Skip to comments.Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)
Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianiceEdited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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...?
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".
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.
Wasn't Mr.Duranty given The Pulitzer for writing of the glories of Stalinist Russia?
One Worldish, huh?
On the advice of AG Gonzales?
Is he the mastermind of the gradual caving in on Gitmo starting about a year ago?
The only reason we take prisomners is because we are civilised and are playing nice.....And we get very useful intel from them.
Remember, O'Connor was speaking admiringly of international law shortly before her retirement.
Only as a reference point... heh.
--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.
"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.
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,
Describe the Detainee Treatment Act.
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?
[Wasn't Mr.Duranty given The Pulitzer for writing of the glories of Stalinist Russia?]
You can read about Walter Duranty, the NYT and its bogus Pulitzer here:
It appears on the Rush Limbaugh website under "Rush's Stack of Stuff".
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?
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?
"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:
True, they do sing quite nicely.
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.
Supreme court Hamdan ruling
Posted on 06/29/2006 12:25:18 PM CDT by minus_273
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:
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.
I hope you're right.
This decision is the most amazing thing I've seen. Courtesy of Anthony Kennedy.
Hey Supreme Court Traitors....
NO...NO...NO.... Hell NO.....
Screw you and your liberal buddies at the NY Times.
the ones the CIA is using. hell, the SCOTUS may even extend itself to prisons run by the US military in iraq and afghanistan.
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.
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.
The infamous 5 Supreme Black Robes should be sent your posted graphic every day of their lives.
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.