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

Skip to comments.

High Court Asked to Take Guantanamo Case
AP via Yahoo ^ | August 8, 2005 | Associated Press

Posted on 08/08/2005 5:45:04 PM PDT by COEXERJ145

WASHINGTON - Lawyers for a Guantanamo detainee asked the Supreme Court on Monday to consider blocking military tribunals for terror suspects, and overturn what they called an extreme ruling by high court nominee John Roberts.

Roberts was on a three-judge federal appeals court panel that last month ruled against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once was Osama bin Laden's driver.

Hamdan's attorneys said in their filing with the justices that the appeals court had rejected long-standing constitutional and international law.

"Its decision vests the president with the ability to circumvent the federal courts and time-tested limits on the executive. No decision, by any court, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has gone this far," wrote Hamdan attorney Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University.

The Pentagon maintains it has the authority to hold military commissions, or tribunals, for terror suspects like Hamdan who were captured overseas and are now being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A lower court judge ruled against the government, but Roberts and two other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed. That opinion was written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who was named by the first President Bush.

That ruling was handed down shortly before Roberts was named to the Supreme Court, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor has been skeptical of government powers. In 2004, she wrote that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

The appeals court said last month that the 1949 Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: gitmo; hamdan; internationallaw; johnroberts; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

1 posted on 08/08/2005 5:45:05 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

"The appeals court said last month that the 1949 Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members."

It doesn't and that's settled law.


2 posted on 08/08/2005 5:47:06 PM PDT by DugwayDuke (Stupidity can be a self-correcting problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

if we lose this case in the SCOTUS - Gitmo closes. Its that simple. here is one issue where the polls show americans strongly in favor of the administration, if the SCOTUS gives these combatants rights - Bush should ignore the order.


3 posted on 08/08/2005 5:47:20 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

"if we lose this case in the SCOTUS - Gitmo closes. Its that simple. here is one issue where the polls show americans strongly in favor of the administration, if the SCOTUS gives these combatants rights - Bush should ignore the order."

If you send the terrorists back to their own countries, this becomes a moot point.


4 posted on 08/08/2005 5:49:40 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
if the SCOTUS gives these combatants rights - Bush should ignore the order.

There'd be major trouble if he did.

5 posted on 08/08/2005 5:50:35 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

So how does the Randolph ruling morph into the Roberts ruling? Obvious...biased revisionism.


6 posted on 08/08/2005 5:50:56 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Settled law means nothing to the lunatic left Duke. Which is eaxactly the reaon it should measn nothing to the right. The only thing that should have meaning is "Is it constitutional?"

Military tribunals are constitutional by definition. Leftists lose, now onto Roe and Doe.

7 posted on 08/08/2005 5:54:02 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

indeed, alot of that is being done. but essentially, the ACLU will have won then - getting their allies on the court, all the way to the SCOTUS, to force the hand of the administration into giving up the ability to maintain a prison system to hold terrorists.


8 posted on 08/08/2005 5:54:38 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: inquest

the hell with it. let the court enforce the order in Guantanamo. the SCOTUS cannot impeach Bush.


9 posted on 08/08/2005 5:55:25 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: inquest
There'd be major trouble if he did.

How so? The SCOTUS encroaches on executive powers during war and the executive has big trouble? I don't think so. It's a politcal loser for the court. But thats neither here nor there. The Bush administration would not tell the SCOTUS to "enforce it if you can".

10 posted on 08/08/2005 5:57:42 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
But Republicans can and will suffer politically if Bush deliberately ignores a court order and Congress does nothing in response.
11 posted on 08/08/2005 5:57:50 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
If you send the terrorists back to their own countries, this becomes a moot point.

We already tried that. Seems they were not properly scolded because some of them have been recaptured while trying to kill American soldiers.

12 posted on 08/08/2005 5:59:15 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: inquest

on this issue, public support is there, very few americans want to give terrorists these rights. you aren't going to see a groundswell of people asking congress to impeach Bush over this.


13 posted on 08/08/2005 6:00:35 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
The current plan is to send the Gitmo scummers to Afghanistan and points East.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457220/posts



14 posted on 08/08/2005 6:01:44 PM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I agree, the administration does not have the stones to take them on. I think this is why they are systematically repatriating many prisoners, they realize they will likely lose this case.


15 posted on 08/08/2005 6:01:57 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: inquest
But Republicans can and will suffer politically if Bush deliberately ignores a court order and Congress does nothing in response.

I think you're misreading public opinion. the public opinion I get from across the political spectrum (except for the Michael Moore lunatics I suppose, I don't know any of those)is keep them in GITMO, let the military handle it.

16 posted on 08/08/2005 6:02:07 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Our first mistake is taking prisoners in the first place....

Our second mistake is in detaining terrorists on a land-based prison. They should be detained on prison-ship -- makes it easier to have them "walk the plank."

17 posted on 08/08/2005 6:06:58 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
If you send the terrorists back to their own countries, this becomes a moot point.

As an example of an alternative, potential solution, consider the Muslim assault in Philippines in the early part of the 20th century prior to WW I. General “Black Jack” Pershing was assigned to put down that Muslim violence. He faced ambushes and fanatical suicide attacks just like today’s violence, although without the increased explosive power of today’s physics.

To solve the problem, he ordered his troops to coat their bullets with pig fat and executed enemy battlefield captives (a move within the laws of war for non-uniformed combatants, even today) with these bullets, publicly wrapped the bodies in pig skin and buried them. The violence ceased very soon afterward. In case you may not know, Muslims believe that they will never see heaven or have Allah’s blessings and forgiveness if they have ever touched pork or pork products, even after death.
18 posted on 08/08/2005 6:11:20 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"if the SCOTUS gives these combatants rights - Bush should ignore the order"

You might want to reread the constitution. If the SCOTUS were to do that, the president would be obliged. There are checks such as impeachment by congress or amendments (tough to pass) that could override the decision if SCOTUS were deemed to be stepping over the line, but "ignoring" is not one of them.

What you are advocating is revolution in the very real civil war type sense.
19 posted on 08/08/2005 6:12:42 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

"Military tribunals are constitutional by definition."

You are correct of course. But actually, military tribunals were recognized by the US government prior to the Constitution. You might recall that Major Andre, the British spy who conspired with Benedict Arnold, was tried and convicted by a board of general officers, ie, a tribunal. As I recall, the Constitution was not written until sometime after this.


20 posted on 08/08/2005 6:14:04 PM PDT by DugwayDuke (Stupidity can be a self-correcting problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 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