![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 12:54:11
They decided that the gitmo people can't be tried by military tribunal. It's against both the code of military conduct and the Geneva convention.
The administration has said (for now) that they will abide by the ruling.
No secret trials!
Now, are they going to hear any arguments for wiretapping without going through the courts?
Posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 12:57:17
In reply to Supreme Court decision gets big yippeeee from me., posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 12:54:11
I'm betting some of the ultra, ultra, ultra right wing talk show hosts are going to have a field day.
And the ultra, ultra, ultra left wing talk show hosts (all three of them) will be celebrating out of proportion to the decision, too.
Posted by Jost on June 29, 2006, at 20:16:27
In reply to Re: talking heads, posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 12:57:17
There's a fascinating discussion of the decision on Slate today.
There's a 12 part conversation with Walter Dellinger, a constitutional law professor at Duke, about the decision.
This is the eleventh part, which is particularly striking in what it says about the implications of the decision. However, strong supporters of some aspects of Bush's administrations interpretation of the constitutional limits on Presidential power may not be comfortable reading this discussion.
http://www.slate.com/id/2144476/entry/2144825/
Jost
Posted by Jakeman on June 30, 2006, at 22:27:42
In reply to Supreme Court decision gets big yippeeee from me., posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 12:54:11
> They decided that the gitmo people can't be tried by military tribunal. It's against both the code of military conduct and the Geneva convention.
>
> The administration has said (for now) that they will abide by the ruling.
W>
> No secret trials!
>
> Now, are they going to hear any arguments for wiretapping without going through the courts?Well some people may be in favor of secret trials and be offended by your comment.
Jake
Posted by Declan on July 13, 2006, at 14:57:01
In reply to Re: Supreme Court decision gets big yippeeee from me. » AuntieMel, posted by Jakeman on June 30, 2006, at 22:27:42
That's the thing, Jake, as I'm sure everyone realises, that to be in favour of something, person or policy in politics is to be against those opposed.
We have David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay, currently in limbo from the judgement because John Howard (whose name I approach gingerly) had said he wanted Hicks tried by the military tribunals. Tony Blair brought 9(?) Britons back. It would be nice if John Howard would do the same for David Hicks, but, you know, man of steel and whatnot.
Declan
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.