Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
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 Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. 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.
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 followup case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.
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 overturned that decision.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
And there goes the notion that this court would be a rubber stamp for the Bush Adminstration.
If Bush gets another appointee, it will be. Scalia, Thomas and Alito voted in favor of the Bush Admin. Roberts had to recuse himself, since the ruling was on a decision HE made when he was in a lower court.
The four liberal justices and Kennedy saved the day.
Phew. It just gets tighter and tighter, every time. Flag-burning amendment downed by one vote. This ruling. Gotta win back the House and Senate in 2006, Dems.
I just read where AG Gonzo somehow thought the Supreme Court decided in the gov't's favor on the earlier detention measure -- he said by using the term 'enemy combatant' in their decision they had legitimized the concept (as apart from POW), so he expected the gov't would win this current argument.
Expect the next move, then, to be an attempt to pass a law establishing a category of non-POW 'enemy combatant.' That's a law Israel passed long ago to detain terrorists without having to follow Geneva Conventions or domestic procedural legal rules, much as Arab countries have always done. As a result, their Supreme Court has established different, but very clear and firm legal procedures for 'enemy combatants' even though they go through military courts -- they do have some civil law based protections and procedures.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Thank God for the Supreme Court stepping in and doing its job. The checks and balances appear to be functioning in the judiciary to some extent at least. Its nice to see them standing up to the executive branch, which has run wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy amuck and over the legal constitutional lines in many areas.
I don't see this as a setback for the war on terror. I see it as a step forward. Direction and fairness was provided by the Court that will improve the world's view of our actions in the long run, and thereby assist in reducing terrorism.
Many problems remain with Guantanamo...
The voting block on this decision is also encouraging. Kennedy, hopefully the new voice of moderation and reason now that O'Connor is gone, voting with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Scalia, Alito and Thomas in the fringe minority where they belong. Roberts had to abstain from the decision, but even if he had sided with the minority, it wouldn't have been enough.
We'll see if this group hangs together on other constitutional issues in regard to the abuses of power by the executive branch.
Thank God for the Supreme Court stepping in and doing its job. The checks and balances appear to be functioning in the judiciary to some extent at least. Its nice to see them standing up to the executive branch, which has run wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy amuck and over the legal constitutional lines in many areas.
I don't see this as a setback for the war on terror. I see it as a step forward. Direction and fairness was provided by the Court that will improve the world's view of our actions in the long run, and thereby assist in reducing terrorism.
Many problems remain with Guantanamo...
The voting block on this decision is also encouraging. Kennedy, hopefully the new voice of moderation and reason now that O'Connor is gone, voting with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Scalia, Alito and Thomas in the fringe minority where they belong. Roberts had to abstain from the decision, but even if he had sided with the minority, it wouldn't have been enough.
We'll see if this group hangs together on other constitutional issues in regard to the abuses of power by the executive branch.
AZ, since we don't have anyplace to put these guys, how about if we leave em at your place for a few months. They are really nice people and I'm sure they won't be any trouble.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
AZ, since we don't have anyplace to put these guys, how about if we leave em at your place for a few months. They are really nice people and I'm sure they won't be any trouble.
I suggest our government muster the guts to 1) charge them with crimes (could be crimes against the U.S., military, or under international law); 2) proceed to try those they believe are guilty in the appropriate forum; 3) release the remining detainees to the custody of their own governments to see if they are wanted on offenses there. If they aren't, they should be released.
I suggest our government muster the guts to 1) charge them with crimes (could be crimes against the U.S., military, or under international law); 2) proceed to try those they believe are guilty in the appropriate forum; 3) release the remining detainees to the custody of their own governments to see if they are wanted on offenses there. If they aren't, they should be released.
I think they have been charged as enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
What does that mean? Are you saying they are POW's? If so, what rules apply?
AZ, we are charting new territory here. There are not POW's. POW's are the other sides military people that are captured. These guys are not military and don't wear uniforms. Terrorists are a new breed of fighter and we need to establish a new set of rules for them. That's what we are struggling with now.
In the 60's and 70's, the CIA would have caught these guys, interrogated them and then they would have suddenly disappeared. No need to worry about what to do with them afterward.
Linear Mode
