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 ...
"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.
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 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.
There'd be major trouble if he did.
So how does the Randolph ruling morph into the Roberts ruling? Obvious...biased revisionism.
Military tribunals are constitutional by definition. Leftists lose, now onto Roe and Doe.
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.
the hell with it. let the court enforce the order in Guantanamo. the SCOTUS cannot impeach Bush.
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".
We already tried that. Seems they were not properly scolded because some of them have been recaptured while trying to kill American soldiers.
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457220/posts
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.