US Casualties

Dead: 3,802

Wounded: 26,188

Front Page
Login
Archive
ByLines
Mission
Resources
Tips
Our Store

Sections
Humor/Satire
Projects

ConyersBlog

Kudos from feline: One of the many things I love about this chatroom is knowledgable people who can instantly gratify my need to be informed, and immediately exchange ideas - I love it!

Demanding Truth, Justice and Accountability in Government

The Significance of the SCOTUS Hamdan Decision

Reed31463

The Significance of the SCOTUS Hamdan Decision

I took a little time to reflect upon the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision and what it signifies for the people that are not directly impacted by the ruling. Though it appears to be a large victory for human rights groups, the issues and effects go much deeper. This isn't just another "small victory" that can be ignored or spun to mean something else, such as the Voting Rights Act that was literally ignored to death. This decision carries weight and substance that is not easily spun and cannot be ignored. But as a matter of ritual, there are attempts being made to do just that: spin the decision to make it less significant than it truly is. But as time goes by, I think the significance is going to become more and more apparent to progressives, politicians, and the public as a whole. Marty Lederman's article, Top Ten Myths About Hamdan, Geneva, and Interrogations had this to say,

When the Court issued its Hamdan decision last Thursday, I precipitously declared that the Court's ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the conflict against Al Qaeda was of much greater practical significance than the Court's ultimate holding with respect to military commissions. (See also my post here, identifying other important holdings in Hamdan not limited to the commission context.) Slowly but surely, defenders of the Administration's policies are beginning to agree, which is why we now see congressmen such as Senators McConnell and Graham signaling that they intend to introduce legislation to supersede Common Article 3. There may well be a pitched battle on this question in Congress soon. (Emphasis mine)

One reason this decision is so satisfying, is that the Supreme Court has put a stake in the ground, putting a limit on this administration's ever expanding grab for power. All of a sudden, where there seemed to be no limit: a boundary forms and a check on this power grab is installed. The President cannot just ignore the decision or write a "signing statement" saying this is what he understands the decision to mean and simply go around it.

Another reason the decision is satisfying is the implication that war crimes have been committed, and that the Geneva Conventions do apply. This will present serious problems for those who have failed to address these issues and even more serious problems for those who continue to be complicit with these issues. It is possible that members of Congress could be indicted for war crimes.

If you were to ask me, since we are now in the "post 9-11" era, where we are in terms history, I would say this decision is the Battle of Midway. Because if 9-11 was a Pearl Harbor like event that galvanized the nation, this Supreme Court decision has turned the tide against the destruction of the Constitution and now fascism must go on the defensive.

Comment # 1 ~ Rusty ~ 07/06/2006 19:24 GMT

Good analysis, Reed. I see that Constant posted an excellent, in depth commentary on this on his blog. This decision needs a lot of Netroots attention, for as Feline warns, the corporate media is going to try to bury this story.

Comment # 2 ~ Patriot ~ 07/06/2006 21:02 GMT

According to CounterPoint, the Geneva Convention was made part of the US Criminal Code in 1996.

From the article:

Interestingly, Gonzales actually warned Bush about this possibility. In a memo to the president, written on January 25, 2002 when he was still White House counsel, Gonzales warned prophetically that the U.S. adoption of the Third Geneva Convention as a part of the U.S. criminal code in 1996 made violation of the convention a "war crime," which he said was defined as "any grave breach" of the Third Convention such as "outrages against personal dignity." He noted that this law applied whether or not a detained person qualified for POW status, and added that punishment for violation of the law "include the death penalty." But then he went on to say Bush could "substantially reduce" his risk of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act by making a presidential determination that the Third Geneva Convention "does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban."

Clearly, Gonzales here was behaving like a mob lawyer, not like an honest counselor. He was telling the president not what was right and legal, but how to dodge prosecution.

Full Article here

Comment # 3 ~ feline ~ 07/06/2006 23:20 GMT

Excellent research and links, Reed!

I'll be following up with some links and thoughts...

Comment # 4 ~ Alma ~ 07/07/2006 15:17 GMT

They won't get out of this one. It will stick.

Comment # 5 ~ Rusty ~ 07/07/2006 19:03 GMT

Amazingly, it appears that the Supremes actually have a copy of the Constitution somewhere in the building, and five of them passed it around to each other.

Comment # 6 ~ feline ~ 07/08/2006 17:54 GMT

I think it's very important to keep this SCOTUS story alive; there will be several attempts by the neo-con administration to distract us between now and November.

New York Tunnel Story Doesn't Add Up

Congress needs to continue to conduct hearings to hold those responsible accountable.

Rumsfeld Subpoenaed Over Abu Ghraib

John Dean and others with experience and direct understanding of legal ramifications are discussing this.

Senators Kyl and Graham's Hamdan's vs. Rumsfeld Scam

David Addington is one of several who needs to be investigated and questioned.

The legal mind behind the White House's war on terror

Comment # 7 ~ Rusty ~ 07/08/2006 22:57 GMT

Thank you for the links, Feline.

Comment # 8 ~ feline ~ 07/09/2006 17:00 GMT

Reed, and all, some follow-up discussion and links here.

Ally Warned Bush on Keeping Spying From Congress

"The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution," Hoekstra added in the letter obtained by the Times.

More information and discussion available at the following links.

Hamdan: Revisiting Memoranda and Testimony

GOP House intel chair told Bush not informing Congress about 'special projects' may be illegal

Comment # 9 ~ Rusty ~ 07/09/2006 18:38 GMT

Thanks, feline. Glenn Greenwald's article on Crooks and Liars "Supreme Court’s Ruling in Hamdan Means Warrantless Eavesdropping is Clearly Illegal" should be read by everyone as well, it emphasizes the huge legal and political implications of the Hamdan ruling.

Comment # 10 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 07/09/2006 22:18 GMT

Reed, well done. This Hamdan SCOTUS ruling is something we should talk about repeatedly -- keep it on the minds of people. The violations are very, very serious!

Comment # 11 ~ feline ~ 07/09/2006 22:37 GMT

Thank you for the Glenn Greenwald article, Rusty.

I agree, Tahoe, I'm glad to see that we're all keeping the discussions going to this topic.

Comment # 12 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 07/10/2006 00:21 GMT

Well, Reed and everyone, here it is in PLAIN English! I did not read the entire charter, but it's very clear language, and no one should have difficulty understanding it. Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Comment # 13 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 07/10/2006 00:23 GMT

It appears that the link does not work correctly -- huuuum! So, here it is in regular form: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Comment # 14 ~ feline ~ 07/10/2006 04:28 GMT

Thank you for that address, Tahoe. It led my to some other information. I'm not sure if this link will work either, but here it is.
List of issues to be considered during the examination of the second periodic report of the United States of America

It's a rather lengthy read, but some interesting stuff here.

Comment # 15 ~ Rusty ~ 07/28/2006 19:20 GMT

Great links, thanks!

Comment # 16 ~ feline ~ 08/05/2006 06:19 GMT

Center for Constitutional Rights action letter

Call for a Special Prosecutor to Investigate U.S. Role in Torture