Justices Tacitly Backed Use of Guantánamo, Bush Says

[spindrifter]

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: July 8, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 7 — In his most detailed comments to date on the Supreme Court's rejection of his decision to put detainees on trial before military commissions, President Bush said Friday that the court had tacitly approved his use of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"It didn't say we couldn't have done — couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo — whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."

Mr. Bush's remarks put a favorable spin on a ruling that has been widely interpreted as a rebuke of the administration's policies in the war on terror. The court, ruled broadly last week in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions were unauthorized by statute and violated international law.

The question of whether Mr. Bush had properly used Guantánamo Bay to house detainees was not at issue in the case. At issue was whether the president could unilaterally establish military commissions with rights different from those allowed at a court-martial to try detainees for war crimes.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/08/washington/08bush.html

[MadMaddie]

1. Is it possible that he is that stupid....to attack the high court??

Why I do believe he is....

[C_U_L8R]

2. Thay also didn't say that Bush couldn't smoke crack

So he does.

[MissWaverly]

3. cut me a break

what was at stake here was the tribunal idea, otherwise, he could have just shifted them
to another one of these prisons located on foreign soil and the same thing would go on,
but you forgot about Poland, heh, heh, heh, you only mentioned Canada, France, England,
Iceland, Germany, Norway, Borneo, but you forgot about Poland...heh...heh...heh.

[Ravy]

4. They also said the Geneva Convention applies to those there.

Another thing he passed over.

[gratuitous]

5. Unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't have a bar ticket

So his layman's take on the Supreme Court's opinion is every bit as valid as mine.

Ya got spanked, George. Now run home to Mommy and tell her she wants you.

[Foolkiller]

6. Unfortunately . . .

I don't think the decision has the same practical effect that we or the media would like it to have. As a lawyer, I can tell you that the practical effect is very narrow, and a lot of Justice Stevens' decision is going to be interpreted as dicta.

At the end of the day, SCOTUS simply ruled that Bush cannot unilaterally set up military commissions with his own set of rules. That's it.

But he can still:

1. Go to Congress and get them to approve whatever military commission rules he wants;

2. Hold prisoners for as long as he wants wherever he wants "as long as there are active hostilities" -- which we know is going to be forever; there's never going to be a peace treaty with the Taliban or Al Qaeda; and

3. It really says nothing about treatment of prisoners outside of the context of commission rules.

As an added bonus, the decision probably still allows Bush to set up his own rules -- without Congressional approval -- if there is a need for a quick military commission in a battlefield situation. So it's possible -- but probably politically unlikely -- that Bush could try enemy combatants, etc. close to a field of battle near the time of battle, if he could demonstrate a military need to do so.