Setback for Bush

That is not good. We certainly cannot try them in US domestic courts. Maybe Bush should do what other presidents in history have done...ignore the Supreme Court's ruling? I believe we have used military tribunals in times of war in the past. Either way the Supreme Court has got it wrong.

 

Ignoring constitutional checks and balances is a step toward totalitarian rule. Of course, Bush has had no qualms about ignoring the law so far. The Chief Executive is not above the judiciary or the legislature.

 

Just because some have illegally circumvented the constitution doesn't make it right. Bush has also done this. But it hasn't always worked...remember reading how FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court?

 

==Well several presidents, for better or for worse, have ignored the Supreme Court when the Court was in error. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln both ignored supreme court rulings and neither lead to any form of totalitarian rule. While I don't agree with Jackson's actions he is still an example of how we dare not turn our nation over to a bunch of unelected judges. While I am sure you would have had problems with many things President Abraham Lincoln, President John Adams, and President Ulysses S Grant (among others) did during their administrations none of those things has lead to "totalitarian rule". Personally I don't believe Washington, Adams, or Lincoln would have a problem with military tribunals for the Gitmo folks.

I am concerned when people put too much trust in the Supreme Court. It is not infallible.

 

This concerns me too. When did the Supreme Court become the final authority?

 

Hey! Martin are you back or are you going to preach to us about how it so wrong to post on political boards either way, I think your true colors are showing you cannot resist the temptation ...poor...poor Martin. One thing you are not confused on and you may have to get into your time machine
is fascism...just give in to an authority and neglect checks and balances that protect the innocent and minority from the oppression of the self righteous.

BTW when did we declare war??? I think FDR had that.

Welcome back Martin hope you stay:wavey: but spare us the self-righteousness in what we should or should not do ..when it now seems you are doing it!

 

==Nobody is talking about neglecting checks and balances. I strongly support that. My point is simply that the supreme court makes mistakes and we have to acknowledge that. I imagine Bush will obey their ruling and life will go on. Even if he chose to ignore their ruling nothing bad would happen, and life would go on. My suggestion is one option Bush has though I doubt he will go that far. Bush is no Abraham Lincoln to be sure.

==O, my view on politics has not changed. Politics will solve nothing. However I guess there is a reality that had to set in at some point. Politics is a reality we are forced to live with and must deal with. I tried ignoring it, but I guess the reality of our political society had to affect me at some point. :saint:

 

Yeah, but neither are Congress nor the President infallible, which is why we have all three in a precarious balance.

I believe the problem with the military tribunal was that the US military would be judge, prosecutor, jury and executioner. It would decide what evidence would be shown and what would be withheld.

Remember, only 5% of the Guantanamo detainees were captured on the battlefield by US forces. The overwhelming majority were either rounded up from the vicinity of an incident or informed upon (linkie to detainees profile - pdf).

​

​

How were foreign citizens tried in previous wars? ​

 

==Certainly. However the concern I have is that our national security is now in the hands of a bunch of unelected judges. The Supreme Court cannot run our national security programs they simply are not qualified to do so. On this point they have made a mistake, so what happens now? What other national security measures are they going to "strike down"?

==Since these men are not US citizens, and since they are not part of another nation's army, I see no other realistic option (other than a military tribunal). Is it a perfect option? No. If someone has a better option I am all ears....

We could always give them back to their home countries...I think they would fair better before a military tribunal of some sort.

 

How were foreign citizens tried in previous wars?

I have never researched that question enough to give a complete answer. However it would make a very interesting study...

 

The point is that Lincoln's and Rooseveldt's arguments were both rejected by the Supreme Court.

Combine this with Bush's recent claim that he can ignore the law when "necessary" suggests that he's putting together a legal theory for his defense if the republicans lose Congress in the next elections.

Not necessarily a defense against impeachment.

 

Actually I've been in favor of closing the Gitmo country club for some time.

The prisoners there are far more trouble than they are worth. It's been long enough. They should be sent back to their country of origin regardless of the consequences.

They are certainly not entitled to the protection of our Constitution or court system.

Send 'em home! Yesterday would have been soon enough.

 

Ok

I find it interesting, having learned more about the ruling, that the Supreme Court has ruled that Bush can use military tribunals if he get congressional approval...

"Congress has not issued the Executive a "blank check". Indeed, Congress has denied the President legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary." -Pg 82

Maybe someone else had pointed this out, I don't know. So really what the court is saying is that Bush does not have the proper authority to do what he is trying to do. Ok, now I understand the courts ruling. They are not saying that Bush cannot use military tribunals, but rather that he has not gotten the proper permissions to do so and since this is not an emergency those permissions cannot be overlooked. Really this is a technical issue.

My point about the Supreme Court still stands. However having read this part of the decision I now will say that Bush should obey the courts ruling. He should return to Congress and get the proper permissions to set up military tribunals. If that cannot be done my understanding is that there are other options that don't force these cases into civil/criminal courts.

 

The battle is not over.

Congress cannot legislate away the Constitutional powers of the President.

Neither can SCOTUS strip him of any of his Constitutional powers.

 

==I know Washington had military tribunals during the revolution, but does the president of the US have the authority (apart from Congress) to set up military tribunals under the constitution? If so, where? That is a question.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
The battle is not over.

Congress cannot legislate away the Constitutional powers of the President.

Neither can SCOTUS strip him of any of his Constitutional powers.

Yes. I believe a precedent was set by FDR during WWII. He not only tried some by tribunal, he had them executed. SCOTUS upheld his right to do so.