Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Appeals court introduces the word feared by George Bush

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Message Ed Martin

The word that totally refutes the entire Bush administration's proven lies to get George Bush his Iraq war, the word that Bush fears, dreads and ignores as he goes about killing a whole bunch of innocent people, has been introduced and applied to Bush's illegal tactics that are based on wishful thinking. The word is EVIDENCE.

The most basic element in the foundation of our justice system has, at long last, been brought out in the open and dusted off for the first time in the going on eight years of the Bush administration. An article in the New York Times titled, Evidence Faulted in Detainee Case, reports that the Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that assertions that events had "reportedly" occured and that the connections were "said to" exist without providing information about the source of information that was used to claim that a Guantanamo prisoner was an "enemy combatant" were not sufficient evidence to make that designation.

In essence, the court said that the lack of evidence was itself evidence that the claim was false.

There are two very significant things about the court's decision. One is the fact that the case was argued even before the Supreme court's June 12 decision that the prisoners have the right to habeas corpus in civilian courts, and the other is the fact that two of the three judges making the unanimous decision were appointed by Republican presidents, one of them being a George Bush appointment.

The court's decision that the Bush administration must use evidence for making decisions to imprison and kill people is the opposite of the distortions, equivocations, dissembling and outright lies that Bush used as his excuse to attack Iraq, all excuses that didn't have the one thing needed to back them up when presented in a court of law: evidence.

If the decisions of Bush and his Republicans are to be subjected to scrutiny in a court of law with the requirement that there be evidence for what they say and intend to do, then that puts an end to the Republican ideology that what they wish were true is sufficient for what they want to do, and, well they oh so very much want to do that, regardless of the fact that they have no evidence. The court has said no to that.

Typical of the never say die attitude of the Bush administration, is Glenn M. Sulmasy, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy, in his quote, "This case displays the inadequacies of having civilian courts inject themselves into military decision making."

This statement ignores the fact that the June 12 Supreme Court said exactly the opposite, that the prisoners have a right to have their petition heard before a civilian court. And, it ignores the fact that the military doesn't have courts of justice, only military courts to resolve issues arising from the proper functioning and procedures of the military.

It also ignores the fact that the military has no jurisdiction over civilians. The military is a part of the executive branch. It is not a part of the judicial branch and cannot render judicial decisions. The last thing the statement ignores is the fact that the referred to "military decision making" is obviously restricted to military matters, not judicial matters.

There are other articles about this case that refer to "questionable evidence" and the title of the NYT article, Evidence Faulted in Detainee Case, still misses the point about evidence. This shows a lack of understanding of the nature of evidence.

Evidence is not questionable, precisely because it is evidence, and evidence cannot be faulted, if it is evidence. When it is questionable and can be faulted, it was never evidence to begin with. The best example of this is the fact that there was never any evidence that there were WMD, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, because they didn't exist. What doesn't exist has never and can never produce any evidence.

This is the elementary fact that was ignored by George Bush, whose ignorance has led us to the need to have the nature of evidence explained to him by a court of law.

Rate It | View Ratings

Ed Martin Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Ed Martin is an ordinary person who is recovering from being badly over-educated. Born in the middle of the Great Depression, he is not affiliated with nor a member of any political, social or religious organization. He is especially interested in (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Conyers' year of tolerating contempt

The twelve powers of a President.

Removal of the President from Office

You need to read this! Rob Kall's declaration of war

Textbook descriptions of George Bush reveal psychopathy, and much worse.

The worst is yet to come; foreclosure fraud is the banksters' least problem

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend