home

Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:15:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


The only Senator to speak about the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld today was Dick Durbin (D-IL.) Here is his statement and a snippet:

Today, the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration and for James Madison and for the rule of law. Here is what Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "Concentration of power (in the executive branch) puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid."

This is a historic decision -- a decision that reminds this President and every President to come that they must answer first to the Constitution of the United States. It says to President Bush and all of those who promulgated these policies that they must answer to our Constitution.

Let's hope our Imperial President takes note.

As for the legal framework of the decision, read Aziz Huq, Associate Counsel of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, guest-blogging on the ACSblog:

The Hamdan decision rejects this fast-and-loose attitude to the Separation of Powers. It endorses careful scrutiny of the precise powers delegated by Congress to the executive branch. The Court thus properly rejected Justice Thomas's extraordinary idea that the "structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch" in war-time--aspects of executive power that make that branch the "most dangerous" to individual liberty today--merit a hands-off approach by the courts. (Ironically, Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens' "unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare"; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas's official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service. Justice Stevens suffers another unwarranted ad hominim attack from Justice Scalia, who refers to Stevens' sarcasm). In short, Hamdan follows the wisdom of Justice Souter's concurrence in Hamdi: "For reasons of inescapable human nature, the branch of government asked to counter a serious threat is not the branch on which to rest the Nation's reliance in striking the balance between the will to win and the cost in liberty on the way to victory."

The Court's decision to rest its holding on the Milligan/Youngstown vision of separate branches, sharing powers represents an important blow to the present Administration's campaign to accumulate the powers to make laws, enforce laws, and then punish those it deems in violation of those laws. As Jane Mayer nicely explains in this week's New Yorker (and as developed at length in the book by Fritz Schwarz and me to be published at the beginning of 2007), this vision is understood by the Vice-President and others to be at the core of this Administration's legacy: Hamdan rejects that legacy. This surely will be one of the decision's pivotal long-term legacies.

< Supreme Court Bars Miltary Tribunals | Trent Lott on Hamdan Decision >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    Well, we understand what Durbin thinks about our troops. He made that very plain while he was destroying his chance to play in a bigger game. I've been traveling today, so I haven't had a chance to really think about it. My best is that I am tremendously disappointed to think that the SC believes that we are supposed to treat captured enemy fighters the same as US citizens. I would have no problem looking anyone in the eye and say: That's dumb and dumber. It would also seem that the issue is very procedural, and that Bush has ample opportunity to get with Congress and work out the problems. At that point I think that the Left will start to understand the difference between success and happiness. The Repubs will beat anyone, such as Durbin, who tries to sell this as a win for America, right down into the ground. So congrats and enjoy. In one fell swipe the red states have been ran back into the Repub camp and any hope the Demos have had has been dashed into the warm surf of GITMO.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    I am tremendously disappointed to think that the SC believes that we are supposed to treat captured enemy fighters the same as US citizens.
    As usual you throw up the straw man. The decision said that had to folllow the rule of law as laid out in the military law and Geneva conventions. As to the rest of your nonsense, dream on. The big issue is not going away, i.e. the power grab by Bush and the abdication by Congress. This case is just one facet of that problem.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    jim, i'm curious, does it hurt a lot, when you land from that great leap? since none of the detainees has actually been officially accused of, well, anything, exactly where is your information coming from, that you so blithely characterize all of them as "captured enemy fighters"? further, if, indeed, they are "captured enemy fighters", than the should be treated as POW's, as per the rules of the Geneva Convention, of which the U.S. is a willing signatory to. it must also hurt to twist your brain and tongue so much. the USSC got it right, in spite of thomas' and scalia's eagerness to destroy that which the founding fathers, and others, have shed so much blood and treasure creating and defending. jim, why do you hate america so?

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#4)
    by profmarcus on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    glenn greenwald weighs in with a concern similar to my own...
    My quick take is that it's certainly an important symbolic victory, but this administration's contempt for the law, the constitution, and the balance/separation of powers that our system rests on isn't going to be very affected by what 5 people in black robes say. They've ignored Congress and they'll ignore the Court too, leaving our mainstream media with more time to deal with the impending threat of blogofascism.
    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    My best is that I am tremendously disappointed to think that the SC believes that we are supposed to treat captured enemy fighters the same as US citizens.
    They are not suppose to be treated as US citizens, they are suppose to be treated as POW if they are 'enemy fighters'. As stated above, in accordance with several legal documents that the US has signed, if they are POWs, they are to be treated in a certain manner.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 09:23:21 PM EST
    Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was giving a very anti Iraq war speech on CSPAN this evening. I think it's just about the bottom of the ninth for the Chimperor. Unfortunately, Paul's speech didn't have the same fiery political impact without Katherine Harris in the background nuzzling up to some unlucky male congressman.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 09:36:09 PM EST
    Jim considering the fact that you've basically been telling us, as self-appointed spokesperson for purple states majesty for the last 3+ years, that the only sure way to keep "red state" support is to follow your example and savor Shrub's every fart as if it were a bouquet of sweetheart roses, Im guessing that most of those here have already taken their grain of salt along with your latest words on the state of the nation.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 09:48:10 PM EST
    Soc, The decision said that had to folllow the rule of law as laid out in the military law and Geneva conventions. Please do not confuse the issue with facts. Red state americans like Jim, who hate the A-rabs, will never understand that they are wrong about their solution to the so-called WOT. They were raised to embrace our colonialistic foreign policy that breeds these "enemy combatants". Since they are the lucky recipients of the cream of the crop of the worlds resouces, provided by economic blackmail, and backed up with nuclear weapons, their ingrained opinion is that rest of the population of the world is here to serve us. They cannot accept the alternatives. If anyone resists, they are locked up without trial.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 10:50:13 PM EST
    Oh! I can only skim the comments because I don't want any rain on my parade tonight! The monarchist wing of the SCOTUS has been held in check!!!!!! I'm delighted, and I feel this decision casts very clear light on all the rest of the unconstitutional stuff they've been doing. It throws their stupid permission to use force argument right in the latrine where it belongs... it has all kinds of good portent, and I just ain't gonna brook no bummer blather from trollish bummer blatherers!

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#10)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    SCOTUSblog says this decision brings with it the threat of the death penalty for Bushist violations of war crimes statutes. Well, sure, why not, I say, while affirming my opposition on principle to the death penalty. I'm not sure I reach the same conclusion as SCOTUSblog, however, that this would be a deterrent. We are talking about people who view criminal law as a nuisance to work around rather than an actual threat to their liberty and life; and who select and promote people who incline towards criminal and sycophantic behavior. As for Clarence Thomas, know well that such a person never gives experience a chance to disprove his or her extensive and detailed knowledge of the world. To achieve his surpassing understanding of warfare, it was necessary to avoid all military service; so we should praise him for his sacrifice.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#11)
    by dutchfox on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:19:22 AM EST
    Just got my New Yorker mag. There's a Meyer piece in the current issue about David Addington. Of course the article was written and published before yesterday's SC decision, but Meyer does give some insight to Addington (whom I'd never really heard of before reading it).

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:01:36 AM EST
    cpinva - You write:
    jim, i'm curious, does it hurt a lot, when you land from that great leap? since none of the detainees has actually been officially accused of, well, anything
    Does it hurt? Uhhh.. Oh, I see. cp wants to make a funny... Well let me answer the gentleperson from inva.. Thanks for making my point. These are war prisoners, not common everyday criminals. I think 10, if I can believe Sailor, have been charged as criminals. Do you think every prisoner of war should be treated to a full up US criminal justice system trial? As for the GC, anyone reading Article 4 and 5 with even a modest amount of critical thinking ability can understand that it does not apply to these prisoners. You are welcome to replow this ground if you like, but somehow I doubt that you will do anything but make claims. SD - I am cheered by the thought that you take my personal opinions seriously enough to consider them straw men. Yesterday Demos lost their already slim chance to retake the Congress. Count on it. Che - I love it when you make personal attacks. It proves again that you are incapable of making a reasonable argument and must rely on nasty words to boost your ego. Since you supposedly are in the medical field, surely you can get help for that problem. Jondee - Read my comment to Che. Consider it yours, with love. Sparklemotion - If the documents you are speaking of happen to be the GC, then I invite you to read Article 4. Article 4 clearly defines who is covered. Among the points is wearing uniforms, carrying weapons openly and a few other items. These prisoners clearly flunk this test. Now, Article 5 further says, if there is any doubt about their status, then we need a tribunal... Okay, here comes the hard part, so follow closely. There is NO DOUBT. Since there is NO DOUBT there is no need for a tribunal and they aren't covered. Now, that didn't hurt, did it?

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:33:57 AM EST
    Hmmmmmm, JimakaPPJ wrote:
    Thanks for making my point. These are war prisoners, not common everyday criminals. I think 10, if I can believe Sailor, have been charged as criminals.
    Do you think every prisoner of war should be treated to a full up US criminal justice system trial?
    As for the GC, anyone reading Article 4 and 5 with even a modest amount of critical thinking ability can understand that it does not apply to these prisoners. You are welcome to replow this ground if you like, but somehow I doubt that you will do anything but make claims
    One question to ask, when we surrender tha moral high ground to allow indefinite incarceration without charges, what differentiates us from common kidnappers (terrorists that use tha so-called Al Queda method) even if tha kidnapping has tha Presidential Seal of Approval? BTW jim, yu do know that our Prez intends that these so-called foreign fighters (Dubya's terminology) are facing tha Hangman's noose, yu did know that, right? Tha way I understand it Prez and company would prefer that we just lynch them all, just like tha Puritans did to tha Indians. No messy trial, no appeals, and no damned "liberal lawyers" to interfere with satisfying Darth Cheney's bloodlust for POWER.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:41:35 AM EST
    Jim, With extensive indoctrination in military ethics and how soldiers should be led to comport themselves in times of war, I would have to say that you are wrong with your mischaracterizations of the GC. My instructors also think you are wrong, but that was years ago. You are trying to assign "status" to a human being for which no history is known other than the immediate circumstances of his capture, and that, only from one side, the US point of view. For instance, in the closing of WWII, Euro-theatre, were the massing of German troops towards the western Allies an attack (a hostile action) or were the troops attempting to be captured by the western Allies rather than the Russians (an act of surrender). Back to the present. What is worse, the US set up a paid, ratting out program with known prevaricators of the first water (better than Rove), the Afghan warlords. The US paid known pedophiles (some warlords), for instance, to reveal "combatants" or Al Queda "sympathizers". Does this not sound like some kind of nationalized lynching to anyone? Bought and paid for by a self-styled holier than thou country, the US? A solution. Acquaint the "enemy combatants", or whatever you want to call them, with the US manner of justice. Teach them our "rule of law", the applicable laws, ..... and god-damnit, follow them. Show them how you are following the laws. If not enough evidence, release them. Tell them why. As a former military interrogator, I can guarantee you will have neutered most any anti-American "hatred" and likely will have gained a willing "collaborator", if that is what you want. Jim, your feelings are important, but you must grow up. Many besides you pee'd their pants on 9-11. It is time you joined the rest of the human race by changing your pants.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:42:51 AM EST
    yes, 10 out of 700, and you've seen the links so don't confuse my honesty with your own. and the most telling part of ppj's statement is that he doesn't have to read it to opine about it ... and he's been completely wrong so far and has resorted to personal attacks as always.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:36:08 AM EST
    Jim, My comment was directed to Soccerdad and was not just about you, but a rather large segment of our population and our FP. I will not continue OT, but if you want to respond to comments here, you should respond to the TOPIC of the comment instead of how it relates to you personally.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    According to SCOTUS, war crimes have appear to have been committed by the Bush administration. The truth will out, and an investigation can't be delayed indefinitely. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, torture apologists.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:47:23 PM EST
    Che - If you don't want a response by the person, then don't use the name. Because when you use the name, the use is a topic. Sky-Ho - I had some of that myself, and the training was also years ago, so it was focused on nation state military instead of terrorists. I suspect your training was much the same. That is, if you had any. As for your continual reference to your mythical training, I again ask that you explain yourself. That you cannot, and are very likely bluffing is demonstrated by the fact that you always throw in some personal attack calling those who disagree with you cowards. The real men and women I served with did not and would not do that. It doesn't go very well with being considered a leader.

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:03:28 PM EST
    Sailor - Are you saying that 10 haven't been charged? zebm1 - It is not necessary for say that they are covered by the GC to extend proper treatment. By and large we have done that, and in some small number of cases, we have investigated/punished those who went over the line. To that end what the disagreement always comes down to is "what is torture." As I have posted before, I would say we need to revise the GC and the convention of torture (ICAT??) to cover the wars we are now fighting. Having said the above I find it juvenile when people argue that anything we do will impact what the terrorist does. If you want to say virture is its own reward, go ahead. My version is "Few Good Deeds Go Unpunished." And no, I haven't seen Bush calling for them to be hung. Perhaps you have a link??

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:20:57 PM EST
    That you cannot, and are very likely bluffing is demonstrated by the fact that you always throw in some personal attack calling those who disagree with you cowards. Whereas the proper thing to do, as PPJ has himself done here time after time, is denigrate the experience, learning, intelligence, etc. of your opponent. Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is justice. H. L. Mencken

    Re: Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    Sailor - Are you saying that 10 haven't been charged?
    another attempt to hijack a thread by misquoting/misunderstanding/just plain prevarication.
    I think 10, if I can believe Sailor, have been charged as criminals.
    Gee, jiminy, calling me a liar? After, yaknow, I linked to the fact that your fearful leader has only charged 10 out of 759 gitmo detainees? Are you denying that fact? It wouldn't surprise me given that you seem to have a problem with the truth.

    Sen. Dick Durbin and Others on Hamdan Decision | 21 comments (21 topical)