Bad Boys, Bushco

Finally some reality. The SCOTUS body slams Bushco.

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized under U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself from the case.

The ruling, which overturned a federal appeals court decision in which Roberts had participated, represented a defeat for President Bush, who had ordered military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. About 450 detainees captured in the war on terrorism are currently held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

The case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 36-year-old Yemeni with links to al-Qaeda, was considered a key test of the judiciary's power during wartime and carried the potential to make a lasting impact on American law. It challenged the very legality of the military commissions established by President Bush to try terrorism suspects.

The case raised core constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as fundamental issues of individual rights. Specifically, the questions concerned:

¿ The power of Congress and the executive to strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

¿ The authority of the executive to lock up individuals under claims of wartime power, without benefit of traditional protections such as a jury trial, the right to cross-examine one's accusers and the right to judicial appeal.

¿ The applicability of international treaties -- specifically the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war -- to the government's treatment of those it deems "enemy combatants."

They done good. Now does this make still another case for illegal, as in criminal, behaviour Congress can use to impeach Bushco? It seems "plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions...are unconstitutional" at least means Dim Son violated his sworn oath as president to uphold the Constitution. Um, didn't he swear that oath on a Bible? That's his reverence for the Holy Book? Gawd I hope this's his coffin nail.

¿Oh yeah, how do you like the Post's using the Spanish question marks?

(read more)