Bush will push new laws on detainees

[sabra]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19642272-31477,00.html

Bush will push new laws on detainees

THE Bush administration is expected to propose new legislation to try to establish lawful military trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, including David Hicks, after the US Supreme Court declared the existing military tribunals illegal.

Some Republicans in Congress, where the party holds a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, have indicated they would support new legislation.

...

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the ruling was a procedural issue, and did not affect the President's ability to fight the war on terror. He said the judgment referred to the need for the Bush administration to win congressional approval for the military tribunals.

...

US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he would push legislation allowing the use of military tribunals to "to keep America safe".

[Orrex]

1. How is that not ex post facto?

At the very least, it's straight out of Kafka! If no court procedure exists under which these "enemy combatants" can be tried, just go ahead and manufacture one.

Thank God they're keeping America safe! Otherwise we might have to contend with dangerous enemies such as human rights and civil liberties!

[MasonJar]

2. I hope that these idiots go on vacation soon and stay there per-

manently. I also pray that there is a filibuster of this brash increase in Bush power. Frist needs to go back to Tennessee and rot there...my apologies to Tennessee.

[Avalux]

3. So nothing will change; Congress will give blank check -

SC ruling no big deal, just procedural. We need another country to bring war crimes charges against Bushco for violating the Geneva Conventions. We'll see just how "procedural" the ruling is then.

[saigon68]

6. A Lot of DINOs like Joementum Limpmann will vote for this.

Joementum is getting his new Knee Pads fitted up for use in the not too distant future.

[OneBlueSky]

4. I'm amazed and disgusted that a supposedly co-equal branch . . .

of our government -- the legislative -- is seemingly willing to cede their constititional duties and prerogatives to another branch, the executive . . .

in the past, Congress took the notions of 'balance of power' and 'checks and balances' quite seriously . . . any attempt by the president to usurp Congressional power in any way was immediately identified and shot down . . . usually, it took no more that a bi-partisan delegation meeting with the president to tell him the facts of life . . .

this Congress is, with a few exceptions, nothing but a collection of corporate shills who are quite content to fundamentally change -- maybe even destroy -- the Constitutional foundation of our nation . . . just as long as they "get theirs" . . .

and man, are they ever getting theirs . . .

[MiniMe]

5. Can't have a civil trial under US laws, god forbid

Because there is no reason for the US to be holding these people, and they might tell all about what is going on in Gitmo.

[Solly Mack]

7. Congress makes federal law. The UCMJ is federal law.

And guess who wrote the UCMJ? That's right - Congress did.(circa 1950 - "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress and is the foundation for the United States military justice system.The UCMJ was first established in 1950, and underwent major revisions in 1968 and 1983..."

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/index_legHistory.html

So Congress, being lawmakers, CAN change the UCMJ/federal law). (scary thought in the hands of this particular Congress)

Congress can authorize military tribunals - The President can't.

However, the President can "prescribe the rules" of the military tribunal. (Again, look it up...UCMJ 836...oh here, read this: "Section 836 (of the UCMJ) simply delegates to the President the authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure for courts-martial and military tribunals.20 Thus, if Congress had authorized a special military tribunal for international terrorists, Section 836 would authorize the President to create the rules for such a tribunal. But 836 does not itself authorize such a tribunal")

http://www.cdt.org/security/011100clark.shtml

This does not mean a President can just ignore treaties and both federal and international law to create those rules.

The SCOTUS decision did, in fact, and in no uncertain terms, expose Bush as a war criminal. Bush broke federal and international law in the treatment of detainees with his illegal tribunals...and not just that, as other threads by other posters have pointed out. The decision called into question many other actions by Bush.

However, the SCOTUS decision DID NOT make ALL military tribunals illegal - it said Bush's military tribunals were illegal. Bush assumed the authority to authorize tribunals when he didn't have that authority and he created rules that violated existed federal and international laws.

The below article on the day of the Supreme Court's decision states plainly Bush can seek the authorization of Congress for tribunals that adhere to federal and international law. So Tribunals are still legal.

"Hamdan’s in — UCMJ not complied with — commissions not properly constituted and ARE NOT VALID. Remanded.

- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.

“Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,” Breyer wrote. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1531647
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/page/2/


That said...

Congress, in order to give Bush his brand of military tribunals, would have to change existing federal law AND exempt America from the Geneva Convention laws.

It isn't a simple matter of "the need for the Bush administration to win congressional approval for the military tribunals" as Snow claims.

Bush is a war criminal. The SCOTUS ruling makes that plain.

This is a critical moment for Congress. If they do simply just say "Sure, you (Bush) can have your tribunals as they are now" - then Congress is also guilty of war crimes.

If Congress changes federal law and then authorizes the tribunals...there is still the matter of international law to content with...

Course, if Congress changes federal law to accommodate a war criminal then Congress is just as guilty as Bush.

Congress really only has one ethical and legal option - to impeach Bush for abuses of authority and high crimes (war crimes) In fact, it is their duty to do so.

So Congress can:
1- Authorize tribunals as they stand now under Bush and they are war criminals just like Bush

2- Change federal law, after the fact, to allow Bush's brand of military tribunals, and they are guilty of aiding and abetting a war criminal.

3- Impeach Bush for war crimes and abuse of office.

* They could always tell Bush that military tribunals can go ahead as long as they follow current existing international and federal law....but they would still have the duty to impeach him for breaking those laws to begin with.... and if they don't, Congress is complicit in Bush's war crimes.

Also,(and this no small also) as civil courts are available to try people held as detainees by the American government, those civil courts are supposed to be available to those people held as detainees. Why do you think Bush put the detainees at GTMO? - so he could claim no civilian courts are available. Bush has tried, from the get-go, to give everything about his abuses in Iraq and GTMO the veneer of being legal. If his actions sound legal enough then most people will think they are legal.

Bush didn't simply break a law(s) - he committed a war crime(s). War crimes rise to the level of "high crimes"...how could they not? A mockery would have been made of any justice achieved at Nuremberg if Bush is allowed to get away with his war crimes.