Posted on 06/29/2006 8:34:57 AM PDT by libstripper
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 international Geneva conventions.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Why am I not supprised.
From Scalia's dissent
"Though the Court resists the Bruner rule, it cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation."
Quirin case, which ruled unanimously in favor of military tribunals. Instead, this case says that Congress has not given proper authority to the President to do this.
That said, the proper reaction for the White House is to put the matter into Congress, and ask that it act with dispatch. In the meantime, the prisoners can continue to be held in accord with the Law of War -- that captured enemy can be held without trials for the duration of the conflict.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
This is why the Congress should do its Constitutionally mandated duty and establish a court to deal with enemy combatants who do not fight under the flag of an established nation. It's time for the Judiciary Committee to get off its butt and do its job.
Well said.
Great observation, Johnnie. Thanks for the insight. This is a no-win for the Dems.
The Court did not address summary executions.
Unfortunately stevens cited International Law. stevens should be impeached, he is supposed to impose the US Constitution, not international law.
More :
"Likewise, the handful of floor statements that the Court treats as authoritative do not “reflec[t] any general agreement.” They reflect the now-common tactic—which the Court once again rewards—of pursuing through floor-speech ipse dixit what could not be achieved through the constitutionally prescribed method of putting language into a bill that amajority of both Houses vote for and the President signs."
If they have the balls
Ah, a loophole!
The Dem's are digging themselves a hole with the Ameircan people if they argue that the terrorist have the same rights as the American people do.
The MSM will make it so and will be trumpeted enmass & the sheeple will perceive it as such. Doesn't matter that it isn't a win.
We have been shown over and over and over in this war why we should NOT take prisoners. Kill them on the battlefield and you don't have to worry about liberal judges, weak allies, or our own fifth column.
The lefties and human-rights activitists traitors on the WOT will be crying for Bush to reinstate Military Tribunals.
Now we cannot even punish those who would murder us besides not being to track their cash flow and communications.
They think that this will help them win but it will make their end all the more bloody.
Bush is the President.
As President he is head of the U.S. military. COnsequnetly Bush is in chareg of military operations against individuals at war with the United States, NOT the Supreme Idiots.
Bush should simply IGNORE the Supreme Court, and using his authority as head of the military, proceed with military trials against these scum.
Did we ask permission from the U.S. Supreme Court for the Nuremburg trials? I doubt it.
But yes, you are correct. We need more judges like ROberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Amusing that there would have been absolutely no conflict if Roberts had ruled on the crux of the case- the DTA act. Oh well, them's the breaks.
Full opinon in pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
More Scalia:
"Though it does not squarely address the issue, the Court hints ominously that “the Government’s preferred reading” would “rais[e] grave questions about Congress’ authority to impinge upon this Court’s appellate jurisdiction,particularly in habeas cases.”" (Citation omitted)
"It is not clear how there could be any such lurking questions, in light of the aptly named “Exceptions Clause” of Article III, §2, which, in making our appellate jurisdiction subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make,” explicitly permits exactly what Congress has done here."
That's my main beef as a lawyer. This decision throws out hundreds of years of jurisprudence to reach the decision the libs want.
Sad decision. I thought it would come down on the side of the Miltary Tribunals. What a blow!
Excellent point.
More Scalia
"To put this in context:The charge against the respondent in Councilman was the off-base possession and sale of marijuana while he was stationed in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, see id., at 739–740. The charge against the petitioner here is joining and actively abetting the murderous conspiracy that slaughtered thousands of innocent American civilians without warning on September 11, 2001. While Councilman held that the prosecution of the former charge involved “military necessities” counseling against our interference, the Court does not even ponder the same question for the latter charge."
It was essentially a 5 to 4 decision with Kennedy the swing vote. I hope Stevens enjoys an early retirement.
"Here, apparently for the first time in history, see Motion to Dismiss 6, a District Court enjoined ongoing military commission proceedings, which had been deemed “necessary” by the President “[t]o protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks.” Military Order of Nov. 13, 3 CFR §918(e). Such an order brings the Judicial Branch into direct conflict with the Executive in an area where the Executive’s competence is maximal and ours is virtually nonexistent. We should exercise our equitable discretion to avoid such conflict. Instead, the Court rushes headlong to meet it."
Did you all know that Roberts had to recuse himself? He had heard the case before at the DC Circuit and could not rule on it again. I think that is an imporant point to make to all the Perpetual Bitchers on our side. This is one of the LAST decisions that will be handed down by the OLD court. This is NOT a "betray" of the "True Conservatives" by the Bush Judges as some of our psuedo Conservative Freepers will be screaming.
Justice Thomas Dissent;
"The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent."
And they not only had to have their way- they had to have it NOW!
They wouldn't even wait until a case came up that had followed the DTA. When they could have made the very same arrogant ruling on the tribunals without denying the clear meaning of the word "any".
I always read Scalia to know what the Constitutuion actually says.
More Thomas hitting the libs upside the head.
"But this suggestion betrays the plurality’s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents. The starting point of the present conflict (or indeed any conflict) is not determined by congressional enactment, but rather by the initiation of hostilities. See Prize Cases, supra, at 668 (recognizing that war may be initiated by “invasion of a foreign nation,” and that such initiation, and the President’s response, usually precedes congressional action)."
Here he calls them stupid;
"And the plurality’s unsupportable contrary determination merely confirms that “‘the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility’” for making military or foreignaffairs judgments. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 585 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, 333 U. S., at 111)."
The prez already said congress will have to step to the plate, nice in an election year
How many Justices heard this? Where is Roberts?
Here he calls them Dangerous:
"After seeing the plurality overturn longstanding precedents in order to seize jurisdiction over this case, ante, at 2–4 (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and after seeing them disregard the clear prudential counsel that they abstain in these circumstances from using equitable powers, ante, at 19–24, it is no surprise to see them go on to overrule one after another of the President’s judgments pertaining to the conduct of an ongoing war. Those Justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief’s wartime decisions, only 10 days ago deferred to the judgment of the Corps ofEngineers with regard to a matter much more within the competence of lawyers, upholding that agency’s wildly implausible conclusion that a storm drain is a tributary of the waters of the United States. See Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. ___(2006). It goes without saying thatthere is much more at stake here than storm drains. The plurality’s willingness to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
ping me after you have read the decision and the dissents and posted your thoughts, if you would.
They are not citizens. A Military Tribunal IS Due Process under US and International Law. The 5 Leftist Judges just ignored Starie Decise to impose their emotional whimsy on the law.
Here Thomas destroys the Geneva Convention Argument
"In any event, the Court’s argument is too clever by half. The judicial nonenforceability of the Geneva Conventions derives from the fact that those Conventions have exclusive enforcement mechanisms, see Eisentrager, supra, at 789, n. 14, and this, too, is part of the law of war. The Court’s position thus rests on the assumption that Article 21’s reference to the “laws of war” selectively incorporates only those aspects of the Geneva Conventions that the Court finds convenient, namely, the substantive requirements of Common Article 3, and not those aspects of the Conventions that the Court, for whatever reason, disfavors, namely the Conventions’ exclusive diplomatic enforcement scheme. The Court provides no account of why the partial incorporation of the Geneva Conventions should extend only so far—and no further—because none is available beyond its evident preference to adjudicate those matters that the law of war, through the Geneva Conventions, consigns exclusively to the political branches."
Well, I had to know this was a ruling by the stupid caucus in SCOTUS. It should be noted that these 5 justices overturned a ruling made by the Chief Justice. I think Roberts should consider giving Stevens and Ginsberg new office space in a cold, damp basement.
You know, everybody loves the Scalia dissents, but Thomas has a pretty poisoned pen himself.
Thanks for posting this Tort. Great stuff.
"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 international Geneva conventions."
Gee, I was unaware that al Qaeda was a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, and that their stateless terrorists were entitled to the same rights as uniformed "prisoners of war" from recognized nations. Good thing we have such legal geniuses as Stevens to inform us of such things.
Anthony Kennedy wouldn't be on the Court at all if it had not been for the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination...which was largely due to Edward Kennedy. So letting him skate for the killing of Mary Jo continues to have consequences today.
Basically, he seems to agree the President has the power to convene tribunals, but thinks the constitution of the tribunals and their procedures do not conform sufficiently to the UCMJ requirements for tribunals. If I'm reading this correctly, DOD could re-write the rules to conform more closely to the rules applicable to Courts-Martial, and use military judges, and they'd be OK. Is that how you see it?
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.