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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)
Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

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]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 881-895 next last
To: Jrabbit
So, what happens now?

We let them go...with big smiles on their faces.

141 posted on 06/29/2006 7:29:29 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dog

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.


142 posted on 06/29/2006 7:29:30 AM PDT by appeal2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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.


143 posted on 06/29/2006 7:29:34 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

*


144 posted on 06/29/2006 7:29:34 AM PDT by mcvey (Fight on. Do not give up. Ally with those you must. Defeat those you can. And fight on whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The Supreme Court sides with al-Qaeda in the war on terror.

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.


145 posted on 06/29/2006 7:29:38 AM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
What idiots the liberal SC justices are... They're saying that the prisoners can't be held because they aren't prisoners of war

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?

146 posted on 06/29/2006 7:29:59 AM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE&search=Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

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.


147 posted on 06/29/2006 7:30:03 AM PDT by BlueAngel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

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.


148 posted on 06/29/2006 7:30:20 AM PDT by zook ("We all knew someone in primary school who had a really powerful magnet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

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."


149 posted on 06/29/2006 7:30:26 AM PDT by teddyballgame (red man in a blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit
So, what happens now?

They will just stay there until the war is over. Could be nearly forever.

150 posted on 06/29/2006 7:30:32 AM PDT by Voltage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LS
Speaking of McLame what does he suggest we do with these terrorists?
151 posted on 06/29/2006 7:30:44 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

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


152 posted on 06/29/2006 7:30:52 AM PDT by mcvey (Fight on. Do not give up. Ally with those you must. Defeat those you can. And fight on whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
That's the most terrifying part "not prisoners of war."

The Leftists on the court view those detainees as civilians/criminals. They are not. They were organized military fighting against the US.

If that is the view of the SCOTUS (and subsequently any court under them, meaning all of them) then we have truly lost the WOT. We can't keep known drug dealers off the streets because of the limp wrists in our legal system. We'll never be able to keep ahead of terrorists treating them like civilians.

Get ready for Israeli-type "terror threats" daily with the weather reports.
153 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:14 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
THE 2008 ELECTION THEME HAS JUST BEEN THROWN DOWN.

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.

154 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:19 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Dont be a Conservopussy! Defend Ann Coulter, you weenies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Thanks .. I don't have the TV to hear what's being said


155 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:19 AM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE&search=Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
Sorry, to be covered by the Geneva Convention you must wear a uniform, and have identification to the country you are fighting for.

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.

156 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:19 AM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

All of our prisoners get transferred to Kuwait or Saudi. They'll BEG for club Gitmo.


157 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:21 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: appeal2
Also, our courageous republican congress should strip the courts of all jurisdiction over detainees.

They did but obviously the SC didn't care.

158 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:23 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

There is a simple solution here. DO NOT TAKE PRISONERS!!! SHOOT AND KILL EVERYONE ON THE BATTLEFIELD!!


159 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:30 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red6

There you have it! Merkel was right in adressing this issue with President Bush. You need to find a solution for the dilemma.


160 posted on 06/29/2006 7:31:38 AM PDT by Michael81Dus (1954, 1974, 1990, 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 881-895 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