[StarCMC]

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.

Huh??? Guess all those trials of the Nazi's for war crimes wouldn't happen in today's world?? An I missing something or is this BS like I think it is?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Guess all those trials of the Nazi's for war crimes wouldn't happen in today's world??"

Now, now. They were victims too. It is important to society to reach out to them and others among the less fortunate, those who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth, who haven't won life's lottery. We should celebrate their diversity and strive to learn from their alternative world-view, don't you think? That is a much more enlightened approach than brute punishment.

[gondramB]

"Huh??? Guess all those trials of the Nazi's for war crimes wouldn't happen in today's world?? An I missing something or is this BS like I think it is?"

The Nazis had lawyers, proper charges and public trials. Better than they deserved but it wasn't about them but about the rule of law and human rights.

[afnamvet]

This IS BS like you think it is. International law and global political correctness have invaded our judicial system to our detriment.

These "detainees", IMO, have zero legal standing in our courts. The military can and should adjudicate these cases...not the court system.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The tribunals aren't as concerned with civil liberties as the Nazi trials.

[demlosers]

Kotelly ruled...

Oh, this B---h again. Her name frequently pops up on FR.

[steveegg]

Huh??? Guess all those trials of the Nazi's for war crimes wouldn't happen in today's world?? An I missing something or is this BS like I think it is?

They would have been summarily executed without trials for daring to oppose Stalin and the Communists.

[Gondring]

Huh??? Guess all those trials of the Nazi's for war crimes wouldn't happen in today's world?? An I missing something or is this BS like I think it is?

It's BS like you think it is. :-(

[GAB-1955]

Nothing in this ruling forbids trials. What the ruling does say is that the current form of the trial must be reviewed by the Supreme Court for constitutionality. The precedent, by the way, from the period after WW2, doesn't mean that there would be no trials.

As it is, the Senate's bill, which allows for review by a U.S. District Judge if the sentence is over 10 years, provides a legislative relief. The Senate also has removed the District Courts' jurisdiction from whether persons should be in Guantanamo in the first place.

A previous poster noted that whatever happened to separate but equal branches? Although the President is Commander-in-Chief, Congress has a say in foreign policy by confirming treaties and by appropriating monies to execute policies. They have rightly spoken. In this case, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape over a District Judge's order; the District Court is a trial court, not a court of appeal; it doesn't set judicial rules that have to be followed outside the court. In this case, this Judge acted properly, waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the legality rather than letting detainees go on violations of judicial procedure--those technicalities that make sure gross injustice does not happen.