Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
From Duke Law:
Also I do believe your representation of Stevens as being in the majority is 100% wrong, as the decision was held in plurality with O' Connor writing the opinion with Rehnquist, Breyer, and Kennedy; Souter and Ginsberg ruling concurrently against the detention but stating Hamdi has the right to challenge his detention; and <gasp> the evil conservatives Scalia, Thomas, and your boy Stevens dissenting.
The court was troubled by the very questions everyone here poses, and I agree with. The issue is however, and the court recognized it, is congress gave authority for force and troops are still in active combat in Afghanistan.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/su...entary/hamvrum |
Mojo....i think the confusion is in the case under discussion....Hamdi or Hamdan
Stevens wrote t
he majority opinion in Hamdan v Rumsfeld...joined by Kennedy, Suter, Ginsburg and Breyer.... Scalia, Thomas and Alito, the "evil conservatives" dissented:
The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Steven's full judgement including the statement I post above, re: the AUMF as it applies to the rights of detainees.
This was in 2006, two years after the Hamdi v Rumsfeld case to which you refer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
So just to be clear -- I am right, and this law is a "fuck you" to the citizens of every other nation on the entire Earth?
....
Am I right in thinking that it is the position of the US executive, and now US Senate, that at the whim of the US president any person in the entire world can be kidnapped, moved to a secret location, held in secret, interrogated using whatever techniques the US president chooses, have no ability to contest their incarceration for 5+ years, and this is all perfectly OK, legal, official, up-and-up, every-day, hum-drum acts, as far as the USA is concerned?
|
Yaak....you are right in your assessment of the position of the President and the Senate (Republican majority at the time)....they tried to pass a kangaroo "military court" off as providing detainees with equal rights under the law.
But the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider and the latest ruling is a "fuck you" to Bush.....but for the record Supreme Court justices never say fuck you...at least in their formal opinions.
However, the larger problem still persists.....US troops can pretty grab and detain anyone that want off the streets of Baghdad or Kabul and hold them with no charges or just cause in the name of "fighting terrorism."