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

[Jameison]

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

Oh he'll be back alright...under yet another alias.
I doubt if this was his first alias, and it won't be his last.
The moonbats are pretty expert at that kind of thing.
Remember the journalist at the LA Times who recently used to log on under aliases at his own and conservative blogs, and posted stuff praising himself, and trashing his detractors?
Worked fine until some conservative blogger managed to hunt him down online, and expose him.
Today, he is resting at home (even the ultra liberal LAT was forced to act against him), with plenty of time on his hands to ponder his own stupidity.
Ah well.

[McGavin999]

You either have a double digit IQ or a death wish.

[tobyhill]

This "ruling" has to be the most idiotic explanation of a ruling ever from the SC. There is 100+ pages of a ruling that could have been summed up on one, the President and Congress must create law before putting the terrorist at GITMO before a military tribunal, nothing more nothing less but the libs are running with this as though the war is over.

[xsmommy]

nah, probably some CA community college. he wasn't all that bright ; )

[PghBaldy]

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php

[lepton]

Because, er, the AQ terrorists: Have NOT "declared war" against us,

Well, technically THAT isn't true. 1996 was it?

OBL laid out a declaration of what and why. One of the main reasons is that we are too morally weak, wimpy, and generally decadent to defend ourselves for long, and with a proper nudge we'll give up and collapse - pretty much the Dem party platform.

[lepton]

Because, er, the AQ terrorists: Have NOT "declared war" against us,

Well, technically THAT isn't true. 1996 was it?

OBL laid out a declaration of what and why. One of the main reasons is that we are too morally weak, wimpy, and generally decadent to defend ourselves for long, and with a proper nudge we'll give up and collapse - pretty much the Dem party platform.

Just to be clear...you're dead on with the other criteria.

[freedumb2003]

FReeping at work can be a dangerous proposition ;)

[mware]

WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF PLEASE PICK UP THE LOBBY PHONE. SEND A BILL TO CONGRESS -- NOW -- LEGITIMIZING THE MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND WATCH THE DEMS RUN FOR COVER. THEY MUST EITHER VOTE FOR IT, OR WHINE FOR THE RIGHTS OF OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DRIVER. A PERFECT STORM. THANKS JOHN PAUL STEVENS.

ROVE, YOU MAGNIFICANT B@ST@RD.

[jveritas]

In a month or two this Supreme Court ruling will become a nightmare for liberals and their media. The Senate Republican will introduce a bill to set up military tribune for these terrorists at Gitmo, i.e. giving the President exactly what they want and then the democrats in the Senate will be either forced to vote for the military tribunals and doing so alienate their kook base that give them money or do not vote for the military tribunal and further been seen by the majority of voters that they cannot be trusted on National Security.

When you are a coward and a traitor, you cannot win no matter what you do. That is the problem with liberals and their media since the war on terror has begun.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

I misunderstood your statement of POW's in a legitimate war to infer that AQ's actions on 9-11 were legitimate. I do concur with your sentiment of adhering to law. This ruling seems to impact 10 detainees that were scheduled for tribunal prior to congressional action. I do believe that we, the USA, should afford Geneva rights in the event that the legislative and judiciary make it clear to the executive what the status of these people is. Many of us tend to excerpt identifying uniform and command structure.

[Jameison]

"OBL laid out a declaration of what and why"

OBL is not the head of any state that is recognized by any international body.
It's like saying Jack The Ripper has declared war on the United States.

[Mo1]

Maybe Senator Sessions will take the lead. One can hope.

Yes ... Sessions would be a good choice to write the bill

[Gum Shoe]

I remember the Laws of Armed Conflict classes I had when I was in the military. The instructors were very clear in the point that the United States never signed the Geneva Convention. We simply agree in principle. So, if this is true, we are not bound by it as in Treaty. Any lawyer types out there that can confirm?

[MNJohnnie]

Thomas, Scalia Roberts vrs the Leftist scum. Thomas just demolishes them in his dissent. Kennedy as usual just went with the Majority. What a Judical whore.

[mware]

Isn't this the case that Ginsburg fell asleep during???

[Robert A Cook PE]

It is interesting that - no matter WHAT the topic, or who are the two parties in the case are, or what the "beginning" of the case was, or what the law in question actually says, are - the 4 (+1) liberal/internationalists/socialists on the court will vote uniformly and ALWAYS AGAINST the traditional or "American" Christian conservative, republican form of government that the framers demanded.

The 4 socialist anti-American liberal members of the Court now plainly see themselves as the last "Ruling Bastion" of their way in the government, and they are dead-set determined in keeping that control until they are dragged from the Court in a coffin.

[processing please hold]

He's definitely an idiot then. It was clear from his first post he was an idiot.

[processing please hold]

He sounded straight out of the aclu talking points.

[lepton]

The issue at stake is whether the President can indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" without due process,

"Profoundly clueless" strikes again.

"Due process" in this circumstance is: Did anyone witness someone who is not us doing something militaryish and capture them. It's always been so, and the Geneva Conventions do not even begin to contradict that.