Is Bush just going to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo?

[Cyrano]

The Supreme Court has ruled that Bush can't ignore the Geneva Conventions, can't hold prisoners indefinitely without a trial, can't torture them, and they've all but called him a war criminal.

Yet, if anything at Gitmo has changed, I haven't read or heard about it. He's totally ignored laws passed by congress that he
doesn't like and now he's virtually told the SCOTUS justices to go Cheney themselves. And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. How can the supreme court enforce their ruling? Who can they order to arrest him?

If we can ever get Bush and his gang of thugs out of office, they must be held accountable. The offense of high crimes and misdemeanors is an impeachable offense, but don't hold your breath for congress to act. However, the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by these miserable neanderthals are not pardonable. They must be tried and if/when found guilty, be put away where they can never again see a single day of freedom.

[bluerum]

1. You ask rhetorically of course. He may lay some legal land mines

to delay and cripple any attempts at prosecution but the boy king will do what ever wants.

edit for sp.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. If he does, a Writ of Mandamus can be filed to compel him to follow the

Supreme Court edict.

And if he ignores THAT, then maybe the REST of the country, Congress, and the judiciary will wake up to the fact that the executive branch is the ONLY branch, democracy is moribund, and we are in the middle of a fascist dictatorship.

[Junkdrawer]

3. And what are you going to do about it? I thought so...

Only Democrats obey the Supreme Court....Suckers...

[sabbat hunter]

4. if he ignores

the SCOTUS then we have a solid case for impeachment.

[Junkdrawer]

6. So? We've had a solid case for impeachment....

War President - Corporate Media - Republican Congress

[sabbat hunter]

24. not really

we really havent had a solid case for impeachment. did he lie about WMD, sure but not under oath so it isnt impeachable. what president hasnt lied?


if we are going to support impeachment, we have to make sure it is well known that it is a fairly major reason. we cannot go back and forth with impeachments between the democrats and republicans. I want to make sure it is something we can nail his ass to the wall with. no if ands or buts about. no borderline issues.

[Junkdrawer]

25. ACLU Panel Urges Impeachment Over NSA Spying

ACLU Panel Urges Impeachment Over NSA Spying
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - While White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asserting Monday that the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program was a vital tool in the war against terrorism, a panel assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union was arguing that President Bush should be impeached over the spying program.

"If the political alignment in the country were otherwise, impeachment would be a no-brainer," said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.

In December, the New York Times disclosed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity.

Since that time the program's legality has been debated, especially over whether the president violated the law when he authorized the interception of electronic communications without first obtaining permission from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

....

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200602/POL20060221a.html

And that's just the first link from a Google search. We've been in a Constitutional Crisis for a while...it's just that the Corporate Media chooses to ignore it.

[sabbat hunter]

26. we have been in a

constitutional crisis since 2000.

but that being said as bad as bush is, I want to make sure we get him on something that we can nail his ass to the wall with. I dont want any cries from republicans that the impeachment is because of revenge for clintons impeachment.

remember when Nixon's committee hearings started, even the republicans were against him by that point. thats what i want. it so bad that even his own party will impeach him.

[Junkdrawer]

27. You could have videotape of Bush & Cheney knocking over a bank...

and the Republican Congress would find reasons of National Security for the President to exert his Executive Privilege to appropriate bank funds.

[tavalon]

14. Like we haven't had one (actually more than one) for some time?

In fascism, you just get to be grateful not to be taken away in the night. Goose step, baby, goose step!

[sandnsea]

5. Congress has to write the law

For a constitutional judicial process for the detainees. That was what the decision said.

[ngant17]

9. if they are POWs, they only need to follow Geneva conventions

Why is a separate "constitutional judicial process" needed or warranted? As POWs, they have a process known as the Geneva conventions on war. Enemy combatants are POWs. The US president is violating numerous international laws to which the US has committed itself to obey.

[sandnsea]

12. The constitution makes Geneva Convention law

It is, in part, because our Constitution says that treaties are law that we have a problem with Gitmo. Therefore, Congress has to figure out a process that gives the detainees the rights they're entitled to, under the Constitution which automatically means under the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court did not say they had to be released, but that they had to have their rights and Congress has to write the law because that's what Congress does.

Don't ask me about the signing statement after Congress writes the law, those are a separate outrage all on their own.

[liberal N proud]

7. In his pea sized brain, laws only apply to the common people

not the elite or in other words, him and his base.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Congress will pass a law establishing kangaroo kourts

And we will proceed with the execution of bin laden's driver and other assorted idiots unfortunate enough to be caught up in our brief attempt to look like we were trying to capture bin laden.

Who in Congress will have the balls to vote against this? Certainly not nearly enough to block passage or fillibuster. We wouldn't want to be SOFT ON TERRA would we?

Of course a miracle could happen and Congress could fail to enable yet more dictatorial powers for il Dunce, and then Busholini will simply continue to hold and not charge the thousands held in our Gulag, of which Gitmo is just one camp.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. Actually The Court Ruled That HE Could Not Do Those Things Without

Congressional approval. Now wingers are lining up to give him that approval. In the end, nothing may change at all other than they write laws to make these war crimes legal in the States. Wonderful huh?

[Junkdrawer]

11. Just like the NSA stuff...The pResident disobeys the laws...

and the laws are changed.

Democracy, The Rule of Law: just Political Theatre...

[Cyrano]

16. If congress "legalizes" war crimes in the U.S., then IMO, they would

be guilty of, at the very least, aiding and abetting those crimes and should also be put on trial.

At Nuremberg, it wasn't just the leaders who were put on trial. Many SS officers, business people, and judges were also tried and found guilty.

[tavalon]

13. Yes, of course he is

We're you under some misguided idea that we were still a democracy?

[DemonFighterLives]

15. I missed something

When was the Scotus ruling? Any link?
:donut:

[Sgent]

17. Hamdan

about 10 days ago.

www.scotusblog.com has a very good review of it.

[DemonFighterLives]

20. Thank You!

I was out of town and disconnected at the time.
:thumbsup:

[Cyrano]

19. I think it was in early June. It can probably be found in the archives of

any newspaper, or on google.

The vote was five to three with Roberts not voting because he was on a district court that had previously ruled on it. As far as the three who were behind Bush, it was the usual suspects: Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Anthony Kennedy voted with the majority and seems to have become the swing vote on the court.

[DemonFighterLives]

22. Is this the same one where Bush thought they

Ok'ed it by their silence?
Gee, what a dumbo!

[DemonFighterLives]

23. I found the quote in the link from Sgent

In one of those comments, the President said: "In other words, they accepted the use of Guantanamo and the decision I made."

Derived from this:
Stevens wrote: "It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge and we do not today address the Government's power to detain him for the duration of active hositilties in order to prevent...great harm and even death to innocent civilians."

He's the Decider and if he decides on torture, torture it is.
:argh:

[Skidmore]

18. He is going to twist arms in Congress to let him do what he wants

to. His idea of "working" with Congress is to bully it and they will gladly roll over.


Then he'll write another signing statement to explain why he doesn't need to follow the new laws around the subject.

[neoblues]

21. And So Bush Turns to Congress...

and asks them to "fix" such laws as the SCOTUS point out as being problems and to give him whatever "authorizations" he needs.

Meanwhile, he just does as he pleases. After all, the branch of goverment entrusted to "enforce" the laws made by Congress and ruled upon by the SCOTUS, is... ooops, why that's the very one he's in charge of. One doesn't expect the Attorney General, Alberto R. Gonzales (George's very own "creation", "creature", "pet") to even think of enforcing the "Law" unless it's approved by his boss, el jefe jorgé.

[fordnut]

28. Yes

He ignores everything that doesn`t go his way.

[rubberducky]

29. It seems the only people who will hold him accountable

is a world court. We will live with "The Decider`s" opinions for many, many years to come. This admin has not been "checked" to date. Wonder when that time will come.