Throwing in a Monkey Wrench
The Supreme Court of the United States, by a 5-4 decision (all four conservative Justices dissented), yesterday handed down a huge slap in the face to Bush Regime in the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Click on the link and read at least the Syllabus - it's only 8 pages of a 134-page decision. The rest is dicta and dissents (Scalia's reaches a new height in screeching irrelevancy and "We're all gonna die!" fear rhetoric).
What the decision does is strike down the operative section, Section 7, of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which set up the kangaroo courts that are to 'try' detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, as well as elsewhere in the world (including some that may be held aboard Navy ships - another violation of international law, if true). Section 7 of the MCA denied the detainees the right of habeas corpus - the legal right to challenge, in open court, the State's detention of a subject.
Habeas corpus was hard-wired into the Constitution for a reason; in fact, it's one of only two legal rights that were hard-wired (the other, as I recall, being the prohibition against bills of attainder). The Framers didn't want the government to have the right or the ability to lock people up without reason, charges or trial, so they took the legal precedent set down in Magna Carta and in English common law and enshrined it in our Supreme Law of the Land.
How did Dear Leader react? Well, he didn't like it, but said that he would "abide by it."
Two words, folks:
Complete. Idiot.
Unless Bush decides to go whole hog and arrest the five Justices who wrote this decision, a la Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, he HAS NO CHOICE but to "abide by it." The Supreme Court, the third branch of the government and the interpreters of laws, has spoken. And since the Court stressed that the right is embodied directly in the Constitution, the Congress can do nothing about it without amending the document to write habeas corpus out of the Law of the Land and make it optional - subject to executive or legislative whim or fiat.
Which I don't think the Congress would do. There's a different Party in power in both Houses now, and the trends are pointing in the direction of that majority only strengthening as things get worse. So if Bush goes back to the Hill and asks for a new MCA, he's likely going to be told to suck it and suck it hard.
Which is a good thing for the continued rule of law in this country.
What the decision does is strike down the operative section, Section 7, of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which set up the kangaroo courts that are to 'try' detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, as well as elsewhere in the world (including some that may be held aboard Navy ships - another violation of international law, if true). Section 7 of the MCA denied the detainees the right of habeas corpus - the legal right to challenge, in open court, the State's detention of a subject.
Habeas corpus was hard-wired into the Constitution for a reason; in fact, it's one of only two legal rights that were hard-wired (the other, as I recall, being the prohibition against bills of attainder). The Framers didn't want the government to have the right or the ability to lock people up without reason, charges or trial, so they took the legal precedent set down in Magna Carta and in English common law and enshrined it in our Supreme Law of the Land.
How did Dear Leader react? Well, he didn't like it, but said that he would "abide by it."
Two words, folks:
Complete. Idiot.
Unless Bush decides to go whole hog and arrest the five Justices who wrote this decision, a la Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, he HAS NO CHOICE but to "abide by it." The Supreme Court, the third branch of the government and the interpreters of laws, has spoken. And since the Court stressed that the right is embodied directly in the Constitution, the Congress can do nothing about it without amending the document to write habeas corpus out of the Law of the Land and make it optional - subject to executive or legislative whim or fiat.
Which I don't think the Congress would do. There's a different Party in power in both Houses now, and the trends are pointing in the direction of that majority only strengthening as things get worse. So if Bush goes back to the Hill and asks for a new MCA, he's likely going to be told to suck it and suck it hard.
Which is a good thing for the continued rule of law in this country.
posted by Walt at 8:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home