Heaven help us (edited)
Jan. 2nd, 2006 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumSo, not to put to fine a point on it, the McCain Amendment is as worthless as I said it was.
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.
That's what the president said in his signing statement on the bill.
He reserves the right to make it up as he goes along, and Congress, the Courts, the Constitution, and We; the People, can go piss up a rope.
He, after all, will be doing it for our own good, and that trumps all.
Further, if I am reading the decision referred to correctly, there is, per the Administration no way for anyone to enjoin; nor petition for redress, since the restriction is; as interpreted, placed only so long as the Executive deems it expedient (Alexander v Sandoval is a piece of Scalia's less clear writing, explaining why a petitioner has no right to make the intial case. Hinging on layers of meaning one [who is only as versed in the law as I am, an amateur who reads it for pleasure] might say it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but I suspect it's a trifle less opaque, but just a trifle). It will be for the courts to decide whether any appeal of violations of this law are allowed to be heard, but from my reading of that statment the White House position is, "We won't torture anyone unless we have to, at which point it will be legal, because the President says so, and if you have any problem with that, you can pound sand, because we also decided these people aren't entitled to any civil rights (I guess they aren't as inalienable as all that). So it's going to be an uphill battle.
(p.s. Hilzoy has more, at Obsidian Wings Comments there can be interesting, but the signal to noise ratio is often high)
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.
That's what the president said in his signing statement on the bill.
He reserves the right to make it up as he goes along, and Congress, the Courts, the Constitution, and We; the People, can go piss up a rope.
He, after all, will be doing it for our own good, and that trumps all.
Further, if I am reading the decision referred to correctly, there is, per the Administration no way for anyone to enjoin; nor petition for redress, since the restriction is; as interpreted, placed only so long as the Executive deems it expedient (Alexander v Sandoval is a piece of Scalia's less clear writing, explaining why a petitioner has no right to make the intial case. Hinging on layers of meaning one [who is only as versed in the law as I am, an amateur who reads it for pleasure] might say it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but I suspect it's a trifle less opaque, but just a trifle). It will be for the courts to decide whether any appeal of violations of this law are allowed to be heard, but from my reading of that statment the White House position is, "We won't torture anyone unless we have to, at which point it will be legal, because the President says so, and if you have any problem with that, you can pound sand, because we also decided these people aren't entitled to any civil rights (I guess they aren't as inalienable as all that). So it's going to be an uphill battle.
(p.s. Hilzoy has more, at Obsidian Wings Comments there can be interesting, but the signal to noise ratio is often high)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-02 11:27 pm (UTC)Unless these people change their minds, not much will happen to stop the Presidency from becoming dictators.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 12:35 am (UTC)Fuck wits, both of them... ceading key battles now for the outside chance of power in the futre. And without significant voting reform, and paper ballots, Jeb's got it wrapped for '08.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 01:51 am (UTC)He, after all, agreed to a, "compromise," which allowed, "I was just following orders," to be used as an affirmative defense.
And allowed language which would let them make it completely legal, just by changing FM-34-52, nit just for the Army, but for everyone.
He's become a lickspittle.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 06:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 06:59 pm (UTC)The text he wrote was
TK
The Paradox Explained
Date: 2006-01-03 01:41 am (UTC)Mutatis mutandis: all is reduced to Force. Vae victis, vae victor: there is no difference.
We have always been at war with
MexicoCanadaMexico.no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 03:08 am (UTC)I'd agree that it's not enough, but it is something.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 06:43 pm (UTC)First, is the recruitig numbers. We are not getting as broad a section of the population as I might like. Thankfully (from the POV of someone who thinks we need a broader slice of the public in uniform) the economy (stagnant if we trend the DOW for Bush's term) is forcing a bunch of people to enlist, who otherwise wouldn't.
But J. Snuffy, recruit, tends to be young, less than aware, and more gung ho than is good for him.
I, were I of a General Miller sort of mindset, could take any number of Pvt. Snuffys, and teach them it was ok to do all sorts of things, which aren't in the FM. If it was in the FM, and I had the law actually supporting me... God save the mark.
TK