Bush wrong about Guantanamo breaking news Supreme court rules

[Piffle]

Bush Wrong On Guantanamo: Court
Updated: 15:17, Thursday June 29, 2006
US President George W Bush overstepped his authority with his plans to make Guantanamo prisoners stand trial for war crimes, the Supreme Court has ruled.

From Sky News

well what a surprise . That'll make a lot a people happy here in Colorado,especially Boulder as it's very anti-war(as am I) and Bush. The State Legislature here is trying to push a legislation through to bring the troups home.

i have to laugh. i would think GWB would know his limits as the president!!! idiot.

That is good news. Especially since he's been trying to pack the SC full of neocon judges. I mean, what's the logic of saying they aren't prisoners of war, but they have to stand trial for war crimes? If you are accusing them of war crimes, surely the Geneva Convetion applies to them...

well there's a real blinder.

Why should he? Any more than Blair knows his limits as Prime Minister, viz. the recent rulings on holding refugees at Belmarsh indefinitely, etc.

Message withdrawn

Lunarx is being a bit optimistic about what any president might know and understand. Very smart people with the right training produce quite different interpretations of the US constitution, and the Geneva conventions aren't trivial either.

The need to keep Catholics and Evangelicals happy over abortion means that the packing edam fears is actually quite hard to achieve, and there are so many other 3rd rails in that game that packing is actually very hard. Also system was specifically designed so that a judge once elected is answerable only to his own conscience, so they don't even do what they say they'll do.

But what it does tell us is that most if not all these guys are either low level foot soldiers, or innocent.
The prisoner who brought the case was apparently Osama's driver. Presumably we caught Hitler's driver, cook, cleaner, tailor etc. Did they get tortured then put into a show trial ?
No.
If there was a real case with evidence, or at least evidence that wasn't got through torture, then there would be a proper trial. A conviction of someone behind 9/11 would be great for GW Bush, yet there are none. THis tells me that even if they are bad guys, the evidence is mostly that they were in the same general area as the real bad guys who got away because the US wasn't prepared to use serious force to get them straight after 9/11.

Domini, one of Bush's tame appointments couldn't hear this case because he'd been involved at an earlier stage. He's voted consistently neocon - never wavered. Packing is a real risk and shouldn't be underplayed.

Don't know much about the balance between Catholics and Evangelicals in relation to abortion though - can you expand on that one? My assumption would be both are opposed, surely?

Agree with your penultimate and final points, btw.

for once I think you're quite right dc.

well, mostly - surely neocon judges do keep the evangeicals and catholics happy?

Neocon is not a single consistent view.
Most are opposed to Roe vs Wade but for differing reasons. Some Cons push the parts of the constitution that give states strong local decision making. Thus they oppose a Federal law on abortion, but may be neutral on local ones.

There is also a libertarian wedge to NeoCons, who tend to like state rights.

It must be said, that the logic of Ros vs Wade is to me quite incomprehensible. I'm not against abortion, but I fail to see how privacy applies in this context, and I'm not alone in this.
Also there is no overall strong consensus in any large group, especially any educated one against all abortion. A friend of my mother had the misfortune to get pregnant in Ireland before WWII. She was told by doctors it would kill her. So she and the baby died. No abortion was offered or sought.

Nowadays, few would ban this sort of abortion. Others would allow it in the case of rape and/or incest, and so on, but only a minority are that keen on (for instance) the abortion of pregancy on the grounds of sex selection.
Some just want the last possible date moved.

It must also be understood that the US constitution is profoundly differrent from the bollocks the French tried to foist on Europe a few years back.
It is more a set of limits on the power of government. A concept alien to the EU. Thus there is no "right" to abortion in the USA. The court merely said that the government had no right to stop you having one.
Thus you cannot make the government pay for it, for example.

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor even an American. Please consult a qualified attourney before suing the US government.

But what's the thing about keeping the evangelicals and catholics happy? How does that affect Roe vs Wade?

Don't know the detail of Roe vs Wade either but I'd guess privacy comes into it because abortion is a private matter ie an individual choice and not one other people, inc. the state, should stick their noses into?

There are many restrictions on what you can do with your own body. You're banned from a drug that makes you high, but not one that kills a foetus. You may be prevented from doing harm to yourself, including physical restraint.
Thus RvW is not a general principal.

It odes not disentagle the mess of handdling of the rights of the child ?
What is a child ? A freshly fertilsed egg ? Just after you cut the umbilical ?