President Jackson opposed the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and refused to enforce it, saying, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it."
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]
Don't forget tax forgiveness and social security credit for time spent trying to kill Americans...
This is AWFUL...
does not conform to the rules of the Geneva Convention...
... again.
By the Constitution, treaties are the "law of the land" and that gives the Court the power.
"And the lawyers."
Perhaps ol' Shakespeare had the right idea about lawyers, after all.
handing out candy to children across the islamic-world...pyschos doing the AK-47 happy dance...
Doesn't this ruling just mean that the military tribunal to determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant or a candidate for release is illegal?
The solution is simple, really - no more tribunals - and throw away the keys to the cells.
This isn't that big of a deal at this point. So long as the SCOTUS didn't rule that detaining enemy combatants taken off the field of battle was illegal, then everything is still kosher.
Of course they are.
No, they're not. They represent NO country, and wear NO uniform. You have no idea of what you speak.
The new ROE should be, take no prisoners--I hope in this era of Miss Manners warfare, this can still be done.
So does this mean that military tribunals held during WWII, and the War Between the States, among others were unconstitutional?
I hate it when the Court trashes it's own precedents and our history.
US court rejects Guantanamo trial
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. <>P> In a landmark decision, the court upheld the challenge of Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver against his trial at the US facility at Guantanamo.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution faces more obstacles.
He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal there.
I'm dismayed and disgusted.
Maybe "gee, it sure is dark and smelly in here."
dims are doing cartwheels.
what a shame... the next attack will be HUGE! and the dims will have lost that one but it will all be worth it to them to prove Bush lied (in their sick world)
Excuse my lingo ... but what the hell does that me??
I don't get this ruling
And the determination that the conventions do not apply to them is a process that is covered by the conventions. And today we got a ruling saying the process we followed didn't conform to the conventions' requirements.
That doesn't mean the terrorists are suddenly covered by Geneva (at least I haven't seen that they ruled that), but that the determination of whether they are covered or not was done improperly.
Is that clearer?
The President convinces Congress to pass a law that sets up a formal framework for how to process the internees, sort out the terrorists from the schumcks who got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.
Outrageous decision.
Yes ...but they are not covered by the Geneva convention.
Correct. This wasn't really a legal ruling by the Supreme Court, it was a political ruling. It was just another skirmish in the ongoing power struggle between the different branches of government.
We have finally reached the point where our government is at war with terrorists, at war with its own citizens, and at war with itself.
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.