Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials [Hamdan wins]
breitbart ^ | 6/29/2006

Posted on 06/29/2006 7:35:30 AM PDT by Uncledave

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials Jun 29 10:21 AM US/Eastern Email this story

By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti- terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this followup case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: detainees; duplicatethread; hamdan; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: 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.

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

21 posted on 06/29/2006 7:48:53 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
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.
22 posted on 06/29/2006 7:50:03 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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


23 posted on 06/29/2006 7:50:08 AM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

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


24 posted on 06/29/2006 7:51:14 AM PDT by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


25 posted on 06/29/2006 7:51:38 AM PDT by ritewingwarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
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.
26 posted on 06/29/2006 7:52:41 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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?


27 posted on 06/29/2006 7:53:46 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

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


28 posted on 06/29/2006 7:55:17 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
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.

29 posted on 06/29/2006 7:56:40 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

"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).


30 posted on 06/29/2006 7:57:07 AM PDT by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

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)


31 posted on 06/29/2006 7:58:56 AM PDT by UncleSamUSA (the land of the free and the home of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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.


32 posted on 06/29/2006 7:59:14 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


33 posted on 06/29/2006 8:02:16 AM PDT by depressed in 06 (“he played on our fears!” - Gore self assessment of global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Whatever power he has, is not unlimited. For example, Nixon couldn't command the military to disband the Congress, when he was facing impeachment.
34 posted on 06/29/2006 8:06:36 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gefreiter

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.


35 posted on 06/29/2006 8:06:37 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Time to bring back tar and feathering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Bush should simply ignore the Court like Andrew Jackson...

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

36 posted on 06/29/2006 8:06:55 AM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig

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


37 posted on 06/29/2006 8:07:54 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


38 posted on 06/29/2006 8:11:28 AM PDT by Adder (Can we bring back stoning again? Please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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


39 posted on 06/29/2006 8:12:15 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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.


40 posted on 06/29/2006 8:13:31 AM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson