According to Jack Balkin, the decision says that if the administration wants to continue these practices, they can do so if they get legislative authorization from Congress. It's their Congress, their party: make the case to them.

 "Unreal.

Damn. They are one bunch of relentless jerks."

Well, I disagree that Reed is a relentless jerk.  He is, however, very misguided on this issue.  Our President, our country, has just been deemed by our own Supreme Court to have committed War crimes - violations of the Geneva Conventions.  But, Reed sees this as a plus for the Republicans???  Are our American voters so crass, so barbaric, so un-Christian, that they will think it is good that we are a nation committing war crimes, with a President ordering that war crimes be committed?  I refuse to believe that.  What Democrats need to do, is crawl out from under their beds and point out what this ruling means - that Bush = Milosevic, both leaders who ordered war crimes.  We need to make sure the voters know that they voted in a man who is a war criminal.  

This is part of the whole pattern of crime in the government, and that crime is Republican crime, committed by Republicans, to favor Republicans.  Our real problem is that we are so afraid of Karl Rove, the boogie man, that we just can't seem to find the courage to say these things.  Do we really have that much disrespect for Christian America? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, that is the Rove response alright. But what is the point? The proper response is to quote Hamdan's lawyer who said "I think he (Hamdan) was awe-struck that the court would rule for him, and give a little man like him an equal chance," Commander Swift said. "Where he's from, that is not true." If Rove, Bush, Cheney, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and apparently you, get your way, it won't be true of America either. What is the point of wining if "winning" means America ceases to be America?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The LAST thing the D's need to do is fear Karl Rove. The only way to deal with a bully is to kick him in his jewels.  If six years of cowering democrats and the sorry spectacle of Dianne Feinstein burnng the Bill of Rights on the Senate Floor hasn't convinced you, this won't. 

John Yoo was on NewsHour with a former prosecutor who filed an amicus in the USG's case; John Marguiles of the Northwestern University law school, and  Neal Katyal, at Georgetown University Law Center who represented Hamdal.

 Yoo: So I bet what's going to happen, as President Bush said today, they're going to go to Congress, and, as they did at the end of last year, get another statute which overrules these same justices again, who've been overruled in their Detainee Act of 2005.

But that's going to take a lot of effort and political time and energy, which the court could have saved the president and Congress, if they had just left things alone and let the president and Congress fight between themselves over these matters.

NEAL KATYAL: That's exactly right. And let me say, you know, I respect Professor Yoo a lot on some things, but on this, I think, when he says the court could have saved the country a problem by basically letting the president do what he wanted, I think that fundamentally misunderstands the Constitution and the separation of powers.

As Justice Stevens today for the court said: We have a government of divided powers, and the president can't just make the rules up as he goes along and act as the prosecutor and judge and jury in these things.

Some body's got to take a stand or just re-open Star Chamber.

I do not trust the Congress, democrats and republicans as presently constituted with this president to do anything other than let the American legal system as presently constituted work its course.  Hard cases make bad law, but these jokers make even worse mischief.  The risks hardly outweigh the dangers.

I hope it stalls. It is ironic in the extreme that it Osama bin Laden's driver to show America once again how much of heritage of justice it has frittered away in just five years.

I don't think the aforementioned issues will do anything to convince Independent voters to vote Republican.

Yes. It was the Independents and their votes that have given GWB the edge based on the terrorism issue. They seem to be over that now. Without them, Bush's pull has no push.

Click here for the Users Help Forum.

Yoo:

But that's going to take a lot of effort and political time and energy, which the court could have saved the president and Congress, if they had just left things alone and let the president and Congress fight between themselves over these matters.

Wait a minute. It's the administration that's caused the problem here. It's the administration that decided to invent a whole new legal fabric in order to deal with a bunch of jumped-up international criminals.

In this country we have one of if not the most highly evolved judicial systems on the planet, a system that has been able to cope with just about every bizarre civil and criminal challenge thrown at it.

Meanwhile, we in parallel our highly evolved UCMJ, which has also been tested again and again and never found to be wanting in a way that could not be fixed without becoming unrecognizable.

On a larger scale, we've dealt in the past with various malefactors on a world historical scale. Systems were evolved and are still in place for the treatment of criminals whose behavior transcends national borders. Nuremburg alone was proof of the confidence we can place in such efforts.

But no, the administration insists it has to rearrange everything, mostly in the interest of simplfication, apparently. Really, what the administration wanted was something akin to a lynching. In the dust and confusion of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 I'm sure lots of people would have enjoyed some "rough justice", even though it would have been an insult to our country. Now, much later, the administration is still trying to insist on their mob-appealing travesty.

So the problem is not being created by the courts. Far from it.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Isn't that a freaking scandal?!?!?!

Doesn't that say all there is to say about the present danger?

"Harsh penalties".... You mean instead of the lenient penalties that the current federal code metes to those convicted of terrorism-related crimes?

First, it will be interesting to see what "they" are guilty of -- and who "they" are, since for 5 years we have basically taken the word of the Prez that these were such dangerous folks. Except of course when a good friend like Tony Blair put in the good word for a couple of his nationals, then out came a baker or a cab driver or someone's cousin's younger brother who had been hanging out in Afghanistan at a really bad time.

The Dems and everyone else should just note that the American system of justice is ready and willing to deal with the crimes committed, and stop the criminally insane in the WH. Gitmo and the choices it represents were an out and out disaster for this country.

It might be helpful for the Democrats to come up with a serious policy. However, it is more important that they come out swinging at Rove. They need to take a page out of the John Murtha or James Webb playbook. Don't cower, don't apologize, don't dance around with 10 point plans. Call Rove and Bush what they are cowards and failures.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

confidential reports to Congress on the danger to the country from these prisoners...

Like those confidential reports on WMD the Congress bought a few years ago? At least understand that openness might expose the utter b.s. these depraved, morally disgusting nearly four-year long incarcerations are founded on. (And exposing the moral depths of the Repubs helps the Dems!)

Think: if there were ever evidence enough to convict these illegally imprisoned men in real courts, then we never would have had a Gitmo and the illegal kangaroo court procedure in the first place. There is suspicion based on unreliable witnesses (the unreliability centering on the fact that many of the 'witnesses' were paid (a lot in desperately poor Afghanistan) by the head to turn people in as 'terrorists'). That's about it.

As someone implied earlier, this Reed Hundt 'strategy' is the end result of consistently shutting up the Democratic Party base's moral outrage, over torture, over abuse and killing of Iraqi civilians, over the 'no reason' waste of American lives in Iraq, and over the repeated rape if not obliteration of the constitution. Now, after accompanying the Republicans all the way down this long road down into moral hell, Reed Hundt and the conventional thinkers' stale game plan is "Keep that whimpy 'me tooism' going, it'll work eventually!"

What's to stop Bush from predominately ignoring this ruling via gimmicks like the "Presidential Signings" and classifying any piece of information that might be used against him?

It's not like he's at risk of being impeached by his own party.

Umm, can we, as Democrats, fire Bob Schrum and whoever else does polling/issue framing for the Congressional Democrats, and hire Reed instead?

Please?

Pretty please?

Take these persons into an open court, secure convictions against them using due process of law; then, and only then, hang em high.

OGD- I just voted on your post. I hope it comes up for discussion. I am amazed that some Democrats are not rejoicing at this death knell for Bush’s monarchy-in-waiting instead of urging Dems to take a page from their playbook. The SC ruling not only refutes the administration’s claim about the AUMF granting implicit powers, it overturns the whole Woo doctrine of unrestrained executive power in time of war:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).

Besides restoring rules of law like the FISA controls, it reinstates the Geneva Conventions, affirms Constitutional checks and balances that Bush has ignored, and moots some of those 750 signing statements. So, military tribunals and denying due process are unconstitutional. Torture is unconstitutional. Unwarranted spying is out. Rendition and secret prisons are unconstitutional. Any thoughts of going after the press for exposing secret (illegal) programs will be rethought. I know it won't effect much at this time, but eventually, Constitutional authorities have to recovered. Of course, Congress can come back and re-ordain Bush as Supreme Ruler but I don’t think they dare.

Daniel:

You may wish to refer to Bush and his cabal of cronies as cowards and failures. Don't let me stop ya'... But to be more succinct and in all truth, under the bright sunshine of our Constitution they are derelicts in their collective duties to the Constitution and tyrannical in the execution of unlawful orders under the guise of national security. Lawbreakers of the highest order ...

~OGD~

waltdv1 wrote:

"Reed is absolutely correct on this. For all the valid criticisms of Guantanamo I have yet to hear anyone offer a reasonable alternative. The Democrats will not win in November by merely offering criticism - they need to offer leadership."

In order to lead, a leader must communicate guiding principles. The guiding principle of the Democratic Party has generally in the past and ought to be that we follow the Constitution even in times of war. I don't recognize a "reasonable alternative" to that.

The Supreme Court has just smacked down the Bush War Doctrine. If the Democrats can't take up the gauntlet on that fight, then we effectively no longer have a democracy and the November election is moot.

-Dave Adams-

“But that's going to take a lot of effort and political time and energy ,which the court could have saved the president and Congress, if they had just left things alone and let the president and Congress fight between themselves over these matters”. – John Yoo

This Republican Congress fight with this President? My god man! I must say I never regarded you as much of a lawyer; but to be so naïve, too. I don’t think of you as an honorable person. I think you are craven and opportunistic - Mr. Yoo, you did your job, which was to find the “legal” cover this president needed to do whatever the hell he wanted. In the course of it you went from obscurity to sinecure didn’t you? With a few strokes of your pen, and some tortured legal perspective you attempted to eviscerate our Constitution. I think it’s disgusting. And the Supreme Court found your reasoning weak and shallow and wrong.

“Take a lot of political time and energy “. Well, it just might take some time and energy. My Constitution is worth it! Our very system of government is now at stake. I don’t care one wit how much time and energy it takes to “smack” this President into reality. I only hope it can be done. And if it takes the threat of some type of legal action against him I say, “bring it on”! And if the legal action proves successful, I say, “mission accomplished”.

I fought for this country, and swore to defend the Constitution “against all enemies foreign OR domestic”. I truly believe we have domestic enemies to our Constitution – Bush and Cheney (and Yoo). I want them to suffer the consequences of this malfeasance – I want punishment - sure, swift and severe.

Gees, I’m sweating, and my heart is pounding, and I don’t think I’ve ever been so pissed in my life. My friends, including my closest, died fighting under our Flag, and committed to our Constitution. I want the President accountable for what he has done. I want answers under oath. I want the President to explain what he meant when he said the Constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper.

We are Americans. We believe in fair play, and fair trials. Evidence, witnesses, and no secret Soviet tribunals. This President only believes that we should do what he says. Believe what he tells us. Be afraid if he says we should – well, screw him!

I just want him and the Vice-President to answer to the American people. They work for us. They don’t get to torture, and maim, and kill in my name. They get to be questioned, cross-examined, and explain why they did what they did. And if we find their answers unacceptable, we get rid of them!

usmc0311, I wish I could rate your post a "5"...

-Dave Adams-

Mike

Umm, no, thank you.

I'm not impressed at all by any anyone who beging with beginning with tactics as dos Mr. Reed.

We have lost election after election by thinking at the tactical level without explicitly making tactic the servant of principle. And I hold it a matter of faith that the majority of Americans are smart enough to understand principle and have enough integrity to stand by it, if the policital leadership does the hard work of explaining it and defending it. Do that, and then the only tactic people need to worry about is defending the principled position against unprincipled opponents without themselveds becoming equally unprincipled.

Listening to the analyses of who makes up the prisoner population of Guantanamo, it looks as though most are innocent bystanders -- an embarrassment to the Administration. I think it goes something like this: there are about 400 prisoners of which about 30 are probably real felons with sufficient evidence to hold up in court. There are maybe 50 more who might -- might -- turn out to have played a role in something making them worth bringing into court. (Don't quote my numbers! My memory isn't that good...)

The rest should not have been picked up, much less held this long. Putting them "on the street" -- or on trial, if the Administration dared -- would only reveal that Guantanamo has been a cruel holding tank for dozens and hundreds of innocents. This "killers on the streets" meme is absurd. There will probably be more "killers on the streets" in the US over this long Fourth of July weekend than anyone's going to find at Guantanamo Bay.

The same report (on NPR yesterday) reveals that there are no signs the prison is going to be shut down. In fact, new buildings are being built -- including something like an elaborate new "intelligence center." Any explanations for that?

How about a call to rise about epithets and name calling, and set policy in the interesting of forwarding the principles and welfare of the United States and its citizens?

"While you are fighting the great battle and responding to every move made by your enemy, what is your destiny?" - Mama's last words to young Karl.

dc

"I think he (Hamdan) was awe-struck that the court would rule for him, and give a little man like him an equal chance," Commander Swift said. "Where he's from, that is not true."

This apparently was also the reaction of Zacharias Moussaoui when the jury did not impose the death penalty. (It's a little hard to tell what the guy really thinks, because he seems to be badly off his rocker.) But if the goal here is to win hearts and minds, this is the way to do it: show these guys what "government of laws and not of men" really means. (A lesson we could use in this country, too.)

The Democrats and opponents of the Administration's approach have a very simple position going forward:

1. It is a military problem, the military has established legal processes, direct them to do their job.

2. Trust the military to solve the 500+cases, it is not too much to expect. 

3. The mistake was to let civilian lawyers (with only academic experience) working in the Justice Department in Washington DC make military battlefield decisions.

4. Don't divert Congress from current unsolved issues to fiddle around with military justice.

There's doubt about the reliability of the "just a goddamned piece of paper" story.  Doug Thompson of capitolhillblue.com is the ONLY person who has reported that, based on anonymous sources, and he has been known to get things wrong.  I'm not saying it couldn't have happened -- if Bush could make the "it would be easier if this were a dictatorship" remark, he's sure capable of this one -- but I'd like to see it coming from an independent source before I put too much weight on it.

So "cutting and running" is good not bad which is why Poppy Bush did it in Iraq, and why Cheney supported it then, and why Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon. 9/11 didn't happen from cutting and running. Hitler lost because he refused to cut and run in Russia, and so did Napolean..

George Washington and Sam Houston made, ah, extensive use of cutting and running. It was known as "retreat," back in their day.

I simply don't understand why the Democrats are wasting there time defending and/or running from the 'Cut & Run' position when they could be attacking the Republican War Policy espoused by McCain, Frist et.al that is captured in the Rovian Phrase "Stay & Pay."

The Democrats need to give it back to Rove the way he is giving it to them by framing the issue for the voters as a choice between 'Cut(our losses) &(let the Iraquis) Run (it)' or the 'Stay & Pay' position of Bill Frist and the Boys.

As I understand it naturalized citizens can only have their citizenship revoked if they committed perjurty on their original entry or other forms that allowed them to get their citizenship.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Politcally, Mr. Hundt is right of course, much as those who have suggested that Democrats should support a muscular foreign policy devoted to Democratizing and Modernizing the Arab-Muslim world (giant mall palaces and 9/10 naked arses on television being the leading indicators of modernity, no doubt) are right. Much as those who counsel Democrats to support an enforcement-only immigration bill and not even mention what should be done about those already here (except perhaps deport them to Madagascar). Best to go even further in fact, propose a wall worthy of Hadrian (and no doubt just as effective), a lava moat, sharks. Mr. Hundt is right, just like those Wise Men who urged Mr. Clinton to return to his home state to turn the execution of a drueling retard into a media spectacle.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus and prison camps worthy of Adolf did not win the Civil War. The suspension of civil liberties and the internment of Japanese-Americans did not win the Second World War.

And the bugging of every phone in America, indefinite detention of prisoners, or the creation of a separate justice system for detainees will eliminate or radically diminish the threat of radical Islamism, however unlikely it is the dumb middle (let alone the dumber right) of the American electorate is liable to be convinced of this.

But if Democrats are not going to be the ones to say so out loud, who will?

The fact of the matter is that most of those being held at Guantanamo are Arab and Afghanistani kids caught up a war between the Taliban and Northern Alliance, not brilliant masterminds of international terrorism. Either treat them as prisoners of war - with all the rights and obligations therein - releasing them as soon as hostilities in Afghanistan are declared over. If they are international criminals try them in federal courts or the Hague. And if they are none of the above put them on planes and send them home.

One day we will learn just how many were none of the above, and we will - or at least should - feel ashamed.

For now, Mr. Hundt's comments remind me why I am not a Democrat.

"I don't want Democrats standing up for the Constitution and never winning another election."

I do want Democrats standing up for the Constitution.  It is up to us to win elections, but standing up for the Constitution is not a negotiable position.  I'm going to assume you mistyped when you posted that statement. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

If the Democrats don't start standing up for the Constitution there may not be many more elections.

I find it a little disturbing to think that Democrats should develop a Gitmo policy not based on the facts and what will best serve justice but rather as a way to counter whatever we think Karl Rove might say about Supreme Court decision.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

 I don't want Democrats standing up for the Constitution and never winning another election. 

Daniel, please re-read this sentence and see if you really stand behind it.  Do you see it as, either -- or?  The republicans evidently do.   That is the philosophy that has gotten the Bush crime family where they are. 

If winning an election is more important than the entire basis of our country, then it is probably time to start a new country.

Jan Knaus

...we are not at war with Iraq. We liberated them, remember, so now we're at war with them?

Great point, Phelicity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like the Supremes to define 'war' as it's used in the Constitution. Afterall, we seem to be constantly having one so it's about time it gets defined constitutionally. 

So would I!  Don't have too much to add, just wanted to second your thoughts!

Jan Knaus

Brat.

I didn't mean Reed. Since you put up a rather excellent post, I'll forgive the dig. However, please do note C'ville's rather excellent refute.

"Are our American voters so crass, so barbaric, so un-Christian, that they will think it is good that we are a nation committing war crimes, with a President ordering that war crimes be committed?"

Um, yeah. That would be an affirmative there, Hoppy sir. We broke International Law just by invading Iraq, and, forgive me if I'm mistaken here, we Dems said that very thing, but guess who won. Bush the war criminal.

I used to work in your fair city, kitty-corner from the GAP by the embarcadero. There's a bakery near there called sweet joanna's. Best cranberry scones I ever tasted. They were so good, I always bought two, so I could share. Maybe they're still there.

Over the years, Capitol Hill Blue has shown itself to be unafraid to publish controversial articles, which immediately exposed them to attacks regarding their credibility. The great majority of the time, the story Capitol Hill Blue published turned out to be truthful, and when it did not, they have shown themselves to be honourable, and to quickly retract the story with a published apology.

Capitol Hill Blue's editor, Doug Thompson, recently wrote that they still stand behind their report that Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper".

"...we have published stories that either proved to be wrong or could never be verified. I was burned by a source on what we thought was a major story about whether or not Bush knew intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was false. The source lied to me and used a fake name. I issued a public apology and pull the story from our database. It happened again in 2004 when we wrote Nancy Reagan had refused to back Bush's re-election effort. She came out publicly and said we were wrong. We retracted the story and apologized to our readers.

Earlier this year, we published a report that said a Secret Service report said Vice President Dick Cheney was drunk when he shot a lawyer friend on a hunting trip in Texas. A follow-up investigation convinced us no such report existed. We removed the story from our archives and apologized for it. I'm also a recovering alcoholic who must live with the fact that I did some incredibly stupid, unethical, immoral and illegal things when I drank.

Some of our more controversial stories have yet to be proven or disproved. Sources told us last year that President Bush referred to the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper." No other publication has confirmed the story but our sources remain firm on it and neither the White House nor members of Congress present at the meeting have denied the story. They simply refuse comment. It remains in our database because we believe the story is true."

Doug Thompson, "In the end, all we have is the truth", Capitol Hill blue, June 20, 2006

Late in 2005, Thompson also offered some insight into why he believes the veracity of the report:

When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution 'just a goddamned piece of paper,' I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President’s temper tantrums.

[. . .]

We get tips about Bush’s temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don’t get used because we don’t go with information from just one source. The tip about 'the goddamned piece of paper' seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

'Who told you about that?' I told him I’d picked it up from two other sources.

'Look, you know how the President is,' he said. 'He gets agitated when people challenge him.'

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a 'goddamned piece of paper.'

'Yeah. He did.'

Doug Thompson, "Where there's smoke, there's ire", Capitol Hill Blue, December 12, 2005

Thompson has also defended Capitol Hill Blue's integrity, as well as his own:

...So the next time somebody calls Capitol Hill Blue a 'garbage site' or claims I’m a clown, ask them for their qualifications and background. Did they get their information from credible sources or some anonymous poster on a partisan bulletin board or a blogger with a political ax to grind?

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I’m an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one.

When I’m wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven’t had to do that very often.

When I’m right I don’t give a damn who doesn’t like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: 'If you piss off both sides you’re doing your job.'

That’s good enough for me.

Doug Thompson, "Consider the source", Capitol Hill Blue, December 11, 2005

So, unless you have substantive evidence that this report is false, I will take Doug Thompson's word on it. It's good enough for me.

Workerbee, Yeah, divorce is so tough. It is so commonplace that it normally doesn't get acknowledged for the trauma that it inflicts.

OK, off thread:

But re your post-name, my house has a beehive that I am trying to coax to a new location. Problemo--> probably 40 pounds of wax and honey once they are seduced to leave and no longer flap their little wings to cool the whole mess off! Where is the hive? Right over my computer!

The fun never ends here in divorce-land! Hey, good luck!

Jan Knaus

I went to the military because of the discussion in the case decision about Article 3, Geneva convention which deals with those detained in civil wars or non-trational war between states. My leap was that there were military proceedings to correspond to or meet the requirements of Article 3.

And if I am wrong why wouldn't the smart President still give the problem to the military since it is a battle thing and from what the military say it is very important to them how we treat those we detain since the military know that they too can be held. Let the military find a way to handle the problem.  If they need statutory changes let military justice/legal professionals propose them.

I have this weird thing about delegating jobs to those who should be responsible because they have the professional experience rather than giving jobs to highly motivated woefully unprepared people and organizations.