29 June, 2006

War crimes

The U.S. government wanted to prosecute Osama bin Laden's driver, a dude named Hamdan, for war crimes. They wanted it so bad they went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to promote their interpretation of Congressional, Constitutional and U.S. treaty requirements. Oops - the court decided that the war crimes tribunal was itself a war crime, as it violated the Geneva Conventions. It's nice when hubris runs into itself, at least a little bit.


It still worries me that our civil liberties in "war" time depend upon the decision of one Supreme Court justice to stay on the bench or to continue breathing. 

Posted by judevac

Oh, come now, that's a bit unfair. The man had a conflict of interest, and he stayed away. He did what he was supposed to do. Give him that much credit.

Besides, our side would have won even if he HAD decided to stay on the bench. FIVE justices decided to uphold civil liberties. That's a majority. I'm willing to take a victory wherever I can get it. 

Posted by DearDarlingDidi

I wasn't refering to Justice Roberts. 

Posted by judevac

when hubris runs into itself, at least a little bit.

This is a very good definition for "separation of powers" :) 

Posted by Saurav

2nd on that as a good definition. hubris-on-hubris is how it's supposed to work. that things are cockeyed at the moment seems to be because it's a little optimistically individualist to assume that no conspiracy would ever be so large - and the economy would never be so hollow - as to generate a consensus around holding almost a maginot line of high level results regardless of results on the ground, or long term effects. it's a disaster. 

Posted by hibiscus

seriously before the curtain closes on the republican federal legislature, shouldn't they shift their constitutional attention from flag burning to something they really care about, like amending the preamble from "promote the general welfare" to "protect dow 10,000"? what a legacy that would be.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?