[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wimpy369

The thing that I am happy about Mulder is that Bush has been told to follow the letter of the law and rightfully so. He is being viewed in many respects as becoming somewhat of a dictator by citizens of other countries as well as quite a few of your own people.

I don't wish any harm to your country but I would like to see the attitude toned down somewhat and leave the schoolyard bully mentality alone for a while. That would be a breath of fresh air.

I appreciate that Wimpy, but the problem is that people simply don't know enough about how Contitutional law works. They think there is some law out there that cleary says Bush can't use military tribunals to hear cases involving Gitmo prisoners. Its not near that simple or that black and white (it is to the simpleminded of course, who swallow the 10 second sound bites they here on CNN).

It would take a few hundred pages to outline the complexity of international law vs. domestic sovereignty. The situatins that have come up are totally unique.

This decision today is fine when you are dealing with 400 prisoners in Gitmo and as usual, that's how liberals work--they make knee jerk feel good reactions and don't consider the conquences for the future.

What if we go back to WWII when there were literally hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war. How could you possibly have given them the Contstititional protections the bed wetters claim the prisoners in Gitmo deserve? You couldn't--it would be chaos--it would take 20 years to move them through the system of "rights!"

So if we ever had a war again where we had an unmanageable amount of prisoners, do you know what would happen? The courts would have to reverse this decision and concede it was wrongly decided because the executive branch would have to by necessity do what was necessary under the circumstances.

So its not that Bush is flouting the rule of law, its that there are real and valid disputes over the specific authority necessary in very unique situations. You can discuss this intelligently and calmly or you can darn a tinfoil hat and rave about how Bush is trying to take over the world in his unquenchable thirst for power.

[Rollin' Rog]

If you are talking about the NSA and FISA cases -- you can bet your revolving halo that the Bush administration is going to do everything it can to avoid a head-on confrontation with the court on this issue.

They have already read the writing on the wall and are trying to "negotiate" a deal with congress that will reinterpret the executive branch's obligation to pursue a timely review of its taps. This is what the issue was about in the first place. They simply rejected the FISA law's applicability to the executive branch based on the Administrations delusional notion of inherent constitutional power or that mandated by the post 9/11 resolution.

The court's current ruling has pissed on that fire big time.

Originally Posted by Mulder

Here is my take and I am sure GB will have the same. I am willing to accept the decisions of the court as the necessary refinements of cutting edge legal issues that have never been dealt with before--that's why we have a court. You clowns accept this decision, but when the next decision comes down that says the wiretapping was lawful, are you Moore-Ons going to hail it as "taking back the rule of law" or as "Bush's lackies on the court do whatever he wants!"

As to the decision, it doesn't actually say that US doesn't have the power to use these courts, it says the Bush Admin has to get Congress to authorize them.

So--if Bush goes gets Congressional authorization for the courts, are you Moore-Ons going to accept that or are you going to claim its Bush and the Republican Congress taking away our civil rights!

What it comes down to is it next to impossible to have an intelligent conversation with the basettmans and the Linskys et al. because all you people are concerned with is Bush losing--you don't care whether the decision is right, you don't care whether its helps or hurts the country or the war on terror or anything as long as it hurts Bush.

I am happy that my life is not so fixated on the hatred of one person that I am not able to rationalize analyze issues objectively.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

If you are talking about the NSA and FISA cases -- you can bet your revolving halo that the Bush administration is going to do everything it can to avoid a head-on confrontation with the court on this issue.

They have already read the writing on the wall and are trying to "negotiate" a deal with congress that will reinterpret the executive branch's obligation to pursue a timely review of its taps. This is what the issue was about in the first place. They simply rejected the FISA law's applicability to the executive branch based on the Administrations delusional notion of inherent constitutional power or that mandated by the post 9/11 resolution.

The court's current ruling has pissed on that fire big time.

Uhhhh--no--this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the NSA and FISA cases. And you conveniently leave out the fact that every single court that ruled on those issues before found in favor of he excutive power. This case is different because there is a potential conflict with the Geneva Convention--it is not the same issue at all.

But again, I will ask you--if the Supreme Court decides that the Wiretaps were lawful under the Constuttion, are you going to accept that decision?

[Littlefield]

Whats funny Mulder is this will be delayed the liberals will not get their way and it will not be closed.

[Guyzer]

I understand that Mulder but comparing Bush's actions to what happened back in WW11 is different. That was an actual declared war and the mess you're in now isn't. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing Bush declared war against is terrorism. That's a broad declaration and specific only to the suitability of the US. Matter of fact when Bush gave his initial speech he gave the entire world an ultimatum.. for or against. I thought we would be throwing rocks across the border to keep you out because our country didn't support your actions.

In the end I would prefer they be locked up but only if done lawfully. Then I would expect like any other citizen of the world they be brought before a world court of some sort, not just the might of the USA and dealt with. Either they are guilty of an actual crime, not some concocted gibberish, or they are not....... and if not set them free.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I appreciate that Wimpy, but the problem is that people simply don't know enough about how Contitutional law works. They think there is some law out there that cleary says Bush can't use military tribunals to hear cases involving Gitmo prisoners. Its not near that simple or that black and white (it is to the simpleminded of course, who swallow the 10 second sound bites they here on CNN).

It would take a few hundred pages to outline the complexity of international law vs. domestic sovereignty. The situatins that have come up are totally unique.

This decision today is fine when you are dealing with 400 prisoners in Gitmo and as usual, that's how liberals work--they make knee jerk feel good reactions and don't consider the conquences for the future.

What if we go back to WWII when there were literally hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war. How could you possibly have given them the Contstititional protections the bed wetters claim the prisoners in Gitmo deserve? You couldn't--it would be chaos--it would take 20 years to move them through the system of "rights!"

So if we ever had a war again where we had an unmanageable amount of prisoners, do you know what would happen? The courts would have to reverse this decision and concede it was wrongly decided because the executive branch would have to by necessity do what was necessary under the circumstances.

So its not that Bush is flouting the rule of law, its that there are real and valid disputes over the specific authority necessary in very unique situations. You can discuss this intelligently and calmly or you can darn a tinfoil hat and rave about how Bush is trying to take over the world in his unquenchable thirst for power.

Mulder would normally say that things are black or white--particularly when describing the decisions that leftist liberal judges make. They become complex ambiguous decisions when his righty judges are involved. Go figure.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

This decision today is fine when you are dealing with 400 prisoners in Gitmo and as usual, that's how liberals work--they make knee jerk feel good reactions and don't consider the conquences for the future.

What if we go back to WWII when there were literally hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war. How could you possibly have given them the Contstititional protections the bed wetters claim the prisoners in Gitmo deserve? You couldn't--it would be chaos--it would take 20 years to move them through the system of "rights!"

So if we ever had a war again where we had an unmanageable amount of prisoners, do you know what would happen? The courts would have to reverse this decision and concede it was wrongly decided because the executive branch would have to by necessity do what was necessary under the circumstances.

it took a supreme court decision for me to understand that these guys are considered prisoners of war

i thought they were each awaiting trial for specific criminal charges

so, help me out here....are they prisoners of the war in iraq, or the war on terror?

cause it seems that the war in iraq ended in a victory, and our efforts there now, while certainly much like a war for our young men and women stationed there, is no longer technically a war....it's a peace keeping force

so that would leave the war on terror...but that thing is too ill defined for me to understand

it leaves me wondering why exactly were still holding these folks....i understand that some percentage of those released in the past went back home to continue jihad....but that, too, seems an ill defined term to be used in defining the war that is allowing us to still hold prisoners.....unless we're at war on many front, against every muslim in every country who believes the answer to our presence in the middle east is jihad against the gringos...

but it does raise another, more complicated question....how do we wage this war on terror on the international level, when it depends on a broad security and intelligence program that not every governement is willing to allow within their borders....if the issue is the safety of the american people, as i heard the prez announce today in response to the ruling, and we are in a war with the hopes of maximizing that safety, shouldn't the ranks of guantanemo be swelling as we continue to take prisoners?

for me, it seems that the "war on terror" is akin to the war on drugs, or on poverty....it is a war of education and information, with enforcement and detainment being secondary.....and it will be a war for decades.....

are we seriously considering keeping the prisoners of this war until some future when some president declares terrorism extinct?



i don't get it.

[Guyzer]

iltos you took the words right out of my mouth and explained my position much better than my attempt. Thanks.

[Mulderator]

I suggest you read the decision:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Specifically read Scalia's dissent--as usual it is crystal clear and concise and based on sound legal principles. Then read the majority opinion where they fumble around trying drawing "negative inferences" from a statute that clearly states they do not have jurisdiction to hear this case. Talk about a power grab--this is it, but its from the SC!

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by iltos

it took a supreme court decision for me to understand that these guys are considered prisoners of war

i thought they were each awaiting trial for specific criminal charges

so, help me out here....are they prisoners of the war in iraq, or the war on terror?

cause it seems that the war in iraq ended in a victory, and our efforts there now, while certainly much like a war for our young men and women stationed there, is no longer technically a war....it's a peace keeping force

so that would leave the war on terror...but that thing is too ill defined for me to understand

it leaves me wondering why exactly were still holding these folks....i understand that some percentage of those released in the past went back home to continue jihad....but that, too, seems an ill defined term to be used in defining the war that is allowing us to still hold prisoners.....unless we're at war on many front, against every muslim in every country who believes the answer to our presence in the middle east is jihad against the gringos...

but it does raise another, more complicated question....how do we wage this war on terror on the international level, when it depends on a broad security and intelligence program that not every governement is willing to allow within their borders....if the issue is the safety of the american people, as i heard the prez announce today in response to the ruling, and we are in a war with the hopes of maximizing that safety, shouldn't the ranks of guantanemo be swelling as we continue to take prisoners?

for me, it seems that the "war on terror" is akin to the war on drugs, or on poverty....it is a war of education and information, with enforcement and detainment being secondary.....and it will be a war for decades.....

are we seriously considering keeping the prisoners of this war until some future when some president declares terrorism extinct?



i don't get it.

The problem with these guys is they wear no uniform, they aren't part of any centralized legitimate government, and yes, many of them are picked up in indiscriminate sweeps that net both insurgents and innocent men. I've posted several instances of men held over a year who turned out to be in the wrong place at the wrong time-----

[Mulderator]

The first part of the Scalia Dissent--if you read this and understand it, you know what a stretch the majority decision is. Despite Congress explicitly stating that the SC had no authority to review cases for Gitmo prisononers, they nevertheless hear it!

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.

On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the DetaineeTreatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, asof that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls thestatute’s most natural reading, every “court, justice, or judge” before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedlyretained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.

I

A

The DTA provides: “[N]o court, justice, or judge shallhave jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for awrit of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an aliendetained by the Department of Defense at GuantanamoBay, Cuba.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742 (internal division omitted). This provision “t[ook] effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,” §1005(h)(1), id., at 2743, which was December 30, 2005. As of that date, then, no court had jurisdiction to “hear or consider” the merits of petitioner’shabeas application. This repeal of jurisdiction is simplynot ambiguous as between pending and future cases. It prohibits any exercise of jurisdiction, and it became effective as to all cases last December 30. It is also perfectly clear that the phrase “no court, justice, or judge” includesthis Court and its Members, and that by exercising our appellate jurisdiction in this case we are “hear[ing] orconsider[ing] . . . an application for a writ of habeascorpus.”

An ancient and unbroken line of authority attests that statutes ousting jurisdiction unambiguously apply to casespending at their effective date. For example, in Bruner v. United States, 343 U. S. 112 (1952), we granted certiorarito consider whether the Tucker Act’s provision denying district court jurisdiction over suits by “officers” of the United States barred a suit by an employee of the United States. After we granted certiorari, Congress amendedthe Tucker Act by adding suits by “‘employees’” to the provision barring jurisdiction over suits by officers. Id., at 114. This statute narrowing the jurisdiction of the district courts “became effective” while the case was pendingbefore us, ibid., and made no explicit reference to pending cases. Because the statute “did not reserve jurisdictionover pending cases,” id., at 115, we held that it clearly ousted jurisdiction over them. Summarizing centuries of practice, we said: “This rule—that, when a law conferringjurisdiction is repealed without any reservation as to pending cases, all cases fall with the law—has been adhered to consistently by this Court.” Id., at 116–117. See also Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 274 (1994) (opinion for the Court by STEVENS, J.) (“We haveregularly applied intervening statutes conferring or ousting jurisdiction, whether or not jurisdiction lay when the underlying conduct occurred or when the suit was filed”).

This venerable rule that statutes ousting jurisdictionterminate jurisdiction in pending cases is not, as today’sopinion for the Court would have it, a judge-made “presumption against jurisdiction,” ante, at 11, that we have invented to resolve an ambiguity in the statutes. It is simple recognition of the reality that the plain import of a statute repealing jurisdiction is to eliminate the power toconsider and render judgment—in an already pending case no less than in a case yet to be filed.

“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law,and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact anddismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869) (emphasis added).

To alter this plain meaning, our cases have required anexplicit reservation of pending cases in the jurisdiction-repealing statute. For example, Bruner, as mentioned, looked to whether Congress made “any reservation as topending cases.” 343 U. S., at 116–117; see also id., at 115 (“Congress made no provision for cases pending at the effective date of the Act withdrawing jurisdiction and, forthis reason, Courts of Appeals ordered pending cases terminated for want of jurisdiction”). Likewise, in Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U. S. 506 (1916), Justice Holmesrelied on the fact that the jurisdiction-ousting provision“made no exception for pending litigation, but purported tobe universal,” id., at 508. And in Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541 (1867), we again relied on the fact that the jurisdictional repeal was made “without any saving ofsuch causes as that before us,” id., at 544. As in Bruner, Hallowell, and Ritchie, the DTA’s directive that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction,” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742, is made “without any reservation as to pending cases” and “purport[s] to be universal.” What we stated in an earlier case remains true here: “[W]hen, if it had beenthe intention to confine the operation of [the jurisdictionalrepeal] . . . to cases not pending, it would have been so easy to have said so, we must presume that Congress meant the language employed should have its usual and ordinary signification, and that the old law should beunconditionally repealed.” Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398, 403 (1879).

The Court claims that I “rea[d] too much into” the Bruner line of cases, ante, at 12, n. 7, and that “the Bruner rule” has never been “an inflexible trump,” ante, at 19. But the Court sorely misdescribes Bruner—as if it were a kind of early-day Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), resolving statutory ambiguity by oblique negative inference. On the contrary, as described above, Bruner stated its holding as an unqualified “rule,” which “has been adhered to consistently by this Court.” 343 U. S., at 116–117. Though Bruner referred to an express savings clauseelsewhere in the statute, id., at 115, n. 7, it disavowed any reliance on such oblique indicators to vary the plain meaning, quoting Ritchie at length: “ ‘It is quite possible thatthis effect of the [jurisdiction-stripping statute] was notcontemplated by Congress. . . . [B]ut when terms are unambiguous we may not speculate on probabilities of intention.’ ” 343 U. S., at 116 (quoting 5 Wall., at 544– 545).

The Court also attempts to evade the Bruner line of cases by asserting that “the ‘presumption’ [of application to pending cases] that these cases have applied is moreaccurately viewed as the nonapplication of another presumption—viz., the presumption against retroactivity—incertain limited circumstances.” Ante, at 11. I have already explained that what the Court calls a “presumption”is simply the acknowledgment of the unambiguous meaning of such provisions. But even taking it to be what the Court says, the effect upon the present case would be the same. Prospective applications of a statute are “effective” upon the statute’s effective date; that is what an effective-date provision like §1005(h)(1) means.1 “ ‘[S]hall takeeffect upon enactment’ is presumed to mean ‘shall haveprospective effect upon enactment,’ and that presumptionis too strong to be overcome by any negative inference [drawn from other provisions of the statute].” Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 288 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgments). The Court’s “nonapplication of . . . the presumption against retroactivity” to §1005(e)(1) is thus just another way of stating that the statute takes immediate effect inpending cases.

Though the Court resists the Bruner rule, it cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (beforetoday) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation. By contrast, the cases granting such immediate effect are legion, and they repeatedlyrely on the plain language of the jurisdictional repeal asan “inflexible trump,” ante, at 19, by requiring an express reservatiion to save pending cases.

footnote No. 1 - The Court apparently believes that the effective-date provision means nothing at all. “That paragraph (1), along with paragraphs (2)and (3), is to ‘take effect on the date of enactment,’ DTA §1005(h)(1),119 Stat. 2743, is not dispositive,” says the Court, ante, at 14, n. 9. The Court’s authority for this conclusion is its quote from INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 317 (2001), to the effect that “a statement that a statutewill become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date.” Ante, at 14, n. 9 (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted). But this quote merely restates the obvious: An effective-date provisiondoes not render a statute applicable to “conduct that occurred at an earlier date,” but of course it renders the statute applicable to conduct that occurs on the effective date and all future dates—such as the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction here. The Court seems to suggest that,because the effective-date provision does not authorize retroactive application, it also fails to authorize prospective application (and isthus useless verbiage). This cannot be true.

[GoneForNow]

I've read all 185 pages of the opinion and what it boils down to is a pissing match between The Court, Congress and the President. Congress at the urging of the President pass the Detainee Treatment Act that specifically (as noted by Scalia) took away the ability of any federal court to review the detainment of prisoners in Gitmo. Simply, Congress passed a law that reduced the authority of the federal courts; it restricts the federal courts jurisdiction. There was no way this Supreme Court was going to allow that to occur.
The most interesting thing is, if Congress changes the wording of the statute to address the convoluted logic of Justice Stevens then by Stevens own logic that statute would apply and the federal courts wouldn't have jurisdiction.

However, the most interesting thing is the following post:

Originally Posted by Rollin Rog

They have already read the writing on the wall and are trying to "negotiate" a deal with congress that will reinterpret the executive branch's obligation to pursue a timely review of its taps. This is what the issue was about in the first place. They simply rejected the FISA law's applicability to the executive branch based on the Administrations delusional notion of inherent constitutional power or that mandated by the post 9/11 resolution.

The court's current ruling has pissed on that fire big time.

Want to talk about wishful thinking. There is absolutely no correlation between today's opinion and the Courts future treatment of the FISA case. None, zero, nada.

[Mulderator]

BTW--let's make clear what this decision DID NOT DO, because I've already seen bassetman in another thread claiming he was right about Gitmo!

--It did NOT say the government did not have the right to detain these people.

-It did NOT say they must be affored the same Constitutional rights that non-combatants/prisoners or war/scumbags or whatever name you want to call them to distinguish them from domestic suspects.

-It did NOT say that the Bush Administration could not try them in some other suitable court aside from the specific military tribunal that had been set up.

-It did NOT say that Bush couldn't obtain Congressional authority to try these prisoners in the courts he has set up already.

The first two above at least are what bassetman and the rest of the bedwetters have been crying about for the last 3 or 4 years!

This is at best a "draw" in terms of Bush vs. The Bedwetters attempts to derail defense of our country from terrorist attacks.

[GoneForNow]

Again, Congress changes the wording of the statute and Justice Stevens opinion becomes useless.

Or, Congress creates a new federal civil court. The opinion becomes useless.

I don't think these guys really thought this through too well.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I suggest you read the decision:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Specifically read Scalia's dissent--as usual it is crystal clear and concise and based on sound legal principles. Then read the majority opinion where they fumble around trying drawing "negative inferences" from a statute that clearly states they do not have jurisdiction to hear this case. Talk about a power grab--this is it, but its from the SC!

Doesn't the dissent come from the side that lost the vote?