Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jun 29, 2006.
good news. not that his voting on it would have affected the outcome, but i'm glad roberts had the good sense to recuse himself.
I expected a lot more interest in this decision.
Activist judges. :-/
This decision will last all the way until Bush presents a signing statement...
I am not disagreeing, I am just wondering who you were (primarily) referring to?
As to the decision, there is so much to ponder that I will just give an impression of what immediately springs to my mind:
I would imagine that this ruling would make it difficult for the government to prosecute any of those they are holding, as I am sure much of the evidence might be thrown out due to the manner in which it was gathered (etc).
I also wonder about suits against the government by defendants.
Considering how damaging this may be to the Administration, I would imagine they might pursue a policy of stonewalling or subversion of this ruling, rather than suffer the consequences of following the ruling.
By everyone, actually. This was a pretty important decision. The way I understand it, the administration will now have to go back to Congress to ask for authority for these tribunals, which will trigger a big debate over the treatment of these prisoners, a debate we should have had four years ago. I think the administration will finally be forced to acknowledge that they cannot simply make the rules up as they go along, without any assent from anyone outside of the White House. The larger debate over the entire conduct of the "war on terror" could sharpen in time for the election, in part at least because the Supreme Court has placed a significant portion of it in bounds, not in the shadows of secrecy, where the administration wanted it to remain.
I'm not really sure what to say in response to the ruling. My first reaction is yipee of course. But I just don't see how it's going to really make a difference. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the ramifications. Just thinking he'll find some other way to do what he's been doing.
It would be nice if this administration were somehow forced to start trying prisoners at Guantanamo. If it doesn't happen before 2009 I have a feeling that the illegally obtained evidence will result in many freed detainees and that it will somehow be painted as the fault of the new administration since they didn't go free when Bush was in office.
You just have to love the way the President said he'd be going over the decision with his analysts, or words to that effect (no link, sorry, heard it on NPR the other day). I suppose that's his way of saying he's trying to find a way to ignore the courts ruling.
Possibly, but even more likely he's huddling with Rove to figure out a political strategy to make the Democrats in Congress wear it. You can bet they're lining up support on their side of the aisle, such that if any Democrat objects to any aspect of the White House's legislative proposal, that they'll be painted as "living in a pre-9/11 world." This will be sad, because above all, the Congress should not hand the White House a blank check. They should be insisting on oversight, but you have to know they won't.
I don't know, the Democrats seem to finally (FINALLY!) be waking up. Not much, and not quickly, but there are a few who have realized that there are voters who actually don't like what's happening. It took them 5 years too long to stand up, but now that there are a few, more will follow when they see that the big bad wolf won't devour them the moment they say "maybe, and I'm not making any accusations here, but just possibly we may have acted a tad, or perhaps a skosh too hastily when we voted, purely in the interests of national security and while fully supporting our brave and noble troops, to make war on Iraq. PLEASE DON"T HURT ME!!!"
They're more frickin' timid than a deep-forest deer raised by chipmunks.
Yeah, all indications are that rather than try to work with both parties (ie. being a uniter) Bush will use the issue of the tribunals as a wedge issue (ie. a divider) to once again play politics with our national security, while at the same time accuse the Democrats of the same, and of being weak on terrorists.