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
I am so outraged by this latest act of betrayal by the un-elected overlords. But, I have to say- the absolute worst part of this day has been listening to phone call, after phone call, on various talk shows, from our military, expressing their rage, disappointment, anger. It's been heart breaking to hear them.
I can't begin to express my level of anger and disgust.
Giving Geneva standards to those who butcher our soldiers at every opportunity?!
Are you EFN kidding me?!
WTF is the matter with you M'er Efer's of the SCOTUS?!
SHAME on you!
Who TF do you think you are?!
Then again the un-elected overlords removed our private property rights, so why should we be surprised that they have now declared themselves Supreme Rulers of our military?
Just for the record- it is the Liberal overlords who have done these things. This point has to be made continuously to the public. They also need to be educated that the SCOTUS doesn't call the shots- We the People do (I'm sure 99.7% of the population has never heard of this concept).
I hope we tell our military that this problem with the out- of-control SCOTUS has been brewing for a long time. It HAS to be dealt with- this is just another example illustrating that fact.
To our over-paid, lazy, useless, elected officials:
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
FIX IT!
NOW!
You owe it to our military to undo this- no matter how long it takes, or how many invitations to Rat cocktail parties it costs you. This is the very least you can do.
Pajamaman, it is JUDICIAL REVIEW that we must undo! We conservatives sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. Such is the case here. The forest--or elephant in the living room--that is being ignored is the entire concept of JUDICIAL REVIEW. The US Constitution does not authorize judicial review. Such an authority is nowhere to be found in its text. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the first time judicial review was invoked by the SCOTUS, and it basically was a constitutional coup d etat by CJ John Marshall. Why Pres. Jefferson did not call Marshalls bluff I will never understand. The Framers would have detested judicial review. It takes power away from the general will of the American people (infallible) and gives it to nine all-to-fallible unelected oligarchs. Judicial review has caused injustice (Plessy, Korematsu, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo) and even war (Dred Scott). Judicial review is a concept which does our conservative movement no good. Our movement is about the PEOPLE and their sovereignty; judicial review only takes that away. There is a great article calling for the abolition of judicial review on townhall.com by a brilliant young political scientist named Ben Shapiro. To put it bluntly, instead of b*tching about this SCOTUS decision or that, or praying that the right justice gets on the bench, we conservatives should push to reverse Marshalls constitutional coup and abolish this odious doctrine once and for all. Let people elected by the people, who swear to uphold the Constitution, decide what is constitutional.
No. the only way to undo this is to eliminate the illegitimate doctrine of JUDICIAL REVIEW. We conservatives sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. Such is the case here. The forest--or elephant in the living room--that is being ignored is the entire concept of JUDICIAL REVIEW. The US Constitution does not authorize judicial review. Such an authority is nowhere to be found in its text. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the first time judicial review was invoked by the SCOTUS, and it basically was a constitutional coup d etat by CJ John Marshall. Why Pres. Jefferson did not call Marshalls bluff I will never understand. The Framers would have detested judicial review. It takes power away from the general will of the American people (infallible) and gives it to nine all-to-fallible unelected oligarchs. Judicial review has caused injustice (Plessy, Korematsu, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo) and even war (Dred Scott). Judicial review is a concept which does our conservative movement no good. Our movement is about the PEOPLE and their sovereignty; judicial review only takes that away. There is a great article calling for the abolition of judicial review on townhall.com by a brilliant young political scientist named Ben Shapiro. To put it bluntly, instead of b*tching about this SCOTUS decision or that, or praying that the right justice gets on the bench, we conservatives should push to reverse Marshalls constitutional coup and abolish this odious doctrine once and for all. Let people elected by the people, who swear to uphold the Constitution, decide what is constitutional.
To me that means we keep'em until the war is over, or they die. Don't have to try'em. Just feed'em.
Stevens appointed 1975 by Ford (R).
If you remember my words on this issue: I largely criticized the lack of transparency in these trials, it is absolutely wrong that your President basically decided about the fates of the inmates. Are you out of the armed forces? Hope you enjoy your new freedom, and that you´ve found an occupation that needs your skills and preferences.
In the ruling, it seems like they're saying that military commissions are mostly for emergency trials on the battlefield itself, and that courts martial are more appropriate for situations five years later when the immediate emergency has passed.
The court's majority opinion argues that some provisions of the Geneva Conventions are explicitly and solely for uniformed combatants representing armed forces of a country, but that Article 3 of the Conventions applies to other people too, including the detainees at Guantanamo. Article 3 basically guarantees them a right to know the charge against them and the evidence supporting it, and to be present at their trial.
Looks like they want courts-martial, not trials in civilian courts.
I am released from Active Duty and have NOT resigned my commission. Technically I still retain my rank and am still in the Army despite being a civilian in all practicality.
What transparency?
You have the Red Cross (with access), Amnesty International, even the ACLU as permanent fixtures next to the camp. The Red Cross apparently has a trailer next to the camp. The press has been granted access at times. You have congressmen coming as they please, the government announced the process, defined it……..
North Korea has a nation, society and every other aspect has no transparency. China and its defense spending have no transparency. Iran and their nuclear ambitions have little transparency. We have no transparency into ChechnyaWhat those inmates are incarcerated for, where this place is, how they are treated, why this place exists, that is all fairly transparent. The debate is not over transparency.
GITMO is an icon. It has like many other issues become more than it actually is. These issues become political and ideological battlegrounds for pundits, politicians, and the media. Like the Koran being flushed, the whole GITMO prison has become shrouded by urban myth and legend.
OK - tell me, where are KSM, Zubayda, and Bin-AlSheeb being held? Mars?
I have ALREADY read of this"Fake,Phony,Fraud"(in the words od Bob Grant)!!Does any of this matter anymore??????????????
"Well, Bush has no reason to fear the next "big one"...he's done what he can but every tool to deal with a ruthless enemy is being stripped away."
I agree with you.
Also, this ruling explains why the President has not been more aggressive in the fight in the GWOT. Some here seem to think he is not serious, but this is one example of why he chose the path he did, and even this path is blocked.
The trials were not supposed to be public, we don´t know what are the individual charges, and we don´t know how long the inmates shall be kept on the island of Cuba. A POW shall be set free when the fighting is over. A convicted criminal knows when he has served his time in prison. The Gitmo inmates are locked up for five years with no idea when or if they will be released. That´s the lack of transparency.
These individuals are neither Americans nor soldiers. Many have committed their crimes abroad.
Even a soldier who is a prisoner of war will not be set free until the war is over. Is the GWOT over?
Some have been set free. Some of those set free have been picked up again in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That’s not something that is advertised by the pundit is it?
A POW does not get a civilian court. The Nurnberg trails were no civilian court.
What you are talking about, is affording known terrorists privileges never afforded to even a POW in the past.
POW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
The US manual in circulation for the conduct of land warfare and treatment of prisoners which I have, was written in 1956 (FM 27-10) { https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9421-1/fm/27-10/toc.htm }. It is not an after the fact “redefining” of what a combatant is. These people in GITMO for the most part NEVER were defined nor fell under the definition of what one calls a “soldier” ANYWHERE.
Let me be clear to you Michael. In WWII these people would have all been hung by the Germans, Americans, Brits, or Russians. Today we worry about the psychological abuse of making them wear an orange uniform and if their diet is not in accordance with their religious demands. You have the Red Cross demanding that they have “privacy” in their prison.
GITMO is not about transparency. GITMO is a rallying point around which the anti-war crowd gathers.
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.