Posted on 06/29/2006 8:34:57 AM PDT by libstripper
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Why am I not supprised.
From Scalia's dissent
"Though the Court resists the Bruner rule, it cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation."
Quirin case, which ruled unanimously in favor of military tribunals. Instead, this case says that Congress has not given proper authority to the President to do this.
That said, the proper reaction for the White House is to put the matter into Congress, and ask that it act with dispatch. In the meantime, the prisoners can continue to be held in accord with the Law of War -- that captured enemy can be held without trials for the duration of the conflict.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
This is why the Congress should do its Constitutionally mandated duty and establish a court to deal with enemy combatants who do not fight under the flag of an established nation. It's time for the Judiciary Committee to get off its butt and do its job.
Well said.
Great observation, Johnnie. Thanks for the insight. This is a no-win for the Dems.
The Court did not address summary executions.
Unfortunately stevens cited International Law. stevens should be impeached, he is supposed to impose the US Constitution, not international law.
More :
"Likewise, the handful of floor statements that the Court treats as authoritative do not “reflec[t] any general agreement.” They reflect the now-common tactic—which the Court once again rewards—of pursuing through floor-speech ipse dixit what could not be achieved through the constitutionally prescribed method of putting language into a bill that amajority of both Houses vote for and the President signs."
If they have the balls
Ah, a loophole!
The Dem's are digging themselves a hole with the Ameircan people if they argue that the terrorist have the same rights as the American people do.
The MSM will make it so and will be trumpeted enmass & the sheeple will perceive it as such. Doesn't matter that it isn't a win.
We have been shown over and over and over in this war why we should NOT take prisoners. Kill them on the battlefield and you don't have to worry about liberal judges, weak allies, or our own fifth column.
The lefties and human-rights activitists traitors on the WOT will be crying for Bush to reinstate Military Tribunals.
Now we cannot even punish those who would murder us besides not being to track their cash flow and communications.
They think that this will help them win but it will make their end all the more bloody.
Bush is the President.
As President he is head of the U.S. military. COnsequnetly Bush is in chareg of military operations against individuals at war with the United States, NOT the Supreme Idiots.
Bush should simply IGNORE the Supreme Court, and using his authority as head of the military, proceed with military trials against these scum.
Did we ask permission from the U.S. Supreme Court for the Nuremburg trials? I doubt it.
But yes, you are correct. We need more judges like ROberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Amusing that there would have been absolutely no conflict if Roberts had ruled on the crux of the case- the DTA act. Oh well, them's the breaks.
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.