No charges likely over interrogation memos

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by idahogie

You make no sense. Or is this just a poor attempt at humor?

Phq was faulting the Dems for not having made waterboarding illegal yet.

Or are you admitting that the Bush Administration committed the crime of waterboarding even though it was illegal already?

I really thought that ViewFromThePeak was referring to what Democrats don't do, like pay taxes.

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

I really thought that ViewFromThePeak was referring to what Democrats don't do, like pay taxes.

Only Democrats in high powered positions don't pay taxes, and not because they don't believe in income taxes. They just don't believe in income taxes for themselves.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by idahogie

Wrongo. How many times now?

The Geneva Conventions call for trials - similar in form to the civilian courts. That's why the SC ruled against the Bush Administration - the "trials" were unfair.

Wrong, that is not what the Supreme Court ruled at all.

High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals

Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

The ruling shifts the spotlight to Congress

[i]"n undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

In English: The US Supreme Court ruled
1) Bush did not have a legal authority to create a MILITARY order.

2) If Bush wanted that legal authority, Congress would have to give it to him.

3) Military trials were not "necessary"

4) The military order itself would violate the Geneva Convention. (not the punishment)

5) That the prisoners would face CRIMINAL prosecution under the jurisdiction of the USA, not international law.

They did not rule that the "trials were unfair"

[idahogie]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong, that is not what the Supreme Court ruled at all.

High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals

Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

The ruling shifts the spotlight to Congress

[i]"n undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

In English: The US Supreme Court ruled
1) Bush did not have a legal authority to create a MILITARY order.

2) If Bush wanted that legal authority, Congress would have to give it to him.

3) Military trials were not "necessary"

4) The military order itself would violate the Geneva Convention. (not the punishment)

5) That the prisoners would face CRIMINAL prosecution under the jurisdiction of the USA, not international law.

They did not rule that the "trials were unfair"

When are you going to give up? You are wrong. The Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees at Guantanamo, and the SCOTUS struck down the military tribunals because they did not comport with the Geneva Conventions:

THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention. But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda -- a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

Perhaps you need a refresher. Your original point was that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the detainees. You have been wrong now for 3 or 4 posts ever since, just because you will not admit your error. In your own post now you have proved that you are wrong.

Give it up.