Tag Archives: hamdan v. rumsfeld

Then there’s this from last night’s Countdown

16 Sep

It’s unacceptable to think

Sept. 15: “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann talks to Newsweek’s Howard Fineman about President Bush’s speech defending his proposed terror laws.

Olbermann on the reason Bush wants to redefine Geneva Conventions (MSN Video)

Sept. 15: “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann talks to Jonathan Turley, Constitutional law professor at George Washington University, about the legality of Bush’s proposed terror laws.

War Crimes and retroactive immunity

16 Sep

Once again, the amazing Brad Hicks has said something that needs to be heard, and in a very cogent manner.

Burying the Lede Again: It’s Not about the DEFINITION of Torture

I would also refer you to where I discussed this very same thing earlier this month.

Link to Brad courtesy velvetpage

Herr G. W. is at it again?

5 Sep

Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
Continue reading

Interesting analysis of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

3 Jul

The significance of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld by Glenn Greenwald

States Mr. Greenwald: For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released May, 2006.

Excerpt from the actual analysis:

Nonetheless, opponents of monarchical power should celebrate this decision. It has been some time since real limits were placed on the Bush administration in the area of national security. The rejection of the President’s claims to unlimited authority with regard to how Al Qaeda prisoners are treated is extraordinary and encouraging by any measure. The decision is an important step towards re-establishing the principle that there are three co-equal branches of government and that the threat of terrorism does not justify radical departures from the principles of government on which our country was founded.

There are several other salient points made, regarding how the current regime could go about ignoring this (by making legislative changes), as well as what this means for the central defense offered to date to support the illegal wiretapping and surveillance schemes. Well worth the read.

In addition, it looks like I have found yet another book I need to read. (And to try and find it in a library near you, click here.)

Supreme Court ruling – Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

30 Jun

. . . For three years, Administration lawyers have argued that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to its “war on terror”. That argument is finished. . . .

A President Rebuked by Bruce Shapiro in The Nation

Continue reading