Comments on: Reading Skimming Hamdan http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/ The world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast network Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:51:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Bush caves on warrantless wiretaps, hands program off to FISA court http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-189541 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Bush caves on warrantless wiretaps, hands program off to FISA court Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:01:47 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-189541 [...] Why, though, if they were considering such a move would they have defended their anti-FISA position so aggressively? Answer: why not? The left’s casus belli against Bush is that he’s tried to expand executive power on multiple fronts (interrogations, military tribunals), not just wiretapping. To concede on one could have weakened the others. Think Progress made that connection at the time of the Hamdan decision, in fact, arguing that the Supreme Court’s narrow reading of the 9/11 war resolution not only rendered the military tribunals unconstitutional but undermined the chief source of legal authority for the wiretapping program. [...] [...] Why, though, if they were considering such a move would they have defended their anti-FISA position so aggressively? Answer: why not? The left’s casus belli against Bush is that he’s tried to expand executive power on multiple fronts (interrogations, military tribunals), not just wiretapping. To concede on one could have weakened the others. Think Progress made that connection at the time of the Hamdan decision, in fact, arguing that the Supreme Court’s narrow reading of the 9/11 war resolution not only rendered the military tribunals unconstitutional but undermined the chief source of legal authority for the wiretapping program. [...]

]]> By: Right Voices » Blog Archive » Did We Learn Nothing From 9/11? http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-51933 Right Voices » Blog Archive » Did We Learn Nothing From 9/11? Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:35:41 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-51933 [...] Here is some background presented by Bryan on the Hamdan decision: It stripped part of President Bush’s wartime powers to deal with captured enemy combatants and put much of that power in Congress’ hands. He can’t try them via military tribunals, as captured enemy operatives were tried in World War II and previous conflicts. One could argue that that’s because there has been no official declaration of war, but one could also argue that given the nature of the threat the executive might need even more power than previous wartime presidents. Nevertheless, after Hamdan Bush has to get Congressional approval to do anything other than just hold enemy combatants until the war ends, which could be decades from now. Bush responds to Hamdan by handing the issue to Congress as SCOTUS instructed, which is nominally controlled by his fellow Republicans, in a way that makes the issue an obvious election-year gimme as well as a good policy. The Republicans in both houses can approve military tribunals, deal with the wiretapping issues and work out the specifics of interrogation techniques all while putting the Democrats on the spot about their desires to give terrorists full constitutional rights, no surveillance of suspected terrorists and no tough tactics at all used to find out what captured terrorists know. It’s a no-brainer. But apparently several GOPers in the House and Senate approach it with no brain. [...] [...] Here is some background presented by Bryan on the Hamdan decision: It stripped part of President Bush’s wartime powers to deal with captured enemy combatants and put much of that power in Congress’ hands. He can’t try them via military tribunals, as captured enemy operatives were tried in World War II and previous conflicts. One could argue that that’s because there has been no official declaration of war, but one could also argue that given the nature of the threat the executive might need even more power than previous wartime presidents. Nevertheless, after Hamdan Bush has to get Congressional approval to do anything other than just hold enemy combatants until the war ends, which could be decades from now. Bush responds to Hamdan by handing the issue to Congress as SCOTUS instructed, which is nominally controlled by his fellow Republicans, in a way that makes the issue an obvious election-year gimme as well as a good policy. The Republicans in both houses can approve military tribunals, deal with the wiretapping issues and work out the specifics of interrogation techniques all while putting the Democrats on the spot about their desires to give terrorists full constitutional rights, no surveillance of suspected terrorists and no tough tactics at all used to find out what captured terrorists know. It’s a no-brainer. But apparently several GOPers in the House and Senate approach it with no brain. [...]

]]> By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Republicans fight Bush on terror tactics http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-51923 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Republicans fight Bush on terror tactics Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:19:40 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-51923 [...] Here’s the scene. SCOTUS in the Hamdan decision stripped part of President Bush’s wartime powers to deal with captured enemy combatants and put much of that power in Congress’ hands. He can’t try them via military tribunals, as captured enemy operatives were tried in World War II and previous conflicts. One could argue that that’s because there has been no official of war, but one could also argue that given the nature of the threat the executive might need even more power than previous wartime presidents. Nevertheless, after Hamdan Bush has to get Congressional approval to do anything other than just hold enemy combatants until the war ends, which could be decades from now. Bush responds to Hamdan by handing the issue to Congress as SCOTUS instructed, which is nominally controlled by his fellow Republicans, in a way that makes the issue an obvious election-year gimme as well as a good policy. The Republicans in both houses can approve military tribunals, deal with the wiretapping issues and work out the specifics of interrogation techniques all while putting the Democrats on the spot about their desires to give terrorists full constitutional rights, no surveillance of suspected terrorists and no tough tactics at all used to find out what captured terrorists know. It’s a no-brainer. But apparently several GOPers in the House and Senate approach it with no brain. [...] [...] Here’s the scene. SCOTUS in the Hamdan decision stripped part of President Bush’s wartime powers to deal with captured enemy combatants and put much of that power in Congress’ hands. He can’t try them via military tribunals, as captured enemy operatives were tried in World War II and previous conflicts. One could argue that that’s because there has been no official of war, but one could also argue that given the nature of the threat the executive might need even more power than previous wartime presidents. Nevertheless, after Hamdan Bush has to get Congressional approval to do anything other than just hold enemy combatants until the war ends, which could be decades from now. Bush responds to Hamdan by handing the issue to Congress as SCOTUS instructed, which is nominally controlled by his fellow Republicans, in a way that makes the issue an obvious election-year gimme as well as a good policy. The Republicans in both houses can approve military tribunals, deal with the wiretapping issues and work out the specifics of interrogation techniques all while putting the Democrats on the spot about their desires to give terrorists full constitutional rights, no surveillance of suspected terrorists and no tough tactics at all used to find out what captured terrorists know. It’s a no-brainer. But apparently several GOPers in the House and Senate approach it with no brain. [...]

]]> By: Iowa Voice http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-48776 Iowa Voice Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:05:16 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-48776 <strong>My Thoughts On The Bush Speech...</strong> As everyone knows, President Bush gave a major speech yesterday in which he "admitted" that the CIA did indeed have terrorists detained (we already knew this, of course), and that they would be transferred to Gitmo. He also went on to propose legisl... My Thoughts On The Bush Speech…

As everyone knows, President Bush gave a major speech yesterday in which he “admitted” that the CIA did indeed have terrorists detained (we already knew this, of course), and that they would be transferred to Gitmo. He also went on to propose legisl…

]]> By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » “Significant news” coming in Bush speech today (Update: Geneva? Or … Osama?) http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-48304 Hot Air » Blog Archive » “Significant news” coming in Bush speech today (Update: Geneva? Or … Osama?) Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:18:41 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-48304 [...] The transfers, he says, mean that there’s no one left in the CIA program — but the program will remain so that new terrorists who are captured can be interrogated. He says he’s announcing this now because they’ve finished questioning them and because the Hamdan decision impaired their ability to interrogate terrorists because of the “vague and undefined” dignitary provisions of Article 3. Indeed. [...] [...] The transfers, he says, mean that there’s no one left in the CIA program — but the program will remain so that new terrorists who are captured can be interrogated. He says he’s announcing this now because they’ve finished questioning them and because the Hamdan decision impaired their ability to interrogate terrorists because of the “vague and undefined” dignitary provisions of Article 3. Indeed. [...]

]]> By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: 9/11 masterminds to receive POW status http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-48222 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: 9/11 masterminds to receive POW status Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:17:23 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-48222 [...] The fact is, the Supreme Court made this decision for him. He’s trying to salvage from it now whatever he can. [...] [...] The fact is, the Supreme Court made this decision for him. He’s trying to salvage from it now whatever he can. [...]

]]> By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Genevamania! Bush extends Article 3 to detainees worldwide http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-27202 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Genevamania! Bush extends Article 3 to detainees worldwide Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:25:18 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-27202 [...] And here’s what I wrote about it in my, um, “analysis” of Hamdan a few weeks ago: Afghanistan is a High Contracting Party, so the question for the Court was whether Al Qaeda operatives captured there are subject to the Article. Answer: yes. “But,” you say, “it says it applies only to conflicts ‘not of an international character’ and the war on terror is as international as they come.” Indeed — but the Court is reading “international” in its literal sense, i.e., “between nations.” Al Qaeda isn’t a nation. Which means no matter how global the jihad might be, so long as a jihadi is captured within the territory of a signatory to the Conventions, he’s entitled to the protections of Article 3. [...] [...] And here’s what I wrote about it in my, um, “analysis” of Hamdan a few weeks ago: Afghanistan is a High Contracting Party, so the question for the Court was whether Al Qaeda operatives captured there are subject to the Article. Answer: yes. “But,” you say, “it says it applies only to conflicts ‘not of an international character’ and the war on terror is as international as they come.” Indeed — but the Court is reading “international” in its literal sense, i.e., “between nations.” Al Qaeda isn’t a nation. Which means no matter how global the jihad might be, so long as a jihadi is captured within the territory of a signatory to the Conventions, he’s entitled to the protections of Article 3. [...]

]]> By: PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » Best Gitmo Decision Analysis Yet http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24521 PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » Best Gitmo Decision Analysis Yet Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:19:37 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24521 [...] This analysis gets to the guts of the Hamdan decision better than any other I’ve read so far. The upshot? It’s the old debate about approaching terrorism as war or as law enforcement, played out within the High Court. And the law-enforcement approach carried a majority. [...] [...] This analysis gets to the guts of the Hamdan decision better than any other I’ve read so far. The upshot? It’s the old debate about approaching terrorism as war or as law enforcement, played out within the High Court. And the law-enforcement approach carried a majority. [...]

]]> By: Fly At Night http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24487 Fly At Night Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:12:20 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24487 <strong>Hamdan – Clear Law?...</strong> I have to wonder; did SCOTUS feel left out in running the war on terror? The extension of the Geneva Convention to a group not defined as part of the Convention appears to be a unilateral extension of the powers of the Court. The Elite 535 should ac... Hamdan – Clear Law?…

I have to wonder; did SCOTUS feel left out in running the war on terror? The extension of the Geneva Convention to a group not defined as part of the Convention appears to be a unilateral extension of the powers of the Court. The Elite 535 should ac…

]]> By: Allahpundit http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24452 Allahpundit Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:11:17 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24452 Ha. Thanks. The problem is, half the stuff I taught would be wrong. Ha. Thanks. The problem is, half the stuff I taught would be wrong.

]]> By: Right Wing Nut House http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24450 Right Wing Nut House Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:07:15 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24450 <strong>HAMDAN HANGOVER...</strong> Now that we’ve had nearly 24 hours to digest the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, here are a few points about it that are emerging both interesting and troubling. First, it can generally be said that when it comes to interpreting what th... HAMDAN HANGOVER…

Now that we’ve had nearly 24 hours to digest the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, here are a few points about it that are emerging both interesting and troubling.

First, it can generally be said that when it comes to interpreting what th…

]]> By: Right Wing Nut House http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24451 Right Wing Nut House Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:07:15 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24451 <strong>HAMDAN HANGOVER...</strong> Now that we’ve had nearly 24 hours to digest the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, here are a few points about it that are emerging both interesting and troubling. First, it can generally be said that when it comes to interpreting what th... HAMDAN HANGOVER…

Now that we’ve had nearly 24 hours to digest the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, here are a few points about it that are emerging both interesting and troubling.

First, it can generally be said that when it comes to interpreting what th…

]]> By: rick moran http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24449 rick moran Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:06:09 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24449 Great stuff. Your the only one I read on this where I could understand the issues. So unfail yourself as a lawyer. Hell, maybe you should teach! Great stuff. Your the only one I read on this where I could understand the issues.

So unfail yourself as a lawyer. Hell, maybe you should teach!

]]> By: Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24437 Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:06:39 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24437 <strong>SCOTUS Tells CIC - Shoot 'Em Dead...</strong> At least, that's the message I get from our extra-jurisdictional, power-grabbing jurists on the Supreme Court. This decision has several implications: 1. Terrorists found on the battlefield will no longer be captured, but killed outright. Our milita.... SCOTUS Tells CIC – Shoot ‘Em Dead…

At least, that’s the message I get from our extra-jurisdictional, power-grabbing jurists on the Supreme Court. This decision has several implications: 1. Terrorists found on the battlefield will no longer be captured, but killed outright. Our milita….

]]> By: The Unlawyer http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24422 The Unlawyer Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:18:12 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24422 [...] More analysis at Hot Air and at The Belmont Club. Permalink | Trackback URL | RSS Feed | TechnoLinks TagIt! in:  del.icio.us •  Spurl •  Furl [...] [...] More analysis at Hot Air and at The Belmont Club. Permalink | Trackback URL | RSS Feed | TechnoLinks TagIt! in:  del.icio.us •  Spurl •  Furl [...]

]]> By: Strategic Outlook Institute - Weblog » Hamdan v Rumsfeld http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24414 Strategic Outlook Institute - Weblog » Hamdan v Rumsfeld Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:19:57 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24414 [...] Easy enough. There are plenty of great round-ups around. Look to Hot Air for a very good review. And look to the SCOTUS Blog for more lawyerly reviews. [...] [...] Easy enough. There are plenty of great round-ups around. Look to Hot Air for a very good review. And look to the SCOTUS Blog for more lawyerly reviews. [...]

]]> By: Patterico’s Pontifications » Allah on Hamdan http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24405 Patterico’s Pontifications » Allah on Hamdan Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:19:24 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24405 [...] But if there’s anything better than skimming an opinion yourself, it’s relying on the analysis of someone else who has skimmed it. And there’s nobody whose skimming I trust more than that of Allah, whose analysis answers exactly the questions I told my friend I wanted answered: [...] [...] But if there’s anything better than skimming an opinion yourself, it’s relying on the analysis of someone else who has skimmed it. And there’s nobody whose skimming I trust more than that of Allah, whose analysis answers exactly the questions I told my friend I wanted answered: [...]

]]> By: Allahpundit http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24394 Allahpundit Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:48:40 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24394 They didn't get five votes for the argument about Protocol 1. They *did* get five votes for the argument about Article 3. They didn’t get five votes for the argument about Protocol 1. They *did* get five votes for the argument about Article 3.

]]> By: Jezla http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24393 Jezla Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:46:42 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24393 I can swallow the part about the President having to get <em>specific</em> authorization from Congress to hold military tribunals for the Gitmo Gang. I think he would get it, despite the RINO's in the Senate. However, from what I heard on the radio today, and as I understand the powers granted in the Constitution, the Court overstepped its bounds by saying that the Geneva code applies. The President and Congress have the power to enter into and ratify treaties, <strong>not</strong> the Supreme Court. By saying that Protocol 1 applies, the Court has usurped the Congress' power to ratify treaties. That violates the powers given by the Constitution, and I don't think the administration should be bound by it. I can swallow the part about the President having to get specific authorization from Congress to hold military tribunals for the Gitmo Gang. I think he would get it, despite the RINO’s in the Senate.

However, from what I heard on the radio today, and as I understand the powers granted in the Constitution, the Court overstepped its bounds by saying that the Geneva code applies. The President and Congress have the power to enter into and ratify treaties, not the Supreme Court. By saying that Protocol 1 applies, the Court has usurped the Congress’ power to ratify treaties. That violates the powers given by the Constitution, and I don’t think the administration should be bound by it.

]]> By: So What About the Hamdan Decision? at 4thelittleguy.com http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24374 So What About the Hamdan Decision? at 4thelittleguy.com Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:32:52 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24374 [...] Hot Air [...] [...] Hot Air [...]

]]> By: Morning Coffee http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24373 Morning Coffee Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:31:34 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24373 <strong>Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials...</strong> WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies. Justice John P... Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials…

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies. Justice John P…

]]> By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Welcome Back 9/10 http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24372 Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Welcome Back 9/10 Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:25:14 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24372 [...] WELCOME BACK 9/10/01. (Don’t cite me as coming up with that one, saw it on a blog) [...] [...] WELCOME BACK 9/10/01. (Don’t cite me as coming up with that one, saw it on a blog) [...]

]]> By: Wizbang http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24368 Wizbang Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:14:39 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24368 <strong>The Hamdan Decision Explained...</strong> Allahpundit at Hot Air does an excellent job of explaining what the Hamdan decision means in plain English. He translates the part of the decision which says that all jihadists captured during the war on terror must be provided Geneva...... The Hamdan Decision Explained…

Allahpundit at Hot Air does an excellent job of explaining what the Hamdan decision means in plain English. He translates the part of the decision which says that all jihadists captured during the war on terror must be provided Geneva……

]]> By: Pablo http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24356 Pablo Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:29:52 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24356 How can we consider them a high contracting party when 1) We did not recognize them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and 2) They had not affirmed any commitment to or expressed any intention to adhere to the GCs, and 3)They broke pretty near every rule under them? I don't get it. How can we consider them a high contracting party when 1) We did not recognize them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and 2) They had not affirmed any commitment to or expressed any intention to adhere to the GCs, and 3)They broke pretty near every rule under them?

I don’t get it.

]]> By: Allahpundit http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/comment-page-1/#comment-24350 Allahpundit Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:47:25 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-hamdan/#comment-24350 Bush says that they were. Bush says that they were.

]]>