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

[Bassfan]

The Pubs and the Pres. have got to make an issue out of this.

All the liberals on the court - "make things easier for the terrorists"

All the conservatives on the court - "These people want to kill us"

[dotnetfellow]

So I guess you don't concur that Rov V Wade should be protected by stare decisis?

[Bommer]

Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.

The problem with your logic is that these are foreign combatants, captured on foreign soil that are not in an allegiance with a foreign government, but with a religious ideology. Because they are captured and interned on foreign soil, the Constitution does not apply to them, and because they are not fighting for a government, rather a religious ideology, the Geneva Convention does not apply.

Since they are in the hands of US troops, logically the only ones that can determine their fate seems to be the military, and with Bush as the CIC, seems logically he should call the shots. Tell me legally (not ideologically) where that logic is wrong?

[lepton]

President of the United States does not have unlimited authority to suspend our rule of law and due process rights,

Suspend? Unlimited? Rule of law? Those things weren't even on the table.

Respectfully, do you have any idea what was being debated?

[jamiefoxer]

i agree...let's see where it goes...hopefully our representatives in Congress stand up for the seperation of powers...the great wisdom of our Founders.

and in the meantime, we can deal with terrorists or insurgents we capture by:

Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.

If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
If legitimate POW, hold in appropriate facility humanely with oversight from Congress and SCOTUS, and release after end of our wars.

Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.

[jamiefoxer]

I have voted TWICE, AND have a driver's license...

[COEXERJ145]

I'd love to argue with him but last time I got into it with a troll who was claiming to be a "conservative," he whined to the mods that I was being mean and I was banned for 4+ days. Then he got banned an hour later.

[jamiefoxer]

i'll look forward to hearing it. thanks.

[La Enchiladita]

... hold in appropriate facility humanely

So, which "human rights" group do you work for?

[roses of sharon]

LOL, another good troll-bait thread!

I love when the libs defend head-choppers.

[Robert A Cook PE]

If found guilty of participating in a legitimate war against us, they should be accorded POW status and held an appropriate, HUMANE facility on our territory, that is overseen by our Congress and Supreme Court UNTIL the end of our conflicts with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why is this hard to do?

Because, er, the AQ terrorists:

Have NOT "declared war" against us, they are merely MURDERING us and our troops, and our civilians over there, and THEIR OWN civilians and troops and police and judges and doctors and ....

Are NOT part of any army.

Do NOT wear uniforms.

Have NOT signed the Geneva Convention.

BREAK EVERY Geneva Convention requirement for treatment of prisoners, innocents, civilians, and soldiers.

Are NOT a "nation" or "state".

Murder their prisoners (Did I mention that one already?) rather than feed or treat them.

Have NO "chain of command" or "visible" authority willing to "sign" as their head or commander. (Who are you going to "negotiate" with or get to "sign" a prisoner of war treaty?)

[khnyny]

[Every President, Republican, Democrat, or Whig, did stuff that was wrong, illegal, or later reviewed to be considered inappropriate...

Doesn't mean we just look the other way to it.]

LOL. Except when it's committing perjury and getting bj's in the oval office....

[Jameison]

"Sure it does apply"

Rubbish.
Geneva convention has never applied to terrorist scum.



"The Geneva Conventions stipulate that we treat our prisoners humanely "

Prisoners at Gitmo have been treated far more humanely, and far better than prisoners in practially any other wars fought on the planet in the past 50 years, and certainly far better than the Japanese, The Germans, Saddam etc treated our people that they captured.
Just go ask prisoners of war in the Bosnia war, Kosovo, Kampuchea./Cambodia, Ethiopia/Somalia war, Liberian war, etc etc.


"that each country that has prisoners need to give the prisoners a chance or FAIR process (not a closed, military tribunal beyond the reach of SCOTUS)"

What an idiot.
Listen , our own soldiers are tried under military tribunals. What is good for our soldiers is far more than good for your Al Quaeda pals.

[jamiefoxer]

I disagree with that mentality. Following our rule of law doesn't = we die.

That's a fallacious argument. Agree to disagree.

[mware]

If I am not mistaken the court also ruled in this decision that those being detained in Gitmo do not have to be released until the end of the war.

[jamiefoxer]

So, do we stand for the Constitution or Hammurabbi's code?

One or the other folks...

I stand with the Constitution and the rule of law. I've staked out WHERE I stand and rules I'm consenting to.

I don't consent to an "eye for an eye".

[jamiefoxer]

i'm not going at this from a Hobbesian "dog eat dog" mentality.

I stand by the wisdom of our Founders. They said that we should be a nation of laws, Western values, and due process.

I stick by that...through thick or thin.

[onyx]

He could start by reading Justice Thomas's dissent and then apply the political leanings of the justices on the winning side.

I suspect this poster is a retread and not a very good one at that.

[jamiefoxer]

ok, I deny it.

Happy?

Such a worthless argument...

[mware]

CO. I don't know about other FReepers but I checked out your opinions during the entire congressional hearings on Roberts and Alito.

Very enlightening.