Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)

Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

[pabianice]

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

[Jameison]

"The SCOTUS just threw a whole bucket of stain on Bush and it is going to be hard to get that off--anyone touching Bush will get the stain on them"

You are one funny dude.
Umm..how was DU/Kos this morning?
You have a nice alternate reality thing going there don't ya?

All this vote does is to further energize the base, to vote EN MASS in November, so we have the majority to put solid conservatives in the Supreme Court when any of the 2 ailing/old liberals are forced by sickens or death to leave the Supreme Court.
This SCOTUS ruling will be make for great campaign ads in November.
Vote RATS and get a SCOTUS that gives a pass to Al Quaeda sounds pretty good to me.

[DAC21]

"This deals a crushing blow to the Nov 2008 mid-terms"

Over reaction alert!

[Admin Moderator]

Your post in #217 has been removed because it contained material from Bloomberg News.

Your post in #248 will also be removed because you did not include a link.

In the future, please include proper attribution and a working link for all published material you post. Thank you.

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

[cripplecreek]

Or simply hold them until the war is over, with no tribunals.

Yep. I don't like treating them like captured enemy soldiers but it may be the best way of dealing with them. Also there's the added bonus of watching the dawn of realization among liberals when they figure out what they've done.

[SE Mom]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGM3NmEzYzJiZDlhNTI0N2MzOTA3NWFmYWUxZDU0ZGU=

..important reading here by McCarthy- PRE SCOTUS decision.

[TheBattman]

One of the items cited int he dicision was the Geneva Convention. Since when does the Geneva Convention apply in this case?

The SCOTUS is as liberal as ever (at least in relation to the WOT).

[tiredoflaundry]

Or Congress steps in and passes a law concerning this Which will be interesting to see the Dems defend and fight for the rights of terrorists

hmm another chess piece moved?

[Pox]

It doesn't look nearly as dire as you're stating. President Bush asked for a ruling so he could begin dispensing with the prisoners at Gitmo. He now has that ruling. He can choose to keep them in limbo, start trying them under the UCMJ (courts martial), or send them off to federal courts (unlikely).

I would think he would request that congress set up the framework for bringing them to justice, or try them under the UCMJ. It doesn't seem that this is as bad as your are making it out to be, IMO.

[CatoRenasci]

This just posted on Scotusblog: The Court appears to have held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

I agree that if the author of this is right, this ruling is 100 times worse than anyone here thinks it is already.

The only answer if we want any informatin from anyone we capture will be field interrogation only (done however is most effective) followed by termination with extreme prejudice (because dead men tell no tales).

[DAC21]

"Which will be interesting to see the Dems defend and fight for the rights of terrorists"


Bingo, Mr Frist, get to it.

[jwalsh07]

2. The phrase “all the guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him. Pp. 70-72. Justice Kennedy, agreeing that Hamdan’s military commission is unauthorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. §§836 and 821, and the Geneva Conventions, concluded that there is therefore no need to decide whether Common Article 3 of the Conventions requires that the accused have the right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial or to address the validity of the conspiracy charge against Hamdan. Pp. 17-19."

Justice Stevens.

Well there you have it folks, Justice Stevens has determined that Al Qaeda is a signatoree of the Geneva Conventions.

[LikeLight]

...Dems will claim...

Exactly, let them claim that Bush is too aggressive in dealing with terrorists, let them claim that Bush is so aggressive against terrorists that the Supreme Court had to restrain him - it's perfect for us! It will play well for the Dems in Berkeley and all across Old Europe, but it's a self-inflicted death sentence for Dems in Red America.

[Mo1]

hmm another chess piece moved?

Let's just say .. this isn't a win for the libs

[gov_bean_ counter]

Let us now sit back and watch the Dems turn this into another Wellstone moment.

[TeleStraightShooter]

The unresovled question is will the plaintiff in question Salim Ahmed Hamdan {who was Osama Bin Laden's diver} be tried by a jury of his peers?

I understand that just round up a dozen or so of his peers in Miami last week....

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"Do you really think that most Americans are going to be thrilled that Osama Bin Laden's DRIVER won one in the Supreme Court? Get real."

you are preaching to the choir. When the nation's focus gets riled up over a case involving the driver of Osama Bin Laden, it just goes to show that Guantanomo detention center should have never happened and these questions should have been answered on the battle field for these cats. It provides a focus of for the insane world's ire.

[Peach]

I didn't read all the posts, or even any of the posts, and just jumped in at the end.

I'm stunned that SCOTUS thinks that Geneva Convention applies to terrorists. Geneva Convention applies to those who wear the uniform.

What's the uniform of the jihadists -- a suicide vest?

[mcvey]

No. Not really. The Constitution states that "This constitution . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

This specifically puts Treaties at the same level as the Constitution. It was why Republicans tried to push through the Bricker Amendment until Eisenhower said he could not conduct negotiations if the Bricker Amendment was in place. I like Ike, but he was wrong there.

McVey

[SE Mom]

Army man on FOX saying now CONGRESS has been AWOL on this subject and that's what needs to happen NEXT...Congress has to step up to the plate...

He said this will be impaossible to deal with on the field...

[jwalsh07]

And being a member of that august treaty, Al Qaeda prisoners now have all kinds of rights and protections.

Next up, due process in America's court sytem for terrorist scumbags. That writing is on the wall unless Kennedy has a brain transplant.