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

[xsmommy]

i just said the same thing. it honestly is a blast to try to draw them out and see how long they can hold onto the charade. they are just too dang quick, that old PREMATURE er..... well you know ; )

[processing please hold]

Yep. :-)

[khnyny]

[in a nutshell.]

That really says it all re jamie, lol. If he copied and pasted "in a nutshell" one more time, arrrrhhhhhh.

[rwfromkansas]

Even if Roberts had ruled, we would have lost.

The big loss here is the Geneva ruling. That is the problem.

The military tribunal issue can be easily fixed by a congressional authorization.

[Robert A Cook PE]

McCain-Feingold is illegal and against the 1st Amendment: but the democrat/liberal/socialists DEMAND the right to restrain freedom of speech - unless it is our flag they are burning, or Christians they are oppressing.

Right?

[xsmommy]

i'm sad now. they took away our toy!

[Christian4Bush]

fun while he lasted!

I was trying to count how many times he was going to post his little "simple..." script (at least ten, if memory serves)...so I tried to go to his posts "in forum", and there is where I found the message.

[La Enchiladita]

Another forgettable idiot.

[processing please hold]

they are just too dang quick, that old PREMATURE er..... well you know ; )

Yes, I know. *giggle*

[lepton]

You rather clearly have no familiarity with:
1) military law.
2) the Geneva Conventions, or their underlying philosophy.
3) that the conduct of war differs from criminal prosecution (well, there are signs that you have a hint of understanding here, but not a lot).
4) what an unlawful combatant is.
5) that you don't find soldiers "guilty" of conducting war - being a soldier is not a crime in and of itself.
6) What a fair trial is.
7) That the President has warfighting powers that have to do with more than sending troops here and there and having them shoot at things.
8) What the term "Commander-in Chief" means (compare the wording in the Constitution to those of the Articles of Confederation).

You are also missing/mangling the difference between a hearing and a trial.

[La Enchiladita]

It will retread ... count on it.

[xsmommy]

i like poking snakes with a stick and he was fun!

[processing please hold]

But, we were allowed to toy with it for quiet somtime. Longer than most.

[CharacterCounts]

The big loss here is the Geneva ruling. That is the problem.

Is it part of the ruling? or is it just dicta?

[onyx]

Thought I would check back before I leave for the "cement pond"..... whooooooosh..... missed the wreck...lol. That one was totally transparent, but he'll be baaaaaaack.

[khnyny]

[i'm sad now. they took away our toy!]

Oh well, at least we got a few laughs in the midst of this mess.:)

[xsmommy]

well i challenge him to hone his craft a bit more so that he lasts more than a half hour next time! ; )

[xsmommy]

oh he tried to be stealthy. i think the mods wanted to just let him play himself out, bc they all do that eventually.

[La Enchiladita]

He was fun, wasn't he?

In a nutshell... Yes!

Must have been a retread of recently demised "NutShellLogic."

[Chieftain]

Look out for the libs racing for the cameras.