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
Your post #32.
And the "they" in that post did not refer to enemy combatants. It was the military tribunals.
I remember that.It was "shilling"for Anita Hill!!!!!!!!!!!
Terrorists do not fall under Geneva Convention protections, look it up.
Geneva convention only applies to uniformed lawful combatants.
The only reason we take prisomners is because we are civilised and are playing nice.
If you want, we can change that...?
GREAT SUGGESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Our military will now be lighter and quicker. Much more lethal.
They will not be taking prisoners.
You said you'd prefer the terrorists, who do not fall under Geneva Conventions, to be granted Geneva protections and given trials and lawyers.
a "release" to be tried in their home countries - where I will admit, we do run the risk of having them obtain an actual release.
Again, what has changed which would promote the evacuation of Gitmo?
Finally, what role can congress play at this point?
I think we ought to wait further info before jumping to conclusions. I scanned the Kennedy concurrence, joined by some of the libs, and he expressly refuses to join in the Geneva Convention part of the opinion that Stevens put in and the MSM is playing up. Kennedy is the key 5th vote. I haven't read the whole thing, but it appears the Geneva Convention stuff in actuality is a minority opinion.
I don't know (it was 14, I misspoke). I don't know how many face charges there.
I know alot of freepers are saying this ruling means - "we can just hold them forever, since the war on terror will never end, they will be perpetual prisoners of war". I wouldn't hang my hat on that. now the the federal courts all the way to the top have inserted their jurisdiction into this, anything is possible.
congress could do alot of things, but I don't think they will. I don't think the senate will give the president the power to hold military tribunals for them, as the sole and final disposition of justice for them.
and the left isn't done. they wil now be going into federal court to try and deconstruct the CIA foreign prisons operations. watch.
the only sure way to stop it - one more SCOTUS retirement amongst the 5 dirtbags that issued this ruling.
ah! thanks for the clarification! =)
Heard a navy sub special ops guy on Rush saying he will give the enemy 5 minutes to tell what they know...then he will kill them, "Why bring them back?"
But the best caller was a guy who had an answer to the terrorist/insurgent problem. We should do a sex change operation or use hormone therapy and send them back home as a woman. Whoa!You know how highly regarded women are in the mideast.
"Strange Justice" indeed, it all comes back to bite the MSM. Rush must have one good researcher working for him or they read FR, because Rush has a story re Walter Duranty and the NYT on his web site. I had several posts re Walter Duranty and the NYT the other day, LOL. I'm not taking credit (no way) but I'm glad Rush thought that the Walter Duranty story relevant to the discussion re NYT.
BTW, let's not all forget that Jane Mayer wrote "Strange Justice...." Jane also did a huge "expose" in the New Yorker called "Outsourcing Torture".
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
I hope they have a plan. Let's say a prisoner is from Egypt, does anyone think they will jail him and keep him jailed? He would be a poster-boy for al queada recruiting.
I was answering to your statement that they're covered by the Geneva Convention.
Your post #32.
* * * * * *
And the "they" in that post did not refer to enemy combatants. It was the military tribunals.
No spin involved at all. You might try looking up the word "context" and applying it.
If you read the post that I replied to, no other reading is possible.
Actually it's a 4-4 opinion.
International law sneaks in to jurisdiction via treaties. Very interesting.
That is only if McCain continues to hold sway over the RINO faction.
Remember, he was the one who devised the "anti-torture" amendment.
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.