|
The Supreme Court declared Bush's first military tribunals unconstitutional earlier this year.
The five member majority (Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Bryer, Ginsburg) rejected the assertion of the administration that it had "broad executive power" upon which Bush based the creation of the tribunals, and futher, that the tribunals were neither authorized by law or in accord with our obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
The only thing that has changed is that the tribunals are now "authorized" by this new law. But the new law still give Bush excessive executive powers and does not conform with the Geneva Conventions, even more so than the previous tribunals, with the absence of habeus under the new law.
I dont see why any of the five would rule differently now.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
|