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
The SCOTUS Justices hit her g-spot and she was crowing.
Figures Kennedy would side with the liberal branch.
Ronald Reagan is probably turning in his grave.
Tell them they have five minutes to answer your questions or you will shoot them in the head and shoot them regardless.
Wow, you mean ACLU type justice who's 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 amendment we just might be needing it soon to re establish a lawful Constitutional Government.
that all depends on how the white house reacts to this. they are often reluctant to say anything negative about SCOTUS rulings. so if you can't go on offense, that means you are on defense.
this ruling is an outrage. 5 members of the Supreme Court of the United States - are ruling in favor of non-citizen terrorists - at a time in which brave US soldiers are losing life and limb to defend this nation against the very same people.
It sickens me.
this is the end for Gitmo now, we can't use it to hold prisoners anymore - we need to send back as many of them as we can, to their home countries that are willing to try them.
thank goodness the CIA didn't bring the AQ top people to Gitmo - they would all be getting US trials now. the foreign prison program is a good one - until the SCOTUS rules those are illegal.
SCOTUS rules against President
FOX NEWS ALERT: New evidence has just come to light in the Aruba case.
It sucks.
Did you hear the caller to Rush............ who suggested the detainees be given sex-change operations........ hormone treatments........... training bras........???
It was BEAUTIFUL.... the caller was a genius....... must have been a FReeper!!
I'll try to get the transcript of the caller's call. It was BRILLIANTLY FUNNY.
If you feel like it, go to Rush's daily thread. I have to go back outside to work. If you should find the whole phone call to Rush please let me know.
As I said ....... it was brilliant!!! I was laughing my *ss off out in the nursery.
exactly right. I don't think we have the votes in the senate for any kind of law to "undo" this - the McCain/Graham faction will vote with the Dems.
There.
Fixed.
indeed, that's where the left is going to go with this next - to try and get the AQ top honchos being held overseas by the CIA, into civilian courts, with ACLU lawyers, etc.
really, at this point, what further information do these guys like KSM have? why are they still alive?
the administration has some hard decisions to make in light of this SCOTUS ruling.
Why is this the end for Gitmo?
The Boy Scouts are not analogous to Al Queda, nor are its members specifically devoted to the goals of it's head.
Again, refer to the Barbary Pirates. Organizations can indeed declare war upon us, and the precedent is that if the President deems them a danger to the nation he can carry out a war against them with no further declaration - theirs sufficed.
YOU were so right...gotta hand it to you.
Blech is my opinion.
BUT, as we have been saying on the Rush thread...this will once again force the DEMS to put their VOTE where their mouth is on legislation giving the POTUS "permission" to carry out military tribunals for those animals.
why bother sending anyone else there. we can use prisons on purely foreign soil, under foreign legal jurisdictions.
notice that last week, 17 of them were sent back to saudi arabia. you will see alot more of that happening in the coming months. I think there are only about 400 left at Gitmo.
I worry that the McCain faction (Graham, et al) in the senate will not vote to give the POTUS permissions here - and the Dems will draw cover from that.
has McCain said anything yet?
In essence what the Supreme Court may have done is to prolong the detention of the detainees. If the US can't try them in a war tribunal, then they will just have to wait until hostilities cease and at that point decide whether or not to release them or try them in a criminal court.
At least with a war tribunal they could have obtained determinate sentences. The Supreme Court took that option off the table. This is no victory for the detainees. Mr. Hamden could have had his trial over with and been released for time served. As it stands right now, he may not get a trial for another 20 years.
Sure they did. They passed a join resolution authorizing hostilities and they continued to fund the war after it started.
There is no constitutional "magic language" that equals a war declaration.
Very disappointing. We need some of the old Court libs to retire. ....soon. They'll be holding on tight till '09 though, of that we can be sure.
They may not have said," We Declare War," but in effect, that is what they did, when they granted the President the powers after 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda et al. Scalia's dissent: Worst of all is the Court's reliance on the legislative history of the DTA to buttress its implausible reading of §1005(e)(1). We have repeatedly held that such reliance is impermissible where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous...The question was divisive, and floor statements made on both sides were undoubtedly opportunistic and crafted solely for use in the briefs in this very litigation. See, e.g., 151 Cong. Rec. S14257-S14258 (Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Levin) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-184
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.