Bush's interpretation of the law ruled illegal

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060630.GITMOS30/TPStory/TPInternational/America/

It means that we can’t be scared out of who we are, and that’s victory, folks," an exultant and uniformed LCdr. Swift said after the court’s ruling. He acidly noted that he, like the commander-in-chief, was duty-bound to uphold the Constitution.

So, basically, he was just following orders when he detained those people.

Finally, proof that there is still justice and humanity holding some power in the world. cheers

“It reined in the executive branch after years of it running amok,” Mr. Ahmad said. “As such, it’s a stinging rebuke to the administration.”
:toast:

It seems the court says you’re assumed a lawful combatant until proven otherwise. I wonder what the burden of proof is on that. If all that has to happen is for someone to testify that the detainee was captured on the battlefield, in some way violating the Geneva Conventions, then nothing would have really changed, right?

Yes, detaining combatants wouldn’t change as long as it is done legally. Holding them to trial under military tribunal in this war is now illegal because of Bush’s reasoning behind them.

He said the original quote to celebrate the court’s decision.

Exactly. Up until now he was following orders that went against the Constitution.

Hurrah. Long live the Judicial!

I’m more worried about the President who issued these commands, the elected representatives who let him unchecked for quite a time period and the media who should have had a bit clearer head.

Each citizen must uphold the Constitution, but as Spidey would say “With great power…”. Blame on him and moreso to others.

Anyway, so what are the repercussions on the President, if any?

Of course Rig, of course.

And repurcussions? none.

Selective law enforcement: You get a speeding ticket, we are on your trail. The top court rules against you, no big deal (if you are the president).