So the Supreme Court has ruled that W Must Adhere to Geneva Convention?

[Philosoraptor]

I know I get all confused by big words and the dealings of mighty judges, but, am I given to understand that the supreme court said that the president must follow the Geneva Convention Standards in the case cited?

Did they not cite the Geneva Convention as the law and the standard in this case?

Did they not rule that our president must comply with these antiquated and quaint Geneva Convention rules banning torture and other atrocities against prisoners of war?

Does this not mean that they are acknowledging that the president has indeed grievously violated these rules and committed actual, definitive war crimes?

And can they not be used as precedent of law in a case against the president?

I'm a dumbass, so explain it real slow to me please.

[htuttle]

1. That's the long and short of it

Though I doubt there is *currently* the political will to deal with the Bush Administration's war crimes, the thing about war crimes is that there is NO statute of limitations.

Just ask Adolf Eichmann or Augusto Pinochet...

[AndyA]

2. A friend of mine is an attorney, and he feels the ruling from the SCOTUS

is significant. I imagine there will be some fallout because of it. No doubt the Bush Administration is scurring about trying to get their GOP Congress robots to introduce legislation that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime. :eyes:

[Philosoraptor]

3. I wonder how many times the U.S. has broken the laws in 4 years?

I wonder how many cases could go to court?

[htuttle]

4. He can still be charged years or even decades later

Like Kissinger, Bush is going to find that he won't be able to travel to a lot of countries no matter how long it's been since he was president.

[halobeam]

6. Isn't that it in a nutshell? They will change the rules, to get him

off the hook. They've done this before. :shrug:

[Philosoraptor]

8. I know W will do whatever he damn well pleases.

We all know how W got there, by ignoring contitutional law altogether, and he has been doing it ever since.

[sable302]

12. we ratified the Geneva Conventions

so I think it's the law now. So wouldn't the only way to get around it be to repeal, and that would sure look funny to the rest of the world.

'US Repeals the Geneva Conventions: Prefers Facism'

Sheeesh.

[Hugin]

13. Nah, it's a "Convention" not a "Treaty"...

The Constitution says nothing about Conventions or how many times and
when a State Legislature can redistrict.

Hey, that's what I keep hearing.

[sable302]

10. one thing

they needed another osama tape really fast.

[Hugin]

11. It was served up yesterday...

He was asking for Zark's body.

[Poll_Blind]

5. Not sure what the Supremes did but The Constitution classifies...

...all treaties signed by the United States as "The Supreme Law". The Constitution defines "The Supreme Law" as The Constitution, itself. Any treaties we sign rise to the same level of legal importance as The Constitution and any lack of adherence, equally unConstitutional.

To wit, Article Six of The Constitution:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

By the way, in my book you're most-definitely not a dumbass. What you are is ignorant. There is no shame in being ignorant- we are all ignorant about a great many things. Choosing to extinguish your ignorance, as you have done, is laudable in the extreme. Those who willingly remain ignorant, those are the dumb-asses.

I would direct you to this article as a springboard to further understanding of the issue and the ramifications of the decision.

PB

[Hugin]

7. They'll turn around and say The Constitution talks about "treaties" and...

not "Conventions".

Just watch.

[helderheid]

9. you got it but doesn't the US not recognize the world court?