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

Skip to comments.

Bush refuses to abandon tribunals
BBC ^ | Friday, 30 June 2006, 03:47 GMT 04:47 UK | BBC Staff

Posted on 06/30/2006 12:37:42 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Bush refuses to abandon tribunals

Guantanamo inmates

Many Guantanamo detainees have been held for years

US President George Bush has refused to rule out military tribunals for inmates at Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

His administration was dealt a blow on Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled it had overstepped its authority in setting up the tribunals.

But Republican senators immediately began planning how to win congressional approval for new tribunals.

The ruling came in response to a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal, but demanding to be tried by a civilian tribunal or court martial, where proceedings would be more open and defendants would have greater access to the evidence against them.

The Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its vital constitutional role as a check and balance

Democrat Senator Carl Levin

His lawyer said he was "awe-struck" at the court's ruling.

The Cuba-based facility currently holds about 460 inmates, mostly without charge, whom the US suspects of links to al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

No 'sweeping mandate'

In its ruling, the court said military tribunals contravened both the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners, and the US code of military justice.

It also ruled that the tribunals were not expressly authorised by any congressional act, and there was no "sweeping mandate for the president to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary".

COURT RULING

We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed


Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader


But the ruling does not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo, and it does hold out the possibility of coming up with another way of trying those held.

President Bush told reporters he promised to take the findings of the court "very seriously". But he signalled he might seek congressional approval to resurrect the tribunals.

"To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," he said.

"The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

Within minutes of the court ruling, a small group of Republican senators were working the phones trying to sort out the mess, reports the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.

Nobody gets a 'get out of jail free' card

White House spokesman Tony Snow

A former military lawyer who is leading the efforts to salvage the tribunal system, Senator Lindsey Graham, predicted that the Senate would begin work on ideas for new tribunals within weeks and vote on the plan in September.

Meanwhile, Sen Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who chairs the powerful judiciary committee, introduced an "Unprivileged Combatant Act" which would, he said, balance "the need for national security with the need to afford detainees with sufficient due process".

White House spokesman Tony Snow underlined the administration's resistance to abandoning the special courts.

"Nobody gets a 'get out of jail free' card," he said.

Ruling welcomed

Mr Hamdan had success in his first legal outing, in the US District Court in Washington, which ruled that he could not face a military trial unless he had previously been found not to be a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan
Hamdan was a driver for Osama Bin Laden

He claims POW status, but like all camp prisoners, he is denied this and is instead designated an "unlawful combatant" by the Bush administration.

However, an appeal court reversed this decision and said Mr Bush had the authority to order the trials.

This latest decision was welcomed by human rights groups, lawyers for inmates and some politicians including senior Democrat Senator Carl Levin.

"The Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its vital constitutional role as a check and balance on the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government," he said in a statement.



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush43; gitmo; gwot; hamdan; militarytribunals; wot

1 posted on 06/30/2006 12:37:45 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
But the ruling does not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo,

Well looks like the Loser Junk Media finally woke up to this. They spent most of yesterday crowing about how Gitmo had to be closed. No, the Court said we could hold them "as long as hostilities last". So in this war, forever.

2 posted on 06/30/2006 12:41:16 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Ol' GWB took 9/11 personally. He ain't gonna let up.

F'k you BBC.

3 posted on 06/30/2006 12:41:39 AM PDT by zarf (It's not a question.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Gitmo needs to be expanded....

Shutting down here....nite!


4 posted on 06/30/2006 12:43:15 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Good Nite E. Thanks for the post.


5 posted on 06/30/2006 12:46:42 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Maybe George can take over Cuba to expand Gitmo? Hey, maybe Cuba's new name will be GITMO! Just a little dreamin.


6 posted on 06/30/2006 12:47:37 AM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Ol' GWB took 9/11 personally. He ain't gonna let up.

Yes, he most certainly "gets it".

I have been merciless in criticizing the President for his lack of warrior spirit in defending himself and the country against the leftist Democrats. His turn-the-other-cheek attitude has allowed lies to permeate the public consciousness. But he has been a tiger in the war on radical Islam, and we are all more secure for it.

7 posted on 06/30/2006 12:48:05 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Refute the Drive-By Media. Sí, Se Puede!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Saying that President Bush has a personal stake is just another stab from the far left.

Yes BBC the American public does take a personal offense to being attacked!

What a bunch of spinless jellyfish.


8 posted on 06/30/2006 1:01:16 AM PDT by ChiMark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Waco

There's something like over 300 prisons in Cuba. Gitmo is one.

GW should of, if he had balls like FDR, tried and shot these guys within 45 days of capture, each and every goat suck'n one of them.


9 posted on 06/30/2006 1:03:49 AM PDT by Leisler (Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
But the ruling does not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo,

Indeed. In my view, detain the illegal combatants for the duration, which, judging by the history of Islamic imperialism (622-present), means indefinitely.

The Constitution does not need any "help" from five coneheads in drag reading auras and penumbras from the entrails of Zarqawi.

Let them be arrested and deported to Darfur in an homage to Lincoln and FDR's grasp of presidential war powers.

The outrage that this Supreme Court grants citizens' rights to these terrorists while striking down every attempt by citizens to retain such rights is not to be suffered.

The president must be made to see that his insistence on ceding citizens' rights to illegal invaders casts his rigorous prosecution of the war on terror in a jaundiced light in the eyes of his supporters.

10 posted on 06/30/2006 1:09:27 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

How would the BBC or Guardian react if U.S. newspapers started to inaccurately paint the British government as a hostile, secretive, imperialist power hungry for territory and resources? You know, kind of like France.


11 posted on 06/30/2006 1:59:45 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The American public trusts Bush to handle these matters. If it were anyone but Bush (like Clinton, perhaps?) I'd have trouble with this, too. We should have a law establishing military tribunals to handle these guys.


12 posted on 06/30/2006 2:18:18 AM PDT by GVnana (Former Alias: GVgirl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

You know, I'm getting to think this situation just might be helping the GOP. If pushing Congress to authorize military tribunals causes the the liberals to go beserk, this might be good for midterm elections.


13 posted on 06/30/2006 4:08:19 AM PDT by marvlus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
. . . five coneheads in drag reading auras and penumbras from the entrails of Zarqawi.

Quotable!

14 posted on 06/30/2006 4:15:38 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Let them be arrested and deported to Darfur in an homage to Lincoln and FDR's grasp of presidential war powers.

Just to be clear: The War Power of the United States is not the President's power - it is OUR power, and he exercises it on our behalf, after war has been declared, again on our behalf, by our representatives in Congress assembled.

OUR war power (not the President's, not Congress's) is virtually unlimited, and our present national leadership has not even BEGUN to exercise it.

15 posted on 06/30/2006 4:21:12 AM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marvlus

Bingo. Especially when we clearly tried illegal combatants with military tribunals in WWII, and then executed the guilty.

A good example of that is here:
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm

Key points:

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.
.
.
The eight were tried before a Military Commission, comprised of seven U.S. Army officers appointed by President Roosevelt, from July 8, to August 4, 1942. The trial was held in the Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C. The prosecution was headed by Attorney General Frances Biddle and the Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Myron C. Cramer. Defense counsel included Colonel Kenneth C. Royall (later Secretary of War under President Truman) and Major Lausen H. Stone (son of Harlan Fiske Stone, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).

All eight were found guilty and sentenced to death. Attorney General Biddle and J. Edgar Hoover appealed to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. Dasch then received a 30-year sentence, and Burger received a life sentence, both to be served in a federal penitentiary. The remaining six were executed at the District of Columbia Jail on August 8, 1942.


16 posted on 06/30/2006 4:21:32 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Another plum campaign issue lands in the President's lap. If you vote for Democrats, they will want to try terrorists in civil courts or let them go. Is this what you, the voter, want? Thank you, SCOTUS.


17 posted on 06/30/2006 4:21:42 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Just a thought-- maybe one or two of the "anti-tribunals" justices were anxious to "check and balance" Roberts, rather than "check and balance" the President.

Imagine the "treat" it must be to overturn a previous decision by the "new guy" who got the position you secretly yearned for.

This is their big chance. The "anti-trubunals" justices know that, in some future rulings, Roberts will be pointing out idiotic flaws in their previous decisions.

18 posted on 06/30/2006 4:23:45 AM PDT by syriacus (Superfunds aren't needed, since ONE WORD from Dems neutralizes lethal chemicals -- "RUST")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
reassuring sound of Big Ben's chimes aside...just "F" the BBC.
There's simple solution to taking these types of turds...either pass a law governing "terrorist" or simply don't take prisoners...after intense interrogation.
So, whadaya think, do our pols make US beasts or give us realistic ROE?
19 posted on 06/30/2006 4:33:11 AM PDT by Gunny P (Gunny P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Good, I'm glad to hear this. President Bush takes his duty to fight terrorism very seriously.


20 posted on 06/30/2006 6:36:48 AM PDT by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

Would they get a jury of their "peers"? All muslims? WOW! What a great idea! That would surely be a fair trial!

Thanks, democrats./sarcasm


21 posted on 06/30/2006 6:44:51 AM PDT by jch10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Have the liberal members of SCOTUS ever read the Geneva Convention?

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention defines who qualifies as a Prisoner of War. If you do not qualify under the requirements set by Article 4, you are an illegal combatant. Al Qaeda members, by not carrying arms openly, by dressing as civilians and by targetting civilians have failed three of the requirements outlined by Article 4.

According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, should there be a question about whether or not a captured combatant is an illegal combatant, the question will be "determined by a competent tribunal".

According to Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention, those tribunals are Military courts.

Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention: "A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, ......"

Why does the Geneva Convention require military courts?

Because the Geneva Convention recognizes that professional military men can better judge if an act was a legitimate act of war than can an outraged civilian jury who wants to lynch every captured enemy soldier.

22 posted on 06/30/2006 6:58:00 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Well said


23 posted on 06/30/2006 10:06:18 AM PDT by shellback_72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Well said


24 posted on 06/30/2006 10:06:20 AM PDT by shellback_72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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