The Bush tribunals were also going to follow a due and lawful process.
No they were not.
That is incorrect. They were set up according to a set of rules that gave them due process.
Luckily the SC struck down most of their decisions so this administration will have no choice but follow some due process laws.
The only thing the Supreme Court struck down regarding these military tribunals was the notion that Bush could "create law by decree".
The system that Bush had created by decree had rules of due process.
The system that Congress set up after Bush's "decree" was struck down also had rules of due process.
The system that Obama will use will be much the same.
WASHINGTON " The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn't the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.
It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.
The Supreme Court now has struck down many of their legal interpretations. It ruled last Thursday that preventing detainees from challenging their detention in federal courts was unconstitutional.
That isn't exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. They said Combatant Status Review Tribunals did not provide enough due process, and so allowed challenges to go forward in federal court.
However, that would not have precluded the government from setting up an alternate system to keep them out of federal court so long as that alternate system had a satisfactory amount of due process.
What the Supreme Court was striking down there also came from Congress, not from White House lawyers. And it was not related to military war crimes tribunals, but rather to the process of detaining enemy combatants without charge.
Yes. I made a thread mocking Obama when he announced that he was doing away with the term "enemy combatant" but still intended to detain them until the end of the war.
(He is certainly right to detain captured enemy soldiers until the end of the war, but his trying to pretend he was making some big move by not using the term "enemy combatant" was a little silly.)
I see no big improvement in this administration from the last myself.
Well, we are still at war. We still have to do something with the enemy soldiers we capture.