In an extremely close, and perhaps partisan vote, the Supreme court voted 5-3 against the President's handing of detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
"The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions."
The vote tied together liberal judges with their moderate peers, while the three conservatives on the Court: Thomas, Alito, and Scalia voted for the President. Chief Justice Kennedy was forced to sit out of this case because he'd been the judge for the plaintiff's previous appeal. The dissent to the ruling, written by Judge Thomas claims that the ruling would,
"Sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."
While I'm sure Gib would be able to analyze the legal details of the case, my thoughts are that this is a victory in the greater war that America fights, a moral war in which terror seems to be overwhelming what Lincoln called, the "better angels of our nature." It seems to me that Bush and Co. have written indulgences for those in America to act indecently in the name fighting terror. I'm not going be as simplistic as our President and call us "the good guys," but I always believed that when we fight, we should fight from a higher moral ground, and that doing the ethical thing should be what defines this country. Like many Americans I'm not surprised at some of the dishonorable things that have occurred, but I am dismayed that these incidents go unpunished, and are even encouraged (for instance, rewriting the Army field manual to be more torture-friendly) by the executive. This is a good sign that we may become out of our state of fear and regaining our more moderate sensiblities.
By the way thought, I wonder how long before the right starts calling the Supreme Court activist judges?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment