Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)

Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

[Ron in Acreage]

Right on. Take no prisoners!

[Dog]

No they are not....they are freaking TERRORISTS.

[TomGuy]

FNS

Opinion being read on SC bench currently, so it is not available yet.

SC actually has reversed the Roberts decision when Roberts was on the DC Circuit Court.

SC decision does not rule to close Gitmo. It just says it is illegal to have it. [huh?]

[Pete]

If it is 5-3, with Roberts recused then this, in reality, is not really a surprise and no big deal. Of course, the MSM and the Left will put it forth as proof that Bush is out of control. Let them. When they live in their fantasy world, they lose elections.

[Trust but Verify]

I'd prefer to know a lot more about the ruling and the ramifications before coming to that conclusion.

[jwalsh07]

Predictable, Scalia already made his views clear. Sad but predictable. Congress needs to act now.

[b4its2late]

Idiots.

Guess it's time to adopt - Take no prisoners.

[Puppage]

illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva convention

The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to these terrorists!!

[Ron in Acreage]

Democrats want them to have citizenship and voting rights.

[Dog]

OK Line them up and shot the lot of them.

[goldstategop]

The President should shrug it off. As President Lincoln said of Chief Justice Taney's overturning the President's suspension of habeas corpus: "Taney made his decision. Now let him to try to enforce it."

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Mo1]

Yes ...but they are not covered by the Geneva convention.

So what happens now?

[pepperhead]

Don't know about pushing them into the ocean. But since the SC ruled we can't give them tribunals I say we give them nothing. No trial, just let them stay at Gitmo forever.

[COEXERJ145]

Actually that was Jackson about Marshall's decision.

[Rummyfan]

When did it become SCOTUS' job to interpret the Geneva Convention??????????? And the UCMJ?????

[pabianice]

On the bright side, this decision does not effect the status of GITMO as a place to detain terrorists. They just can't be tried for their terrorism.

[IMRight]

How do they figure the detainees are covered under the Geneva convention?

The question of whether a combatant is legal or not is a determination that Geneva anticipates will be made by a "competent tribunal". It appears (I obviously haven't read it yet) that the SC is here saying that these tribunals don't qualify under Geneva.

So it isn't "the detainees" that are being ruled on as outside of Geneva's rules, but the tribunals' form.

[bnelson44]

Where does it say Gitmo should be closed? Let's wait for the details before getting too upset.

[conservativecorner]

The black robed tyrants strike again!

[Constitution Day]

Hell yes!

This is an outrage.