Skip to comments.
Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo
MSNBC ^
| June 29, 2006
| Associated Press
Posted on 06/29/2006 8:34:57 AM PDT by libstripper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Thisis why Bush must get at least one more SCOTUS appointment.
To: libstripper
Justice John Paul StevensWhy am I not supprised.
2
posted on
06/29/2006 8:36:41 AM PDT
by
oyez
(Appeasement is insanity)
To: libstripper
Boy is this going to be fun. The Leftist are all missing the trap. The Court said the President could not order it but the CONGRESS can authorize it. So after they get themselves all worked up, I suggest the Congressional Leaders offer up Legislation. Lets see the Leftist politicians try to straddle this dilemma.
3
posted on
06/29/2006 8:36:59 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
To: MNJohnnie
Senator Graham and Kyl are already on top of that one. There's actually no rush on it because the terrorist could be held until the end of the war on terror.
4
posted on
06/29/2006 8:41:42 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
To: libstripper
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."
5
posted on
06/29/2006 8:44:41 AM PDT
by
tort_feasor
(FreeRepublic.com - Tommorrow's News, Today)
To: MNJohnnie; libstripper
The full opinions are not yet available on the website I use to review Supreme Court decisions. However, from the press accounts, this case does NOT reverse the
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
Latest article: "Tribal Loyalties and Public Lies"
To: libstripper
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.
7
posted on
06/29/2006 8:47:26 AM PDT
by
Socratic
("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
To: Socratic
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.
8
posted on
06/29/2006 8:49:39 AM PDT
by
bullseye1
To: MNJohnnie
Great observation, Johnnie. Thanks for the insight. This is a no-win for the Dems.
9
posted on
06/29/2006 8:50:34 AM PDT
by
Zechariah11
(30 shekels -- a contemptible price for the Good Shepherd of Israel)
To: Socratic
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.
To: libstripper
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 tacticwhich the Court once again rewardsof 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."
11
posted on
06/29/2006 8:52:40 AM PDT
by
tort_feasor
(FreeRepublic.com - Tommorrow's News, Today)
To: MNJohnnie
I suggest the Congressional Leaders offer up LegislationIf they have the balls
12
posted on
06/29/2006 8:54:44 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)
To: 2ndClassCitizen
The Court did not address summary executions.Ah, a loophole!
13
posted on
06/29/2006 8:55:28 AM PDT
by
Socratic
("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
To: tobyhill
Yeap I heard Graham say so about a 1/2 hour ago on Fox News.
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.
14
posted on
06/29/2006 8:57:15 AM PDT
by
mware
(Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
To: Zechariah11
This is a no-win for the Dems.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.
15
posted on
06/29/2006 8:58:13 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)
To: libstripper
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.
16
posted on
06/29/2006 8:59:00 AM PDT
by
McGavin999
(If the intelligence agencies can't find the leakers how can we expect them to find terrorists?)
To: libstripper
Simple solution: Have Rumsfeld order all branches of the military to
take no prisoners!!
The lefties and human-rights activitists traitors on the WOT will be crying for Bush to reinstate Military Tribunals.
17
posted on
06/29/2006 8:59:13 AM PDT
by
HardStarboard
(Hey, march some more - its helping get the wall built!)
To: libstripper
How happy this will make the RATS.
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.
To: libstripper
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.
19
posted on
06/29/2006 8:59:42 AM PDT
by
ZULU
(Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
To: tort_feasor
Totally dismissing a clear law of congress is the amazing part of the ruling. And then their criticisms of the president are couched as... upholding congress's authority!
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.
20
posted on
06/29/2006 9:00:56 AM PDT
by
mrsmith
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson