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
As I am reading the decision, your interpretation seems the correct one. I am concerned about the application of Geneva Clause 3 to irregular soldiers and the Justices' refusal to treat this an international war.
The post where the poster said it would be portrayed as a victory for the liberals, though, is probably too true.
It sounds like that is what the Supremes were saying.
I think it's been heading this way for quiet sometime. Send them home to their own country. Now, a way has been opened to allow just that to happen.
Anyone know why Roberts did not rule in this case???
just a question...Can you have a prisoner of war when a war hasn't been declared? Anyone?
It sounds like that is what the Supremes were saying.
That's exactly what the SCOTUS is saying...that's why they threw it back to Congress to make a new law...
Since when do the Rats need a legal reason to do anything?
The Constitution has nothing to do with it. A President can be impeached for many reasons. Do you really think when the MSM picks up the "War Crimes" chant of the DNC that the technicalities of the Constitution or Geneva Convention will matter a whit?
And since when do they need a 2/3 majority to move for a trial for impeachment? Representatives have already begun to push for censure on the floor.
The Rats are already muddying the waters preparing for any type of impeachment trial or discussion they can bring -- not that it is grounded or reasonable, but simply for political effect.
To believe otherwise is in league with believing that they have the best interests of the country at heart, and not their own power, which is truly rubbish.
Laura Ingraham said Justice Thomas' dissent is brilliant. Too bad the MSM doesn't like Thomas and in fact loathe him. Particularly Jane Mayer of the New Yorker. In fact, she wrote a book (hit piece) about Thomas:
Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas
by Jane Mayer, Jill Abramson
Actually, after skimming through the decisions there are only 4 votes applying Common Article 3 to terrorist scum. There will be 4 votes againts it. That, once again, leaves Justice Kennedy as the deciding vote on whether or not Common Article 3 applies.
Very good point.
This is a bad decision, plain and simple. It is self-contradictory.
But the message will be here forever: We cannot trust Democrats in the Presidency because they threaten the survival of the United States.
"The ruling doesn't go nearly as far as people think"
It goes far enough.
All your "insight" into this ruling is pollyannish whoopsy-doodle.
This ruling is a disaster for our nation. Had such a ruling occurred during WWII (and had been heeded), it would have completely altered the course of history, as this one will (along with other recent SC disasters). That is because the SC simply has too much power.
Had the SC had the kind of power it has today during the WBTS, we would now be two separate third-world nations. Congress and the SC tried to derail Lincoln's war (and subsequent peace) plans, but Lincoln, in large part, ignored them (witness the "pocket-veto").
George Bush does not have the fortitude nor the popular backing to make the right decisions. Lincoln did not have the popular backing, but he definitely had the fortitude to do what was the only right thing.
To him the nation's survival trumped the loftier aspects of it's institutions (or political parties). That was once called common sense. It does not exist today.
We will (or let others) destroy the nation quibbling over intricacies and technical points about what the nation is.
Even FDR understood this with such "unconstitutional" measures as interning the Japanese-Americans during WWII. It wasn't constitutionally kosher, but it was the only prudent thing to do at that point: We could argue the finer points and issue the mea-culpas after the threat to our nation's existence was past.
Lawyers are TRULY going to be the death of this nation.
What we need now is a Lincolnesque declaration from Bush to our Military: "What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship."
It is certainly a risk.. that is true. The alternative, however, is no risk at all. It is certain: The certain death of our republic, and the subsequent death of all it's finer points over which we now quibble.
This ruling further erodes the President's, and thus the military's, moral(e) and legal resolve to prosecute this war to victory.
The President is NOT closing GITMO....
"A President can be impeached for many reasons. "
Where are their votes for impeachment at? (and they will lose in November as well)
He won't now since there is no final disposition with the terrorist.
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.