Welcome to PatsFans.com

CATO Institute filed Amicus Brief in Guantanamo Case before SOTUS..

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Jul 2, 2006.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Sep 13, 2004
    Likes Received:
    +1,384 / 35 / -36

    The Right Wing think tank, CATO Institute had filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of whatever we call those detained at Guantanamo. Interesting to see that some folks who are aligned with this adm are breaking ranks.


    The Supreme Court has ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush overstepped his authority in plans to set up a special military court and try suspected terrorists. The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief [.pdf] on behalf of petitioner Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Timothy Lynch, author of the brief and director of the Cato Institute's Project of Criminal Justice, says the case serves as a reminder that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, both in times of peace and war.

    "Today, the Supreme Court rejected some of the sweeping claims of executive power that the Bush administration has been advancing in the courts," Lynch states. "President Bush asserted that the Geneva Convention does not apply to Al-Qaeda and so that meant that he could arrest any person in the world and put that person on trial before a military commission for war crimes. The Court ruled that such a policy contravened U.S. law and our treaty obligations. In most cases, the status of the prisoner is going to be unclear so the law must presume his innocence. The Bush administration too often proceeded on an assumption of guilt. This is an important ruling because it reaffirms the bedrock principle that the president must follow the law in both peacetime and wartime." -- Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice
  2. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Mar 19, 2006
    Likes Received:
    +1,490 / 17 / -10

    Good for CATO. I would bet their position had much more to do with the constitutionality of the President creating a parallel judiciary with a lower standard, than with internationalism... but it looks like they mention both.

    Some of the things that have happened in the last few years have looked plain nutty... it's good to see it's not just my own view.

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2005

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>