Yet again, you have me trumped with great points...
When reading your post, I was reminded of the attempts Congress has made to make "partial birth abortion" illegal...and yet a judge somewhere is constantly calling those laws unconstitutional...so, it seems that Congress does have a problem with their law writing in judicial circles anyway.
I saw that weasel Wesley Clark on Fox this afternoon, and he was asked about Kofi Annen's call for Gitmo to be closed down...
Wesley says that these detainees are a world wide problem, and that they should be tried in an International Court...and taken out of American jurisdiction..
Wouldn't that put the troops that captured them in danger of liability through and International Court...a court that President Bush does NOT subscribe to??
Congress (both state and Federal versions) are too reluctant to use their power to impeach the judges. One of the reasons I don't like Gonzales is his decision while on the TX Supreme court in one of the parental notification cases. By construing statutory language in a certain way, they caused the statute to lose its intended effect. The statute stands, it wasn't struck down, but it's effectively gutted, and wrongly so.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440372/posts?page=45#45
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441076/posts?page=14#14
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507174/posts?page=267#267
Congress need not "take it" if a judge rules against the will of the people as expressed in statutory law. Things get much more intense though, when the issue is framed in Constitutional terms - as it is with balance of powers and executive action vs. the rights of the people as expressed in the Constitution.
All those "old" surveillance cases that you see cited? Truong, Keith, Katz? They touch on that battleground, and they are much more complex that the cherry-picked cites that are so popularly quoted. A unanimous Supreme Court TOSSED evidence in the Keith case! The decision is also a likely force that encouraged FISA legislation.
Really neat stuff, seeing how our three branches of government tussle and negotiate.
Wesley says that these detainees are a world wide problem, and that they should be tried in an International Court...and taken out of American jurisdiction..
Wouldn't that put the troops that captured them in danger of liability through and International Court...a court that President Bush does NOT subscribe to??
I'm against International Court as a matter of preserving national sovereignty.
You bring up an interesting question too, that being the role of the agent who brings the accused to the court. I think NATO brought Milosevic to International Court, and as a general matter, LEO and military actors aren't likely to have personal liability for their actions under lawful orders. In short, I wouldn't worry about troops liability, regardless of which court they tender their captures to.