There is a great blog that gives you a breakdown of each SCOTUS decision and how it affects the laws and the people of these United States of America. Its called simply SCOTUSblog. I had an MRI today, so I didn't get to check them out right after the announcement of the Supreme's ruling this morning. As for what the Hamdan decision didn't do, Marty Lederman, author of the article had this to say:
"One is whether the country is, indeed, at "war" in some constitutional sense, giving the Court reason to look more favorably on claims of expanded presidential power. And the second one is whether the President has authority, acting all alone, to decide what measures are needed to respond to the continuing terrorism threat. The Court in Hamdan makes an assumption about the former, and leaves the latter without any answer." You can read their article in its entirety here regarding the issues not taken up by the Supremes.
On what todays decision did mandate, the SCOTUSblog had this summary:
"it is hard to overstate the principal, powerfully stated themes emanating from the Court, which are (i) that the President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress's enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict."(emphasis is theirs, not mine) The final analysis of the ruling is, in their opinion here:
"Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here."
*snip*
"This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes). If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant."
While I was waiting for my MRI, the doctors office had all four TV channels on FAUX news. John Gibson was slamming the left of course, saying we are all rejoicing this decision and obviously we, being the left, are all on the wrong side of the issue. He also kept pimping his radio show and wanted viewers to call in later and talk about how horrible all the progressives are on this dark day for our War against Terrorism. --Stick a sock in Gibson, I have no happiness or joy you asshat, that individuals who POSSIBLY wished to due us harm might very well go free.
Tags:
Terrorism
Politics
Bush
War on Terror
News and politics
Current Affairs
