Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials [Hamdan wins]

breitbart ^ | 6/29/2006

[goldstategop]

I disagree. The Court overstepped its bounds and encroached on the prerogatives of the Commander In Chief. He commands the military, not nine people in black robes.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[curiosity]

This is what we get for dragging our feet with the war crimes tials. We should have tried and executed the terrorists immediately using the procedures that we used against the Nazi sabateurs during WW2. If they were dead, they wouldn't have been able to challange the policy in court.

[Plutarch]

So Bill Clinton was right in declining the opportunity to capture Bin Laden.

[blitzgig]

Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Taney's order to cancel the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Taney was then sitting on the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. The justices of the Supreme Court traditionally sat as circuit judges while the Supreme Court was not in session.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

[ritewingwarrior]

Agreed. They should never have brought those prisoners onto US soil. Interrogate them on those little CIA planes and then drop them over their homeland, sans parachute.

[GrandEagle]

Since when does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists
Try reading the Geneva convention. It is a duly ratified treaty of the US and therefore we are Constitutionally bound to abide by it.

[LS]

Check the ruling again. If I'm reading this right, it doesn't say we can't HOLD them . . . only that we can't TRY them. Am I missing something?

[Chi-townChief]

That was my take too although it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[LS]

Well, think about it this way: if the Court is leaning toward "POW" (almost said, "POS") status (hehe), then POWs don't get trials in front of tribunals.

So we just hold them forever, or until Helen Thomas dies, whichever comes first.

[Pravious]

"The country is becoming a joke, incapable of defending itself, and we are asking our soldiers to fight and die for a bunch of buffoons."

It doesn't help to have our court system, half of our politicians, and most of the media on the side of the enemy.

This really disgusts me. I guess they think we should put all these pieces of human debris up before liberal judges here in the States - maybe then we can apologize, pay them a couple of million apiece in reparations, give them back their weapons and pay their way home (which we've helpfully rebuilt for them).

[UncleSamUSA]

No, offing them would not meet out needs. The reason they are being held.. alive.. at Gitmo is to try to break them down and get them to divulge important info about Al Quaeda or other terrorists still on the loose.

That is why we need to keep them in a controlled environment so that we can slowly (I'd prefer quickly but Human Rights Watch will have none of it) break these lowlife scum down and get some meaningul intel out of them.

Bush could always say: "OK, sure we'll put them on trial, but realize its gonna take us.. oh.. maybe another coupla years or so ... just to gather all the evidence we need!! We want to be fair, ya know and make sure we got the right guys!!" (LOL)

[longtermmemmory]

I think we have judges who see this war on terror as a "turf war" (hence specter's anti-american positions)

If anthing we now have a two front war, on front on the arab street, the second front of the war is now opened inside the american judiciary.

Message to soldiers, dead terrorists don't speak to the ACLU.

[depressed in 06]

I recommend Jordan. What harm would there be if the plane from Gitmo to Amman arrived empty?

I can see Feingold already calling for impeachment. Never mind that the bound that was overstepped was not defined until this decision.

[AntiGovernment]

I disagree. The Court overstepped its bounds and encroached on the prerogatives of the Commander In Chief. He commands the military, not nine people in black robes.

Whatever power he has, is not unlimited. For example, Nixon couldn't command the military to disband the Congress, when he was facing impeachment.

[joe fonebone]

I do not normally call people on this forum idiots, but in your case i will make an exception. These people are not prisoners of war, because they are not wearing uniforms, or are they civilians of the country picking up arms to defend their land. They are for the most part foreigners who do not wear uniforms or abide by the Geneva war convention rules of warfare. They are subject to summary execution on the spot by the ranking officer at the time. and I do believe this will become standard policy from now on.

[Plutarch]

Bush should simply ignore the Court like Andrew Jackson...

"Justice Stevens has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

[AntiGovernment]

Yep, I remembered that one, but it wasn't the Supreme Court decision I was looking for.

[Adder]

I agree.

All it says is that Bush can't set up tribunals and try them. Doesn't say anything has to be done with them.

[Buckeye McFrog]

how about if we hold them in geosynchronous orbit...is THAT far enough out of SCOTUS jurisdiction to suit them?

[calex59]

There is way to much being made of this. The supreme court has ruled we can't try them under military tribunal, it didn't rule on the legitimacy of holding them prisoner. So as long as we don't try them we can hold them forever as prisoners of war. OR, we could try them in civil court, which is BS.