comsc US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Tomorrow's paper on today's Supreme Court ruling
Join Email List | About us | AMERICAblog Gay
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff

Tomorrow's paper on today's Supreme Court ruling



| Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK

As an aside, the Post story below notes that Justice Stevens is 86 years old. If he doesn't survive through the end of Bush's term, it's all over (not to mention, we'd still need to win the White House in 2008). Even this landmark victory would have likely been lost. The Supreme Court is the last place we have any chance of holding the Bush administration accountable. I hope to God our liberal groups are planning on taking the next nomination seriously. Enough of the in-fighting, enough of the sitting back and holding your tongue when someone else is leading the battle and stinks at it. The next nomination is it. After that, we lose everything.

Washington Post

While the decision addressed only military commissions, legal analysts said its skeptical view of presidential power could be applied to other areas such as warrantless wiretapping, and that its invocation of the Geneva Conventions could pave the way for new legal claims by detainees held at the military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba....

But the court's action was clearly a setback for the White House. At the high court, its approach to the war on terrorism has suffered the broadest in a series of defeats, and the administration has been sent back to the drawing board in dealing with hundreds of suspected members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda -- at a time when international pressure is mounting to shut down Guantanamo Bay....

Legal analysts said that the court's opinion could lead to a challenge to the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, because wiretapping is already covered by a federal statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, just as military commissions were, in the court's view, covered by the UCMJ.

"The same reasoning would seem to apply to the NSA case, because the argument that the authorization to use military force enables them to ignore FISA goes down the drain," said Joseph P. Onek, senior counsel of the Constitution Project, a Washington-based civil liberties organization that opposed the commissions.
NYT
"It appears to be about as broad a holding as you could imagine," said one administration lawyer, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the ruling. "It's very broad, it's very significant, and it's a slam."....

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the United States was legally bound by Common Article 3, as the provision is known (it is common to all four Geneva Conventions). He said the article "affords some minimal protection" to detainees even when the forces they represent are not signatories to the conventions themselves.


blog comments powered by Disqus