Supreme Court Overrules Bush on Guantanamo

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Redhots, Jun 29, 2006.

  1. Redhots
    Offline

    Redhots Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    Things are about to get even more interesting for the spineless bastards in congress... and the rest of us too.

    Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo
    5-3 ruling says military trials would violate U.S. law, Geneva conventions


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/?GT1=8211

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

    The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

    In brief comments, Bush said he will work with Congress to get approval to try terrorism suspects before military tribunals.

    “To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so,” he said. “The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won’t cause killers to be put out on the street.”

    The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

    The ruling raises major questions about the legal status of about 450 men still being held at Guantanamo and exactly how, when and where the administration might pursue the charges against them.

    It also seems likely to further fuel international criticism of the administration, including by many U.S. allies, for its handling of the terror war detainees at Guantanamo in Cuba, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and elsewhere.

    Two years ago, the court rejected Bush’s claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

    Moderate joins liberals
    The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

    Thursday’s ruling, handed down on the last day of the court’s 2005-06 term, overturned that decision.

    Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Pentagon and Justice Department were planning to issue statements later in the day.

    The administration had hinted in recent weeks that it was prepared for the court to set back its plans for trying Guantanamo detainees.

    The president also has told reporters, “I’d like to close Guantanamo.” But he added, “I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darn dangerous.”

    Other justices make comments
    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent and took the unusual step of reading part of it from the bench — something he had never done before in his 15 years.

    He said the court’s decision would “sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.”

    The court’s willingness, Thomas wrote in the dissent, “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.”

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.

    In his own opinion siding with the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said that “Congress has not issued the executive a ’blank check.”’

    “Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,” Breyer wrote.

    Justices also rejected the administration’s claim that the case should be thrown out on grounds that a new law stripped their authority to consider it.

    “It’s certainly a nail in the coffin for the idea that the president can set up these trials,” said Barbara Olshansky, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents about 300 Guantanamo detainees.

    No word on prison status
    The court’s ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial.

    “Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order,” Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

    The prison at Guantanamo Bay, erected in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, has been a flash point for international criticism. Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban — including some teenagers — have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped there since 2002.

    Three detainees committed suicide there this month, using sheets and clothing to hang themselves. The deaths brought new scrutiny and criticism of the prison, along with fresh calls for its closing.

    Hamdan claims the military commissions established by the Pentagon on Bush’s orders are flawed because they violate basic military justice protections.

    Hamdan says he is innocent and worked as a driver for bin Laden in Afghanistan only to eke out a living for his family.

    The case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
  3. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Awesome! When you libs get done ensuring that the terrorists have a free hand, and they finally achieve the downfall of the United States, be sure not to break your arms patting yourselves on the back. I am almost certain that you will like the Imams much better than Bush. Heck, you already do!
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
  5. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Lol guess the Bush appointees aren't so conservative after all. This decision certainly weakens America because it gives credence to all the whacko theories being spread by the LMM about Gitmo.............oh hell this is America, what was I thinking? We are not supposed to imprison PRISONERS OF WAR. :salute:
     
  6. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    What ever gave you the idea that they are POWs? I believe the actual title the administration used was enemy combatant.
     
  7. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    POW, enemy combatant.....splitting hairs aren't we?
     
  8. F41
    Offline

    F41 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    38
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +8
    I believe it was mainly the liberals on the court as usual who made the decission against the American people and the Administration , Scalia, Thomas, and Alito decided on the side of the whitehouse. Roberts recused himself because he favored the Administration when he ruled on a lower court before his appointment to the Supreem court.

    The message this sends is to the insergents, liberals want to be their freinds and America`s foe.
     
  9. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    It should be the title of "Corpse". Then there wouldnt be all this paper work.
     
  10. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Well POWs are protected from torture and abuse under the Geneva Conventions and ensures that signatories treat prisoners ethically. Enemy combatants are given none of these protections. But why quibble...

    Yes, it's always the liberals fault. Liberals like John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. That's what truthiness tells us.
     

Share This Page