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

[La Enchiladita]

Awaiting the answer with you.

[MNJohnnie]

Man are you ever getting you butt handed to you. Better go brush up on basic civics. Your emotional hysteria and arrogant self regard do not stack up well in debate against Freepers armed with the facts.

[processing please hold]

I think you're right. He'll probably start his own thread basking in his stupidity. But, he and they won't see it as stupid.

[La Enchiladita]

ACLU Calls Supreme Court's Hamdan Decision a Victory for "Rule of Law"

[MNJohnnie]

The issue at stake is whether the President can indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" without due

Man are you ignorant. Military Tribunals ARE due process as the Supreme Court ruled when FDR used them during WW2.

[processing please hold]

Thanks, I'll mosey over there. Sounds like a good thread.

[Dazedcat]

Ok, so does this mean we're really not at war? If these people can't be tried for war crimes, then they're not soldiers of our "enemies of freedom".......so therefore we can't really be at war? Man I feel ever so much better now.

Maybe somebody should tell President Bush, or better yet, Dick Cheney........there's no sense in spending trillions of dollars, passing all kinds of laws and enacting all kinds of covert spying operations at home....and feeding American soldiers through the meat grinder of battle in some Islamic rathole in the middle east if we're NOT AT WAR!

(By the way, this post is sarcastic in every way.....practically.......almost).

[IMRight]

I remember the Laws of Armed Conflict classes I had when I was in the military. The instructors were very clear in the point that the United States never signed the Geneva Convention. We simply agree in principle. So, if this is true, we are not bound by it as in Treaty. Any lawyer types out there that can confirm?

It's both yes AND no. The US signed the vast majority of the conventions (the ones controlling this decision included) and not some of the others.

[IMRight]

So it is your view that these were not war crimes?

Not at all... it's just that you don't try war crimes in district court. I don't even remember what they chose to charge Hamdan with.

[RedStateRocker]

who and how do we define when the war is over? Congress has never delcared one.

[Enchante]

"The issue at stake is whether the President can indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" without due process...."

I don't have time today to read all the documents, but one quotation I already saw indicated that even the majority did not question the President's right as Commander-in-Chief to hold these people until the end of hostilities. The question is what process will determine how they are handled beyond the end of hostilities (however that is defined), not whether the C-in-C can hold them NOW, and indefinitely.....

[lepton]

OBL is not the head of any state that is recognized by any international body.

No, but he is and was the head of Al Queda. He made the declaration on the organization's behalf.

It's like saying Jack The Ripper has declared war on the United States.

Aside from the time frame issue, more or less. This is more like the Barbary Pirates ...And we'd be free to whack him in response.

We in fact are conducting a war against Al-Queda in addition to other affiliated entities.

[bobsunshine]

Not sure. Understand that the DOJ and/or Gonzales will have a briefing later today. Hopefully will have some answers. Listening to Tony Snow and like was said before, Congress now has the obligation to write a law on how to try these terrorists. Also, these guys are not getting released or Gitmo will not be closed. So will wait and see. Also you will note that a lot of decisions were 4-4 and all the judges had something to say such as Alito liked some opinions but not others. So I'm sure it will take some time to figure it all. Final note: the SCOTUS did not say we can't try them, just didn't approve of the military tribunal way.

[Tarkin]

1. Isn't the Geneva Convention a Treaty?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" (Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) and

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Art. VI, Clause 2)

The decision may be wrong, but the Supremes certainly had jurisdiction to decide whether the Geneva Convention was violated.

[processing please hold]

No, but he is and was the head of Al Queda. He made the declaration on the organization's behalf.

So, if the head of the Boy Scouts declared war on us, we could capture and hold all their members? It was a facetious question.

Al Queda is an organization, not a country.

[oceanview]

that is a good idea - but I do not think we have the votes for it in the senate, the McCain/Graham RINO faction, that has been all hopped up about giving these detainees every right under the sun - will vote with the Dems.

[demlosers]

Another reason why these terrorist should be killed and not captured.

Give no quarters!

[Prokopton]

The US is a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
The US is not a Signatory to the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Convention.

[Archon of the East]

Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.Wow, you mean ACLU type justice whos clear goal is undermine and deconstruct the Constitution? We have a couple of those on the court right now. Tell Me just how the hell does this help our citizens which is THE ONLY obligation of our constitution and laws and rights? IT DOESN'T! Not one iota. You apparently value the worlds opinion that clearly changes not on set law but whims and feelings at that time. This court clearly did not have our citizens in mind with this decision. Thank God for the 2nd admenment we just might be needing it soon to re establish a lawful Constitutional Government.

[oceanview]

as predicted, a 5-3 with Kennedy going over to the dark side.

we need one more SCOTUS pick under Bush 43.

this ruling is bad news, very bad.