The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the Bush Administration’s claim that defining Guantanamo Bay detainees as “enemy combatants” justified denying them legal protections and due process as specified under Geneva Convention Accords and Nuremberg Principles.
What isn’t being widely discussed is that this decision makes perfectly clear that the way these detainees have been treated since they were first sent there in early 2002 (Washington Post: January 9, 2002) constitutes a four year trail of systematic war crimes being planned, encouraged, supported and carried out by the President and members of his cabinet, members of the Pentagon’s top brass and on down the military chain of command to individual American soldiers. This in addition to the following Alternet story which reveals that:
A former Nuremberg trials chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying President George W. Bush for the ‘supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.’:
AlterNet: War on Iraq: Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
While I am thrilled by this recent Supreme Court decision, it is deeply disturbing that the vote wasn’t unanimous. It was 5-3, with Chief Justice Roberts recusing himself due to his involvement in an earlier lower court decision in the same case in which he made clear that his vote would have joined the minority.
We are one “Ken Lay heart attack” away, one “Paul Wellstone plane crash” away from Bush appointing one more radical conservative jurist to the Supreme Court, clearing the way for the American Executive Branch being given a green light to resume enacting and enforcing policies for which German and Japanese soldiers and politicians were indicted, convicted and executed after World War II.
From “The Call” on the first page of the web site of World Can’t Wait–Drive Out the Bush Regime! of which ImpeachforPeace.org is the Minneapolis chapter:
“People look at all this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.”
Are you going to act now or stand on the sidelines and watch?
I agree that the 5-3 (or 5-4 if we take into account how Roberts would have voted) decision on the part of the Supreme Court to uphold the law of the land is one of those things that leaves one uncertain whether to feel encouraged or alarmed. It’s a classic “Is the glass five-ninths full, or four-ninths empty?” dilemma.
Unfortunately, as you point out, the glass is in serious danger of tipping…
Comment by Dave — July 16, 2006 @ 3:32 pm