“Roberts was part of a three-judge panel that handed President Bush an important victory the week before he announced Roberts’ nomination to the bench,” reports Democracy Now!.
“The appeals court ruled in the Hamdan V. Rumsfeld case that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions.” Said Georgetown law professor David Luban today in today’s DN! interview:
[Roberts] knew that he was on the three-judge panel as early as last December. The case was argued, the oral argument was April 7. Six days before … he had an interview with Att’y Gen. Gonzales. [W]hile the case was deliberated, there’s a gap between April 7, when the oral argument took place, and July 15, when the court issued the decision. He had numerous other interviews for the Supreme Court judgeship. [T]hat’s the period of time in which he is deliberating and presumably discussing with the other judges on the panel what the ruling should be in the case.
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (see the blogroll on the left), said:
[M]y reaction [is] utter amazement … [O]n April 1, a week before the argument, [Roberts met] with Gonzales, the Attorney General who was the architect of the entire policy that the Geneva Conventions shouldn’t apply to [Guantanamo detainees], that they should use military commissions, and he’s meeting with this guy at the same time that he is sitting on a case that’s going to determine whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply.
[A]t a minimum, as David’s article clearly says in Slate, his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned [and Judge Roberts] should have disqualified himself. There’s not any issue about it.
I would go further. It reminds me of a case when Ellsberg [Pentagon Papers] was on trial for espionage. During the trial President Nixon, briefly, but other people in his office, Ehrlichman and others, met with the trial judge to offer him to be the head of the F.B.I. [T]he outcry [was] huge. …
Listen/watch/read all. Goodman also asks both men about the missing documents. Emphases mine.
Its clear given this info that Roberts’ decision does not pass the smell test.
Probably he had what people on Wall Street would call insider information, and decided to jump while the fire was hot. He wanted the Supreme Court post.
This entire administration, including DINOs, is CORRUPT. Where is Reid on this?
Stomping around Jurassic Park.
this and the fact he was part of the 2000 fiasco in Fl. too make me very suspicious of him from the get go.
Where is reid? you aks me! I want to know too.. it seems they are all out to lunch on this one. crooked criminal and foxy/smeaky to everything they do
Plus he looks like Barbie’s Ken (ref. earlier discusion re Colleen Rowley today), ‘cept creepier … like a Chucky doll kind of creepier…
He has that same venality in his smile that Gonzales has. (I swear, if we shaved their heads, we’d find the 666. (ref. “The Omen”) :):))
Susan,when are y ou gonna ever awaken me from this f**kin nightmare I am in???!!! I am getting very sick of this and I am sick and tired of being sick and tired too…..:o)
tomorrow is Frivolous Friday.
Oh goodie … maybe we can find more farting fish stories, BOO?
A bit OT…Susan, you and the b-man have been banging out so much great stuff. When do you sleep?
I’m now officially a huge Booman/Hu fan.
I’ve got your back…
Boo-HU! I’m tired and I’m headin’ off to sleep. Thanks for such a wonderful compliment! Hugs!
Your stuff, and the booman link is there, and it is un-edited in its entirety.
If you don’t want it crosposted… I will delete it. Just say so. I don’t know what the “standard” is at Booman… But mine is: “If it is a useful post, yank it and use it!” Tell me if I am wrong?
Anyways… This what I posted:
.
In the decision is listed the following —
Given these provisions and Quirin and Yamashita, it is impossible to see any basis for Hamdan’s claim that Congress has not authorized military commissions.
Especially the latter is very informative
APPLICATION OF YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)
327 U.S. 1
Application of YAMASHITA.
YAMASHITA
v.
STYER, Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces, Western Pacific.
No. 61
Misc. and No. 672.
Argued Jan. 7, 8, 1946.
Decided Feb. 4, 1946.
~~~
When I read Susan’s piece, I thought, “you’ve got to be kidding me.” Now reading the “precedent” used to justify the Hamdan decision, I’m thinking, “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.”
Here are a few features of the tribunals which Roberts somehow finds consistent with the spirit of the US Constitution:
1. Evidentiary rules: hearsay statements and statements which were taken under duress (torture) are allowed if the tribunal panel considers this evidence related to the case and reasonable. Prosecutors are not required to prove “chain of custody.” Unsworn statements deemed relevant and reasonable are also admissible.
2. Verdicts: unanimous verdicts are only required in capital cases. All other cases require a two-thirds majority for a conviction.
3. Sentencing: if a defendant is exonerated, the defendant can be sent back to Guantanamo Bay until the “war on terror” is over, resulting in detainment of exonerated defendants for an unspecified period of time.
4. Jury: juries consist of three to seven military officers rather than the 12-member panel of “peers” which criminal defendants in the US normally receive.
5. Right to counsel: Tribunal defendants are entitled to military counsel and can only access civilian counsel if they can pay for it.
6. Appeals: Tribunal defendants cannot appeal decisions of the tribunal to federal court. They are entitled to petition a panel of review. They can petition for a final review by the President of the US, as commander-in-chief.
(Read more of my entry at dkosopedia)
This is frightening.
At least they didn’t go duck hunting together.
…however, it does make me wonder what they did do together!….:o)
I sincerely find a lot of disturbing words spent on the collection of/in the decision making of said venue.
My transition of said venue is that we need to really define WAR ON TERROR so that we can do an honest and through and sane job of doing what we must do as a nation to get this problem resolved.
My honest opinion here is if they say this man [roberts] is a sane and honest man who can interpret the law is, themselves a royal nut case and [I would then think we here in the US](we) need more of/in the psychiatric profession!
Where have all the sane and great minds gone?
ALSO: I personally want the FDA to evealuate the Koolaid that these ppl drink for toxic effects! [considering that they themselves havent drank it themselves]!