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]
Breaking...
Update:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a body guard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo...
Excerpt. Read more at: Fox News
Turn 'em loose in Times Square and see how far they get...
The DUmmies, like usual, are siding with the terrorist that brought this claim, and saying it's "great news". What is wrong with those morons?
Ummm, where have you been? Haven't you been listening to Bush lately? He WANTED them to rule that way.
Good post, nice to know that Scalia ended up on the right side. My apologies Antonin.
The coverage today is going to be sickening!!
I think this is a win for the conservative movement. If anyone in their right mind thinks the majority of Americans agree with this decision they are loony.
Let this sink in and moderates all over America are going to be pi**ed with this decision.
I think this will come to fruition in November when Democrats are, as always, on the wrong side of the really important decisions.
YEP!
How come they get to decide if they get to decide? Where's the check and balance there?
susie
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention4.html#68
********
Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
*********
What this says to me is that we DO in fact have the right to try them, and that the SCOTUS has really messed up in this ruling. Granted, I have not read the Geneva Convention (IV) in its entirety, which I will do later, but from what I have read so far, it does protect terrorists from torture and such, but not trials and justice being served.
I would like to read the entire thing sometime so that I can debunk arguments people make when they loosely throw around the term "Geneva Convention" to decry any questionable actions on America's part. It's the same case with the Constitution...if someone doesnt like something that a politician/administration does, they declare it "UNCONSTITUTIONAL," without really knowing whether the Constitution addresses the situation or not.
*stepping down from soapbox* =P
The Left will spin this to an extreme negative for the President, whereas it seems at worst to be a minor setback.
The detainees don't qualify for access to our civilian courts, and now they're not entitled to the hacked together tribunals we were using to weed them out. Which only means that we won't be releasing anymore detainees through that process.
What'll probably happen now is a set of informal hearings will be set up to replace the role of the tribunal. The detainees will be deprived representation in the process, and we'll just have to throw away the keys. Gitmo is a gray area where our laws are concerned. That's why the detention center is located there.
This is beyond words. They have given TERRORISTS the status of POW's.
Solution: Take NO prisoners.
You've got the right idea...
This is decision is a hanging curve ball just waiting for Bush/Congress to smash out of the park...
And the Dems/MSM are too stupid to notice...
since the prisoners are dependent on the US government for the things they need to sustain their lives (like food, and water)
You know...it is one thing to lose an election...or even have to see what happened to Tom Delay, to get his strong voice silenced in the House of Reps..
BUT, it is another, when something like this happens in the SCOTUS...where we KNOW the judges don't have to be accountable to any of us.
Can't wait to hear Mark Levin's explanation tonight...he is about the only one that will probably explain it where I can understand...(if he isn't too angry to talk..lol)
Guest commentator (ex military) said OBL will be chuckling when he get this news.
The US Constitution trumps treaties. Reid v. Covert
And that fact will be lost in the hysteria to follow.
Figures
They will run right up Broadway the the Upper West Side and the terrorists will be welcomed with open arms...
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.