Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)

Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

[pabianice]

Breaking...

---

Update:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a body guard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo...

Excerpt. Read more at: Fox News

[processing please hold]

Give me a sec.

[Peach]

Thanks for the ping; just checking in and see the president is going to address the ruling at 11:30 this morning.

I would expect just a few sentences from him expressing disappointment.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Ok

[bobsunshine]

It's not as bad as "FOX" is reporting. Some of the sections of the decision are a 4-4 vote. According to Fox News, they haven't even read the ruling yet. I hate to say it, but CNN people are reading the ruling and keep coming back to report on what it says.

One thing, the ruling only says that the military tribunal are not legal. So go back and look at another option or they could hold them until the WOT is over. The SCOTUS doesn't say you have to try these enemy combatants a certain way. Also, the SCOTUS is not saying to close Gitmo. Maybe President Bush can send them all to Mr. Kennedy and Kerrys' houses. They have lots of room to hold them.

[IMRight]

...but that seems to leave the door open for SCOTUS itself to define "active hostilities" and when they have ended, does it not??

No... and yes. :-)

Others (Congress and/or the president) get to determine when they are over... but the Supreme Court gets to interpret whether they've said that or not.

As an example. Only Congress has the power to declare war", but the courts have long ruled (correctly) that when congress authorizes hostilities and pays for the combat, that the fact they never used the phrase "1,2,3,4 we declare war" is irrelevant.

[Logical me]

It seems to me that the idiots have just ruled on having our military never take enemy combatants prisoner again. There will be no such animal in the future. Amen.

The Court got it wrong. New policy. Take no prisoners, but lots of body bags. Can't afford to catch and release to kill us again.

[Peach]

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.

"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657745/posts

[lepton]

Many of the people caught were not wearing a uniform.

Many? A guy acting in a manner that makes him a uniformed legal combatant doesn't become illegal by another guy in another place not wearing a uniform.

[SE Mom]

Agreed. Take no prisoners.

[LikeLight]

...a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies...

Wow, now the MSM is writing our political ad copy! Do they think Americans don't like aggressive anti-terror policies?

[ichabod1]

A steady diet of government cheese, livin' in a van down bah the riiver.

[Jameison]

Pretty much expected.

From Mark Levin as far back as July 1, 2004:

"The same slippery slope one assigns to the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush — an outrageous ruling explained well by Andy McCarthy and others — is no less likely in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The fundamental issue here is judicial review in the context of war, and the proper extent of that judicial review. "

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200407011412.asp

At least we still have the option of using military tribunals.
We can still hang the vermin.

[Velveeta]

Does anyone have the link for the opinions from SCOTUS?

[DAC21]

Fortunately the Libs on the court are the oldest of the old farts. I'm ALMOST ashamed to say I wouldn't mind if one of them retired, if you know what I mean .

[DrewsDad]

Send them all to Martha's Vineyard.

[seanmerc]

See post 206...

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"Justice Kennedy voted with the libs ... Sickening."

Kennedy to staffer: "Hey, are the emails leaning?"
Staff: "uh......I think it might be wise to leave by the rear alcove door."
Kennedy: "Seriously, how are we looking? Time to write a book? I always wanted to do a book tour. Barnes and Noble has great coffee."

[mcvey]

No its time to ignore SCOTUS. This is an unconstitutional ruling and what will SCOTUS do, send federal marshals to Gitmo. Just pretend it doesn't exist. Also, our courageous republican congress should strip the courts of all jurisdiction over detainees.

None of this will happen. Even your most die-hard Republicans from your reddest states would be hammered by the MSM and even their local media for any of these actions. The SCOTUS just threw a whole bucket of stain on Bush and it is going to be hard to get that off--anyone touching Bush will get the stain on them. This is a disaster and will lead to infinite "I told you so's." McVey

[snowrip]

They were not wearing uniforms recognized as belonging to any professional army. However, we've been trying and convicting people like that for years... we call them spies.

The liberal justices are allowing political opinion to interfere with their ability to reason... Not that this is a new thing. This "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude, along with totally ignoring all precedent to further their political aims, makes me want them removed from the bench, from the country, and from the planet.

I'll say it again: They have ruled that the detainees can't be held because they aren't prisoners of war, but they're suggesting Bush can be prosecuted for violating the GC, which only applies to prisoners of war. Utterly retarded.

[pepperhead]

If that's the end of it all is fine and dandy. Just hold the bastards at GITMO until they die.

Yeah or till a Democrat gets elected. Because you know they will let them out.