From: "Gary Britt" 

Is the supreme court vested with infallibility like the Pope??

I think not.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:44a418e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Is Bush never wrong?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/29/DI20060629
01125.html
>
> Anonymous: Reports I've read have usually emphasized the government's
> argument that, as "enemy combatants," the prisoners were not
entitled to
> the rights afforded the Geneva Convention NOR rights under the U.S.
> Constitution. I recall that the government argued that since the prisoners
> weren't on U.S. territory they weren't entitled to protection under the
> U.S. Constitution. Was this because they were on overseas territory (e.g.,
> U.S. military base) or because we argued that Guantanamo was still legally
> Cuban territory leased to the U.S? In that case, are we arguing that
> Castro is right to say Guantanamo belongs to Cuba, or that we still
> recognize the Batista government? I'm confused.
>
> Derek Jinks: From 2001-2004, the government argued, relying on a World War
> II precedent, that US federal courts had no habeas jurisdiction over
> persons detained as enemy combatants outside of the sovereign territory of
> the US. Because the GTMO lease agreement makes clear that Cuba retains
> ultimate sovereignty over the territory in question, the government
> maintained that US courts had no jurisdiction over enemy combatants
> detained at GTMO--even though the US exerices effective control over the
> territory. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 2004--which is why
> the Hamdan case moved forward in the first place.
>
> _______________________
>
> Toronto, Canada: The Bush administration took the liberty of ruling, by
> administrative fiat, that none of the Guantanamo detainees qualified for
> any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
>
> Do you know if Bush or any executive branch spokesmen claimed the
> detainees were not lawful combatants because they didn't satisfy the
> article 4 criteria?
>
> Derek Jinks: Terrific question. The issue is a complex, technical one.
> Article 4 does specify 4 criteria that must be satisfied for SOME
> detainees to receive POW status. These criteria are: they must carry their
> arms openly; wear a fixed, distinctive sign; operate under a responsible
> command structure; and observe the laws of war. The Bush administration
> has maintained that neither the al Qaeda nor the Taliban fighters complied
> with ANY of the four criteria. Here is the rub, though. These four
> criteria apply only to ONE category of enemy combatants---organized forces
> not forming part of the regular armed forces of a state party to the
> conflict. These criteria do NOT apply to members of the regular armed
> forces. So, members of the regular Taliban army are entitled to POW status
> irrespective of whether they meet the criteria. Several detainees at GTMO
> fall into this category.
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:44a4142e{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Breyer can have an opinion but the court didn't have constitutional
>> authority to issue ANY opinion on this because congress took away federal
>> court jurisdiction on this case in 2005.  5 of the Supremes decided to
>> ignore that and pretend they did have jurisdiction to issue an opinion.
>> However, the fact remains the decision, imho and the opinion of 4
>> justices on the Supremes, is that by continuing jurisdiction and
>> expressing any opinion the court is acting in violation of the
>> constitution.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:44a3f8e8{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> In his own separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said,
"Congress has
>>> not issued the executive a 'blank check."'
>>>
>>> "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the
legislative authority to
>>> create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents
>>> the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he
>>> believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>> news:44a3f700{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> The court's ruling is unconstitutional.  The constitution gives
>>>> Congress the power to determine the jurisdiction of the court.
>>>> Congress passed a law in 2005 that clearly stripped jurisdiction of
>>>> this case from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's
refusal to follow
>>>> the law and constitution is a blatant power grab by the court and an
>>>> unconstitutional exercise that the President has absolutely no
>>>> requirement to follow.
>>>>
>>>> If only Bush was gutsy enough to tell the court to take its
>>>> unconstitutional opinion and go to hell, but instead he
will likely get
>>>> congress to amend a couple statutes and do away with the
effect of this
>>>> unconstitutional opinion thereby.
>>>>
>>>> With this decision the Supreme Court takes another step
down the road
>>>> towards its complete loss of moral authority to bind the citizens of
>>>> this country.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:44a3f4fa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:44a3f1a8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5129904.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>  Phil Payne
>>>>>>  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
>>>>>>  +44 7833 654 800
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's that damn Geneva convention again 
>>>>>
>>>>> The court's ruling that the proceedings violated
Geneva Conventions is
>>>>> seen as a major blow to the administration.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5