Misblog

White House demagoguery stating that Guantanamo detainees may walk our streets because of the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Boumediene v Bush (06-1195 pdf 650K) appears to be a confession that it had and has no right to lawfully hold the detainees.

That hardly seems to be the result of our United States Supreme Court who on numerous occasions, in judicial decision after judicial decision, warned the lawless and rogue administration that their law-free-zone was not constitutional.

It may be that the administration's rogue, lawless, and myopic law-free-zone means that it has inadvertently become in locus parenti for detainees—of course this is not quite the end game the administration had in mind².

Perhaps spokespuppet Dana Perino meant to say the White House has been hoisted by its own petard³—or maybe that comes in a "not my fault" book after being thrown overboard retiring.

Web: White House says ruling could free detainees in US

-----notes-----

1. Most prosecutors will assure White House spokespuppet Dana Perino she does not have to worry about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around her neighborhood.

Even though Mohammed was tortured and evidence obtained by torture will be excluded from his non kangaroo trial, there is ample other evidence, prior to Khalid's American custody, that make it very unlikely that he will pay Perino a visit anytime soon.

2. Our rogue and lawless president envisioned a secret extra-judicial system whereby he designates some person an enemy combatant-->the designated enemy combatant appears, without counsel before a meaningless kangaroo kombat status review tribunal-->appears before a meaningless kangaroo military kommission-->sentence to prison or death, as a set of military officers determine-->disposed of no questions asked; no shit!

That our president is not on trial in both America and the International Court is both frightening and amazing!

3. One wonders whether United States Supreme Court Justices sometimes read various newspaper reports, with delectable delight and private chuckles.

Originally Published June 18, 2007; Updated and Republished June 18, 2008:

Please read, study, and cherish the United States Supreme Court (US) fragile opinion¹ of Boumediene v Bush (06-1195 pdf 650K)—it repels a coordinated constitutional usurpation that make the Nixonian usurpation and abuses look like a grade-school exercise.

"The [Habeas Corpus Suspension] Clause is designed to protect against cyclical abuses² of the writ by the Executive and Legislative Branches." --US, 06-1195, 553 U. S. ____ (2008), dicta--

Web:

• UPDATED 06/18/2008 Audio, Diane Rehm discusses Boumediene v Bush with Shayana Kadidal (managing attorney Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative), Glenn Sulmasy, John Hutson, Kori Schake

  It is amazing that McCain would criticize Boumediene, a decision which will lessen the likelihood of unjust or illegal or torturous detentions, which characterizes his own Vietnam detention.

  Those in the administration who wrongfully and cynically tried to shoehorn terrorism into a war paradigm in order to justify their cruel, inhumane, and torturous behavior ought not to be heard to complain when they're latter jerked up short by our United States Supreme Court and the Rule of Law.

  Most of us are still wondering how it is that that it takes $2 trillion dollars (and growing), alienation of the entire world, starting two wars (and maybe a third) to fetch and jail several thousand terrorists (most then centralized in Afghanistan and Pakistan but now fully decentralized and dispersed).

  The administration's cynical abuse of the war paradigm has increased the number of terrorists while decentralizing and dispersing them, thereby making us more unsafe. It has also made law enforcement’s job much more complicated and difficult. Furthermore, it has reduced the multinational cooperation we so desperately need to reduce and eliminate terrorism.

Res:

• UPDATED 06/14/2008 The Suspension Clause: English Text, Imperial Contexts, and American Implications(1M pdf), Paul D. Halliday and G. Edward White 94 Va. L. Rev. 575 (2008)
• Oyez, Boumediene v. Bush - Oral Argument (mp3 and transcript)

-----notes-----

1. The constitutional usurpers (many working behind the scene) are unlikely to pay more than lip service to this opinion.

Only their complete removal and restricted access to power will repel further attacks on our powerful, majestic Constitution and its pluralistic representative form of government.

2. We owe a great debt of gratitude to organizations like Center for Constitutional Rights, ACLU, and NACDL all persistently worked to mitigate these “cyclical abuses”. Individuals like Michael Ratner, Joseph Margulies, Charles Swift, Linda Greenhouse, Neal Katyal, Norman Reimer, Anthony Romero, Karen Greenberg, and many more were early into the fight and haven't left, yet...just in case the administration reads the Supreme Court dicta "cyclical abuses" as "cynical abuses"!