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]

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; chiefjustice; clubgitmo; congress; constitution; cotus; detainees; dta; georgewbush; gitmo; guantanamo; guantanamobay; gwot; hamdan; judicialanarchy; judicialreview; judicialreviewsux; judiciary; president; presidentbush; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; usconstitution; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 881-895 next last
To: Bikers4Bush

Right on. Take no prisoners!


41 posted on 06/29/2006 7:17:54 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (VOTE DEMOCRAT--TERRORISTS ARE COUNTING ON IT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IMRight

No they are not....they are freaking TERRORISTS.


42 posted on 06/29/2006 7:18:01 AM PDT by Dog (The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

FNS

Opinion being read on SC bench currently, so it is not available yet.

SC actually has reversed the Roberts decision when Roberts was on the DC Circuit Court.

SC decision does not rule to close Gitmo. It just says it is illegal to have it. [huh?]


43 posted on 06/29/2006 7:18:25 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If it is 5-3, with Roberts recused then this, in reality, is not really a surprise and no big deal. Of course, the MSM and the Left will put it forth as proof that Bush is out of control. Let them. When they live in their fantasy world, they lose elections.


44 posted on 06/29/2006 7:18:25 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I'd prefer to know a lot more about the ruling and the ramifications before coming to that conclusion.


45 posted on 06/29/2006 7:18:40 AM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Predictable, Scalia already made his views clear. Sad but predictable. Congress needs to act now.


46 posted on 06/29/2006 7:18:44 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Idiots.

Guess it's time to adopt - Take no prisoners.

47 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:00 AM PDT by b4its2late (John Kerry changes positions more often than a Nevada prostitute!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva convention

The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to these terrorists!!

48 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:09 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Democrats want them to have citizenship and voting rights.


49 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:10 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (VOTE DEMOCRAT--TERRORISTS ARE COUNTING ON IT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

OK Line them up and shot the lot of them.


50 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:28 AM PDT by Dog (The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The President should shrug it off. As President Lincoln said of Chief Justice Taney's overturning the President's suspension of habeas corpus: "Taney made his decision. Now let him to try to enforce it."

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

51 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:32 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Yes ...but they are not covered by the Geneva convention.

So what happens now?

52 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:53 AM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE&search=Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chadwimc
Don't know about pushing them into the ocean. But since the SC ruled we can't give them tribunals I say we give them nothing. No trial, just let them stay at Gitmo forever.
53 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:07 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Actually that was Jackson about Marshall's decision.


54 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:10 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

When did it become SCOTUS' job to interpret the Geneva Convention??????????? And the UCMJ?????


55 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:12 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dog

On the bright side, this decision does not effect the status of GITMO as a place to detain terrorists. They just can't be tried for their terrorism.


56 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:26 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
How do they figure the detainees are covered under the Geneva convention?

The question of whether a combatant is legal or not is a determination that Geneva anticipates will be made by a "competent tribunal". It appears (I obviously haven't read it yet) that the SC is here saying that these tribunals don't qualify under Geneva.

So it isn't "the detainees" that are being ruled on as outside of Geneva's rules, but the tribunals' form.

57 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:30 AM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Where does it say Gitmo should be closed? Let's wait for the details before getting too upset.


58 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:33 AM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The black robed tyrants strike again!


59 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:38 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush

Hell yes!

This is an outrage.


60 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:39 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Down with Half-Assery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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