Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)

Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

[pabianice]

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

[ARealMothersSonForever]

They will probably be sent back to their home countries.

You are correct. China has been requesting their citizens. The left just does not realize that most of these "detainees" will be skinned alive in their home countries. I believe that we should exploit any intel from these terrorists, and give them to their home country, or any US allied country with claim.

[mware]

I heard Lindsey Gramm on the television a few minutes ago.

He is going to bring forward a bill before Congress that will permit the terrorist at Gitmo to be tried before a military tribunal.

According to what I have heard SCOTUS said that if Congress okays it, then it would be legal.

Apparently Lindsey tried over a year ago to get it passed through Congress but it failed at some stage.

[Paul Ross]

Democrats want them to have citizenship and voting rights.

LOL!

[Steve_Seattle]

"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."

Here's how it would have read if the decision had gone the other way:

"A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled today that President Bush has the authority to order military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees. The court's conservative majority said that . . . In a ringing dissent, Justice Steven Breyer said, "These tribunals violate the most fundamental principles of our Constitution and of International Law."

[mware]

That is my impression too, the ruling did say that the terrorist could be held until the end of the war.

This war isn't going to be ending too soon.

[bandleader]

I just heard a caller on The Laura Ingraham show suggest that "W"just IGNORE The Supremes(as did Andrew Jackson)!I LIKE that!!

[brytlea]

LOL
susie

[Darnright]

>How were the individual justices divided?<
Here is a link to the case:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

As you would imagine. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito dissenting.

Justice Scalia's dissent begins at page 103

Justice Thomas' dissent begins at page 127

Justice Alito's dissent begins at page 176

[eraser2005]

That's how I read it - two simple solutions:

1) Don't hold any more tribunals for now
2) Get congressional approval for the tribunals.

Either one works... its not that big of a deal, really - just enforcing checks and balances by forcing it to congress. In one respect, they're not actually legislating with this - they're telling legislators to do it... nice change, eh? :p

[Gator113]

"....what the hell do we do with people caught on the battlefield?"




Simple.....kill them!

[mystery-ak]

Here comes the Prez

[bobsunshine]

From what I understand, the law that was passed last year was for only future detainees or those not charged yet. This case was for someone charged, by which there was no law. Per the ruling (emphasis mine):

The jurisdictional part of the decision interpreted the Detainee Treatment Act, passed by Congress late last year to curtail court authority to rule on Guantanamo cases. The Court interpreted that law as not applying to cases already pending. That would appear to preserve the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to proceed to decide other detainee challenges to their prolonged detention, just as the Supreme Court could proceed to decide the validity of the commissions to try those detainees who have been charged with war crimes. Ten such individuals have been charged.

[lepton]

Pp. 70-72. Justice Kennedy, agreeing that Hamdan’s military commission is unauthorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. §§836 and 821, and the Geneva Conventions, concluded that there is therefore no need to decide whether Common Article 3 of the Conventions requires that the accused have the right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial or to address the validity of the conspiracy charge against Hamdan. Pp. 17-19."

Unauthorized means there is no authority enabling it. It isn't the same as a prohibition. One can't apply the Geneva Conventions to an act not within it.

[bandleader]

The three"dissenter"are Scalia,Alito,and Thomas.Thomas wrote a brilliant dissent!!!!!!!!!!!

[khnyny]

Now that's funny and all too true.

[processing please hold]

Are you saying Bush never said he wanted it closed?

Do you think the American taxpayers will stand still as our tax dollars are spent providing every terrorist at Gitmo with top of the line lawyers?

It will be cheaper and a lot less messy just to send them home. You don't see the logic in that?

[eraser2005]

Actually, its saying that the Bush administration needs congressional approval for the tribunals, if I'm reading it correctly. Its not a case of ordering civilian trials... if they go to congress and get approval, the tribunals can continue...

[Diddle E. Squat]

Ominous implications:

Analysis from SCOTUSblog:

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

[mware]

I am waiting for the nut cases to claim this is a reason to impeach the president.

Of course using that logic, FDR, would have had to been impeached too, for trying to stack the deck at the Supreme Court in the 1930's.

[hsrazorback1]

just a question...Can you have a prisoner of war when a war hasn't been declared? Anyone?