On reading some additional analysis of the ruling, it appears the Supreme Court did not rule the US has to obey the Geneva Convention, rather it ruled that Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which was approved by Congress, requires that special commissions or tribunals comply with the rules of law.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) resolution authorized the president to set up tribunals outside of the UCMJ.
I wish the Court would do something so that their rulings would increase clarity, not decrease it, especially since, once handed down, they seem to be holy writ.
Maybe they could submit them to a standard jury, and revise them until the jury understands them, with the proceedings recorded as part of the case records.
I say this while noting that, generally speaking, Supreme Court opinions are surprisingly accessable to this non-lawyer, and very interesting to boot.
Wince, a big problem is that more of this work is done by law clerks than ever before, and they are not only less experienced but they're also former (and recent) law review editors.
Bush has two options I can think of. Obey the Geneva Conventions by summarily executing the terroists, demonstrating that they are neither combatants nor POWs, but illegal combatants in civilian uniform. Or, ignore the Supreme Court.
Bush has the Constitutional power to ignore any SC ruling. Congress can impeach Bush or cut off funding, but that's it on Bush's limits in war time. You can't even prosecute the soldiers who carry out Bush's orders, Bush would just pardon them. Well, if Bush did one of the two options I listed that is. He probably won't.
I think Mikeca has the right read on this Ron. If the Administration goes to Congress and the Congress grants them the authority to try the detainees using military tribunals, I don't think the SCOTUS would shoot that down. In fact if they did it would just be begging Congress to redraft the legislation, only this time with immunity to court challenges, which is well within their Article III rights.
Wince, I think the meaning is unambiguous, implying that next time our armed forces captures one of these zombies, make certain he is shot to death while attempting to escape.
Tom Hawkson -- one of the more frustrating things about online discussions of Supreme Court decisions is that invariably more than half of the comments are posted by people who haven't read the decision and are just operating off of bad press reports which fail to discuss the reasoning in the decisions.
Yeah, I'm willing to accept flawed methodology. Consider this: I was mainly going by things different lawyers on the internet were saying. Add in the press and we get even more variety.
Jaymaster: as far as I can figure out, this is a very narrow ruling which has been exaggerated in importance by both sides.
The majority did *not* say that the people in Guantanamo could not be tried. It said, in summary:
* Trials must be conducted in accordance with the rules Congress has established, not rules established by the President;
* The Congress has required that such things be conducted in compliance with the UCMJ
* The UCMJ requires that the 'laws of war' be followed
* The 'laws of war' include the Geneva Conventions
* The Geneva Conventions require that trials of people picked up in occuppied territory or in conflicts not between states be conducted via regular channels, not via specially constituted courts.
All of which says: the administration is trying to do something Congress never authorized it to do. Congress could pass such an authorization tomorrow and the decision would be rendered irrelevant.
So the question is: does Congress step up to the plate, or does it continue to try to pass the buck?
I think that Ron was on to something when he replied to his former school-mate, which we are all ignoring...
What Congress says is irrelevant, as the administration and its lawyer, David Addington, read the constitution differently than almost anyone else in the country...
1) The president has the authority to hold the prisoners at Guantanamo until the WOT is over, indefinitely if needed.
2) The prisoners must either be held as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention or must be charged with crimes and tried in US courts.
3) The president cannot establish a separate military court system to deal with these cases without authority from Congress.
I expect the administration will now ask Congress for authority to try the suspects at Military tribunals.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) resolution authorized the president to set up tribunals outside of the UCMJ.
Maybe they could submit them to a standard jury, and revise them until the jury understands them, with the proceedings recorded as part of the case records.
I say this while noting that, generally speaking, Supreme Court opinions are surprisingly accessable to this non-lawyer, and very interesting to boot.
Yours,
Wince
Bush has the Constitutional power to ignore any SC ruling. Congress can impeach Bush or cut off funding, but that's it on Bush's limits in war time. You can't even prosecute the soldiers who carry out Bush's orders, Bush would just pardon them. Well, if Bush did one of the two options I listed that is. He probably won't.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Could be a flawed methodology.
Yours,
Wince
Yeah, I'm willing to accept flawed methodology. Consider this: I was mainly going by things different lawyers on the internet were saying. Add in the press and we get even more variety.
Yours,
Wince
Here's a link to the PDF, and here's a link to Scotus Blog's comment on the decision (which I include only because I found it interesting.
So we might lose this war because AQ has smarter lawyers than the US?
Or is bureaucracy our problem?
Or might it be a lack of balls in our judges and lawyers?
Or is this good news in the Arnold Harris vein, in that our soldiers now know they must take no prisoners?
Come on you legal geniuses. Help this engineer make some sense of this ruling, please…
The majority did *not* say that the people in Guantanamo could not be tried. It said, in summary:
* Trials must be conducted in accordance with the rules Congress has established, not rules established by the President;
* The Congress has required that such things be conducted in compliance with the UCMJ
* The UCMJ requires that the 'laws of war' be followed
* The 'laws of war' include the Geneva Conventions
* The Geneva Conventions require that trials of people picked up in occuppied territory or in conflicts not between states be conducted via regular channels, not via specially constituted courts.
All of which says: the administration is trying to do something Congress never authorized it to do. Congress could pass such an authorization tomorrow and the decision would be rendered irrelevant.
So the question is: does Congress step up to the plate, or does it continue to try to pass the buck?
What Congress says is irrelevant, as the administration and its lawyer, David Addington, read the constitution differently than almost anyone else in the country...