Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Breaking...
Update:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which 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 body guard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo...
Excerpt. Read more at: Fox News
I'm not so sure Hillary will get the nomination. The Dems might get smart on us and actaully want to win.
Yes. Insane. I do often feel like Alice in Wonderland, wondering what the heck those making the rules are thinking.
susie
Again, as has been stated in this thread numerous times, the average American is going to see this as "siding with the terrorists", and that will not sit well with the bulk of Americans.
I think the next week will be a gold mine for Karl Rove. :)
Time for some of those old Playboy cartoons with the two guys shackled to the prison wall. Was that Shel Silverstein's work?
"Let's hope Congress steps up...NOW."
Now you're talkin'.
They really said that?
Wow, how can we get them on CNN to repeat it? That would be a lot better than FOX.
Well, I hope we don't find out, but I cannot believe it won't happen.
susie
I know.
Time to start more letter writing to the Congress
This from wikipedia:
"His possible retirement is a highly debated topic in legal and political circles in the U.S. Justice Stevens would be almost 89 years old if he remains on the court until the end of Bush's term in 2009. There have been widespread rumors on Capitol Hill that Justice Stevens plans on retiring after the midterm elections in November, 2006. Other rumors state he is planning on retirement upon the next presidential election as well as waiting to see how Bush's first two appointments shape the court. Also he has hired law clerks to last him into 2008."
I think he has said that he will wait to retire until there is a president that is more in tune with his constitutional ideology (read liberal). I think he hates Bush and will try to wait until Bush is no longer the POTUS unless his health fails him.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the DetaineeTreatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, asof that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls thestatute’s most natural reading, every “court, justice, or judge” before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedlyretained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.
The issue is NOT closing Gitmo or keeping Gitmo open. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, TOO BAD IT'S CONFUSING THE REAL ISSUE.
Bush never said he wanted SCOTUS to rule in THIS way. All he ever said was that we need Gitmo as a place to hold people until the SCOTUS ruled WHAT KIND OF TRIALS THE DETAINEES MUST HAVE. Bush expressly has wanted MILITARY TRIBUNALS for them but had to wait for a yes or no ruling.
It really is that simple. Bush will not close Gitmo until some disposition is made of these dangerous people. They will just stay there until SOMETHING is done to process their cases.
The Court said nothing whatsoever about closing it. They only ruled against Military Tribunals for the terrorists.
You're welcome, and it's finally up. I'm actually just as interested in the other decision today, and it's gotten no press what with the Gitmo opinion!
Nicely stated.
The issue is NOT closing Gitmo or keeping Gitmo open. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, TOO BAD IT'S CONFUSING THE REAL ISSUE.
Bush never said he wanted SCOTUS to rule in THIS way. All he ever said was that we need Gitmo as a place to hold people until the SCOTUS ruled WHAT KIND OF TRIALS THE DETAINEES MUST HAVE. Bush expressly has wanted MILITARY TRIBUNALS for them but had to wait for a yes or no ruling.
It really is that simple. Bush will not close Gitmo until some disposition is made of these dangerous people. They will just stay there until SOMETHING is done to process their cases.
The Court said nothing whatsoever about closing it. They only ruled against Military Tribunals for the terrorists.
Exactly...worth repeating....
So if this is true then most of this thread is misleading
QUOTE FROM ABOVE
The issue is NOT closing Gitmo or keeping Gitmo open. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, TOO BAD IT'S CONFUSING THE REAL ISSUE.
Bush never said he wanted SCOTUS to rule in THIS way. All he ever said was that we need Gitmo as a place to hold people until the SCOTUS ruled WHAT KIND OF TRIALS THE DETAINEES MUST HAVE. Bush expressly has wanted MILITARY TRIBUNALS for them but had to wait for a yes or no ruling.
It really is that simple. Bush will not close Gitmo until some disposition is made of these dangerous people. They will just stay there until SOMETHING is done to process their cases.
The Court said nothing whatsoever about closing it. They only ruled against Military Tribunals for the terrorists.
Thank God for Scalia. A voice of reason in the vast wilderness.
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.