Posted on 11/15/2005 3:22:43 PM PST by Valin
The United States suspended its controversial military trials for 'war on terror' detainees after a ruling by a federal judge. Following the judge's action on Monday, the Defense Department said it had postponed the first trial hearing of accused "Australian Taliban" David Hicks, which was scheduled to start Friday at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. "The courts have intervened, as I understand it, and things are off for a period until the courts sort through things," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the government has not decided whether to appeal the ruling by US District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly. "This is something that happened last night. The government will obviously review the rulings of the court and make its decision from there," he said.
Kotelly ruled that the Hicks trial be suspended ahead of an anticipated ruling by the US Supreme Court on the legality of the special military tribunals set up after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Whitman stressed that the ruling applied only to Hicks, but no dates have been set for any other trials to start. Kotelly said the suspension would remain in effect "pending the issuance of a final and ultimate decision by the Supreme Court in that case." The Supreme Court has said it would give a ruling in 2006 on the military trials, which have faced criticism at home and abroad.
Hicks, 30, was the first of nine detainees to face trial by the special military commissions, which have been condemned by civil legal groups and even many of the military lawyers defending the detainees. A convert to Islam who was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, Hicks faces charges of conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. He has denied the charges.
Despite the Supreme Court intervention, the Pentagon had wanted Hicks' trial to proceed, while officials said they were aware that a court could order a suspension. The Supreme Court said last week it would rule next year on the legality of the military commissions in response to a challenge by lawyers for another detainee, Saleh Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni. There have been a series of court challenges to the tribunals.
A federal appeals court in July reaffirmed President George W. Bush's authority to order trials of "war on terror" detainees by the commissions in Hamdan's case. Hicks' lawyers filed a petition in federal court last week seeking a stay of his trial pending the Supreme Court ruling. The Pentagon brought war crimes charges against five more detainees a week ago, bringing to nine the number who face trial by military commission, on the same day that the Supreme Court said it would rule on the legality of the process.
Nearly 500 other detainees are being held without charge at the military-run prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Most of the inmates were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a US-led offensive toppled the Taliban government in Kabul in late 2001. The United States has declared the detainees illegal enemy combatants who are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
Last time I checked, the Constitution did indeed give congress such oversight. Perhaps you should check again?
Solely the job of congress. Are you familiar with the UCMJ? Handed down from congress my friend. Congress makes the rules.
I'm glad that the Government will wait a while before they appeal. They should wait until Alito is in for O'Conner, and another lib steps down in the comming year.
There is nothing separate between the judiciary and congress.
Most all of congress is in the legal profession, and the bills are vetted by lawyers.
To be truly separate, there should be no member of the legal profession in Congress.
I say we give Fidel Castro a really nice present...turn all of them loose in Cuba, and tell Fidel "Merry Christmas". That would solve all of our problems really quick.
" Just shoot them and be done with it."
To my knowledge we have never had a situation where the Federal government systematically executed people without trials in our history. Do you think Al Quaida is the biggest threat we have faced?
you are correct, I was wrong.
To your knowledge, have you ever heard of military trials and summary execution?
There are so many examples of such from the Revolutionary War to Korea, that I doubt your veracity.
And thats what we are writing about here.
Speedy military trials & punishment.
Not the ACLU trying to neuter us with endless civilian complaints.
That was the first thing I looked up too...
"
There are so many examples of such from the Revolutionary War to Korea, that I doubt your veracity. "
Since you think I am being dishonest, I at least appreciate you being polite about it.
Let's leave the revolutionary war aside since we didn't have much government pr infrastructure in place.
But since then i have to tell you I am not aware of the Federal government systematically executing either civilians or captured soldiers without trials.
You changed the topic when said they had military trials. I guess you are gonna think I'm either dishonest or naive again but I think of executions following military trials not being normal for enemy soldiers, even irregulars.
Now for spies, I've heard of that. And I've heard of executions when there were no facilities for holding and it was unsafe to release.
But even if you are right about the history I think we are mistaken to not afford captured Al Quaeada some kind of rights -either as POWs or as civilian terrorists.
As POW's they could be held til the end of the war. I'm not sure why that is not the right choice if we don't want to let them go.
Please don't confuse this for sympathy with traitors - if he fought with the enemy against his country then he should hang.. but first he should have a fair trial with proper charges, a good lawyer and and a public hearing.
I agree 100%. Well put.
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.