge his detention. And that's something really worth celebrating.

From Italy, President Bush said Thursday that he disagreed with the ruling but "we will abide by the court's decision" -- as if he believes the administration has a choice in the matter. In the past, the administration has shown an incredible tenacity for seeking to undermine the rule of law. But then again, maybe President Bush will come to realize that his Guantánamo approach hasn't worked. That detaining hundreds of people who were later released without charge causes more harm than good. That trying people before ad hoc military commissions is a doomed process -- and that the federal courts can competently prosecute people for acts of terrorism, as they already do regularly. And that making the U.S. safe against acts of terrorism can be achieved with the help of the law, rather than by riding roughshod over it.

Don't hold your breath.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/13/gitmo_bush/

While I applaud the reinforcement of the Habeas Corpus rights - What are we suppose to do with someone we catch overseas who would appear to be a enemy combatant? We give every one a trial? Then what? What if we raid a terrorist training camp and capture 500 people - then what do we do with them?

 

[fossten]

Bill O'Reilly asked the exact same question of Matt Lauer the last time this issue came up. Lauer had no answer.

 

[Joeychgo]

Republican John McCain told reporters in Boston that he continues to support closing the detention facility, but is concerned about a ruling that gives habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants who are not US citizens.

Democrat Barack Obama, who also wants to close Guantanamo, issued a statement that says in part, "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy."


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/candidates_weig.html

I agree with BOTH of them. I personally dont believe anyone not a US citizen should be awarded the same rights as citizens.

However, I think Obama is right also. We need to set a positive example for other countries and remain deeply committed to the rights, freedoms and protections granted to us by our Constitution.

 

[fossten]

Funny how everybody gets up in arms about habeus corpus, but nobody gets p.o.'d about the continued gestapo tactics of the BATFE.

Don't forget the 2nd Amendment, folks. Without it we won't have a 1st.

 

[Joeychgo]

Agreed. David Olofson got royally screwed there.

 

[MonsterMark]

I love your thread title. America gets 'fcuked' and you are happy to say Bush got owned. We ALL got screwed .

Justice Antonin Scalia said: the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." ( And the Left cheers!)

And Roberts said: "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California: “The Supreme Court just moved us closer to the day when U.S. Marine rifle teams will have to have lawyers read Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield.”

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia concludes: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Celebrate Bush's loss all you want Joey. We all lost today.

 

[MonsterMark]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A Kuwaiti man released from U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in 2005 blew himself up in a suicide attack in Iraq last month, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi was one of two Kuwaitis who took part in a suicide attack in Mosul on April 26, the officials said. Records show that an attack in Mosul that day targeted an Iraqi police patrol and left six people dead, including two police officers.

Al-Ajmi is not the first former Guantanamo detainee to reportedly return to the battlefield after being released. Pentagon officials say there are more than 10 people once held by the U.S. at Guantanamo who have been killed or captured in fighting after being released from the detention facility.

 

[shagdrum]

5 to 4 is not a very strong decision.

 

[fossten]

5 to 4 is not a very strong decision.

Roe v. Wade was 5 to 4, so was Texas vs. Johnson. They still hold up decades later.

 

[shagdrum]

Roe v. Wade was 5 to 4, so was Texas vs. Johnson. They still hold up decades later.

Yeah, but one new justice and the court opinion goes the other way. Just need to have that constitutional issue come before the court again. Roe v. Wade I think has been replaced by another case; the precedent on that issue is now a newer case, not Roe v. Wade. Don't know about Texas v. Johnson.

 

[Joeychgo]

Are you thinking about Doe v. Bolton (1973)?

It's also unlikely that the SCTUS would overturn Roe vs Wade in one decision. The court generally doesnt reverse itself all at once like that. So I wouldnt expect to see a 1 justice change result in overturn.

And, my suspicions are that Obama will win, and then you will probably get a few more liberals appointed to the bench. And with a democratically controlled senate, you can bet they'll be flaming liberals.

You can also bet that if it was overturned, the republicans would be screwed. Many women who vote republican now might just blame the republican party and change their voting habits. It would likely be a short term victory with long term consequences.

I love your thread title. America gets 'fcuked' and you are happy to say Bush got owned. We ALL got screwed .

Actually thats the title of the article - I didnt write it.

Justice Antonin Scalia said: the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." ( And the Left cheers!)

And yet you're happy to state that the Left is pleased that more americans will be killed. Bryan, you really need to sit back and think buddy. You are way too hateful of liberals my friend. Nobody will be happy if more americans are killed. Anytime someone suggests that, all you do is make the right look goofy and hateful. Its comments like this that are at the heart of the division of this country. Right and Left wingers can disagree on an issue and both still love America and Americans. You need to remember that, because I think it has escaped you.

I am also dissappointed by Scalia's comment though. Not because of what he said, but because it doesnt belong in a dissent. His job is to determine what effect the constitution has on an issue, not what effect it might have. His statement is an opinion that doesnt belong in a legal citation. IMO, its tantamount to legislating from the bench.

 

[fossten]

I am also dissappointed by Scalia's comment though. Not because of what he said, but because it doesnt belong in a dissent. His job is to determine what effect the constitution has on an issue, not what effect it might have. His statement is an opinion that doesnt belong in a legal citation. IMO, its tantamount to legislating from the bench.

But this 5-4 decision wasn't?

 

[shagdrum]

Are you thinking about Doe v. Bolton (1973)?It's also unlikely that the SCTUS would overturn Roe vs Wade in one decision. The court generally doesnt reverse itself all at once like that.

No, that wasn't the case. I don't remember the exact case, but I think it was in the mid to late '80's. It didn't overturn Roe v. Wade as it didn't make abortion illegal (which is why I didn't use the term "overturn"). But the precedent setting case for the abortion issue is that newer case, not Roe v. Wade.

And, my suspicions are that Obama will win, and then you will probably get a few more liberals appointed to the bench. And with a democratically controlled senate, you can bet they'll be flaming liberals.

Yeah, I really hope you are wrong on that.

I am also dissappointed by Scalia's comment though. Not because of what he said, but because it doesn't belong in a dissent. His job is to determine what effect the constitution has on an issue, not what effect it might have. His statement is an opinion that doesn't belong in a legal citation. IMO, its tantamount to legislating from the bench.

There is a definite difference between a ruling and a decenting or concuring opinion. In either one (though more so in an opinion) it is perfectly justified to show the potential effects of ruling a certain way, as long as the ruling or opinion is grounded in the constitution.

There really is no way that a decenting opinion could in any way be "legislating from the bench" as it doesn't in any way set a precedent or have the force of law, which would be required to be "legislating from the bench".

 

[Joeychgo]

Thats why I said "Tantamount to" - (and no fossten, it wasnt)

 

[shagdrum]

Thats why I said "Tantamount to"

But it wasn't "tantamount" to legislating from the bench, unless you read the whole dissent (not just a quote) and find no strong constitutional basis for the opinion. I have not read the ruling or the dissents in this case (which is why I haven't commented on the ruling or the case itself), but I have read a number of Scalia's dissents and all tend to be strongly grounded in the constitution.

 

[fossten]

Joey, you don't even know what tantamount means.:joke

 

[MonsterMark]

And yet you're happy to state that the Left is pleased that more americans will be killed. Bryan, you really need to sit back and think buddy. You are way too hateful of liberals my friend.

I am not going to hide my disdain for liberals nor the fact that I despise the cancer that is liberalism. It is eating this Country alive from within.

Sorry Joey, maybe that makes you think less of me or whatever. Fact is, I don't care what people think of me. I care more about the Country and the type of Country I am going to leave to my kids.

I'd rather be on my deathbed and be able to tell my kids I did everything I could to stop the slide than to say I sat back and did nothing to 'get along'. Someday, if you ever have kids, you'll feel the same.

Everything in my kids lives will be controlled some day. Everything. For their own good, they will be told what they can eat and drink. How much they can weigh. What they can drive, how far and how often. blah, blah, blah.

So no, I won't apologize for calling liberals and liberalism a cancer. It is. It is tearing down the Country.

I called my City Hall today to complain about Recycling Hours. They have 18 hours during the week (2 days 10-7) and 8 hours on the weekend (8-4 Saturday). I expressed my displeasure at the fact that they facility is open more when people are working and the only meaningful hours are 5-7 during the week and noon-4 on Saturday. Hell, who gets up at 6:00a.m. and has a trailer full of stuff ready to go at 8:00 a.m.?

I was told the take it to the mayor. They are going to cut back hours further and even close the facility due to lack of funding. We have 6 phy-ed public school teachers pulling down $120K plus full benefits/ins pension bringing them $200K per year. For Phy-Ed. But we can't have the dump open on Saturday and Sunday to serve it's citizens. Heck, every police car is brand new. Heck, we have a ratio of cops that must be 1-100 citizens. It is a joke. But we voted in the crackpot liberal who promised everything and will now cut the very services that law abiding tax-paying citizens use.

I'm pissed that people have been herded like sheep into the liberal ideology. I'm pissed that a P.O.S. like Barack Obama could become President and everybody celebrates his racism because he is 6.25% black.

There's more but who really cares.

 

[Joeychgo]

Of course I dont think less of you.

But, for starters - you can thank the liberals for pushing programs such as recycling. You know, those tree hugging enviromentalists? They are the ones that pushed for all the recycling in the first place. My point being - everything liberals do (or want to do) isnt bad, same thing goes for conservatives.

And I believe you can thank GW and the Iraq war you defend so much for Obama becoming president should that happen.

(btw) the school district is seperate from the village - so teachers salaries have nothing to do with village funding. Think how I feel. I have no kids and pay 80% of my large tax bill to the schools (and we have teachers earning similar salaries) -

ALso, dont forget, I smoke - and thanks to the Dems I cant smoke anywhere now, not even bars. SO I dont agree with them much of the time either. I just dont think they are end all be all of evil.

 

[MonsterMark]

Of course I dont think less of you.

I love you too honey. Thanks for the level headed response. My day to PMS.

But, for starters - you can thank the liberals for pushing programs such as recycling. You know, those tree hugging enviromentalists? They are the ones that pushed for all the recycling in the first place. My point being - everything liberals do (or want to do) isnt bad, same thing goes for conservatives.

I have no issue with recycling. It makes good fiscal sense. Private enterprise would do it better than the government though.

And I believe you can thank GW and the Iraq war you defend so much for Obama becoming president should that happen. .

I am hoping hoping the truth about the Iraq war comes out before the elections. Bush stuck it out and he has won. Says alot more than the Pelosi and Reid types that say the war was lost. Americans don't lose. It's who we are. We are winners. That is another reason I hate liberals. It is all the liberals that tell my kids they can't keep score because little Timmy on the other team will feel sorry for himself because his team lost. I'm telling you Joey, this crap is out there and getting worse by the day.

(btw) the school district is seperate from the village - so teachers salaries have nothing to do with village funding. Think how I feel. I have no kids and pay 80% of my large tax bill to the schools (and we have teachers earning similar salaries) .

I'm aware of how much goes to schools and how much goes to local government. As a parent with 4 kids in private school, it burns mew to no end to know that I have to support all the parents that send their kids to public school so they can have a vacation in Vail.

ALso, dont forget, I smoke - and thanks to the Dems I cant smoke anywhere now, not even bars. SO I dont agree with them much of the time either. I just dont think they are end all be all of evil.

How sad is that. If you have kids, you know you are not allowed to smoke in the house? Right? Liberalism is far more destructive than it is constructive.

 

[MonsterMark]

Ya Joey, you're right. Liberals aren't the problem...


May 29, 2008

Souvenir rifle shell gets 4th-grader suspended

Winchendon family shocked

By Gail Stanton CORRESPONDENT

WINCHENDON— Ten-year-old Bradley Geslak was suspended from school this week for bringing a Memorial Day souvenir to school.

The Toy Town Elementary School fourth-grader had received two empty rifle shell casings from blanks used during the town celebration held at the GAR Park Monday morning.

He brought one of the casings with him to school the next day.

“He was just playing with it at lunch,” explained Crystal Geslak, Bradley’s mother. “He wasn’t showing it to anyone; he had it in his hand and was playing with it.”

Bradley said a teacher saw him with it and told him to hand it over.

“The teacher told me to give it to her and I did,” he said.

After the piece of brass was confiscated, Ms. Geslak was called at work and told to come and pick up her son; he was being suspended for the next five days.

Her son was in tears when she got there.

“I was totally shocked. I couldn’t believe this was happening,” she said.

“Ordinarily, I try to think ahead about things, but to me, this was something good, not bad. It was just an empty shell, not even from a real bullet. A sharpened pencil would be more dangerous than this piece of metal.”

Her son had been given the two blank shells by a uniformed veteran who participated in the ceremony Monday. Bradley gave one to his grandfather and kept the other souvenir for himself.

Having received the souvenir from an adult, he never considered it wrong for him to have it, his mother said.

“He was so proud to have been given them. His dad’s a veteran, his uncle’s a veteran, both his grandfathers are veterans. Memorial Day is a big thing to us. It’s a very important holiday and we have a big celebration every year,” Ms. Geslak said.

She is now concerned about the impact that having the shell taken away will have on her son and his feelings about the holiday in the future.

According to the family, a school official said on Tuesday that the shell would not be returned to them. The family said they were also told that the next step might involve assigning a probation officer to Bradley.

They also said they don’t know the whole story yet.

“When I went to pick him up, I was told that the teacher hadn’t finished writing up her report on what took place and that I would get that later,” Ms. Geslak said. “I would have thought that when deciding to suspend my son that they would have had a complete report ready for me.”

School officials refused to comment on the incident yesterday, citing privacy regulations.

“I cannot give any comment on school suspensions,” Principal Deborah Peterson said. “I cannot confirm or deny a suspension took place, and I cannot speak about anything involving a minor. It’s all confidential, just like at a doctor’s office.”

Attempts to reach Superintendent Brooke Clenchy and School Committee Chairman Michael Niles for comment were unsuccessful.

“I am worried about what having a weapon-related suspension on his school record will mean to his future,” his mother said.

“He’s like any other 10-year-old kid. Sometimes he can have a bad attitude,” she said. “We dealt with that once earlier this year and I don’t want them to now think he is a bad kid or label him as one.

“If he had been suspended for having a bad attitude, I could have understood it. I would have supported them in that. But not for this. He didn’t even know he did anything wrong,” she said.

Ms. Geslak will have plenty of time to think about that in the coming days, because the suspension also means that she has had to give up hours at work to be with her son.

Copyright 2008 Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp.

Winchendon School Department

Brooke Clenchy, Superintendent of Schools

978-297-0031

http://www.winchendon.mec.edu/

 

[ketyokeinnor]

ALso, dont forget, I smoke - and thanks to the Dems I cant smoke anywhere now, not even bars. SO I dont agree with them much of the time either. I just dont think they are end all be all of evil.

The PA legislature just passed one of them wonderful things too. I don't smoke. I lived in Rochester NY for a year. You want to see some miserable people go in front of a bar in January when its 12 and snowy out there.

I love it when the govt tells me what someone (a bar owner) can or can't allow on his or her property. It SHOULD be up to the owner whether smoking is allowed. Then it's as simple as: if you don't smoke and don't want to encounter second hand smoke, go to (or work at) a business that doesn't allow it. This is government administered discrimination based on a lifestyle choice.

I called my City Hall today to complain about Recycling Hours. They have 18 hours during the week (2 days 10-7) and 8 hours on the weekend (8-4 Saturday). I expressed my displeasure at the fact that they facility is open more when people are working and the only meaningful hours are 5-7 during the week and noon-4 on Saturday. Hell, who gets up at 6:00a.m. and has a trailer full of stuff ready to go at 8:00 a.m.?

On the topic of recycling...there's been recycling in my community pretty much my whole life. Nearly everybody puts out their recyclables every other week and things are good. Apparently that wasn't good enough for some people. We got a letter in the mail last week or the week before that recycling is now mandatory and the street dept will now be cutting garbage bags and you get fined $200 a bag if they find anything. I thought nothing of it, but was talking to a friend on the street dept and he said its serious, the guy looking thruogh the trash gets $50 for each fine.
This is also after the $400 a year for a garbage sticker so they'll pick up the crap in the first place.

Ron

 

[Joeychgo]

I am hoping hoping the truth about the Iraq war comes out before the elections. Bush stuck it out and he has won. Says alot more than the Pelosi and Reid types that say the war was lost. Americans don't lose.

Will we eventually win the conflict? Yes. But only time will tell is anything is actually gained by this war. I dont rule out another dictator coming to power there in the next decade, or worse, an alliance between Iran / Iraq.

The truth about Iraq is that we went there for reasons that are so far unproven. Iraq was not a threat to us. (at least no more of a threat then many other countries) No WMDs - No real connection with terrorists. (just talking to someone from alQaida doesnt make Iraq a terrorist state) All in all - you have to admit - (and I know it's monday morning quarterbacking) - we wouldnt go to war knowing what we know now. My personal belief, is that the Administration wanted to go to war and only looked at things that supported that goal, dismissing everything else.

The second truth is that the war has been terribly mismanaged. Once our troops hit Baghdad, GW and his team blew it. Not many could or would argue with this. Now, I could deal with the initial missteps - but GW insisted on Staying the Course and refused to replace Rumsfeld or change tatics. In the meantime things just kept getting worse. THAT is where my issue mainly is. When something isnt working, you change strategy. It took YEARS for GW to finally get that message. Not the hallmark of a good leader IMO.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and will spend hundreds more. And are we any better off really? I doubt it. I said it long ago. Take that trillion dollars and spend it to R&D and implement a replacement for oil. Then, all the terror countries have no income source with which to fund terror or war.

I'm aware of how much goes to schools and how much goes to local government. As a parent with 4 kids in private school, it burns mew to no end to know that I have to support all the parents that send their kids to public school so they can have a vacation in Vail.

How sad is that. If you have kids, you know you are not allowed to smoke in the house? Right? Liberalism is far more destructive than it is constructive.

Yeah - Here -probably 95% of the property tax dollars I pay go primarily for schools, parks and library. Parks and library have little for adults. Where I get irritated is these breeders who get all the tax breaks from the feds and use up all these services that I am paying for. It burns my azz that I pay $5k a year for property taxes mostly for the 'kids' of other people - and then they get extra tax breaks from the fed and state every time I turn around.

How about some breaks for those of us who dont strain the school system my having a full litter of kids? (you would be in this catagory Bryan because you privately educate your kids)

 

[shagdrum]

you can thank the liberals for pushing programs such as recycling. You know, those tree hugging enviromentalists? They are the ones that pushed for all the recycling in the first place. My point being - everything liberals do (or want to do) isnt bad, same thing goes for conservatives.

Never been sold on the recycling thing. If the goal is less pollution, then it really doesn't accomplish that, IMO. You have to use at least as much resources to make that used product new and usable again as you would just getting new product. I would imagine costs follow the same trend, if not increasing for recycled product. It just doesn't seem very effective at accomplishing its goals or very efficient, IMO. It would be a better use of resources to just dump that used product and get new.

 

[Joeychgo]

Well, as bigof an industry as it's become, I have to assume that it's profitable. So I have no problems with it.

Although, I think a better approach would be to use less petroleum based packaging. (ie Plastic)

 

[MonsterMark]

Never been sold on the recycling thing. If the goal is less pollution, then it really doesn't accomplish that, IMO.

I save over 2 million pounds of plastic/yr from going into landfills. I am more carbon neutral than AlGore could ever dream of being. I take crap that nobody wants and turn into a viable product people can use. So, in short, recycling works.