Supreme Court Ruling On Bush’s Detaining of “Enemy Combatants”
So the Supreme Court rules that Bush deliberately disobeyed the law.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.
And you get this kind of analysis from the lawyers…
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, who has represented more than 200 Guantanamo inmates, said, “What this says to the administration is that you can no longer decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people. It upheld the rule of law in this country and determined that the executive has gone beyond the constitutional and international law.”
So reading between the lines a little bit… Congress people had recommended to BushCo to do have their military tribunals legitimately by pass such and such law in 2002… but the Bush administration decided it was better to do it illegally.
And yet…would it be any more “legitimate” to put together an already “legalized” tribunal based on laws that hypothetically had been passed in 2002 (which the Supreme Court would by now have “upheld”)? Would the laws be legitimate? And would the question of legality STILL all be based on the veto or withheld veto of nine unelected and un-juried judges? Judges appointed by an indirectly “elected” (questionable) executive?
I am asking — do we and our colleagues and friends intend to continue to give credence to this system of “justice” by debating the “merits” and weakness of such decisions, thereby giving them social legitimacy —- as if they deserve ANY respect? Is “following the rule of law?” in itself a “good,” even when that structure of law supports and creates and defends the rule of powerful minorities, some with “limited liability,”and a constitutionally and legally condoned and legitimized hierarchy of “rights” that places property “rights” above individual and human rights? Is there ANY justification for celebrating when this structure of law is upheld, defended, strengthened? Or are we instead sabotaging any hope for creating justice and democracy by acting as though “upholding the law” as it is solves anything? Aren’t we defusing the badly needed public outrage that should go off like a firecracker on the Fourth of July? Do we want to keep playing the game and jumping through the hoops?
Just my opinion, but I don’t think enough real thinking goes into the discussion of the “pros and cons” of this or any other court decisions, or the Congress’ partisan and laughable plans to “legalize” the illegitimate, by wiping up the executive’s crapping on rights with the papered proliferation of new powers. As long as the style of play is what we focus on, I don’t see how we’ll ever change the rules so the people call the shots.
One more illegitimate legality will hardly be opposed or forestalled, until people stop seeing the “legal” as equivalent to the “legitimate.” Writing laws that kill rights is easy. Getting appointed judges to uphold them is even easier. I can’t see how we can change the rules of this losing game by remaining dilettantes of political / judicial trivia. We have a court saying IT is the “decider” and an executive saying HE is the “decider.” (And a lapdog Congress saying he’s right).
When will The People DECIDE?
- Posted by BenGPrice@aol.com, CELDF
on July 9th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
First off, we “The People” are the ones responsible for this political mess we find ourselves in today. We have come to believe that a two party system IS a democracy. Further we, “The People” have abdicated rule to “rich and powerful”, perhaps in the mistaken belief that common every day people cannot contribute anything of value to the governing of this great nation.
The most grievous failure on our part is act of disavowing our own responsibility in the whole scandal-ridden election fund raising process. We elect, usually, all ready rich and powerful men and women, to our federal government. Why, because they can raise the money necessary to finance an hugely expensive campaign.
These elected people generally start out with stout hearts and genuine desires to contribute to our overall good. However, they are ALWAYS corrupted by the innate desire to keep the POWER, and succumb to the “evils” of constant need to replenish their re-election war chests.
We Americans have a old saying, “Absolute power, corrupts absolutely!”. This applies to every political office. It is human nature to want to stay in the limelight and be labeled “powerful”. We cannot blame individuals who fall prey to this desire to stay in office (or perhaps, rise in rank to another higher office!) Well, we real can and do, but we still must accept responsibility for the SYSTEM that inevitably corrupts moral leaders.
For all that said, there is a way out of this political mess. The first step would be to stop the special interest groups from contributing to re-election campaigns. We have tried, well politicians have feebly tried, to restrict this wholesale sellout. It is time “the people” have a direct say in reforming the campaign re-election process.
The solution is oh so simple. Instead of each candidate raising funds for the election campaign, the Federal Government finances every single candidates campaign to a Federal office. Then the Federal Election Commission, would regulate all campaign expenditures, insuring a fair and equal (well, at least monetarily) campaign.
Each valid candidate would get the exact same amount to run an election campaign. Notice, the term “valid”. Now, with this new federally financed election campaign in place. it would be easy for a “common” man, or woman, to become a US Congress person.
The first thing that would then happen to our government, would be REAL input from common men and women of this great country. Next, our two-party system would fall apart. There would be no need to subscribe, or swear allegiance to a national fund raising cabal. Politicians would then be able to express their stout hearts and their truly good intentions, without fear of losing (you didn’t think Voters, did you?) financial backing.
Our great (and I do mean GREAT) founding fathers did not foresee the problems that would arise caused by the great cost needed to run an election campaign. However, they did express their fundamental ideas of a nation governed “By the people, and For the people”