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]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800 ... 881-895 next last
To: beyond the sea
I was driving when I heard the news and had lynn cullen on, since I can't stand Glen Beck and his fascination with his mid-life crisis and just to see what the loony left was saying.

The SCOTUS Justices hit her g-spot and she was crowing.

Figures Kennedy would side with the liberal branch.

Ronald Reagan is probably turning in his grave.

761 posted on 06/29/2006 10:40:46 AM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Exactly. Why should our military put their lives on the line to bring terrorists back to Gitmo so they can receive constitutional rights for trials in the states?

Tell them they have five minutes to answer your questions or you will shoot them in the head and shoot them regardless.

762 posted on 06/29/2006 10:41:31 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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

Wow, you mean ACLU type justice who's clear goal is undermine and deconstruct the Constitution? We have a couple of those on the court right now. Tell Me just how the hell does this help our citizens which is THE ONLY obligation of our constitution and laws and rights? IT DOESN'T! Not one iota. You apparently value the worlds opinion that clearly changes not on set law but whims and feelings at that time. This court clearly did not have our citizens in mind with this decision. Thank God for the 2nd amendment we just might be needing it soon to re establish a lawful Constitutional Government.

763 posted on 06/29/2006 10:42:08 AM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

that all depends on how the white house reacts to this. they are often reluctant to say anything negative about SCOTUS rulings. so if you can't go on offense, that means you are on defense.

this ruling is an outrage. 5 members of the Supreme Court of the United States - are ruling in favor of non-citizen terrorists - at a time in which brave US soldiers are losing life and limb to defend this nation against the very same people.

It sickens me.


764 posted on 06/29/2006 10:42:15 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

this is the end for Gitmo now, we can't use it to hold prisoners anymore - we need to send back as many of them as we can, to their home countries that are willing to try them.

thank goodness the CIA didn't bring the AQ top people to Gitmo - they would all be getting US trials now. the foreign prison program is a good one - until the SCOTUS rules those are illegal.


765 posted on 06/29/2006 10:45:27 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

SCOTUS rules against President

FOX NEWS ALERT: New evidence has just come to light in the Aruba case.


766 posted on 06/29/2006 10:46:59 AM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The SCOTUS Justices hit her g-spot and she was crowing. Figures Kennedy would side with the liberal branch. Ronald Reagan is probably turning in his grave.

It sucks.

Did you hear the caller to Rush............ who suggested the detainees be given sex-change operations........ hormone treatments........... training bras........???

It was BEAUTIFUL.... the caller was a genius....... must have been a FReeper!!

I'll try to get the transcript of the caller's call. It was BRILLIANTLY FUNNY.

If you feel like it, go to Rush's daily thread. I have to go back outside to work. If you should find the whole phone call to Rush please let me know.

As I said ....... it was brilliant!!! I was laughing my *ss off out in the nursery.

767 posted on 06/29/2006 10:47:02 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Scientists Are Itching to Blame Poison Ivy's Effect on Global Warming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

exactly right. I don't think we have the votes in the senate for any kind of law to "undo" this - the McCain/Graham faction will vote with the Dems.


768 posted on 06/29/2006 10:51:46 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"Kennedy reportedly sided with the four other Leftists on the Court."

There.
Fixed.

769 posted on 06/29/2006 10:55:44 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat; jwalsh07

indeed, that's where the left is going to go with this next - to try and get the AQ top honchos being held overseas by the CIA, into civilian courts, with ACLU lawyers, etc.

really, at this point, what further information do these guys like KSM have? why are they still alive?

the administration has some hard decisions to make in light of this SCOTUS ruling.


770 posted on 06/29/2006 10:58:19 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Why is this the end for Gitmo?


771 posted on 06/29/2006 11:00:35 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
So, if the head of the Boy Scouts declared war on us, we could capture and hold all their members?

The Boy Scouts are not analogous to Al Queda, nor are its members specifically devoted to the goals of it's head.

Again, refer to the Barbary Pirates. Organizations can indeed declare war upon us, and the precedent is that if the President deems them a danger to the nation he can carry out a war against them with no further declaration - theirs sufficed.

772 posted on 06/29/2006 11:03:06 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

YOU were so right...gotta hand it to you.

Blech is my opinion.

BUT, as we have been saying on the Rush thread...this will once again force the DEMS to put their VOTE where their mouth is on legislation giving the POTUS "permission" to carry out military tribunals for those animals.


773 posted on 06/29/2006 11:04:42 AM PDT by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

why bother sending anyone else there. we can use prisons on purely foreign soil, under foreign legal jurisdictions.

notice that last week, 17 of them were sent back to saudi arabia. you will see alot more of that happening in the coming months. I think there are only about 400 left at Gitmo.


774 posted on 06/29/2006 11:06:08 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

I worry that the McCain faction (Graham, et al) in the senate will not vote to give the POTUS permissions here - and the Dems will draw cover from that.

has McCain said anything yet?


775 posted on 06/29/2006 11:09:56 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
My map seems to be out of date. I've been searching for the country Al-Qaeda but can't find it anywhere. Would you please tell me

1. What continent it's on?

2. When did it become a nation?

3. Is it ruled by a President, a Dictator, a King, a Queen?

4. What kind of uniform does their military wear?
776 posted on 06/29/2006 11:15:20 AM PDT by AmeriBrit (LIGHT A PRAYER CANDLE FOR THE TROOPS: http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins; pabianice; jude24; blue-duncan
So what. He can't try them. They didn't say he has to release them. They didn't say he has to close Guantanamo. All they said was that he can't order war crimes trials. Big deal.

In essence what the Supreme Court may have done is to prolong the detention of the detainees. If the US can't try them in a war tribunal, then they will just have to wait until hostilities cease and at that point decide whether or not to release them or try them in a criminal court.

At least with a war tribunal they could have obtained determinate sentences. The Supreme Court took that option off the table. This is no victory for the detainees. Mr. Hamden could have had his trial over with and been released for time served. As it stands right now, he may not get a trial for another 20 years.

777 posted on 06/29/2006 11:16:27 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
Congress has never delcared one.

Sure they did. They passed a join resolution authorizing hostilities and they continued to fund the war after it started.

There is no constitutional "magic language" that equals a war declaration.

778 posted on 06/29/2006 11:17:03 AM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Very disappointing. We need some of the old Court libs to retire. ....soon. They'll be holding on tight till '09 though, of that we can be sure.


779 posted on 06/29/2006 11:17:31 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker

They may not have said," We Declare War," but in effect, that is what they did, when they granted the President the powers after 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda et al. Scalia's dissent: Worst of all is the Court's reliance on the legislative history of the DTA to buttress its implausible reading of §1005(e)(1). We have repeatedly held that such reliance is impermissible where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous...The question was divisive, and floor statements made on both sides were undoubtedly opportunistic and crafted solely for use in the briefs in this very litigation. See, e.g., 151 Cong. Rec. S14257-S14258 (Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Levin) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-184


780 posted on 06/29/2006 11:23:27 AM PDT by PghBaldy ( Scalia (Hamdan):"...at least the Court shows some semblance of seemly shame...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800 ... 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