MERGED: High court blocks military tribunals/Supreme Court on terrorist detainees

[Bullypulpit]

The SCOTUS just handed down a decision in the case of Ahmed Salim Hamdan.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html>WASHINGTON (CNN)</a> -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bush administration did not have the legal authority to go forward with military tribunals for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba.</blockquote>

With the other abuses of power Chimpy McPresident's administration has engaged in, this comes as no surprise. It's about time the brakes were applied to this administration's heretofore unchecked abuses of power.

 

[CSM]

The SCOTUS just handed down a decision in the case of Ahmed Salim Hamdan.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html>WASHINGTON (CNN)</a> -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bush administration did not have the legal authority to go forward with military tribunals for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba.</blockquote>

With the other abuses of power Chimpy McPresident's administration has engaged in, this comes as no surprise. It's about time the brakes were applied to this administration's heretofore unchecked abuses of power.

No surpirse there...liberals are always for criminal rights over the victims....why should they not be all for the terrorists too?


Given this new ruling, just let the bastards go...preferably in some very liberal neighborhood. After all , we can't send them back to some foreign country where they might be tortured!

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Supreme Court ruled today on the issue of military tribunals and detention for terrorists capture by U.S. forces and detained in places like Gitmo. According to an ABC Radio report I heard on the way to work, some of the ruling supported the administration's plans and some went against parts of them.

The announcer said that the ruling made very clear that detainees could be kept incarcerated for as long as the war against terrorists went on, with no need for charges to be brought or trials to be held. In this way, the detainees are to be treated similarly to prisoners of war in conflicts such as WWII. The ruling also said that, if any of them were to be charged with crimes and tried, it had to be in a civilian trial, not a military tribunal.

Though it doesn't give the US govt everything they wanted, I see it as a net good thing. If the terrorists were to be treated by purely civilian methods, they would have to be either charged with a specific crime, or released. The government ducked that bullet, with the conclusion (as I heard it) that the terrorists could be held indefinitely, since they are indeed enemy combatants, until the war is over.

How to determine when the war is over, is another question not addressed. If the Iraq govt takes over and does a good job of running its country and keeping the peace, but a month later someone blows up another disco in Bali in the name of Allah and kills some Americans, is the war against terrorism over?

The bad news is, any trials must be held in civilian courts. We've already seen what a ridiculous circus such things can degenerate into, with the Zacharias Moussaoui (sp?) trial. Oh well. At least we don't have to release these thugs back into their countries' armed forces to start shooting at us again. In previous wars, prisoners were very seldom put on trial, but were just kept in prison until the end of the war. This ruling seems to affect about 5% of the 500-odd terrorists held in Gitmo, who may have been scheduled for trial eventually.

The ruling was 5-3, with the usual feel-good justices (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer) being joined by the rudderless one (Kennedy). Thomas, Scalia, and Alito voted against. Roberts had recused himself from the case, since he had been on the panel of the circuit court that had previously ruled on the case.

--------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...l&src=062906_1033_TOPSTORY_tribunals_rejected

Court ruling to have little impact on Guantanamo
Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:24am ET

by Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE (Reuters) - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.

"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week.

The high court upheld on Thursday a Guantanamo defendant's challenge to President George W. Bush's power to create the military tribunals to try suspected al Qaeda conspirators and Taliban supporters after the September 11 attacks.

Harris said he would build a second courtroom if the tribunals are allowed to proceed but little else would change because the court was not asked to rule on Guantanamo itself, a prison camp that human rights groups, the United Nations and foreign governments have sharply criticized.

The tribunals have also come under fire from lawyers, who say they are rigged to ensure conviction and offer none of the basic guarantees and rights granted suspects in the U.S. justice system or to which formal prisoners of war would be entitled.

Ten detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before the tribunals, and prosecutors have said they will charge as many as 25 more if the court rules in favor of the commissions.

"If they rule against the government I don't see how that's going to affect us. From my perspective I think the impact will be negligible," Harris told Reuters.

About 120 other prisoners at the base in have been cleared for release, or transfer to their homelands where Washington expects them to remain in detention.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[CSM]

The Supreme Court ruled today on the issue of military tribunals and detention for terrorists capture by U.S. forces and detained in places like Gitmo. According to an ABC Radio report I heard on the way to work, some of the ruling supported the administration's plans and some went against parts of them.

The announcer said that the ruling made very clear that detainees could be kept incarcerated for as long as the war against terrorists went on, with no need for charges to be brought or trials to be held. In this way, the detainees are to be treated similarly to prisoners of war in conflicts such as WWII. The ruling also said that, if any of them were to be charged with crimes and tried, it had to be in a civilian trial, not a military tribunal.

Though it doesn't give the US govt everything they wanted, I see it as a net good thing. If the terrorists were to be treated by purely civilian methods, they would have to be either charged with a specific crime, or released. The government ducked that bullet, with the conclusion (as I heard it) that the terrorists could be held indefinitely, since they are indeed enemy combatants, until the war is over.

How to determine when the war is over, is another question not addressed. If the Iraq govt takes over and does a good job of running its country and keeping the peace, but a month later someone blows up another disco in Bali in the name of Allah and kills some Americans, is the war against terrorism over?

The bad news is, any trials must be held in civilian courts. We've already seen what a ridiculous circus such things can degenerate into, with the Zacharias Moussaoui (sp?) trial. Oh well. At least we don't have to release these thugs back into their countries' armed forces to start shooting at us again. In previous wars, prisoners were very seldom put on trial, but were just kept in prison until the end of the war. This ruling seems to affect about 5% of the 500-odd terrorists held in Gitmo, who may have been scheduled for trial eventually.

The ruling was 5-3, with the usual feel-good justices (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer) being joined by the rudderless one (Kennedy). Thomas, Scalia, and Alito voted against. Roberts had recused himself from the case, since he had been on the panel of the circuit court that had previously ruled on the case.

--------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...l&src=062906_1033_TOPSTORY_tribunals_rejected

Court ruling to have little impact on Guantanamo
Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:24am ET

by Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE (Reuters) - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.

"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week.

The high court upheld on Thursday a Guantanamo defendant's challenge to President George W. Bush's power to create the military tribunals to try suspected al Qaeda conspirators and Taliban supporters after the September 11 attacks.

Harris said he would build a second courtroom if the tribunals are allowed to proceed but little else would change because the court was not asked to rule on Guantanamo itself, a prison camp that human rights groups, the United Nations and foreign governments have sharply criticized.

The tribunals have also come under fire from lawyers, who say they are rigged to ensure conviction and offer none of the basic guarantees and rights granted suspects in the U.S. justice system or to which formal prisoners of war would be entitled.

Ten detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before the tribunals, and prosecutors have said they will charge as many as 25 more if the court rules in favor of the commissions.

"If they rule against the government I don't see how that's going to affect us. From my perspective I think the impact will be negligible," Harris told Reuters.

About 120 other prisoners at the base in have been cleared for release, or transfer to their homelands where Washington expects them to remain in detention.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

This probably should be merged with the similar thread under "legal". It is interesting to note how this article is phrased as opposed to the one Bully posted.

 

[Annie]

This probably should be merged with the similar thread under "legal". It is interesting to note how this article is phrased as opposed to the one Bully posted.

Yep it looks like they may just not get trials, be treated as POW's under Geneva Conventions and held indefinately?

 

[CSM]

Yep it looks like they may just not get trials, be treated as POW's under Geneva Conventions and held indefinately?

that works for me....hold them until hell freezes over.