The Supreme Court today ruled the Bush administration must do one of those things it is always extremely reluctant to do: obey the law. By a vote of 5-3, the Supremes said the administration can't proceed with its plans to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay before military tribunals. Writing for the majority, John Paul Stevens (appointed by President Ford) declared the planned tribunals were illegal under both US law and the Geneva Conventions.
Over at SCOTUSblog (SCOTUS may sould like a skin disease, but actually it's short for Supreme Court Of The United States), Marty Lederman, who teaches at Georgetown University Law School, thinks this ruling may have much wider implications for the administration.
More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).
If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.
Whether this prediction will hold true in cases in which Chief Justice Roberts participates-- he had to recuse himself from this case, since as an appeals court judge he had already ruled on it, siding with the administration (naturally, he didn't get where he is by choosing the rule of law over the president's wishes)-- remains to be seen. But at least for today, it is a hopeful sign.
OC Weekly Flickr Pool
Notifications
Archives
Entertainment
-
Mira Aesthetic Medical Spa, Costa Mesa, CA, Medical Spa
-
Mira Aesthetic Medical Spa, Costa Mesa, CA, Medical Spa
-
3400 Ave of the Arts
-
3400 Ave of the Arts
Now Click This
the serrach says:
there's a lovely couple of bullets in this month's 'harpers index.' something like..
# of signing statements bush has inserted into laws to exlude his admin from obeying it: 750
total # of such signing statements president's have inserted since washington: 545
so yes ade. they are above, around, nearby but not in - the law.
Posted on Thursday, Jun. 29 2006 @ 8:06AM
Ade says:
This does give a huge sigh of relief to those who'd been claiming the same thing all along. However, seeing as how the Admins in charge see no problem with circumventing the rule of law, Consitution, and international opinion (cuz really, who needs to get along with all those other countries? They're all jerks, anyway.) why in the world would that change their day to day operations. All I think this will do is force them to keep their traps shut a lot better then in recent days. Still, I have to hand it to the SC for finally FINALLY getting their heads out of their well you know, and giving what amounts to a slap on the wrist to the Admins in charge. Replace Admins with monkeys and it still works!
Posted on Thursday, Jun. 29 2006 @ 8:06AM
Comandante Agi says:
"We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws" -- GW Bush, 2006
(except when they apply to him)
Posted on Thursday, Jun. 29 2006 @ 12:06PM
brian says:
It took SCOTUS because the congress has no scrotum
Posted on Thursday, Jun. 29 2006 @ 2:06PM
Oscar Carr says:
We cry about it on blogs and to friends that share the same sentiment, but unfortunately, the "Right" still has the majority of voters in the right places (states). I wonder, how much more abuse of powere will it take for the majority of republicans (ignorant voters who believe themselves to be intelligent, but have bought all that the "right" has been selling) to realize that the President of the United States has broken the law.
Posted on Friday, Jun. 30 2006 @ 8:06AM
Pete Fundy says:
Rush Limbaugh was not there for sex. He was
Whoops! Wrong forum.
Warmly yours,
Pete Fundy
Senior Editorial Writer
OCLegend.Com
Posted on Friday, Jun. 30 2006 @ 1:06PM