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 was told on another thread, that Graham has already come out and said he would be FOR getting legislation through that would fix this...which is good news.
However, I posted back..that in order to get to that point, we will have to suffer the condescension from the Senators as they "remind" Bush that he NEEDS THEIR PERMISSION to do anything...
Which is what this Senate Rep and Dem is all about...making sure that BUSH has NO power that they don't GIVE him...that is why Specter has to investigate every single thing that Bush has done to fight this WOT.
So...bottom line, even though Graham says today that he is going to see that Bush gets what he needs...I don't trust any of them...so we will have to watch out for any of the games they like to play.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Gang of 14 doesn't somehow come into play here...blech
If he wants to run for President, he will choose (somewhat) wisely.
I asked whether you believe stare decisis protects the decision. This is the argument from the left. Now, true to hypocritical form, the left doesn't mind the Supreme Court reversing themselves only when it suits the dim rats.
I don't think the Court was trying to divide the Constitution into different structures. I think they were trying to iron out the problem where a treaty didn't afford certain rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If, as some have argued in the past, that a treaty is considered the supreme law of the land, and thus on par with the Constitution, then, as the Court in Reid warned, "such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V." Thus, the Constitution remains supreme over a treaty. If a treaty were on par with the Constitution, then a document like the International Criminal Court, which Clinton signed onto and Bush unsigned, would have amended the Constitution to eliminate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees we currently enjoy.
With respect to Bricker, it probably is unnecessary in light of what Reid held.
As for today's decision, I haven't had a chance to read yet, so I can't comment on what the court did with the Geneva Convention and the Constitution.
You've misread the post you are replying to. The "they" references are the tribunals, not the individual terrorists.
I made no argument that Al Qaeda was now covered by POW guidelines.
DICK Durbin is up on the Senate floor CROWING about how the SCOTUS has slapped down the Bush Administration..
I understand your argument now and after reading it, I agree.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and
JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee
Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as
of 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 the
statute’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 supposedly
retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion,
not be exercised.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
2 HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD
SCALIA, J., dissenting
The DTA provides: “[N]o court, justice, or judge shall
have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a
writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien
detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742 (internal division
omitted). This provision “t[ook] effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act,” §1005(h)(1), id., at 2743, which was
December 30, 2005. As of that date, then, no court had
jurisdiction to “hear or consider” the merits of petitioner’s habeas application. This repeal of jurisdiction is simply not ambiguous as between pending and future cases. It prohibits any exercise of jurisdiction, and it became effective as to all cases last December 30. It is also perfectly clear that the phrase “no court, justice, or judge” INCLUDES THIS COURT (emphasis added)and its Members, and that by exercising our appellate jurisdiction in this case we are “hear[ing] or consider[ing] . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Pardon me, yes, and IMHO, they will all be sent back to their countries. Now, should we be hit again, and by any of those released........
Durbin is up on the Senate Floor praising the USSC decision about the terrorists
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, and
with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins in all but Parts I, II–C–1,
and III–B–2, dissenting.
For the reasons set forth in JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissent, it
is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain
petitioner’s claims, see ante, at 1–11. The Court having
concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the
Court’s resolution of the merits of petitioner’s claims
because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty
to respect the Executive’s judgment in matters of military
operations and foreign affairs. The Court’s evident belief
that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,”
ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ
a particular form of force against our enemies is so
antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply
cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent.
THOMAS, J., dissenting
Moreover, the President’s determination that the present
conflict dates at least to 1996 is supported by overwhelming
evidence. According to the State Department,
al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as
August 1996. See Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin
Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998); Dept. of State Fact Sheet: The
Charges against International Terrorist Usama Bin Laden
(Dec. 20, 2000); cf. Prize Cases, 2 Black, at 668 (recognizing
that a state of war exists even if “the declaration of it
be unilateral” (emphasis in original)). In February 1998,
al Qaeda leadership issued another statement ordering
the indiscriminate—and, even under the laws of war as
applied to legitimate nation-states, plainly illegal—killing
of American civilians and military personnel alike. See
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front
Statement 2 (Feb. 23, 1998), in Y. Alexander & M. Swetnam,
Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist
Network, App. 1B (2001) (“The ruling to kill the Americans
and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual
duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country
in which it is possible to do it”). This was not mere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New
York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in
Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S. Embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the
U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000.
It's in HTML on FindLaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-184
I was answering to your statement that they're covered by the Geneva Convention.
Your post #32.
They are crowing their support for the terrorist over American citizens. They have no shame.
And, here you go:
Pelosi Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Guantanamo Military Commissions
Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
“The rights ofdue process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policiesand a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”
FDR(using the same"logic"employed by THE LEFT)would have been impeached for sanctioning the trying of our ENEMIES by Military Tribunals!
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.