Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (SCOTUS rules against President)
Fox News & AP ^ | June 29, 2006

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; chiefjustice; clubgitmo; congress; constitution; cotus; detainees; dta; georgewbush; gitmo; guantanamo; guantanamobay; gwot; hamdan; judicialanarchy; judicialreview; judicialreviewsux; judiciary; president; presidentbush; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; usconstitution; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 881-895 next last
To: Ron in Acreage
Democrats want them to have citizenship and voting rights.

Don't forget tax forgiveness and social security credit for time spent trying to kill Americans...

61 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:52 AM PDT by LikeLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Peach; AliVeritas; Mo1; Bahbah; freema; Coop; Txsleuth; Howlin; onyx

This is AWFUL...

does not conform to the rules of the Geneva Convention...


62 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:55 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

... again.


63 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:59 AM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

By the Constitution, treaties are the "law of the land" and that gives the Court the power.


64 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:09 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit

"And the lawyers."

Perhaps ol' Shakespeare had the right idea about lawyers, after all.


65 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:12 AM PDT by Old Grumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

handing out candy to children across the islamic-world...pyschos doing the AK-47 happy dance...


66 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:14 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Doesn't this ruling just mean that the military tribunal to determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant or a candidate for release is illegal?

The solution is simple, really - no more tribunals - and throw away the keys to the cells.

This isn't that big of a deal at this point. So long as the SCOTUS didn't rule that detaining enemy combatants taken off the field of battle was illegal, then everything is still kosher.


67 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:28 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
Yes ...but they are not covered by the Geneva convention.

Of course they are.

No, they're not. They represent NO country, and wear NO uniform. You have no idea of what you speak.

68 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:28 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gakrak
"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 new ROE should be, take no prisoners--I hope in this era of Miss Manners warfare, this can still be done.

69 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:33 AM PDT by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

So does this mean that military tribunals held during WWII, and the War Between the States, among others were unconstitutional?

I hate it when the Court trashes it's own precedents and our history.


70 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:36 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (The Latest on the Ohio gov race http://blackwellvstrickland.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

President Jackson opposed the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and refused to enforce it, saying, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it."
71 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:41 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All
From the Happy Anti-American Leftist Media at BBC News:

US court rejects Guantanamo trial

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. <>P> In a landmark decision, the court upheld the challenge of Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver against his trial at the US facility at Guantanamo.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution faces more obstacles.

He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal there.

72 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:56 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicans Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For the Same Reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

I'm dismayed and disgusted.


73 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:58 AM PDT by Coop (No, there are no @!%$&#*! polls on Irey vs. Murtha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
WTF are they thinking?

Maybe "gee, it sure is dark and smelly in here."

74 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:09 AM PDT by workerbee (Democrats are a waste of tax money and good oxygen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gakrak

dims are doing cartwheels.

what a shame... the next attack will be HUGE! and the dims will have lost that one but it will all be worth it to them to prove Bush lied (in their sick world)


75 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:10 AM PDT by JFC (Land of the FREE because of our BRAVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
SC decision does not rule to close Gitmo. It just says it is illegal to have it. [huh?]

Excuse my lingo ... but what the hell does that me??

I don't get this ruling

76 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:18 AM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE&search=Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to these terrorists!!

And the determination that the conventions do not apply to them is a process that is covered by the conventions. And today we got a ruling saying the process we followed didn't conform to the conventions' requirements.

That doesn't mean the terrorists are suddenly covered by Geneva (at least I haven't seen that they ruled that), but that the determination of whether they are covered or not was done improperly.

Is that clearer?

77 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:31 AM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit
So, what happens now?

The President convinces Congress to pass a law that sets up a formal framework for how to process the internees, sort out the terrorists from the schumcks who got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.

78 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:37 AM PDT by steve-b (Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Outrageous decision.


79 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:41 AM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure the borders; enforce employer sanctions; stop welfare handouts to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog; IMRight
found the "military commissions" illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva convention.

Yes ...but they are not covered by the Geneva convention.

Correct. This wasn't really a legal ruling by the Supreme Court, it was a political ruling. It was just another skirmish in the ongoing power struggle between the different branches of government.

We have finally reached the point where our government is at war with terrorists, at war with its own citizens, and at war with itself.

80 posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:47 AM PDT by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 881-895 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson