OT: Supreme Court rejects Government Guantanamo position

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The Supreme Court has determined that, based on Law, the administration's position on Guantanamo is illeagal.. that President G. W. Bush has over-stepped his authority.. in a related link, Truth, Justice and all that.. i have wondered about America losing its core values.. How does this ruling affect the perception of our core values?

Be well..

[Judge Pen]

Greetings..

The Supreme Court has determined that, based on Law, the administration's position on Guantanamo is illeagal.. that President G. W. Bush has over-stepped his authority.. in a related link, Truth, Justice and all that.. i have wondered about America losing its core values.. How does this ruling affect the perception of our core values?

Be well..

The ruling isn't quite that broad. Guantanamo isn't illegal, but the administrations decision to conduct war-crimes trials of Gitmo's detainees at Gitmo is illegal and contrary to the Geneva convention.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials_5;_ylt=AqdxdMAE_Qy51uYLQm U1Fng3NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Radhnoti]

I had thought the Geneva convention only applies to those serving in an existing country's military? I had also heard somewhere that the Geneva convention was only binding when facing others who had ALSO signed the Geneva convention? Are both my suppositions completely wrong JP? Thanks.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Thanks, JP i stand corrected.. now, in light of the ruling, though.. and a previous ruling rejecting indefinite detainment or lack of access to counsel.. wouldn't you suspect that Gitmo looks a little unstable as a vehicle for justice.. Considering the frequency the US has invoked the Geneva Convention in the past, is it not appropriate to uphold in the present?... Do you believe that this serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of the US system of checks and balances (finally)?

Be well..

[Chief Fox]

Well good ol' George W. has a history of interpreting a law in any way that he's sees fit with his use (some say abuse) of presidential signing statements.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/greenfield.signing/index.html?section=cnn_latest

The guy thinks that he's untouchable, maybe he forgets that he works for us.

Take it for what it's worth but the city council of Berkeley wants to impeach Bush. So much so, they are putting it on the November ballot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_el_ge/berkeley_impeachment;_ylt=AhpXUVhKaHMFKr3E9MZBgNCy Fz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

[Judge Pen]

Well when it comes to international law then I'm a layman like most everyone else. Having not read the Court's opinion (which interestingly chief justice Roberts had to abstain since he had provided the decision that was being appealed) I would assume that the detainees are granted the same status as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention and the jurisdiction should be the ILC (which Bush has expressed open disdain for in the past). But I'm just guessing.