Setback for Bush

Crimes against the USA can be tried in a military tribunal. Courts Martial is a very narrow field of law. Yes, the government does provide legal counsel (automatically) for the defendent. Ironically, the government provides legal counsel in civilian courts if the defendent cannot afford a lawyer. Somewhat similar. The biggest difference would be dealing with litmus test issues. Was this evidence against the defendent gathered 'constitutionally'. Military trials tend to go pretty quickly.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 12:00 midnight ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

Why are 3-page warnings being issued barely into the 2nd page?

 

It became one of the three final authorities when your Constitution was written. 1788 I believe. Final authority on interpreting the Constitution, which it has done in this instance. The clue's in the word 'Supreme'

 

It only seems that way - the default is 10 posts per page, so 1-10 is the first page, 11-20 is the second page and 21 begins the third. If you reset the "show 20 posts per page" this can be confusing.

 

This is a good day for the US and a day of which Americans can be justifiably proud - the reinforcement of the Rule of Law.

 

Thanks, Daisy. I was wondering what was going on. I must have had a "duh" moment!:laugh:

 

Closed per previous warning. LE

 

Okay, you guys, you could send a PM if you want a thread moved to politics forum from the news forum and I would oblige instead of harping about it later.

Will close the other thread. Carry on....

 

Thank you, ma'am!

 

Then I will add my comments to the active thread:

I was very happy to see the U.S. Supreme Court rise up on its hind legs and stand against the Bush administration in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will at least slow down the erosion of our civil liberties during the remaining 2.5 years of the Bush administration. As Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

'In their dangerous and ill-founded belief, conservatives are in total opposition to the Founding Fathers, who went to the trouble of writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to protect us from our government. Most conservatives believe that they do not need constitutional protections, because they "are not doing anything wrong." '

- www.vdare.com/roberts/060630_guantanamo.htm

 

Ken,

Were you also glad to see the activist court cite international law as a reason to reject something in America? I wasn't too thrilled about it, but maybe you were.

I hear that Congress actually passed a law a year or two ago making the military tribunals and Gitmo legal. I guess you are also glad the SC put the Congress in its place. I guess my question is, who is gonna put the Supreme masters of the universe in their place?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that what the Congress passed did not give Bush the authority to do what he wanted to do.

 

Good seeing you again Bro Curtis. Does anyone have any thoughts on why there is a history of conservative Presidents appointing justices, and at first they appear conservative, but as time goes on, go more and more liberal. ie Suiter, Kennedy, Warren etc. I am sure there are more.

 

I believe Kennedy was appointed after Bork was (as the Democrats say) Borked. Can't speak on the others. Kennedy is certainly true his name in that he is bad for the nation.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Agree with you there, Joseph. I have little respect for the SCOTUS in recent years and here is yet another reason why.

Another question I have, who were the idiots who made the USA subject to "international law." Which Congress and which President did that? When did that happen? Anyone know?

 

I think that the reference to international law in this case concerns primarily the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory nation. Also, we are dealing with citizens of other nations in this case. Therefore, references to international law may be quite appropriate in this case.

 

That may be. But al Qaeda isn't a signatory.

 

True, but we don't want to lower ourselves to al Qaeda's level.

 

Precisely. Like I said earlier, this is a ruling of which Americans should be proud - your country's justices are standing up for the rule of law and refusing to bow to tyranny.