<p>Well, I haven’t seen a European one-party regime ever last as long as the PRI in Mexico.</p>
<p>Are you sure, comrade?</p>
<p>“Interestingly, you ignore the fact that SCOTUS totally ignored the will of Congress which explicitly stated that the courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter - which was within the right of Congress to mandate. I guess the separation of powers only applies when it it used to limit the Presidency.”</p>
<p>What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying the use of military tribunals is under Congress’ jurisdiction? I need some clarification.</p>
<p>“Are you saying the use of military tribunals is under Congress’ jurisdiction?”</p>
<p>I’m not saying that, Justice Bryer stated that as part of the majority opinion. However, this is not what I was referring to. I was speaking of the Detainee Treatment Act passed by Congress. Justice Scalia puts it best:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, effectively what you have here is one branch of the government taking it upon itself to overrule two other branches of government in a case of classic judicial activism.</p>
<p>Likewise, the notion of giving terrorists rights under the Geneva conventions was expressly rejected by the other branches back in the 80s, yet the liberal members of SCOTUS took it upon themselves to usurp the constitutional right given to the executive and legislative branches to negotiate treaties and decided to unilaterally give terrorists these rights. If anyone should fear one branch of the government overstepping its constitutional authority it should fear the acts of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>BTW, what is it about the Geneva Convention that we would find objectionable if applied to terrorists?</p>
<p>
No kidding. Almost as bad as Marbury vs. Madison…</p>
<p>“Judicial activism?” I could’ve sworn I was reading a Rove talking points memo. That’s bogus; judicial activism is entirely political. So quit your trite pandering.</p>
<p>Scalia conveniently cherry picked parts [of the DTA] for his opinion, look for yourself. Guess he missed:</p>
<p>“(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”</p>
<p>“(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php[/url]”>http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php</a></p>
<p>And hence the courts decision that did "not question the government’s power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan “for the duration of active hostilities” to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, “in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/decisions_5.html[/url]”>http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/decisions_5.html</a></p>
<p>Secondly, rule of law, in the “Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which \requires war crimes trials held before a military tribunal to be conducted in accordance with the law of war, and the Geneva Conventions are part of the law of war”, was indeed in the Courts jurisdiction.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/comments_on_ham_1.html[/url]”>http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/comments_on_ham_1.html</a></p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if Congress passed that law because, like i mentioned earlier the President was still bound to the law, therefore the Court had jurisdiction over both the Executive and Congress.</p>
<p>Why are you so afraid of a jury trial?</p>
<p>
Cherry picking? Sorry, but perhaps you could explain to me (and Scalia) what on earth “Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” has to do with the Hamden case. Looks to me like you are just grasping at straws to support your view.</p>
<p>It can hardly be called “cherry-picking” to cite only those aspects of law that are germane to the case being decided. The physical treatment of Hamdan was never at issue, and thus it would have been inappropriate for Scalia (or anyone else) to cite the clauses listed above in a written opinion. Both the DTA and the GC are large documents, and the points of law under review were narrow and specific.</p>
<p>The Court ruled that <em>if</em> the government wants to try Hamdan, <em>then</em> the government must try him in compliance with the DTA and the GC. They didn’t say that Hamdan deserved a trial, and specifically stated that “it was not questioning the government’s authority to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan ‘for the duration of active hostilities’ to prevent harm to innocent civilians.”</p>
<p>The Court said that the DTA did not provide for the creation of Military Commissions to try prisoners such as Hamdan, and expressly acknowledged that Congress has the power to change that. The Court also said that <em>if</em> the government chooses to try prisoners such as Hamdan, it must follow the rules for war crimes tribunals outlined in the GC.</p>
<p>It is this latter opinion that is troubling far beyond the Hamdan case, because the Court has essentially granted GC status to a group that is not a signatory, does not comply with any of the requirements for inclusion, and does not abide by the rules, anyway. It has, in effect, changed the conditions of a contract (a treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate) post facto. I don’t think it will have much effect on prisoner interrogation in the real world, though, because the government will argue that it is only applying the same methods in interrogation that it uses to train its own soldiers. And most Americans recognize the difference between this and the medieval death-by-torture endured recently by two of our soldiers–at the hands of our newly-annointed Geneva Convention co-members.</p>
<p>If they threw bin Laden’s driver into Gitmo, imagine where they put his chef and personal trainer.</p>
<p>My point was that in future cases, a person who might’ve been abused would be subject to a tribunal. How would he argue his case? I think the court kept that in mind when deciding. I already proved SCTOUS jurisdiction, and even if the first part’s reasoning was garbage, the second part is still good…right? RIGHT!!! :p</p>
<p>As for post #49, Conventions bind the contracted party, even if the other side has not. Good times :)</p>