Thursday! God, it's not Friday yet?
So, is it a bad thing if I read a public comment on an obscure proposal by the House Resources Committee, and my response to the (pithy, sensible, and snarky) comment is:
::fangirls::?
*
The Washington Post on the ruling and the background.
Scotusblog on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: 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.
Walter Dellinger on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Hamdan is simply the most important decision on presidential power and the rule of law ever. Ever. The court has rejected the central constitutional claim of this presidency: that no president is bound to comply with laws passed by the United States Congress if those laws limit any exercise of an astonishingly broad category they call "inherent Presidential power."
More at Scotusblog: Here's one comment: There is every reason to see Hamdan for what it is - an immensely significant reassertion of checks and balances in the war on terrorism, and an unmitigated victory for those who have worried about the erosion of the separation of powers after September 11.
Okay, and here's Glenn Greenwald, clarifying that just because the Guatanamo detainees are not themselves citizens of an entity that signed the Geneva Convention doesn't mean the US is not still bound by its own obligations under that treaty--because Congress embedded those obligations in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He points out that embedded in the opinion is the point that the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) approved by Congress in 2001 did not implicitly grant the Administration the authority to create these military tribunals. As such, it also did not grant the Administration freedom from the constraints of the FISA (which is the act requiring subpoenas for the NSA wiretapping, if you are lost in acronym-land). Kennedy expressly found (and the Court itself implicitly held) that even with regard to matters as central to national security as the detention and trial of Al Qaeda members, the President does not have the power to ignore or violate Congressional law.
However other commenters seem less impressed by the ruling, or at least by the likely outcome. It's entirely possible that the Administration can return to Congress and obtain permission to conduct certain actions that it has heretofore done without such authority. The current makeup of Congress makes that possibility very likely. However Congress cannot negate the application of the Geneva Convention without explicitly doing so by rewriting the UCMJ or (I assume) abrogating the treaty. (But think of the political fallout, were Congress to break our commitment to the Geneva Convention!)
::clings to the Supreme Court:: Nobody else is allowed to retire or die!
ETA: I went following some blog links (never a good idea, really), and found someone actually calling the majority justices on the United States Supreme Court members of Al Qaeda.
::despairs::
This is why I hide in fandom--at least the crazy people (::cough::Msscribe::cough::) don't make me want to resign from the human race or resort to high-powered weaponry.
::fangirls::?
*
The Washington Post on the ruling and the background.
Scotusblog on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: 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.
Walter Dellinger on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Hamdan is simply the most important decision on presidential power and the rule of law ever. Ever. The court has rejected the central constitutional claim of this presidency: that no president is bound to comply with laws passed by the United States Congress if those laws limit any exercise of an astonishingly broad category they call "inherent Presidential power."
More at Scotusblog: Here's one comment: There is every reason to see Hamdan for what it is - an immensely significant reassertion of checks and balances in the war on terrorism, and an unmitigated victory for those who have worried about the erosion of the separation of powers after September 11.
Okay, and here's Glenn Greenwald, clarifying that just because the Guatanamo detainees are not themselves citizens of an entity that signed the Geneva Convention doesn't mean the US is not still bound by its own obligations under that treaty--because Congress embedded those obligations in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He points out that embedded in the opinion is the point that the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) approved by Congress in 2001 did not implicitly grant the Administration the authority to create these military tribunals. As such, it also did not grant the Administration freedom from the constraints of the FISA (which is the act requiring subpoenas for the NSA wiretapping, if you are lost in acronym-land). Kennedy expressly found (and the Court itself implicitly held) that even with regard to matters as central to national security as the detention and trial of Al Qaeda members, the President does not have the power to ignore or violate Congressional law.
However other commenters seem less impressed by the ruling, or at least by the likely outcome. It's entirely possible that the Administration can return to Congress and obtain permission to conduct certain actions that it has heretofore done without such authority. The current makeup of Congress makes that possibility very likely. However Congress cannot negate the application of the Geneva Convention without explicitly doing so by rewriting the UCMJ or (I assume) abrogating the treaty. (But think of the political fallout, were Congress to break our commitment to the Geneva Convention!)
::clings to the Supreme Court:: Nobody else is allowed to retire or die!
ETA: I went following some blog links (never a good idea, really), and found someone actually calling the majority justices on the United States Supreme Court members of Al Qaeda.
::despairs::
This is why I hide in fandom--at least the crazy people (::cough::Msscribe::cough::) don't make me want to resign from the human race or resort to high-powered weaponry.