Right- wing calling for ignoring the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by fleinn, Jun 14, 2008.


Should the president ignore the Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. No, he should protect the public and circumvent the law.

    0 vote(s)
  4. Habeas, schmeabas, shoot the bastards on the spot instead.

    0 vote(s)
  1. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    Balloon Juice
    Various items - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
    They're not alone - Antonin Scalia (like the other long term justices on the Supreme Court) argues in essence that giving Habeas Corpus to terrorists is unconscionable. A large majority of Congress also passed the Military Commissions Act, giving the president and the executive altitude to make determinations on who are terrorists, in secret outside any usual legal process, and therefore liable for indefinite imprisonment without charge. Something that also includes Americans captured on US soil.

    Neither of the democratic candidates have so far come out strongly for maintaining the fundamental right of hearing your charge in a court when you're arrested in this context. Presumably arguing with some form or shape of evasion that suggests the ruling gives anyone picked up by the US military anywhere in the world the ability to question their incarceration in a district court before a judge. Even though this narrow decision depends on the jurisdiction the US has over the area the camp is on - and that it in other words does not involve any of the numerous military installations the US has on soil under different ownership (which is another hotly contested issue in, for example, Iraqi politics at the moment).

    *throws hands* I don't know.. comments?
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008

  2. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I think it is outrageous when the President ignores a Supreme Court decision. How can a free political system not erode when the government acts as if it was above the law? How is this not autocratic?

    Apart from that, this whole Guantanamo business is a shame for a country that claims to be "the leader of the free world". In dubio pro reo and the right on a fair trial are basic fundamentals of any free society, of any democratic republic. It's from the books of tyrants and dictators to violate these fundamental rights. It is safe to say that many innocent people have gotten in the wheels of the practize of extralegal rendition, denial of fair trials and systematic use of torture, without any chance to ever escape this gulag again.

    And it is also disastrous for public opinion in other countries: When you now tell the citizen of a common dictatorship abroad that "we are better, because we have democracy and Constitution", he will show you the finger and tell you "really? you do the same". What a wonderful basis for winning hearts and minds of people abroad, by giving a good example proving our system is better.

    Bush's Presidency is an utter shame, a threat to all enlightened values and probably a much bigger threat to democracy, law and Western way of life, than any terrorist could ever be.
  3. manuel

    manuel Registered Member

    There are so many question that need to be answered before deciding on how to vote in this issue: Is the president the commander of your armed forces? What are the duties that his office demand? What is the legal status of these combatants, are they members of a sovereign nation's army or foreign mercenaries? What are the right of mercenaries? Does the S. court have the right to afford right to mercenaries?
  4. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    I think the Guantanamo thing will fix itself. At the beginning of the war, information was important and so capturing them was key. These days the war is winding down so capturing/interrogate isn't as important.
  5. Unity

    Unity #AllTogetherNowSTL Staff Member

    That's a good point, but I still think it's important to establish where we stand on the rights of prisoners so that any future situations (I hope there aren't any) are addressed correctly from the beginning.
  6. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    ..that's what the SC decided. The lawyers who put forward the case on behalf of the prisoners won through and received a narrow decision in favour of their clients. And they decided that since Guantanamo was under defacto american sovereign rule, that meant American laws would apply for prisoners - and so they could not be simply held there without cause.

    Naturally, all prisoners kept off shore can be imprisoned indefinitively, just like before.
    Excerpts from the first hearing..:
    Dan Froomkin - Battered Congress Syndrome - washingtonpost.com
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  7. manuel

    manuel Registered Member

    I posted because here in Australia we have the case of David Hicks an Australian that was captured been a mercenary combatant, and claimed that the Australian government should intercede for him, we was of British descendant and made similar claims of the British government, this young man was recruited to fight as mercenary and was captured, he should have been executed right there and then, but he was released after five years, banned from writing his story for five years, he is set to make a fortune once the ban is lifted, people love to read about the evil Americans, the US of A is too divided to stand, you will be destroyed by your enemies with the help of your own judges.
  8. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    This happened as well. The Lebanon-born German citizen Khalid el-Masri was kidnapped by the CIA from the streets in Germany, because he incidentally had the same name as a guy they were looking for. He was then held for several months, tortured, until the Americans dropped him somewhere in Bosnia after the found he is not the guy they had been looking for.

    German courts issued search warrants for the according CIA members, for kidnapping. If they were tried, they would get several years in prison. But the US refuse to deliver them.

    Now imagine the jingoistic outcry in America, if the German secret service kidnapped American citizens.

    America is a bloody terrorist nation. Doing such things is in the same category of what Hitler, Stalin and Saddam did, just the scope is smaller. If there was any justice in the world, Bush would be tried for war crimes on the International Court next to Saddam, Milosevic and the likes.
  9. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    Sure.. who needs judges or proof when people are sent to prison indefinitely, anyway.

    You're also wrong on the course of events - the US State department basically said that unless Oz or Britain took him off their hands and sentenced him for terrorism (based on nothing), they would try him in a kangaroo- court. Unfortunately for State, the Brits wanted to extradite him and send him home, and Australia wanted him to be held in Gitmo. So that's where he is, while facing retroactive charges - that is, he's being accused of being a terrorist, because otherwise why would he be in GITMO.

    But the fact of the matter is that we don't know very much about why he's there, and the US government refuses to come up with any evidence. Which, incidentally, has become clear only because his lawyer - an american jag of some sort - has fought on his behalf.

    So he's still there - five and a half years later. Without a charge, and without prospect of actually getting released. Or.. if he's released, he may not be accepted as innocent by his government. And you think that's perfectly fine - because... why exactly?
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I live in America, and last I checked, there's no invading army walking down the streets here, military ordinance going off around me, or anything of that sort. It all seems quite peaceful, serene, and safe around these parts, really. Word has it, in fact, that we spend almost as much on defense as the entire rest of the world combined, and can topple foreign governments on the other side of the planet over the course of a weekend without even drafting folks into our military. So how exactly are our enemies going to destroy us?
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2008

Share This Page