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.
So I presume you are admitting you lied? BTW, I have no intention of looking up the Ryder report.
Court may suspend "War on Terror" trials, but then it would be only appropriate to extend War On Terror captures & firing squads.
I do not like "flaming" Freepers, but your post goes beyond the Pale!
You do not know what you write about and I question anyone who would say you are reasoned and thoughtful. Those qualities require an education and ability to sort through propaganda versus truth. You have neither.
PS: I do not respond to those who do not know what WAR means! EOM!
Or in a Southern Sherrif voice
"Damndest case of suicide I have ever seen"
BTTT
Considering that enemy captured out of uniform are not due the rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, one wonders why there are any trials at all.
Stop capturing them and simply kill them instead.
Oh my God! How disgusting.
That's exactly what this intervention will lead to, just as all the 'due process' and 'exclusionary rule' bull---- in the 60's lead to more perjury from LEO's, falsified lab evidence, and a grotesque expansion of charges even for minor offenses so that defendants could be coerced into pleading to a lesser offense.
You would think, being judges, that they would have figured out the Law of Unintended Consequences by now. But nahhh, as long as they can feel good about being members of the liberal country club, who cares.
My guess is we will get a 5-4 decision allowing tribunals to stand but eviscerating the nature of the process by adding so many 'due process' protections and appeal rights that they might as well all stand for 10 year long trials like the 1993 WTC bombers did. Justice Worked! (but only because the defendants didn't die of old age first).
When is Bush going to a grow a pair and tell the courts to f--- off?
Empty the base. Send them all to Iraq.
Never. Nobody is going to stand against the juggernaut.
"Um, not so much. The TOP Nazis had trials. The vast majority of Nazis were not tried. And particularly nasty Nazis of lower rank were often taken from British POW camps and executed. Without, I might note, benefit of a trial at all."
I have not heard much about that - thank you.
"Ok - I didn't think what I read was what you meant! LOL Thanks for the clarification. I just do NOT what activist judges trying to apply foreign law (read: Breyer) to screw this up."
And thanks for asking instead of assuming..we have enough problems with misinterpreting our own laws without dragging other people's into it.
Hear hear.
ROFL!!!!
Since the courts now make the law can we just shut down the US Senate?
http://www.answers.com/tribunal&r=67
"tri·bu·nal (trī-byū'nəl, trĭ-) pronunciation n.
1. Law.
1. A seat or court of justice.
2. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion."
But you are right they were called tribunals at Nuremberg. They were public though and there were specific charges and legal representation.
But you do make a good point about the war being over.
Where is the Willy Pete when you need it
Interesting.
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.