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

[SE Mom]

:) I am...he's a gem and thank you.

Now we have Greta saying "don't get alarmed or hysterical"..."we should be proud we have checks and balances"....

She is downplaying the importance of this...

Lindsay Graham up on FOX now...making the point that "IF CONGRESS authorizes military trials we're good to go"...he is going to introduce legislation to that effect asap..

[Jrabbit]

Lindsay Graham on Fox.....congress needs to pass some kind of law

[bobsunshine]

Another statement from the SCOTUS blog:

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.”

So if we try him it must be under the rule of law, if not, we can hold him or What?

[mathluv]

Lindsey Graham on Fox saying what the Court has said is that Congress needs to pass a law to allow them to have military trials.

[dmw]

What now? Let them loose so they can come back to kill us again. What other options do the liberal democrats (communists) give us?

[mcvey]

Jameison:

Check my backposts before you hit me with the DU-finger. My credentials are as good as yours as a Conservative.

We disagree, but namecalling is not much of an argument.

McVey

[Publius Valerius]

Check me if I'm wrong, but didn't Stevens say something about being appointed by a Republican, so he would retire under a Republican?

I might be wrong on this, but I definitely remember reading something of the sort.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The military lawyer (I think his name is George B. McClellan) for the terrorist is now giving a news conference on CNN.

[IMRight]

I don't know about "irrelevant", just not applicable to the President's powers to wage a war. There are a number of provisions of law that are only activated under a declared war(such as enhanced punishments, and suspensions of rights), and I don't think they've been tested.

Actually, that's not quite right. The suspension of rights is a distinct act on Congress' part... it doesn't automatically attach to any warfighting. The "president's power to wage war" is entirely constrained by Congress' Constitutional powers. It's just that they delegated many of those decisions to the executive in recent years (war powers act, etc).

[mystery-ak]

Lindsey Graham actually making sense......

[SE Mom]

Graham said he introduced legislation a year ago but couldn't pass it- couldn't "get a deal"...not sure if that means the libs wouldn't go along.

Graham says we NEED GITMO.

[mrsmith]

"a Legal Studies major"

Poor thing.

Well, read the dissents- here's a chance to learn something about the U.S. Constitution- despite your grave impediment.

[processing please hold]

It's totally crazy. Gitmo was the perfect place for terrorist. They couldn't hurt us or anyone else there.

They'll be back on the field murdering our great soldiers.

If anyone thinks the Saudis or any other ME country will keep them jailed, they have another think coming. Most of these terrorist will go home to a heroes welcome.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What an outrage. Big win for democrats.

Big win for the terrorists, too. Funny, how democrats and terrorists are always on the same side of an issue, isn't it?

[Bryan24]

Unless these terrorists will get military style court martials, I think it would be best to just let them go than to put them on a jury trial in the United States.

There needs to be some constitutional amendments passed to deal with trying/punishing terrorists. Our legal system just isn't set up to deal with them.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So under what form will they be tried? In U.S. Courts? That's a different way to handle a war.

[Christian4Bush]

I think that F. Lee Levin is still on vacation.

[Petronski]

Lindsey Graham is going to submit legislation that permits the administration to try the jihadists in a military court.

What a great "red meat" debate in preparation for the November elections!

[khnyny]

[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?]

I don't know, it seems like terrorists and foreign soldiers in uniform have the same rights according to Steven's assessment. If everyone is reading this ruling correctly, this legitimizes the left's perception of terrorists as "freedom fighters", "insurgents" or whatever the left calls them.

[SE Mom]

He's supposed to be back for this evening's show...