Mukasey: "Fuck SCOTUS!! We don't agree. The Military Trials will continue!!"

[99th_Monkey]

Mukasey: Detainee ruling won't stop terror trials

Attorney general criticizes Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling, says won't halt military trials

MARK SHERMAN
AP News

Jun 13, 2008 07:54 EST

The Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay will unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom but won't affect the military trials planned for some terrorism suspects, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday.

The Bush administration disagrees strongly with the high court's decision that the foreigners held under indefinite detention at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba have the right to seek release in civilian court. President Bush said Thursday he would abide by the decision, but also said his administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation.

In Brussels, Belgium, on Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would reserve judgment on "what we ought to do next" at Guantanamo until he received briefings on the ruling.

"I have often said that ... we would like to close Guantanamo," Gates said. "I think that despite the fact that in many respects Guantanamo has become a state-of-the-art prison now, early reports of abuses and so on unquestionably were a black eye for the United States."

Thursday's much-anticipated 5-to-4 ruling was the third time the justices have repudiated Bush on his ambitious and hugely controversial schemes to hold the suspects outside the protections of U.S. law.

Speaking at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers in Tokyo, Mukasey said, "I'm disappointed with the decision, in so far as I understand that it will result in hundreds of actions challenging the detention of enemy combatants to be moved to federal district court."

He added: "I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed. Instead it addresses the procedures that the Congress and the president put in place to permit enemy combatants to challenge their detention."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Mukasey_Detainee_ruling_won_t_stop__06132008.html

[jody]

1. Not to worry, Dubya just issued one of his infamous signing statements. They now apply to SCOTUS

decisions as well as bills passed by congress.

[99th_Monkey]

4. I'm glad * is creating such a revealing paper trail of his treasonous over-reaching.

These signing statements could become "Exhibit A" at the Hague.

[NightWatcher]

11. Um, when the head of one brach overrules another, hmm can we impeach yet

the Supremes say that signing statements are unconstitutional, so chimpy says that the supremes are unnecessary???

[magellan]

23. Look at it this way

Bush** is setting the precedent, so the power to tell SCOTUS & Congress to f-off will be Obama's too.

Unitary Executive, it ain't just a Republican thing.

(I smell freepers crappin' in their pants.) :rofl:

[BattyDem]

2. Um ... did I miss the part in the ruling that said it was optional?

:shrug: :eyes:

[99th_Monkey]

6. "Unitary Executive" hubris on steroids sans Impeachment running amok. Do ya think? ~nt~

[Hugabear]

3. I wonder how many of those prisoners will be moved to secret prisons around the world?

No way in HELL that BushCo wants to chance letting some of those prisoners go free.

Looks like we have some more articles of impeachment that need to be written!

[jody]

8. Justice Scalia dissenting suggests Bush should have sent the prisoners to another place outside the

reach of SCOTUS.

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today. The President relied on our settled precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950), when he established the prison at Guantanamo Bay for enemy aliens. Citing that case, the President’s Office of Legal Counsel advised him “that the great weight of legal authority indicates that a federal district court could not properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an alien detained at .” Memorandum from Patrick F. Philbin and John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Office of Legal Counsel, to William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Dept. of Defense (Dec. 28, 2001). Had the law been otherwise, the military surely would not have transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention. Those other facilities might well have been worse for the detainees themselves.

Opinion at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

[ljm2002]

20. "the Nation’s Commander in Chief" ???

The Constitution makes the President the Commander In Chief of the armed forces, not of the country.

Of course we already knew that the Constitution is nothing more than a quaint document to the likes of Scalia.

[pt22]

24. "justice" and "Scalia" don't belong in the same sent...no wait, in the same language.

grr

[Swamp Rat]

5. 'Dictater'

[99th_Monkey]

13. If it walks like a dick-tater, and talks like a dick-tater, well then ... ~nt~

[spanone]

7. these criminals do not care about law...I M P E A C H

[Winterblues]

9. administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation.

Since when can the Administration create Legislation? I was under the assumption that Legislation was Congress's role..A President can sign such legislation into law but can not write law.

[librechik]

15. They have their allies in Congress create bills for them

to order

[indepat]

10. Maybe the Dem Senators (NY & CA) who pushed for his confirmation should now promote impeachment?

:D

[99th_Monkey]

14. I'm liking the sound of that. A righteous atonement for their lousy judgment ~nt~

[bdamomma]

12. state of the art????

then Mr. Mukasey why don't you and friends go there, and I hear they have wonderful meals!!!!

[99th_Monkey]

16. Since when is torture & kangaroo courts considered an "art"? Oh ya, since * became pResident ~nt~

[Supersedeas]

17. coming from "a judge" with a healthy respect for the Judicial System???????????

[librechik]

18. they'll all run into the same obstacle, ahole--your evidence is tainted

or nonexistent. Prove they did what you say they did, and there will be no problem with sentencing them. If not, they must go free. THAT is what Americans do!

[jgraz]

19. Impeach his wrinkled white ass.

[Cleita]

21. But the Supreme Court was okay when they appointed Bush President?

I don't think you can have it both ways. If you recognize their authority in one venue then they have to recognize it in others.

[rucky]

22. And there's not a damn thing anyone's going to do about it.

We forgot to put teeth in the Constitution.

[Monk06]

25. So he thinks a challenge to the legality of a persons detention is some how

unrelated to or a separate issue from
their trial.

I am pretty sure that if you are detained
illegally then your trial is illegal.

This guy is even dumber than Gonzales. He
should never have gotten out of committee
let alone been confirmed.

[me b zola]

26. Dumb? Maybe

Spineless, corrupt weasels? Definitely.

[formercia]

27. Mukasey the enabler

Right on message.

And you expect justice from the Department of Justice? Feh!