Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)
Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; chiefjustice; clubgitmo; congress; constitution; cotus; detainees; dta; georgewbush; gitmo; guantanamo; guantanamobay; gwot; hamdan; judicialanarchy; judicialreview; judicialreviewsux; judiciary; president; presidentbush; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; usconstitution; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850851-895 next last
To: AmeriBrit
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.

801 posted on 06/29/2006 11:49:29 AM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

I remember that.It was "shilling"for Anita Hill!!!!!!!!!!!


802 posted on 06/29/2006 11:51:55 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: jamiefoxer

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...?


803 posted on 06/29/2006 11:52:23 AM PDT by Darksheare (This is a test of the emergency tagline system. Had there been an emergency, you would have heard...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage

GREAT SUGGESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!


804 posted on 06/29/2006 11:52:42 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Our military will now be lighter and quicker. Much more lethal.

They will not be taking prisoners.


805 posted on 06/29/2006 11:56:52 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamiefoxer

You said you'd prefer the terrorists, who do not fall under Geneva Conventions, to be granted Geneva protections and given trials and lawyers.


806 posted on 06/29/2006 11:57:29 AM PDT by Darksheare (This is a test of the emergency tagline system. Had there been an emergency, you would have heard...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

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.


807 posted on 06/29/2006 12:00:40 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Why were the 17 released?

Again, what has changed which would promote the evacuation of Gitmo?

Finally, what role can congress play at this point?

808 posted on 06/29/2006 12:02:43 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Hi Darksheare.

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.

809 posted on 06/29/2006 12:06:02 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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.


810 posted on 06/29/2006 12:09:39 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: IMRight

ah! thanks for the clarification! =)


811 posted on 06/29/2006 12:19:00 PM PDT by Zeppelin (You've been Zarqed !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Chieftain

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.


812 posted on 06/29/2006 12:29:26 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Moderate Mooslims.....what's that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: bandleader

"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


813 posted on 06/29/2006 12:37:08 PM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet
Heh, too bad, it's totally forgettable and not useful to either "side" this season.

Fear not, at least some of the Dems will not be able to keep their feet out of their mouths. :)
814 posted on 06/29/2006 12:38:03 PM PDT by Pox (If it's a Coward you are searching for, you need look no further than the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

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.


815 posted on 06/29/2006 12:56:10 PM PDT by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: IMRight

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.



Nice spin since you didn't make that clear until later in the thread.


816 posted on 06/29/2006 1:00:03 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (LIGHT A PRAYER CANDLE FOR THE TROOPS: http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit
Nice spin since you didn't make that clear until later in the thread.

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.

817 posted on 06/29/2006 1:02:32 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Actually it's a 4-4 opinion.


818 posted on 06/29/2006 1:03:51 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Tarkin

International law sneaks in to jurisdiction via treaties. Very interesting.


819 posted on 06/29/2006 1:04:30 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

That is only if McCain continues to hold sway over the RINO faction.

Remember, he was the one who devised the "anti-torture" amendment.


820 posted on 06/29/2006 1:06:12 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

Thank you.


821 posted on 06/29/2006 1:06:54 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Wasn't Mr.Duranty given The Pulitzer for writing of the glories of Stalinist Russia?


822 posted on 06/29/2006 1:07:29 PM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
International law sneaks in to jurisdiction via treaties

One Worldish, huh?

823 posted on 06/29/2006 1:10:23 PM PDT by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
... they are often reluctant to say anything negative about SCOTUS rulings.

On the advice of AG Gonzales?

Is he the mastermind of the gradual caving in on Gitmo starting about a year ago?

824 posted on 06/29/2006 1:13:46 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

The only reason we take prisomners is because we are civilised and are playing nice.....And we get very useful intel from them.


825 posted on 06/29/2006 1:19:40 PM PDT by Valin (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Specter has just introduced a bill for military tribunals for detainees at Gitmo. He said it was in anticipation that the SC ruled the way it did.
826 posted on 06/29/2006 1:23:51 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

Remember, O'Connor was speaking admiringly of international law shortly before her retirement.

Only as a reference point... heh.


827 posted on 06/29/2006 1:24:34 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

--the administration has some hard decisions to make in light of this SCOTUS ruling.---

That leads to a bigger point. We conservatives sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. Such is the case here. The forest--or elephant in the living room--that is being ignored is the entire concept of JUDICIAL REVIEW. The US Constitution does not authorize judicial review. Such an authority is nowhere to be found in its text. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the first time judicial review was invoked by the SCOTUS, and it basically was a constitutional coup d etat by CJ John Marshall. Why Pres. Jefferson did not call Marshalls bluff I will never understand. The Framers would have detested judicial review. It takes power away from the general will of the American people (infallible) and gives it to nine all-to-fallible unelected oligarchs. Judicial review has caused injustice (Plessy, Korematsu, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo) and even war (Dred Scott). Judicial review is a concept which does our conservative movement no good. Our movement is about the PEOPLE and their sovereignty; judicial review only takes that away. There is a great article calling for the abolition of judicial review on townhall.com by a brilliant young political scientist named Ben Shapiro. To put it bluntly, instead of b*tching about this SCOTUS decision or that, or praying that the right justice gets on the bench, we conservatives should push to reverse Marshalls constitutional coup and abolish this odious doctrine once and for all. Let people elected by the people, who swear to uphold the Constitution, decide what is constitutional.



828 posted on 06/29/2006 1:32:41 PM PDT by tee-sixtytwo (Definition of a fiscal conservative--a social liberal who thinks his taxes are too high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
In his opinion, Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

It sounds like the court is placing the administration under the authority and control of the congress.

829 posted on 06/29/2006 1:50:13 PM PDT by oldbrowser (Good news is no news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit

here is what is going to happen, many soldiers, like myself, after all what's is been going on, will do, what is called," Field Justice" and what happens in the field, well stays in the field, it is a shame what the Supreme Court has done, giving rights to camel jockeys, which do not wear an uniform, or fight for a country,


830 posted on 06/29/2006 1:53:05 PM PDT by proudusvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
How did FDR handle WWII?

Describe the Detainee Treatment Act.

831 posted on 06/29/2006 1:57:51 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

The Supreme Court seems to have the solution for terrorist so I'm sure they won't mind if President Bush gave them all pardons and let them out at the steps of the Supreme Court Building?


832 posted on 06/29/2006 1:57:53 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: bandleader

[Wasn't Mr.Duranty given The Pulitzer for writing of the glories of Stalinist Russia?]

Yes.


833 posted on 06/29/2006 1:59:15 PM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: bandleader

You can read about Walter Duranty, the NYT and its bogus Pulitzer here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford050703.asp

It appears on the Rush Limbaugh website under "Rush's Stack of Stuff".

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html


834 posted on 06/29/2006 2:06:53 PM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

This is bad news for future prisoners, they will simply be shot. What is wrong with SCOTUS, did they take a drink of weebily sauce?


835 posted on 06/29/2006 2:08:45 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
and the left isn't done. they wil now be going into federal court to try and deconstruct the CIA foreign prisons operations. watch. What foreign prisons?
836 posted on 06/29/2006 2:10:15 PM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: 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.

>/i> It gets more interesting than that. When Nixon unilaterally abrogated our treaty with the Chines, and negotiated with Red Chinese, the Supreme Court rule that a President has the Constitutional power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty. Does anyone have a cite on that?

for freedom,

837 posted on 06/29/2006 2:27:14 PM PDT by bIlluminati (Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless. - Mother Theresa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: bIlluminati

"When Nixon unilaterally abrogated our treaty with the Chines, and negotiated with Red Chinese, the Supreme Court rule that a President has the Constitutional power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty. Does anyone have a cite on that?"

Jimmy Carter did this in 1979, not Nixon. Carter was sued by Congress and the Supreme Court ruled on it in Goldwater v. Carter:

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/143/


838 posted on 06/29/2006 2:43:40 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: Valin

True, they do sing quite nicely.


839 posted on 06/29/2006 2:45:04 PM PDT by Darksheare (This is a test of the emergency tagline system. Had there been an emergency, you would have heard...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Screw it. Declare defeat, turn everybody loose, and suck the troops out of wherever they are. Let the world go to Hell, and let them come and destroy all we have. Nothing we can do, so I'm heading for the mountains. Eff 'em.


840 posted on 06/29/2006 3:08:16 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty ( 2006, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Supreme court Hamdan ruling
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-184 ^


Posted on 06/29/2006 12:25:18 PM CDT by minus_273
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657856/posts

I am not a lawyer, but reading this ruling, it seems it says a lot more than what the media is saying.

I found this part interesting:
"VII



We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government's charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge--viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."



I think this means these thugs are not getting out. In fact, "duration of active hostilities" means they might be able to hold them until the war is over.


841 posted on 06/29/2006 3:58:21 PM PDT by Valin (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: Valin

I hope you're right.

This decision is the most amazing thing I've seen. Courtesy of Anthony Kennedy.


842 posted on 06/29/2006 4:13:00 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty ( 2006, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Hey SCOTUS Liberal Tyrants. Like this never happened.
843 posted on 06/29/2006 4:26:52 PM PDT by tflabo (Take authority that's ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Hey Supreme Court Traitors....

NO...NO...NO.... Hell NO.....
Screw you and your liberal buddies at the NY Times.


844 posted on 06/29/2006 4:31:10 PM PDT by tflabo (Take authority that's ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Buzzy's been cooking up the weebily sauce for lunches.
845 posted on 06/29/2006 4:36:00 PM PDT by tflabo (Take authority that's ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV

the ones the CIA is using. hell, the SCOTUS may even extend itself to prisons run by the US military in iraq and afghanistan.


846 posted on 06/29/2006 5:04:54 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

what point are you trying to make? just get to it.

WWII and Nuremberg occurred before the Geneva Conventions. Under the standards created today by the SCOTUS, Nuremberg would not be possible.


847 posted on 06/29/2006 5:07:01 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

no, not at all.

hell, the administration is fighting this war on terror - damn near alone. the courts don't take it seriously, the congress does not, and a majority of americans don't either.

I don't blame anyone from the administration for what happened today.


848 posted on 06/29/2006 5:08:46 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

The infamous 5 Supreme Black Robes should be sent your posted graphic every day of their lives.


849 posted on 06/29/2006 5:15:38 PM PDT by harpo11 (Criminal Suspects Get Mirandarized---Our Brave Courageous US Troops Get Murtharized)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: harpo11

Actually, I should call them the 5 Slime Robes....we will not forget September 11, 2001, but apparently these windbag arrogant
betrayers of our Founding Fathers sacred honor and oath have.


850 posted on 06/29/2006 5:21:46 PM PDT by harpo11 (Criminal Suspects Get Mirandarized---Our Brave Courageous US Troops Get Murtharized)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850851-895 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson