O.K. I'm going to assume that everyone IS aware that the Hamdan case ruling that came down last week has had time to be digested by everyone. I know that I'm still reading a lot out there concerning this monumental ruling. And I'm sure there will be much, MUCH more to be written and read.

So why am I frustrated???

Because no one, NO ONE is discussing this issue. Not the MSM, and not us. I'm reading a lot of legal blogs but other news reporting agencies are missing the boat. And I happen to think that people are intimidated by LEGAL STUFFS. I mean sure, sometimes they quote this case or use this particular legal term, but mostly, legal reasonings and arguments are just that; Common sense arguments and reasoning. The forgotten "R" of the THREE "R's" - Reading, wRitting, REASONING.

So this is part venting, part alarmist, and part a kick in the butt.

The venting part is, well, plainly in your face. UGH!!!!!!!

The alarmist aspect is two fold. Part wake up and get on board or miss the boat, and the other part is, miss the boat and WE loose American principles all together.

And then the other part is a kick in the butt. I'm the only one posting and replying to my own threads about this issue???

O.K. Let me take a step back and adopt the assumption that the legal jargons and reasonings are intimidating. Heck, I usually HAVE to re-read legal articles twice over and with many breaks so as to digest what I just read. So I'm not so wise either. However, with that said, what I have read IS ENORMOUSLY powerful, if focused and not dropped.

A brief summary(the kick in the butt):

The SCOTUS handed the the Bush Administration a legal set back based on the President's argument made back in 2002, that he is /has plenary powers as the Commander in Chief and can evoke the War Powers Act because we are at war. And with his argument, Bush has asserted his right as Commander in Chief, to basically usurp Congressional powers. One of which was Congress' adoption of Geneva Conventions definition of POW. Bush argues that the enemy combatant is not a POW and therefore does not fall under Geneva Conventions rule of law, that ALL POW's are to be treated fairly, humanely, and justly with fair and just representations at any and all hearings.

The setback handed to the President by the SCOTUS was, that because Bush did not and failed to engage Congress in this critical definition of enemy combatant, that the detainees are to be treated as if they are POW's. The President's argument of the definition of an enemy combatant was thrown out. He was told, in very basic terms, to work it out with Congress.

Granted, this ruling was about fair representation of a detainee in a military tribunal, however, the implications go farther. This is where I am amazed that no one except legal analysts and attorneys are commenting on this decision.

Have the ramifications blown over already? Being the ramifications that apply to the Administration's arguments on NSA wire taps, E-Mail data minings, torture, renditions, etc. Any operation, ANY THING that normally requires Congressional approval, oversight, Bill and/or Amendment to take place first before Presidential action. That the modus operandi of this Administration has been to obfuscate the Congress with legal arguments and hope that the SCOTUS doesn't have to rule on their theory of law.

However, in gambling terms, the Bush Administration just crapped out after bankrolling the contents of the safe for five long years.

(alarmist pt.I)It is now apparent that there may be justifications for WAR CRIMES, TREASON and HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS that this Administration perpetrated upon innocent people. That all arguments about policy/wedge issues, etc. need to come to a halt. That in engaging in arguments and debate in the Congress about flag burning, gay marriage, stem cell, etc is not only disastrous to the system of Governing but also lends itself toward treasonous behavior as complicity becomes the standard and soon accepted as the rule. That without addressing these basic principles first and foremost, and knowing that they do exist in and of themselves as made by the Bush Administration, no CONGRESSMAN/CONGRESSWOMAN can no longer ignore the fact that these arguments exist only in a gray zone and that these arguments lack Judicial ruling and Congressional oversight. By ignoring the Administration's arguments and reasonings, Congress accepts complicity and failing to uphold their Oath of Office that compels them to uphold the rule of law and protect the rule of law, any Congressperson who knowingly ignores this gray zone argument set forth by the Administration is acting in duplicity. And I might even argue that there ARE some Congressmen that have crossed into conspiracy through their attempt to frame the Administration's argument so as to avoid necessary Congressional and Judicial oversight.

(alarmist pt.II)IF Congress sits there and Americans fail to vote for a change in Congress, and those in Congress who are attempting to push for the necessary step to affect some reigning in of the President are allowed to be outnumbered, then it is us, AMERICANS, that have allowed this standard to be set. That the failing of Congress is due, in most part, of and by the people. And in failing to act, the standard set by this President will be the basis of the next President, no matter whom it may be. That the next President may just continue on data mining our calls and E-Mails, and perform renditions and torture, and the Congress may not have much recourse upon the next President. Whereas that next President has a legal argument simply stated as one of a lack of ruling on contemptuous activity of a former President can not make the next President guilty by default. Congress may attempt to craft legislation to curb the next President's activity, but with no accountability on this President, the next one can not bear the guilt by default.

AND SO I SAY, and here's the rant part, CALL and/or WRITE your Congressman and State Senators TODAY. Let them know that complicity is in the knowing. And that the Hamdan ruling puts all of Congress on notice. That without Congressional and Judicial oversight, it is THEY, CONGRESS that are complicit in allowing the Administration's arguments go unchecked, contrary to the rule of Law that requires Congress to hold the check and balance on the Executive Branch. And that their failing to abide by the rule of Law, and allowing the President to act in contempt of the very same rule of law, it then they are acting duplicitous to their Oath of Office, a crime in and of itself.

Max, I hesitate to comment on such legalese that I am not well-read on, but you obviously have researched this thoroughly. You may want to join in on this active discussion at Democrats.com . Yank
PS It's a balance of separation of powers issue, right?
PPS I should be hopping mad because Bush (Cheney ) is usurping Congressional authority, right?
PPPS Congress is a bunch of whimpy butts that don't know how to stick up for their own rights , let alone ours, right? :

http://www.democrats.com/node/9432

Max,

When subjected with a thousand things that are important to keep an eye on, even for those of us who are informed, it is not only possible, but likely, that somethimes somethings slip past the guard house.

We are in a state of being over whelmed! Some of us even actively seek a break from it all, before we pop a rivit! Mental health breaks are becoming common!

You will have to forgive us, and keep trying to keep the information active and fresh.

I try to keep up with these issues not only here but via C-span and other sources. I'm aware of this one and think that it's interpretation as a "defeat" for Bush policy is ambiguous at best. I'm heartened by the news Ping posted today about Bush's magnanimous granting of Geneva Convention rights for all US prisoners altho I'm convinced that he sees himself as above any law. I think this is just an effort to give the appearance of being less dictatorial in an election year. As a card carrying geezer reading long posts on a computer monitor doesn't come easily to me and I try not to comment on ones I haven't read. I also gotta lot of other stuff to do. Thanks Max, for all the intelligent and well researched posts that you contribute here, now get off my back!

Yes, it is about balance of power, but it is also about capitulations that are out of control. Rubber stamp Congress anyone??? What no veto but issue signing statements that declair immunity from the law and Congress doesn't even blink???

And ursurping Congressional authority??? I think not. Congress allowed the Adminisrtation to argue their policy WITHOUT question. Congress rolled over on their own. No body told them NOT to question, perform oversight, or judicial review. That oweness is Congress' and noe one else's.

And yes, Congress has failed to stand up for OUR rights. I say our rights because this includes theirs too. However, their Oath of Office compells them to go farther than the average uninformed citizen. Congress is compelled to act to preserve AND protect. And this Congress has captiulated with, WITH the demands of the Administration to erode Constitutional rights. Congress' failure to protect these basic rights has allowed their erosion, not ensuring their preservation.

It's cool Sky,

yes there is a lot happening here in this world.