Comments on: Another Fight They’ll Lose

By: Chris Bell

Chris Bell — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:59:22 +0000

No, Article 4 specifically states the conditions that must be met in order for Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions to be applicable. Article 3 has different conditions.

By: Gary Gross

Gary Gross — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:56:02 +0000

I know that they didn’t apply Article 4. They didn’t have the right to ignore that since that’s part of the treaty that was signed & ratified. There’s a reason why we insisted on “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

They can’t omit parts of treaties just because it doesn’t fit their ruling. Article 4 specifically states the conditions that must be met in order for the Geneva Conventions to be applicable.

By: Chris Bell

Chris Bell — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:53:37 +0000

Scott, pay no attention to Gary, he obviously is just repeating things that others say withot reading it himself. (By the way, my comment #6 was a response to Gary’s comment that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply because they weren’t wearing signs/symbols.)

As to your question about the Court being “removed” from this case which the Court then “ignored,” that’s not true. Congress did remove several types of cases from the Court, but they specifically left out the “removal language” when talking about cases like the one heard yesterday.

By: Gary Gross

Gary Gross — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:36:35 +0000

Scott, Rush is just talking about what you just said. You’re exactly right that the 4 liberal idiots + Justice Kennedy just threw out the law that Congress passed & President Bush signed into law.

Much is made of the ‘Bush overstepped’ meme but it’s actually more true that Justices Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Stevens & Souter overstepped their constitutional authority.

By: Chris Bell

Chris Bell — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:34:29 +0000

You’re quoting from Article 4, which is NOT the section that the Court applied.

Other sections have different definitions with correspondingly lowered protections. The Court pointed to one of those.

By: Scott in CA

Scott in CA — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:27:59 +0000

Someone on another blog wrote that Bush could refuse to obey the Court on this, as the Court was expressly removed from appelate oversight on this question. That law was passed by Congress and is legal under the Constituion. This argument means that the decision is invalid as the Court has no legal authority to rule on the question. That’s a set up for a “constitutional crisis”, but it might be worth it. The other, less severe alternative is to set up the tribunals (or whatever) under the Court’s guidelines and force the Congressional Dems to filibuster. That’s political suicide for November. The easiest way to deal with all of it is to repatriate these Gitmo Guys back to Afghanistan but have the plane “mysterioulsy explode” on the way. And last, no more Gitmo Guys will be moving to Cuba. Our forces will just shoot them when they find them.

By: Gary Gross

Gary Gross — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:50 +0000

Except for the part that the Geneva Convention specifically says that the Conventions rule only when combatants, whether they’re part of a resistance organization, militia or a nation’s military, have to be wearing a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” Clearly, they weren’t wearing that, thus making the Geneva Convention’s rules inapplicable before yesterday’s ruling.

What the SCOTUS did yesterday was, in effect, add to the Geneva Convention by judicial fiat. This wasn’t negotiated between participating countries. It wasn’t signed by a sitting president & it certainly didn’t get ratified by the Senate.

By: Chris Bell

Chris Bell — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:12:17 +0000

SCOTUS pretty clearly said that the trials were in violation of the Geneva Convention (which Congress has made law) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Looks like a law “exists” to me.

Of course, I guess you can say that President Bush didn’t break the law yet since the trials and executions haven’t happened yet.

By: Gary Gross

Gary Gross — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:09:33 +0000

Overlooking, of course, the fine point that what the SCOTUS said was that what heâ€™d been doing up until now has been illegal.

There’s only one flaw with your analysis: They didn’t violate any existing law. It’s impossible to break the law when no law exists.

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:48:34 +0000

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:03:52 +0000

Overlooking, of course, the fine point that what the SCOTUS said was that what he’d been doing up until now has been illegal. Spin spin spin…..