Bush and war crimes - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 06-29-2006, 07:42 PM

In a fantastic ruling today, the Supreme Court determined that the President is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty in conducting the war on terror. The Court specifically held that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does, in fact, apply to al-Qaeda prisoners. What this means is that any form of torture which we have been utilizing (such as waterboarding, hypothermia, etc.) is illegal under our treaty obligations. Violation of these obligations constitutes war crimes and exposes the violator to the death penalty.

Quite clearly, the floor of conduct established by the President for interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners is illegal. Further such interrogations would be war crimes under US law (through our treaty obligations). Past conduct isn't likely to be prosecuted since Bush was working under the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, though there have been some of us who claimed all along that what he was doing was illegal and that Bybee's torture memo was bogus. In fact, Justice Kennedy in his opinion even noted the Youngstown sliding scale of authority that I said would apply here. Is this to say I am brilliant? Far from it. What it IS to say is that if a fledgling lawyer like myself can figure it out, the brilliant men at the DOJ should have too (and I think did, but caved to political pressure to provide a different, wrong result).

This ruling has HUGE implications for the administration.

Cali Coug · 06-29-2006, 07:59 PM

Here is a great write-up, by the way, for anyone interested.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/06/h...-decision.html

This post focuses more on the illegal use of military tribunals to try al-Qaeda prisoners.

SeattleUte · 06-29-2006, 08:41 PM

Thanks for the link. Here's what I put on CB this morning, shorn of legalese and writing down to the infidels over there:

I read Thomas' dissent and I hear echoes of all the rationalizations supporting internment of Japanese Americans. It's this sordid part of our past that hung over the justices as they considered the detainees' appeal. And I have to ask myself: Are Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito smarter, more moral people than FDR and the Supreme Court justices who sanctioned the WWII interments on the same rationalization that Thomas cites in his dissent? I think not; I don't have much reason to believe that as a nation we're better people now than our ancestors were then. Certainly Bush is not FDR's caliber on any ground, and he's the one, the Supreme Court included, whom we have to trust that these wretched prisoners will recive due process. There's already a dicrediting stench of power abuse emanating from Guantanamo. So I think that given this reasoning, and the indubitable fact that nothing should be a higher priority than that our country protect civil liberties and due process rights of outcast even loathed minorities, I support the decision.

Archaea · 06-29-2006, 10:34 PM

I have not read the decision, but wonder why a military cannot make a distinction between a legitimate prisoner of war as opposed to noncitizens threatening our country out of terror. The distinction is clear to me, and threatening noncitizens who are not making war but merely killing does not concern me as much as far as civil liberties of citizens or legitimate prisoners of war.

Noncitizens who have not entered this country, who have not paid taxes should not receive the same protections as our citizens.

il Padrino Ute · 06-30-2006, 02:06 AM

It's fantastic only to liberals. The point of war is to win. The terrorists are not beholden to any rules of war, yet you're happy that the US now has to treat them as if they are protected by the Genevea Convention? I was unaware that Al Quaida was there that day. I'm not saying that it is right to torture them - I'm jsut saying that if we want ot win the war against terror, we need to be able to do what is necessary to win it. On which side is the left in this war?

My question is when has the Supreme Court ever had the power to usurp the Office of the President during war?

Will the left be this giddy if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Cali Coug · 06-30-2006, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It's fantastic only to liberals. The point of war is to win. The terrorists are not beholden to any rules of war, yet you're happy that the US now has to treat them as if they are protected by the Genevea Convention? I was unaware that Al Quaida was there that day. I'm not saying that it is right to torture them - I'm jsut saying that if we want ot win the war against terror, we need to be able to do what is necessary to win it. On which side is the left in this war?

My question is when has the Supreme Court ever had the power to usurp the Office of the President during war?

Will the left be this giddy if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Come on, Il Padrino. Yes, we are trying to "win" the war on terror. I fail to see how banning torture on human beings prevents us from winning.

Scientific (not to mention anecdotal) evidence indicates that torture is useless. You do get some information, but you have no way of knowing if that information is accurate or not. In fact, psychology studies show that people will almost inevitably say whatever it is that they think the interrogator wants them to say in order to prevent the harm from occurring.

Furthermore, I want this country to be recognizable after the war. I don't want to be a part of a society that has come to believe that torture is a valid form of interrogation. We entered into the Geneva Convention precisely to avoid becoming that kind of society, and to stand as a model for the rest of the world.

When can the Courts stand up to the President during war? When he breaks the law. Are you of the opinion that ANYTHING the President does is permissible? I doubt it. So who should check his authority? The courts should. Congress has attempted to check his authority on multiple occasions, and they have been met with ridicule and contempt by the Bush administration. Bush's legal arguments have been laughable and it is nice to see the Court call him on it.

Why would anyone presume that the executive has absolute authority to wage war today? It hasn't ever been the case before. How can anyone reconcile that view with the powers given to Congress during times of war in Article I? If those constitutional provisions have no effect during times of war, when do they have effect? If the President oversteps his bounds (as he clearly has done here), why shouldn't the Court step in and correct the issue, since the Constitution gives them that authority?

Don't try to change the subject with Roe v. Wade. I am tired of conservatives trying to use that case to destroy all credibility of the judiciary. They should be far more cautious in tearing down a branch of government. Think of how conservatives discuss the judiciary today- activist court, base decisions on foreign law, ignore original intent, liberals, etc. Be careful in your attacks. If the credibility of the judiciary disappears, the entire system of checks and balances goes with it- something conservatives apparently wouldn't mind if it would secure them a few more votes.

Cali Coug · 06-30-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have not read the decision, but wonder why a military cannot make a distinction between a legitimate prisoner of war as opposed to noncitizens threatening our country out of terror. The distinction is clear to me, and threatening noncitizens who are not making war but merely killing does not concern me as much as far as civil liberties of citizens or legitimate prisoners of war.

Noncitizens who have not entered this country, who have not paid taxes should not receive the same protections as our citizens.

I think you are very misinformed on this issue. Some of the individuals being treated as illegal combatants are American citizens who were caught on American soil (see, for example, Padilla). Even if that were not the case, your tax language is peculiar. Is paying taxes what gives you your rights? I think the founding fathers would have strongly disagreed with your views.

Your view assumes that our rights flow from our government, rather than being inalienable rights inherent from our existence. If our rights flow from our government, then our government is just in removing our "rights."

Government has the power to coerce in order to maintain order (thus protecting our rights against infringement from others). Not paying taxes can result in a diminishment of our rights, it should NEVER result in an extinguishment of our rights.

This post makes you sound like a bit of a socialist! I am surprised at you.

Archaea · 06-30-2006, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you are very misinformed on this issue. Some of the individuals being treated as illegal combatants are American citizens who were caught on American soil (see, for example, Padilla). Even if that were not the case, your tax language is peculiar. Is paying taxes what gives you your rights? I think the founding fathers would have strongly disagreed with your views.

Your view assumes that our rights flow from our government, rather than being inalienable rights inherent from our existence. If our rights flow from our government, then our government is just in removing our "rights."

Government has the power to coerce in order to maintain order (thus protecting our rights against infringement from others). Not paying taxes can result in a diminishment of our rights, it should NEVER result in an extinguishment of our rights.

This post makes you sound like a bit of a socialist! I am surprised at you.

You must be a litigator, but somebody seeking truth, you are not.

There are other options than believing from my arguments that I believe our rights flow from government.

No, people who contract together reserve rights for those who also contract and for their offspring. Noncitizens have not contracted together, so the group may deny the outsiders rights once they enter into our realm and dominion. You knew that argument but sought out a red herring or a strawman.

Once in a while, you might try honest discussion, instead of legal argumentation and distortion.

Those who participate in the contract reserve the rights. The nonparticipating aliens have no rights. I'm okay with that. They would have rights if they did not threaten us, but by threatening us in violation of all standards of decency they have stripped themselves of rights, regardless what the damn Hague says. They're just a bunch of European socialists whom I disrespect.

Cali Coug · 06-30-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

You must be a litigator, but somebody seeking truth, you are not.

There are other options than believing from my arguments that I believe our rights flow from government.

No, people who contract together reserve rights for those who also contract and for their offspring. Noncitizens have not contracted together, so the group may deny the outsiders rights once they enter into our realm and dominion. You knew that argument but sought out a red herring or a strawman.

Once in a while, you might try honest discussion, instead of legal argumentation and distortion.

Those who participate in the contract reserve the rights. The nonparticipating aliens have no rights. I'm okay with that. They would have rights if they did not threaten us, but by threatening us in violation of all standards of decency they have stripped themselves of rights, regardless what the damn Hague says. They're just a bunch of European socialists whom I disrespect.

I did know that argument, and I also knew it was a bogus argument so ignored it and moved on to the next logical conclusion. The Constitution applies to everyone equally on US soil, regardless of their status as citizen or "nonparticipating alien." The 14th Amendment does not distinguish based on status as a citizen (in fact, it prohibits such distinctions).

You specifically tied rights to a person's status as a TAXPAYER. I remain shocked you would even advance that as an argument.

By the way, are you suggesting illegal aliens have no rights? If so, give me a minute so I can stop laughing.

Archaea · 06-30-2006, 05:13 AM

I have not researched the applicability of the 14th Amendment to legal aliens, illegal aliens and those detainees not on US soil, soil under US control.

If the current opinions are that it applies to detainees, then I disagree with it as good law. It is bad policy. And the President and Congress should change it or disregard it.

Laws that protect noncitizens not lawfully here should as a matter of policy have rights.

Lawful citizens and aliens should have rights. (Lawful beings).

Unlawful aliens aggressively threatening lawful beings do not deserve the same or similar protections as a matter of policy.

The aggressors never aligned themselves with a foreign nation, joined the army of a foreign nation to engage in lawful war.

These are true aliens disembodied of rights by virtue of their actions.

If they were citizens, or lawful aliens, then the rights should be embued to them.

All other policy is bullshit PR not believed but merely advocated for political advantage.

06-29-2006, 07:42 PM	#1
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Bush and war crimes In a fantastic ruling today, the Supreme Court determined that the President is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty in conducting the war on terror. The Court specifically held that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does, in fact, apply to al-Qaeda prisoners. What this means is that any form of torture which we have been utilizing (such as waterboarding, hypothermia, etc.) is illegal under our treaty obligations. Violation of these obligations constitutes war crimes and exposes the violator to the death penalty. Quite clearly, the floor of conduct established by the President for interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners is illegal. Further such interrogations would be war crimes under US law (through our treaty obligations). Past conduct isn't likely to be prosecuted since Bush was working under the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, though there have been some of us who claimed all along that what he was doing was illegal and that Bybee's torture memo was bogus. In fact, Justice Kennedy in his opinion even noted the Youngstown sliding scale of authority that I said would apply here. Is this to say I am brilliant? Far from it. What it IS to say is that if a fledgling lawyer like myself can figure it out, the brilliant men at the DOJ should have too (and I think did, but caved to political pressure to provide a different, wrong result). This ruling has HUGE implications for the administration.

06-29-2006, 08:41 PM	#3
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Thanks for the link. Here's what I put on CB this morning, shorn of legalese and writing down to the infidels over there: I read Thomas' dissent and I hear echoes of all the rationalizations supporting internment of Japanese Americans. It's this sordid part of our past that hung over the justices as they considered the detainees' appeal. And I have to ask myself: Are Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito smarter, more moral people than FDR and the Supreme Court justices who sanctioned the WWII interments on the same rationalization that Thomas cites in his dissent? I think not; I don't have much reason to believe that as a nation we're better people now than our ancestors were then. Certainly Bush is not FDR's caliber on any ground, and he's the one, the Supreme Court included, whom we have to trust that these wretched prisoners will recive due process. There's already a dicrediting stench of power abuse emanating from Guantanamo. So I think that given this reasoning, and the indubitable fact that nothing should be a higher priority than that our country protect civil liberties and due process rights of outcast even loathed minorities, I support the decision. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

06-29-2006, 10:34 PM	#4
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I have not read the decision, but wonder why a military cannot make a distinction between a legitimate prisoner of war as opposed to noncitizens threatening our country out of terror. The distinction is clear to me, and threatening noncitizens who are not making war but merely killing does not concern me as much as far as civil liberties of citizens or legitimate prisoners of war. Noncitizens who have not entered this country, who have not paid taxes should not receive the same protections as our citizens. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

06-30-2006, 02:06 AM	#5
il Padrino Ute Board Pinhead Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah. Posts: 15,941	It's fantastic only to liberals. The point of war is to win. The terrorists are not beholden to any rules of war, yet you're happy that the US now has to treat them as if they are protected by the Genevea Convention? I was unaware that Al Quaida was there that day. I'm not saying that it is right to torture them - I'm jsut saying that if we want ot win the war against terror, we need to be able to do what is necessary to win it. On which side is the left in this war? My question is when has the Supreme Court ever had the power to usurp the Office of the President during war? Will the left be this giddy if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned? __________________ "The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.

06-30-2006, 05:13 AM	#10
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I have not researched the applicability of the 14th Amendment to legal aliens, illegal aliens and those detainees not on US soil, soil under US control. If the current opinions are that it applies to detainees, then I disagree with it as good law. It is bad policy. And the President and Congress should change it or disregard it. Laws that protect noncitizens not lawfully here should as a matter of policy have rights. Lawful citizens and aliens should have rights. (Lawful beings). Unlawful aliens aggressively threatening lawful beings do not deserve the same or similar protections as a matter of policy. The aggressors never aligned themselves with a foreign nation, joined the army of a foreign nation to engage in lawful war. These are true aliens disembodied of rights by virtue of their actions. If they were citizens, or lawful aliens, then the rights should be embued to them. All other policy is bullshit PR not believed but merely advocated for political advantage. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

06-29-2006, 07:59 PM	#2
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Here is a great write-up, by the way, for anyone interested. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/06/h...-decision.html This post focuses more on the illegal use of military tribunals to try al-Qaeda prisoners.