Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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
I'm still working on that. It appears they didn't rule that the POW standards apply, but that other (more general) language covered the sitaution.
I posted a relevant summary here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1657758/posts
While I don't disagree with you, it's worth noting that this is exactly what everyone said in 2000, too. Here we are, six years later. Still hanging on.
Very interesting. I have just been reading a history of the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Seems they also fell into an 'Oh well, nothing is all that serious' attitude, as many people have about 9/11.
"There is no question that this was Stevens' FU to the Bush administration, Souter's FU to the people who don't like Kelo, and Ruthie's FU to America on general principles."
Well 2006 & 2008 can be our "FU" to the Supreme Court.
Not badly enough, in my book. (I'm sorry for that one, Lord, and bless all the pygmies in Africa.)
It's the best of both worlds. It isn't a win for the lefties, but to them, it feels like one.
OK, clearly I'm not a legal expert (nor do I play on on tv) but could they (the prisoners) not now sue to get a trial?
susie
Give 'em a trial? How do other civilized Western countries do it? Do the British have Iraqi POWs or how did they deal with their own "terrorists"? How do the Spanish deal with the Basque ETA terrorists, etc.?
With all due respect to the esteemed members on this board, I'm not sure this decision is bad for democracy. We are America because this country stands for the rule of law, due process, and making sure that all, citizens or non-citizens alike, have certain standards of protection against government encroachment. If we have learned anything from Gitmo, it's that many of those at Gitmo were wrongly imprisoned and then released and sent home. Give trials to the inmates, figure out which are innocent, and then the ones who are guilty of crimes against the United States (non-state terrorists), imprison, and those who are guilty of just fighting against us in a legitimate war (POWs) treat according to the Geneva Conventions or similar standars applied by other civilized Western nations.
I think if we did that with the Gitmo detainees, I don't think the Left OR anyone in the world would complain about it. We would be fulfilling our commitment to our values or rule and law and due process, and we'd be sure the guys we imprison either deserve their imprisonment, or are detained as POW's until our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over.
There are mechanisms already in place to deal with these detainees without breaking the law or assuming extra authority. Guys, I must side with SCOTUS on this issue...as a Legal Studies major, SCOTUS is right on this.
Of course I have a bias toward Army guys. :-}
The Psychotic Left's new talking point.
Stevens has said he is trying to stay on until a democrat is elected. And although Bush ran on SCOTUS openings in 2000, it wasn't necessarly Ginsberg or Stevens. And he did get one very crucial seat.
OK, follow me here, because I may be totally full of it. But, it would seem that a good lawyer could make the case that we need to prove that they are a danger to innocent civilians. Yes? No?
susie
Actually we don't need another Justice we need a COngress to stand up and be heard. Tell SCOTUS that their powers are limited. They do not have the power to make terrorists signatorees of the Geneva Convention and that they have no power whatsoever to make treaties with baby killing scum by judicial fiat.
I don't believe that for a second.
Blair wanted it closed, German Chancellor Merkel, wanted it closed, as did the U.N., and every other country and organization on the planet.
Didn't it seem odd to you that Bush would start talking about closing down Gitmo?
[snip]
BERLIN - President Bush said he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay — a step urged by several U.S. allies — but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on how suspects held there might be tried.
“Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial,” Bush said in comments to German television to be broadcast Sunday night. The interview was recorded last week.
Human-rights groups have accused the United States of mistreating Guantanamo prisoners through cruel interrogation methods, a charge denied by the U.S. government.
They also criticize the indefinite detention of suspects captured since the military prison was opened in 2002 at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, as part of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12675642/
Now he has his OUT. Conservatives will take it out on the SCOTUS and not Bush, just like on this thread.
WOW so what now? Good lord this is insane.
So exactly what does "Commander-in-Chief" mean if not that he can order these sorts of things during a war. And it is a war, unconventional though it may be. That's hardly our fault.
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.