DEMOCRATS: BUSH OVERSTEPPED WAR POWERS
Randy L. Harrington
July 03, 2006
WASHINGTON—Democrats said on Sunday that there should be a broad review of whether President Bush overstepped his war powers in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that attacked the administration's use of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.
Senior Democrats on Sunday claimed that the Supreme Court's ruling last week leaves the door open for a closer look at complaints that Bush improperly circumvented Congress in other areas besides the military tribunals.
Thursday the United States Supreme Curt ruled that the military tribunals created by Bush to try foreign terrorism defendants that are being held at Guantanamo Bay were unlawful and violated the Geneva Conventions.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said that Bush acts as if his power is “infinite and unchecked by anybody.” Schumer sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seeking a review of “all their other arrogations of power.” Gonzalez hasn't been too supportive of the Supreme Court's reference to the Geneva Conventions. In an interview last week when asked about the Geneva Conventions, Gonzalez referred to the Geneva Conventions as “quaint.”
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) defended the Bush white house, and advanced his theory that the ruling simply meant that the Congress should draft appropriate legislation to allow Bush's continued war on terror on the some 450 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) seems to think that the only solution would be to close Guantanamo Bay, as a message to the world that the United States will uphold the basic tenants of freedom, and justice, and as a message to President Bush that his powers are not all inclusive.
Senator Mitch McConnel (R-Ky.), the Republican Whip told NBC's “Meet the Press” that “We will have to act on this very soon, either in July or September.”
Both parties have sought political advantage from the Supreme Courts ruling, and have demonstrated that they intend to use the ruling on national security as they face the midterm congressional elections this November.
Republicans have made it clear to Democrats that if they don't back Bush on the Guantanamo Bay issue that they will appear to be soft on terrorism. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.) seems to disagree, and has expressed that the issue doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, addresses basic legal principles that as a nation we are trying to instill in Iraq, and other parts of the world. By setting an example to the world is the best demonstration that our system of justice works for all, even accused terrorists. Feinstein told ABC's George Stephenopoulos that Republicans would “rue the day if they try to politicize this.”
The Supreme Court ruling causes questions about the President's assertion of executive authority, and his war powers which he has repeatedly relied upon in the Guantanamo Bay matters.
Bush has made similar broad arguments in support of administration operations to justify warrantless domestic spying, financial tracking programs, and clandestine operations that transfer terrorists.
The Supreme Courts ruling has opened up the door to question the administrations other anti-terrorism measures used in the name of the war on terrorism. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) in an interview with Fox News, was asked whether President Bush is circumventing Congress on his war on terrorism, and relying heavily upon his own interpretation of his executive authority, and war powers he said “This is something that I think we're going to have to consider as members of Congress and also the administration has to consider.”
Senator Schumer's reasoning is along the same lines, and he said “We're not only going to have to look at this issue [Guantanamo Bay], we're going to have to go back to other issues as well because this ruling undercuts some of the other things the president has done.”
The President, in his insistence that the issues decided by the Supreme Court were very limited to his military tribunals, has ignored the greater question that has surfaced over the last year, and that is, has he taken executive liberties in the war on terror without proper legal authority. Bush now wants to go to Congress and ask for new rules that will allow him to try Guantanamo Bay detainees.
McCain said that it is “not Guantanamo itself, it's the status of these detainees.” The Bush administration claims that Guantanamo Bay detainees are not being held under the Geneva Convention because most are al-Qaeda terrorists, and have no declared State. The Supreme Court didn't buy this theory, and relied heavily upon reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in Thursday's ruling.
Bush developed Guantanamo Bay to keep detainees off of United States soil, and out of the United States legal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has also spoken of the legal status of the detainees, and has ruled that it is not where they are detained, but the fact that they are under the care, custody, and control of United States personnel that determines their legal status.
Senator McCain expressed his confidence that Bush would reach an amicable agreement with Congress that will “make sure that bad guys...are not released and those who deserve to be released will be.” In the United States we have a method for determining this, it's called a jury trial.
SOURCES/CONTRIBUTORS: REUTERS; API; ABC NEWS; NBC NEWS
Copyright 2006 Randy L. Harrington. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Senior Democrats on Sunday claimed that the Supreme Court's ruling last week leaves the door open for a closer look at complaints that Bush improperly circumvented Congress in other areas besides the military tribunals.
Thursday the United States Supreme Curt ruled that the military tribunals created by Bush to try foreign terrorism defendants that are being held at Guantanamo Bay were unlawful and violated the Geneva Conventions.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said that Bush acts as if his power is “infinite and unchecked by anybody.” Schumer sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seeking a review of “all their other arrogations of power.” Gonzalez hasn't been too supportive of the Supreme Court's reference to the Geneva Conventions. In an interview last week when asked about the Geneva Conventions, Gonzalez referred to the Geneva Conventions as “quaint.”
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) defended the Bush white house, and advanced his theory that the ruling simply meant that the Congress should draft appropriate legislation to allow Bush's continued war on terror on the some 450 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) seems to think that the only solution would be to close Guantanamo Bay, as a message to the world that the United States will uphold the basic tenants of freedom, and justice, and as a message to President Bush that his powers are not all inclusive.
Senator Mitch McConnel (R-Ky.), the Republican Whip told NBC's “Meet the Press” that “We will have to act on this very soon, either in July or September.”
Both parties have sought political advantage from the Supreme Courts ruling, and have demonstrated that they intend to use the ruling on national security as they face the midterm congressional elections this November.
Republicans have made it clear to Democrats that if they don't back Bush on the Guantanamo Bay issue that they will appear to be soft on terrorism. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.) seems to disagree, and has expressed that the issue doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, addresses basic legal principles that as a nation we are trying to instill in Iraq, and other parts of the world. By setting an example to the world is the best demonstration that our system of justice works for all, even accused terrorists. Feinstein told ABC's George Stephenopoulos that Republicans would “rue the day if they try to politicize this.”
The Supreme Court ruling causes questions about the President's assertion of executive authority, and his war powers which he has repeatedly relied upon in the Guantanamo Bay matters.
Bush has made similar broad arguments in support of administration operations to justify warrantless domestic spying, financial tracking programs, and clandestine operations that transfer terrorists.
The Supreme Courts ruling has opened up the door to question the administrations other anti-terrorism measures used in the name of the war on terrorism. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) in an interview with Fox News, was asked whether President Bush is circumventing Congress on his war on terrorism, and relying heavily upon his own interpretation of his executive authority, and war powers he said “This is something that I think we're going to have to consider as members of Congress and also the administration has to consider.”
Senator Schumer's reasoning is along the same lines, and he said “We're not only going to have to look at this issue [Guantanamo Bay], we're going to have to go back to other issues as well because this ruling undercuts some of the other things the president has done.”
The President, in his insistence that the issues decided by the Supreme Court were very limited to his military tribunals, has ignored the greater question that has surfaced over the last year, and that is, has he taken executive liberties in the war on terror without proper legal authority. Bush now wants to go to Congress and ask for new rules that will allow him to try Guantanamo Bay detainees.
McCain said that it is “not Guantanamo itself, it's the status of these detainees.” The Bush administration claims that Guantanamo Bay detainees are not being held under the Geneva Convention because most are al-Qaeda terrorists, and have no declared State. The Supreme Court didn't buy this theory, and relied heavily upon reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in Thursday's ruling.
Bush developed Guantanamo Bay to keep detainees off of United States soil, and out of the United States legal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has also spoken of the legal status of the detainees, and has ruled that it is not where they are detained, but the fact that they are under the care, custody, and control of United States personnel that determines their legal status.
Senator McCain expressed his confidence that Bush would reach an amicable agreement with Congress that will “make sure that bad guys...are not released and those who deserve to be released will be.” In the United States we have a method for determining this, it's called a jury trial.
SOURCES/CONTRIBUTORS: REUTERS; API; ABC NEWS; NBC NEWS
Copyright 2006 Randy L. Harrington. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.