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

breitbart ^ | 6/29/2006

[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.

[GrandEagle]

Great. Now that we've detained him, does he get protection under the Geneva Convention?
I've got no idea (doubt). It depend, is there any other reason for the "residue"? Maybe the guys we were fighting burst into his home and he (not wanting to get killed by us) shot his way out the back and is trying to get away from the whole thing? We could play what if games all day using on the edge situations.
In my view, there could be doubt, so the law says yes.
Most folks (again as I understand it), that are held in the facility in Cuba were rounded up in police style roundups. To me the law is clear on these - yes they are afforded protection.
Not in uniform, not in combat, not caught in the act of anything except eating dinner maybe.
Are they the enemy? I don't know, neither do you, or even the guys that "arrest" them. If we suspect, then arrest them, get them out of the country, and out of our hair.
The standards for "suspect" are very lax - it doesn't take much.
If we capture them in battle, and they don't fit the qualifications, then they are not POW's.
The ones like you described - it covers that too. Yes they are until a suitable tribunal declares their status. What is suitable? I don't know; probably not one formed by the detaining power though.

Cordially
GE

[Cyclopean Squid]

The American system is incapable of meaningful reform. We will continue the long decline that began in the 1960s until Western civilization falls. Occidental society is too bloated, selfish, lazy, and decadent to survive. The Age of the Orient is on its way.

[GrandEagle]

OOPs, nearly missed this response.

But other then that, we're just as bad as the terrorists. Got it.
LOL! Come on, your not losing the discussion that bad.
Did we, or did we not do what I said?

War is war. Decisions are made that fit the tactical situation. To answer your question, to some - yes we probably are.
If I'm a farmer just trying to mind my own business and not get killed by those who are fighting; and my wife is coming home from the field and steps on a land mine and it kills her. Yes, I'm probably not to concerned about why you put it there or who your intended target was.

When you get ready to set a device such as that, you weigh the risks.
There is a risk that your own people will come by an get nailed by it.
There is a risk that a civilian may come by and get nailed.
Then there is the intended target.

I like to think that we consider all the possibilities, the tactical situation, then make a rational decision based on what we hope to gain.
That is why we don't booby trap city streets. Because we are better than our enemy. You know that, and you also know that I know that.

Cordially,
GE

[Cyclopean Squid]

So who is the arbiter of legal orders? Can each branch make its own determination of what is constitutionality? Or does that right belong exlcusively to the Judiciary?

[GregoTX]

I suppose we could stop taking prisoners on the battlefield and let the ememy die for their jihad war.

[AntiGovernment]

So who is the arbiter of legal orders? Can each branch make its own determination of what is constitutionality? Or does that right belong exlcusively to the Judiciary?

It belongs exclusively to the only branch that is independent from popular vote, the judiciary. That's a good thing, otherwise, a lot of unpopular rights would be trampled upon. However, a legislature can correct a problem by amending the constitution.

I know this might sound unappealing because it has some side-effects. But I believe the alternative is much, much worse.

[Cyclopean Squid]

Your position is certainly the dominant one, or at least the one currently accepted (or acquiesced to). I just find it interesting that it presupposes that the judiciary will always be more fair, or more enlightened than the people. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is an inherently anti-democratic position.

Have you read any Ortega y Gasset? He is fond of the principle of superior minorities who should rule over the masses. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Nine are best able to rule over us in that which matters most, then they should rule over us in all areas. One might make the argument that they already do, and that the notion of popular involvement in the government via the executive and the legislature is a sham.

I believe that no type of government is sustainable and that each will ultimately lead to its opposite. Democratic forms of government lead to excess that will destroy it, forcing an authoritarian regime to come to being to right the scales. Likewise, an authoritarian regime will eventually result in excesses that lead to the demand for increasing popular involvement. It is a cycle in constant flux. Perhaps the judicial activism of today is the modern incarnation of the authoritarian principle beginning to take root.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Come on, your not losing the discussion that bad.

LOL! It's good to see that losing the argument hasn't cost you your sense of humor.

To answer your question, to some - yes we probably are.

Apparently to you.

Because we are better than our enemy. You know that, and you also know that I know that.

I know that. I don't think you do.

[Bean Counter]

What i find most curious about Hamden, is that Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had heard the case previously, while Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not recuse herself, even though she slept through oral arguments, and did not hear the case at all.

Curiouser and curiouser...

[GrandEagle]

It's good to see that losing the argument hasn't cost you your sense of humor.
Ahh, now I understand. I didn't realize we were argueing.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't realize we were argueing.

Well, considering the fact that you consider our troops to be equivalent to the terrorists in Iraq, you really didn't have much of an argument.

Let me guess, you think those mean Israelis should leave the poor "Palestinians" alone?

[Defiant]

The commentators are suggesting that Congress pass a new law authorizing these military tribunals, and that will fix it. It won't fix the idiocy of declaring terrorists who are not attached to any army or nation to be covered by the Geneva Convention. It won't fix the fact that the Supreme Court thinks it can usurp the President's executive powers.

I have a better idea--let the Congress pass a different law. This one will say that military tribunals pursuant to the rules created by the SecDef are authorized, that the Geneva Convention does not apply to non-signatories and to terrorists, AND that the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review the application of these laws by the Administration for the duration of this war.

That will wake up the activists on the court.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It won't fix the idiocy of declaring terrorists who are not attached to any army or nation to be covered by the Geneva Convention.

GrandEagle thinks they are covered.

[Defiant]

GrandEagle is wayyyyy wrong. I've read the Geneva Convention. They are not covered; I haven't yet read today's decision, but from what I have read the court did not claim that the terrorists are covered under the convention, either. They used an "international law" argument to extend the Geneva Convention's rights to all military prisoners. Of course, this is a violation of our own constitution in many ways, as well as a breach of the intent of the Convention, which was made to protect civilians from the horrors of war by giving combatants obligations to wear uniforms and stay away from civilians. Do those things, and be part of a national military, and you get protections.

[GrandEagle]

Well, considering the fact that you consider our troops to be equivalent to the terrorists in Iraq, you really didn't have much of an argument.
I never said that at all - but then you know that.

you really didn't have much of an argument.
Just a silly little thing like the law, that's all.

I didn't realize that you had no concept of reality. My wife once had the same pie in the sky view of the world too.
War is war. It is nasty. There is the way we wish it was, where the enemy is clear and we can see who he is.
Then there is the way it really is where at times, we don't know who the enemy really is.
When it is clear, I don't really care what happens to them, especially when they are such cowards that they feel the need to hide among the population shielded by women and children.
I was fortunate in that I never had to make those kinds of decisions, but I personally know, and served with those who did.
I would rather get those suspected out of the way, then try and figure out which ones are truly the enemy, than I had just kill them all.
In case you haven't been watching the news, there are quite a few folks who live in the area who actually like US being there. I'd rather not make any more enemies than we have to.
That approach is also what the law of the land says we should do.

If it seems that you have hit a nerve, you are correct. I personally know people who have set traps and trip wires that ended up killing people that they knew were friendly. I can assure you that my friends are not now, nor were they then terrorist. Neither are our guys who are now doing what we asked them to do.

My mistake was assuming I was discussion a situation with someone who has some sort of real life experience instead of just Hollywood's version.

[GrandEagle]

as well as a breach of the intent of the Convention, which was made to protect civilians from the horrors of war by giving combatants obligations to wear uniforms and stay away from civilians. Do those things, and be part of a national military, and you get protections.
You have apparently not read it. It was not solely designed for civilians, a MAJOR part was in dealing with those who are captured. In seeing that they were no instantly executed, much like the way the Germans frequently did in WWII.
I would be cautious, our other FRiend has a tendacy to take things way out of context.
I never suggested that all were covered. What I did state, is that those rounded up in police type stings, who were not taken captive while in combat, caught in a hostile act, or in uniform, are covered.
We may suspect them, but we surely don't know.
Anyone taking up arms against us, not having some sort of command structure, and not having something recognizable at a distance as being a hostile force of some type is not covered.

I request that you read my posts before forming an opinion of my views.

Cordially,
GE

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said that at all - but then you know that.

No, you never said anything like that.

Are you claiming that Iraqis who place IEDs are lawful combatants? Interesting viewpoint.

Much like those who place land mines (US). Yes.

So you think that uniformed American troops who meet the following criteria:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

and place land mines are equivalent to terrorists who place IEDs and meet none of the following criteria:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Just a silly little thing like the law, that's all.

The law (as shown above) covers the terrorists?

My mistake was assuming I was discussion a situation with someone who has some sort of real life experience instead of just Hollywood's version.

Sure, don't bogart the doobie.

[TigersEye]

I hear the President plans on asking Congress to come up with legislation to get around this.
The Dems should be jumping for joy to be on the record arguing against it.
November will be sweet!

[Defiant]

I've read it, read your posts, read your stream of consciousness profile, and it seems like you are a nice guy with an unusual set of beliefs. Your analysis of the Geneva Convention is wayyyyyyyy wrong. I've read it and written legal briefs about it, with historical footnotes and all that jazz.

I did not say that the sole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to protect civilians, but the provisions regarding uniforms and not using civilians as shields and so on were, and these terrorists are not covered.

[GrandEagle]

I did not say that the sole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to protect civilians,
Didn't mean to put words in you mouth sorry, look like that was what you said.

My difference is no so much with how we treat terrorist - I'll agree that they are not covered, but more so with how we determine who they are when we are fighting in a nation, aganst an enemy, where it is a bit difficult to tell at times who the enemy is.
In a "police round-up" type operation we no doubt get quite a few terrorist. It is also enevitable that we will also get a few who are not.
Unless we know, (by previous encounter, or by directly catching them in the act), we are just speculating who they are.
If we arrest those who are not terrorist, then they would (and I think you may even agree with this) be covered under the fourth agreement.
Suspicion of, or close proximity of our enemy is good enough to arrest and remove. It is not, as I see it, enough to subject them to a military tribunal and potential execution.
My point earlier is that there is no way that 100% of the time those we suspect are in fact, the enemy. That's all I'm saying.

Cordially,
GE