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]
We let them go...with big smiles on their faces.
No its time to ignore SCOTUS. This is an unconstitutional ruling and what will SCOTUS do, send federal marshals to Gitmo. Just pretend it doesn't exist. Also, our courageous republican congress should strip the courts of all jurisdiction over detainees.
This tells our military to stop taking prisoners. Simple solution. Has anyone except our military guards gone to jail over 9-11 and these issues?
I saw one guy got jail because his dog got to close to a prisoner.
*
No they didn't. They sided against one form of handling these terrorists. The ruling doesn't go nearly as far as people think.
From Scotusblog
The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government's power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan "for the duration of active hostilities" to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, "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."That quotation was from the main opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens. That opinion was supported in full by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote separately, in an opinion partly joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Kennedy's opinion did not support all of Stevens' discussion of the Geneva Convention, but he did find that the commissions were not authorized by military law or that Convention.
Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the dissenters, each wrote an opinion.
I'm going to wait and find out their reasoning for this ruling
But Congress never officially declared war .. could this have something to do with it?
President Bush needs to get ahead of this and say something to the effect that the tools needed to fight this war on terror are being taken away.
Expert opinion over at Nat. Review on-line suggests that the court supported the first interpretation--that we can keep them as long as the conflict is going on.
A Big Win for the terrorists and the Left. What does that say about where their party is at?!?
I feel confident on how this will play out. These lucicrous rulings usually don't stand. There is NO WAY all these prisoners will get their own court appointed attorney to try their case in front of a a judge.
In the words of GHWB, "this aggression will not stand."
They will just stay there until the war is over. Could be nearly forever.
Treaties are the supreme law of the land and hence the Supreme Court can rule on whether we have followed the law. US Constitution.
McVey
When Democrats walk away from another loss in 2008, this ruling will be remembered as a tipping point against them. We cant let Liberals decide who sits on the Supreme Court.
Thanks .. I don't have the TV to hear what's being said
Close enough... though not strictly true (there are exceptions... I just don't think any of them apply).
But it wasn't the individuals the court was ruling were covered by Geneva so much as the style of court proceeding that was covered.
All of our prisoners get transferred to Kuwait or Saudi. They'll BEG for club Gitmo.
They did but obviously the SC didn't care.
There is a simple solution here. DO NOT TAKE PRISONERS!!! SHOOT AND KILL EVERYONE ON THE BATTLEFIELD!!
There you have it! Merkel was right in adressing this issue with President Bush. You need to find a solution for the dilemma.
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.