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

Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

[pepperhead]

Ok.... Take no prisoners.

[traditional1]

No seating available on flights to Cuba....all available seats being reserved for ambulance-chasers for the forseeable future, to get those Middle East BIG BUCKS clients on their dockets....stay tuned.

Let the Liberal MSM start yukking it up right now, as lawsuit-heaven has arrived.. and, the American people will pay BIG for the "abuse of the civil rights" of these NON-CITIZEN cesspool dwellers...

[cripplecreek]

I suspect that it really isn't over. After all there are two choices that we simply aren't going to do. We can release them or we can drag them up here for endless trials.

[Txsleuth]

I kept hearing this would happen...

JUST DAMN! (sorry Jim)..

So, now, how do we try people that have never set foot on American soil...but fought against Americans??

By giving them TAX PAYER paid for lawyers in the USA???

[Puppage]

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

I was wondering that myself.

[jbenedic2]

If the TERRORISTS kill our troops after they have been captured, then maybe we should stop offering any quarter to them.

[kidd]

1. President had no authority to set-up military commissions without Congressional approval.

So the President simply seeks Congressional approval.

Shift responsibility to the bedbugs in Congress.

[Brilliant]

The Supreme Court is abusing its power.

Since when does al-Qaeda operatives in foreign nations have constitutional rights under the US Constitution?

These are the people who murdered 3000 Americans on 911.

[epluribus_2]

and free cheese.

[bnelson44]

Now we know why the president himself will be handling the news conference. I think I will wait for him to speak on the subject.

[Dog Gone]

Hold them there with no trial. Works for me. We probably weren't going to seek the death penalty in most cases anyway.

Unless the ruling is so broad as to order the close of Gitmo, nothing really changes.

[MizSterious]

Yes, it is. By simply stating he had overstepped, it's going to bring out all the impeachment nuts.

[IMRight]

No, they're not. They represent NO country, and wear NO uniform

"They" in this case, are the tribunals, not the individuals. You have no idea of what you speak.

Perhaps you should pay attention before opening your mouth? I know exactly of what I speak.

[snowrip]

Sooooooo... the SC has just told us what we already know, which is DON'T TREAT A PRISONER OF WAR AS A CRIMINAL MATTER, BUT AS A PRISONER OF WAR!!!!!

[steve-b]

So does this mean that military tribunals held during WWII, and the War Between the States, among others were unconstitutional?

IIRC, there were specific statutory frameworks approved by Congress for those, so this ruling would not be applicable.

[Tulane]

He had to.

[Rummyfan]

Dismayed and disgusted too! After seeing that mess that was the Moussaoui trial, they want trials for terrorists in criminal courts? ARE THEY INSANE?????

[areafiftyone]

I don't get this ruling

It is a ruling regarding Trials ONLY - The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. They want a Civilian Trial!

[coconutt2000]

Other people are also making the valid point that the terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and as a group do not even try to conform to the Geneva Conventions, as evidenced by their treatment of their prisoners.

If anything is really illegal - it is the fact that our enemy are by international legal standards "illegal combatants".

[TomGuy]

FoxNews Alert

Warning to children and old women in walkers: move to the side as the Lib Congresscritters rush to the microphones and TV cameras.