What exactly does this Supreme Court ruling mean ?

[kentuck]

John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. When he says that what this White House did was "illegal" per the laws of the United States, what does that mean? Does that mean that laws were broken? How serious are these laws that were broken? Is it equivalent to jaywalking ? Is it equivalent to murder? Is it a crime or misdemeanor that can lead to an impeachment of the President? Does ignorance of the law or disregard for the law make it OK? What should be done about this?

[welshTerrier2]

1. context? what decision does this refer to?

got a link?

[Master Mahon]

2. Yep they were illegal

but don't do anything about it, and no one would do anything anyway.
As far as Bush is concerned, the opinion said nothing bad about 'signing statements' so he'll sign and make a statement and not a damn thing will be changed.

[Faux pas]

3. I think that the bushbaby will be throwing a huge tantrum over this.

Seriously though, I think this is a victory for humankind and we should celebrate it accordingly.

[displacedtexan]

4. SCOTUSblog has the best interpretation so far.

LINK

[benburch]

5. Thanks for that link!

:yourock:

[MNWild]

6. Headlines should be screaming SCOTUS: Bush, Gonzales condoning WAR CRIMES

As scotusblog points out:
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administration has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

Seems very clear to me, but so does the illegality of warrantless wiretaps, signing statements, etc., etc. ad nauseum. It is good to hear the talking heads call this a major defeat to the overreaching power-grabbing fascists.