<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supreme Court Flexes Its Muscles in Boumediene Decision</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:23:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tanstaafl</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64864</link>
		<dc:creator>tanstaafl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64864</guid>
		<description>Cutting to the chase.  And cutting through Justice Kennedy&#039;s 158 pages of rambling verbiage.  

&lt;i&gt;Why, really, should it ever stop if, as the chief justice said, the issue is &lt;b&gt;“not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants”?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;...It is hard to resist the conclusion that the real point of this game is to force the executive publicly to dance to the Court’s changing music. To come back kowtowing again and again, but somehow always coming up short, with the effect of demonstrating to all the world that executive power has been brought to heel and that the president dances to the Court’s tune but is never allowed quite to catch up to it. It is a special variety of show trial, albeit one that will cause many to rejoice at the executive’s comeuppance, starting with America’s law professors at home and its enemies abroad.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cutting to the chase.  And cutting through Justice Kennedy&#8217;s 158 pages of rambling verbiage.  </p>
<p><i>Why, really, should it ever stop if, as the chief justice said, the issue is <b>“not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants”?</b></i></p>
<p><i>&#8230;It is hard to resist the conclusion that the real point of this game is to force the executive publicly to dance to the Court’s changing music. To come back kowtowing again and again, but somehow always coming up short, with the effect of demonstrating to all the world that executive power has been brought to heel and that the president dances to the Court’s tune but is never allowed quite to catch up to it. It is a special variety of show trial, albeit one that will cause many to rejoice at the executive’s comeuppance, starting with America’s law professors at home and its enemies abroad.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64606</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64606</guid>
		<description>Adam:

The rules that the President and Congress worked out for detainees provided them with more rights than lawful combatants receive under the Geneva Convention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adam:</p>
<p>The rules that the President and Congress worked out for detainees provided them with more rights than lawful combatants receive under the Geneva Convention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john d</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64591</link>
		<dc:creator>john d</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64591</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;has always deferred to President’s incorrect categorization that everyone can be classified as either an unlawful combatant or “no longer dangerous”&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The Geneva Convention lays out the requirements for being considered a &quot;lawful combatant.&quot; The obvious thought is that if the prisoners do not meet the requirements for being a &#039;lawful combatant&#039; under the GC and are not obviously a non-combatant, then they can be considered as &#039;illegal combatant.&#039;

None of the rights provided the legal combatants are required to be extended to illegal combatants. The US was being nice by extending some of the rights under the GC to illegal combatants.

The whole question of what rights the Gitmo (and other) prisoners have depends entirely on the status of legal or illegal.

Or are we scrapping the GC?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>has always deferred to President’s incorrect categorization that everyone can be classified as either an unlawful combatant or “no longer dangerous”</p></blockquote>
<p>The Geneva Convention lays out the requirements for being considered a &#8220;lawful combatant.&#8221; The obvious thought is that if the prisoners do not meet the requirements for being a &#8216;lawful combatant&#8217; under the GC and are not obviously a non-combatant, then they can be considered as &#8216;illegal combatant.&#8217;</p>
<p>None of the rights provided the legal combatants are required to be extended to illegal combatants. The US was being nice by extending some of the rights under the GC to illegal combatants.</p>
<p>The whole question of what rights the Gitmo (and other) prisoners have depends entirely on the status of legal or illegal.</p>
<p>Or are we scrapping the GC?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64582</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64582</guid>
		<description>Isn&#039;t this merely the natural result of bad policy?  Instead of following the laws of war and separating everyone into the various pots of privileged combatant, unprivileged combatant and civilian, the administration lumped everyone remotely (and sometimes not at all) connected with any terrorist group and called them &quot;unlawful combatants&quot; with no rights.  The Court, instead of trying to actually get the law right and instruct the President to actually follow the laws of war, has always deferred to President&#039;s incorrect categorization that everyone can be classified as either an unlawful combatant or &quot;no longer dangerous&quot; to use the CSRT/ARB phrase.  If everyone falls under the same rubric, then why not give them the protections that all criminals get rather than no rights at all?  Bad law built upon bad policy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t this merely the natural result of bad policy?  Instead of following the laws of war and separating everyone into the various pots of privileged combatant, unprivileged combatant and civilian, the administration lumped everyone remotely (and sometimes not at all) connected with any terrorist group and called them &#8220;unlawful combatants&#8221; with no rights.  The Court, instead of trying to actually get the law right and instruct the President to actually follow the laws of war, has always deferred to President&#8217;s incorrect categorization that everyone can be classified as either an unlawful combatant or &#8220;no longer dangerous&#8221; to use the CSRT/ARB phrase.  If everyone falls under the same rubric, then why not give them the protections that all criminals get rather than no rights at all?  Bad law built upon bad policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roark</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64558</link>
		<dc:creator>Roark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:49:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64558</guid>
		<description>The United States Supreme Court is in dire need of 9 Clarence Thomas&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The United States Supreme Court is in dire need of 9 Clarence Thomas&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benson</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64534</link>
		<dc:creator>Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64534</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s consider corrective measures.  First: judicial reversal.  Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Ed -- if history is a guide, cleaning up after Kennedy may take a half century.  Second: ignore the ruling, as did the feds at least once before (the Trail of Tears).  Not practical.  Third: state remedies, as for the Kelo disgrace.  Irrelevant, but keep reading.  Fourth: FDR tactic -- pack the highest court, get it to reverse pronto.  Silly; did not work the first time.  

So how about a constitutional amendment, making the waging of war an exclusively executive function, and removing its conduct from the jurisdiction of the federal courts?  Would enough state legislatures go for it?  (Somebody around here must have some common sense!)  Opinions and predictions, please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s consider corrective measures.  First: judicial reversal.  Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Ed &#8212; if history is a guide, cleaning up after Kennedy may take a half century.  Second: ignore the ruling, as did the feds at least once before (the Trail of Tears).  Not practical.  Third: state remedies, as for the Kelo disgrace.  Irrelevant, but keep reading.  Fourth: FDR tactic &#8212; pack the highest court, get it to reverse pronto.  Silly; did not work the first time.  </p>
<p>So how about a constitutional amendment, making the waging of war an exclusively executive function, and removing its conduct from the jurisdiction of the federal courts?  Would enough state legislatures go for it?  (Somebody around here must have some common sense!)  Opinions and predictions, please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rotwang</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64531</link>
		<dc:creator>rotwang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:45:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64531</guid>
		<description>Scalia is SUCH a bedwetter. What the Nation is going to regret is that the Supreme Court was unable to roll back Bush&#039;s paranoid, lawless administration earlier on. Guantanamo puts the lie to any claim of American moral superiority and provides a snappy one-word rebuttal to the phrase &quot;home of the brave.&quot; I can think of no more cowardly assertion than &quot;the Constitution is not a suicide pact.&quot; If we&#039;re too terrified to live up to our ideals, we deserve whatever we get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scalia is SUCH a bedwetter. What the Nation is going to regret is that the Supreme Court was unable to roll back Bush&#8217;s paranoid, lawless administration earlier on. Guantanamo puts the lie to any claim of American moral superiority and provides a snappy one-word rebuttal to the phrase &#8220;home of the brave.&#8221; I can think of no more cowardly assertion than &#8220;the Constitution is not a suicide pact.&#8221; If we&#8217;re too terrified to live up to our ideals, we deserve whatever we get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveMG</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64455</link>
		<dc:creator>SteveMG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64455</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;A Democratic Congress and a Republican president duly did so, or thought they did, in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).&lt;/i&gt;

Correction: In 2006, the Republicans controlled Congress. 

The Democrats won the 2006 elections but only assumed control in 2007 when a new Congress was sworn in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>A Democratic Congress and a Republican president duly did so, or thought they did, in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).</i></p>
<p>Correction: In 2006, the Republicans controlled Congress. </p>
<p>The Democrats won the 2006 elections but only assumed control in 2007 when a new Congress was sworn in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Now the REAL SCOTUS&#8230;.Supreme Court Flexes Its Muscles in Boumediene Decision &#171; Tizona&#8217;s Weblog</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64453</link>
		<dc:creator>Now the REAL SCOTUS&#8230;.Supreme Court Flexes Its Muscles in Boumediene Decision &#171; Tizona&#8217;s Weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64453</guid>
		<description>[...] Posted by tizona on June 24, 2008  Obsessed with expanding judicial power, Anthony Kennedy fails to recognize that his country is at wa... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Posted by tizona on June 24, 2008  Obsessed with expanding judicial power, Anthony Kennedy fails to recognize that his country is at wa&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JED</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64438</link>
		<dc:creator>JED</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:02:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-supreme-court-flexes-its-muscles-in-wartime/#comment-64438</guid>
		<description>Do I read this right in that killing or capturing an enemy abroad is equal to granting him citizenship?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do I read this right in that killing or capturing an enemy abroad is equal to granting him citizenship?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

