What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Supreme Court Overrules Bush on Guantanamo

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
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 BushÂ’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 courtÂ’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.

ThursdayÂ’s ruling, handed down on the last day of the courtÂ’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 administrationÂ’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 courtÂ’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 BushÂ’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.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
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!
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US

OCA

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
223
Points
83
Location
Washington D.C.
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:
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
OCA said:
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.

What ever gave you the idea that they are POWs? I believe the actual title the administration used was enemy combatant.
 

OCA

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
223
Points
83
Location
Washington D.C.
Mr.Conley said:
What ever gave you the idea that they are POWs? I believe the actual title the administration used was enemy combatant.

POW, enemy combatant.....splitting hairs aren't we?
 

F41

Rookie
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
38
Reaction score
8
Points
1
OCA said:
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:
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.
 

insein

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
359
Points
48
Location
Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
OCA said:
POW, enemy combatant.....splitting hairs aren't we?

It should be the title of "Corpse". Then there wouldnt be all this paper work.
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
OCA said:
POW, enemy combatant.....splitting hairs aren't we?
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...

F41 said:
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.
Yes, it's always the liberals fault. Liberals like John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. That's what truthiness tells us.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,133
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
OCA said:
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:

No this was a decision made with only 8 judges. Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself because he participated in the lower court decision in support of the Presidents position. Justice Alito Scalia and Thomas voted to uphold the Presidents power and the rest voted against him.

So the presidents Appointees are conservative. but there are still too many liberals on the court.

Ironically all this court did is give the Democrats another chance to show that they dont support the war on terror. so its going to screw the libs in November. It really doesnt effect our policy because Congress will support this.
 

OCA

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
223
Points
83
Location
Washington D.C.
Avatar4321 said:
No this was a decision made with only 8 judges. Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself because he participated in the lower court decision in support of the Presidents position. Justice Alito Scalia and Thomas voted to uphold the Presidents power and the rest voted against him.

So the presidents Appointees are conservative. but there are still too many liberals on the court.

Ironically all this court did is give the Democrats another chance to show that they dont support the war on terror. so its going to screw the libs in November. It really doesnt effect our policy because Congress will support this.

You really think the Dems are going to have a net loss of seats in November given all the gaffs of this administration and congress from Iraq to Abramov and everything in between?

I see the Dems taking back at least 1 house of congress if not both, then we will be in a world of shit.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
OCA said:
You really think the Dems are going to have a net loss of seats in November given all the gaffs of this administration and congress from Iraq to Abramov and everything in between?

I see the Dems taking back at least 1 house of congress if not both, then we will be in a world of shit.

Yeah...checks and balances make republicans cranky.

*Edit* It is kind of amusing though, to watch Republicans like Souter and Kennedy get called "liberals" because they aren't going to allow unchecked executive power.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,133
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
OCA said:
You really think the Dems are going to have a net loss of seats in November given all the gaffs of this administration and congress from Iraq to Abramov and everything in between?

I see the Dems taking back at least 1 house of congress if not both, then we will be in a world of shit.

Not only am i going to say that they wont win back either house of Congress. They are going to lose seats in both houses. It would take something major to not do that. Because regardless how many gafs the administration and majority in Congress make, the Democrats have made it clear that they are nothing but a bunch of incompetant boobs and that trusting them to govern us would be like giving a chainsaw to a three year old.
 

OCA

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
223
Points
83
Location
Washington D.C.
Avatar4321 said:
Not only am i going to say that they wont win back either house of Congress. They are going to lose seats in both houses. It would take something major to not do that. Because regardless how many gafs the administration and majority in Congress make, the Democrats have made it clear that they are nothing but a bunch of incompetant boobs and that trusting them to govern us would be like giving a chainsaw to a three year old.

Yes but you are giving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much credit for awareness and intelligence to the American public, remember Clinton got elected twice.
 

5stringJeff

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
9,990
Reaction score
543
Points
48
Location
Puyallup, WA
jillian said:
Yeah...checks and balances make republicans cranky.

*Edit* It is kind of amusing though, to watch Republicans like Souter and Kennedy get called "liberals" because they aren't going to allow unchecked executive power.

Checks and balances occur between branches of governments, not between political parties.
 

OCA

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
223
Points
83
Location
Washington D.C.
jillian said:
Yeah...checks and balances make republicans cranky.

*Edit* It is kind of amusing though, to watch Republicans like Souter and Kennedy get called "liberals" because they aren't going to allow unchecked executive power.

"Unchecked executive power", the new catchphrase of the left. How about not tying hands in a time of war? Oh wait the phrase "politics stops at the water's edge" means nothing to the left.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,133
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
jillian said:
Yeah...checks and balances make republicans cranky.

*Edit* It is kind of amusing though, to watch Republicans like Souter and Kennedy get called "liberals" because they aren't going to allow unchecked executive power.

Yeah we get alittle pissed when the Judiciary goes beyond the scope of their power. The President already has checks and balances. Its the Judiciary that is going unchecked. This case is an example of it. The Court has been trying to limit Presidents from exercising their inherent executive powers since the Youngstown decision.

The Checks each branch of the government has on the branches are only those permitted in the Constitution. And the Courts have no authority to tell the President how to use His Commander-in-Chief authority granted to him in the Constitution.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,863
Points
2,040
I NEVER thought I'd live long enough to see SOME people living in the United States, cheering for a terrorist, because of their own personal hatred for their President...

This is indeed a SAD day for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
OCA said:
"Unchecked executive power", the new catchphrase of the left. How about not tying hands in a time of war? Oh wait the phrase "politics stops at the water's edge" means nothing to the left.

And the mantra of the right is "waaaaaaaaaaah.... the bad people won't let us do whatever we want, so they must love terrorists and hate the president".

The, predominantly republican Court, apparently, isn't going to allow the Constitution to be ignored, despite Bush's protestations that it's "just a ... piece of paper".
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$180.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top