Neither Congress nor Bush will touch the Geneva convention. The military would be up in arms about it and the international costs are immense.
Bush had already made some noise about closing Gitmo. Now he has an “excuse” to do so.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 29 2006 17:48 utc | 3

I’m afraid cloned poster is correct. Although when I heard this during the night I was sorely tempted to break out the Lindauer, blow the whistles and ring the bells, this result means very little for those poor souls in limbo on earth known as Gitmo.
It has been apparent BushCo had been forewarned of this result and has been attempting to turn a skid into a seemingly deliberate swerve.
Still it’s not time to beat ourselves up either because this judgement can be a sign that the trickle of opposition to this tyranny has become a river. For that reason alone it is worthwhile for amerikans to gird their loins and prepare for the assault from Fox et al of tales of murdering terrorists being allowed to walk the street. OBL’s driver is going to cop even worse vilification than he has done ever before. new ‘witnesses’ and evidence is bound to suddenly be uncovered.
To misquote Monty Python an argument is not simple contradiction. So interesting diversions may be in order.
The local TV at the south end of the planet is making a big deal about this is the first instance of a president being overruled by the supreme court in a time of war.
Is it? The point to make here is that the US isn’t at war. It suffered a criminal act of sabotage by a group of individuals not a nation state and used that as an excuse to invade a nation state totally unconnected with that criminal act. That doesn’t make war. blah blah blah. Important to try and set the debate on the citizen’s terms rather than the terms of the citizen’s employees in the legislature or executive.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 29 2006 21:03 utc | 5

The point to make here is that the US isn’t at war
i agree. but does this affect how we move forward w/ charges of war crimes?

Posted by: b real | Jun 29 2006 21:34 utc | 7

More from Lederman at SCOTUSblog

[The court holds t]hat Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. (See also the AMK concurrence: “The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered ‘war crimes,’ punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U. S. C. § 2441.”) This ruling has enormous implications for the Administration’s detention and interrogation practices, because the Administration’s legal conclusion that CA3 does not apply, and that we will not apply it as a matter of practice, was the key linchpin to the entire edifice of legal maneuvers that led to waterboarding, hypothermia, degradation, etc. See my post here. Per today’s decision, the Administration appears to have been engaged in war crimes, which are subejct to the death penalty. Although I don’t think due process would allow prosecution based on conduct previously undertaken on OLC’s advice that CA3 did not apply (after all, the Chief Justice concluded, in the D.C. Circuit, that CA3 did not apply), practices going forward are bound to change, and quick. (I’m sure the memos are being drafted and distributed in the CIA and DOD even as we “speak.”)

Posted by: b | Jun 29 2006 21:55 utc | 9

Help me out here. If we’re at war in Iraq, (not with Iraq, but at war in their country) Bush claims to have the right to monitor phone records without warrants, monitor bank transactions to catch al Quaida, etc. But as soon as we pull out of that country, then we are no longer in a state of war and then Bush loses all the powers he has been racking up for himself? hummm?
Sheesh! No wonder he says that it will be up to a future administration to end the debacle in Iraq!
Oh, and before you break out the hooch…
…Congress can reverse almost every aspect of the decision as it specifically pertains to these military commissions

It could abrogate any treaties it wants. It could amend the UCMJ to allow military commissions with the rules established by the President. It has already stripped the Court of jurisdiction to hear future habeas corpus challenges by Guantanamo detainees, and could act to further strip the Court of jurisdiction in these areas. We will undoubtedly hear calls by Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Tom Coburn (and perhaps Joe Lieberman?) et al. for legislation which would accomplish exactly that.
…
Congress could amend the UCMJ to exempt military commissions from the law of war (either generally or as it pertains to Al Qaeda members), casting into serious doubt the ongoing validity of the Court’s ruling as it pertain to these commissions. Or, Congress could simply abrogate the Geneva Conventions altogether, which would certainly free the administration from those requirements. I would speculate that the Republican-controlled Congress could, without a great deal of difficulty, enact legislation exempting Al Qaeda members from the Article 3 protections. …

And being as the US government is an ongoing bi-partisan criminal enterprise it benefits them to do just that.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 29 2006 22:34 utc | 11

Well perhaps BushCo and the Chamber of Peoples Deputies are going to find themselves enmeshed in the net of governance by foreign treaty.
That happens when national governments, particularly those governments which centralise some of the functions of a federation of semi independent states such as the U.S. is alleged to be, use the central government’s role as chief arbiter of foreign affairs to force laws upon the states on the grounds that the whole nation is bound to adhere to these laws, because central government has made the nation ie the confederation of states obligated to follow that law as signatory to a treaty saying just that.
Anyone following? Narcotics laws are a classic example. When a state may wish to allow it’s residents to slurp Kava like it’s going out of style and pass a law saying just that; the federal Government can intervene.
If after the usual threats and bribes the state government is sensing it may be on a roll with ‘kava de-criminalisation’, it will resist the usual carrots, flattery or ‘quid pro quo’s.
Say for example it has found a relatively pointless side issue that voters will unite behind, and back the state government. Even shame be upon them, vote for the assholes once more, despite holes the size of semi-trailers on every major road, unemployment running at 16% and the state legislature’s nickname changing from the ‘bear pit’ to the ‘snake pit’ because instead of brawling; the ‘club’ has become famed for the frequent sightings of the ‘one eyed trouser snake’ as legislators and their highly paid assistants alternate between ‘a quick game of hide the sausage’ and ‘spearing the bearded clam’.
So that, determined to keep the voters oblivious to the bacchanalian orgy on the hill, the State Government remains steadfast on the kava issue.
But the Federal Government equally anxious, wants to ensure that all drug related income streams remain under their purview, and drag out the heavy artillery.
They tell the state that much as they would like to have a healthy debate on the pro’s and cons of kava, because they understand there may indeed be a beneficial aspect to kava, unfortunately they have no choice. Kava is scheduled on the UN Vienna Convention against Illicit Drug Trafficking which the US has ratified.
Lodge writ/injunction/sheets of paper (foolscap of course)covered in legalese to Supreme Court, stir with putter/cigar combo on several occasions and wait.
Lo and behold; once again the Supremes have raced to the rescue.
Now, the point I wanted to make here is that separation of powers being what they are (non existent), and the Geneva Conventions being as unequivocal as they are, given the number of times that the Supremes have appeared on both sides of the fence excused only by some tiny variation in the two situation’s circumstance, forcing the Supremes into a particular gig may entertain with some extremely uncomfortable contortions.
Put simply; forgetting about the wimps, losers and plain greedies loitering in the rethugs’ shadows, if amerikan citizens maintain pressure about war crimes they may force a “Supremes Live at The Geneva Convention Center” encore.
How that would play is anyone’s guess. A capella would be off the programme given the difficult harmony, but, it would be mystifying to see how these assholes could extricate themselves without freeing up other, older, decisions. The citizens may provoke some light entertainment, or even a score for a soundtrack of the prequel to “The Disunited States of America”, the movie.
Let’s face it; if the collection of frauds, misfits and no-hopers known as “The Leaders of The Free World” cannot, in fact lead; the least they can do is make the world laugh at their clownish antics.

Posted by: M’nM -Mixed and Metaphor’d | Jun 30 2006 2:00 utc | 13

Oh, yeah… this decision is really, really going to hurt Bush.
And right on cue, a new bin Laden tape surfaces to praise the fiction of al-Zarqawi so that the reflexive mouth breathers can accuse the SCOTUS of being “soft on terrorism”.
I’ll pass on the champagne for now.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 30 2006 5:40 utc | 15

Not up yet but ABC TV Australia should have probably in about a 1/2 day or so video of appearance on “Lateline” of Maj Mori, who represents David Hicks one of the 10 Gitmo detainees who was facing the kangaroo court. Worth a look, just for the very common sense and no BS commentary.

Posted by: YY | Jun 30 2006 14:18 utc | 17

uncca- yes, apparently portions of congress are now preparing legislation to make it possible for Bush to be above the law. tar and feather the bastards and send them back to their swamps. And then we’ll prosecute them, too.
As Glenn Greenwald (3 posts- Will Hamdan Have an Effect, Addington’s exploding head and the Sig. of Hamden…oh hell, and “Media, others” so make that 4 –and comments, too, from ppl who practice or teach law) states, the precedent has been set that makes Bush’s actions violations of the law.
and undermines Yoo, et al, and makes it possible to have a legal ruling to prosecute because eventually they cannot run, nor hide, whether in Congress or the Executive.
For me, there is NO “forgiveness” for what has happened. Punishment is necessary to serve as a precedent and a check to power. Any legislator who serves at this time knows Cheney is the living dead and he or his zombies will resurrect themselves at the first opportunity, once this one has been destroyed.
The more Americans learn about Bush, the more apparent this will be to conventional wisdom, imho. Americans are nothing if not sticklers for an eye for an eye.
They also do not like anyone acting as tho they are above the law, esp when it comes to invasions of privacy.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 30 2006 16:20 utc | 19

Will this Supreme Court decision have any effect on the CIA secret prisons or rendition flights to other countries for torture? Not much in the news about those operations anymore. I’ll hold off drinking champagne until more is exposed. Prisoners don’t have any rights if no one knows they exist.

Posted by: Rick Happ | Jul 3 2006 16:08 utc | 21