In Rebuke for Bush, Court Block Trials at Guantanamo (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

In Rebuke for Bush, Court Block Trials at Guantanamo

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 29, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

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 follow-up 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.

/snip


"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.

More Articles in Washington »

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/w...&en=1aa0983620edfa9b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[DivineComedy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/w...&en=1aa0983620edfa9b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

“The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration.”

Haven’t read the ruling yet, can’t find the text yet, and I understand how it could violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to hang the terrorists in a timely manner, that sounds reasonable, which is why I have been upset that we haven‘t hung any terrorists yet, but we have given terrorists a good deal:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/308446-post1.html

“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.”

From that it does look like “Liberals” and a “Moderate” on the United States Supreme Court have declared that terrorism is now a legitimate means of warfare and terrorists are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, that terrorists are now “soldiers,” but we will have to read the ruling to find out.

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

“Liberals!”

PS. {Dirty word} Bush! He should have hung the terrorists by now!

 

[akyron]

"In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia decried the majority ruling as improperly extending U.S. court jurisdiction "to the four corners of the earth." Legal precedent dictates otherwise and only Congress can change that, Scalia wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas."



Yay! We preside over the earth now. Thanks Supreme Court.


I guess we will now be shipping truckloads of screwballs to American Jails now. Oh Crap.....

 

[Little-Acorn]

"In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia decried the majority ruling as improperly extending U.S. court jurisdiction "to the four corners of the earth." Legal precedent dictates otherwise and only Congress can change that, Scalia wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas."

Chief Justice who?

Is this quote about today's ruling?

I haven't seen the text of the ruling from the USSC. Anyone know where to find it?

I'd be interested to know how a group that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention, and who regularly and grossly violates its rules on prisoner treatment, can be protected under it.

 

[zymurgy]

I don't fully understand the issue here.

I will say, if Clarence Thomas disagreed, I probably will as well.

But for now I'm far too ignorant to have an opinion.

 

[DivineComedy]

"In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia decried the majority ruling as improperly extending U.S. court jurisdiction "to the four corners of the earth." Legal precedent dictates otherwise and only Congress can change that, Scalia wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas."



Yay! We preside over the earth now. Thanks Supreme Court.


I guess we will now be shipping truckloads of screwballs to American Jails now. Oh Crap.....

Well, the “liberals” want us to support a world court:

“President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to the war on terror. And he's right. And everyone in this room knows he's right. Yet this administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues -- from climate change, climate control, to the International Court of Justice, to the role of the United Nations, to trade, and, of course, to the rebuilding Iraq itself. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the administration has, in effect, invited other nations to invoke the same precedent in the future, to attack their adversaries or even to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons just to deter such an attack.” (John Kerry) http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

Be not deceived for the lovable Royal parrot reiterated what International Court Lurch actually meant to reference:

“The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” (Bill Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...on.transcript/

*****

This is so funny:

“It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship, after all sixty years we were at war. Sixty years ago we were at war...” (President George Bush, 11:34 ET June 29, 2006, news conference.)

That civil war must have started during the three term dictatorship of “liberal” Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was the creator of the United Nations (of tyrants too).

 

[DivineComedy]

I'd be interested to know how a group that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention, and who regularly and grossly violates its rules on prisoner treatment, can be protected under it.

I would like to know that too, because only the Geneva Conventions our Senate hasn’t ratified come close to justifying terrorism.

 

[oldreliable67]

"In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia decried the majority ruling as improperly extending U.S. court jurisdiction "to the four corners of the earth." Legal precedent dictates otherwise and only Congress can change that, Scalia wrote.

It has often been wondered how or why the US should or should not be the "world's policement". Apparently the Supremes think we should and have just assigned that role to us.

 

[DivineComedy]

No jurisdiction exists to try offenses “committed either before or after the war.”

Opinion of STEVENS, J.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Oh my! Man, what a deal! They get to change the name of their terrorist group to “Al Quacka” or “Boo Boo,” and instantly the war starts all over again after they attack us. Then they change the name again…

31 JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war. See post, at 7–10 (dissenting opinion). But even the Government does not go so far; although the United States had for some time prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, been aggressively pursuing al Qaeda, neither in the charging document nor in submissions before this Court has the Government asserted that the President’s war powers were activated prior to September 11, 2001.

Opinion of STEVENS, J.

I find that part interesting, that “JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war.”

“Throughout the year, the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin--indicted in November 1998 for the bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa--despite US and UN sanctions, a unanimously adopted United Security Council resolution, and other international pressure to deliver him to stand trial in the United States or a third country. The United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that they will be held responsible for any terrorist acts undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in their territory.”
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/asia.html#Afghanistan

“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” (2000 State of the Union Address Thursday, January 27, 2000)

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

At a minimum, the Government must make a substantial showing that the crime for which it seeks to try a defendant by military commission is acknowledged to be an offense against the law of war.

Opinion of STEVENS, J.

How about them just being a member of a terrorist group as being good enough of an offense against the laws of war? I guess not.

 

[Deegan]

This just means the Congress will have to decide how we proceed with these prisoners, as they should have done in the first place. Bush did overstep his boundaries, and the court made the right call. In defense of the president, it was a very unusual circumstance, and someone had to act, he did, but he didn't have the authority.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Chief Justice who?

Is this quote about today's ruling?

I haven't seen the text of the ruling from the USSC. Anyone know where to find it?

If it is, Rhenquist must have come back from the dead to cast a vote.

 

[aps]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/w...&en=1aa0983620edfa9b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush has been slapped in the face, and I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Deegan]

I agree, he did overstep, but in his defense, someone had to act!

 

[Billo_Really]

halla-f.uckin'-llula!

I'ts about time!

 

[Navy Pride]

It was not a complete rebuttal of the president..........Terrorists will not be turned loose like some on the left wanted and the Congress can make a law requiring military tribunals............That is the wat to go..............No matter how much liberals want it no way should classified information be allowed in cilvilian trials..........

So I would not gloat to much my liberal friends...........

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Navy Pride:
It was not a complete rebuttal of the president..........Terrorists will not be turned loose like some on the left wanted and the Congress can make a law requiring military tribunals............That is the wat to go..............No matter how much liberals want it no way should classified information be allowed in cilvilian trials..........

So I would not gloat to much my liberal friends...........

You are right. It is not a complete rebuttal. All the Administration has to do, is go back and obtain Congressional approval. Which is how our system of government is supposed to work.

My personal feelings are:

• Everyone in the world deserves due process of law.
• Classified information that compromises our national security should never be admitted into court.
• Not every issue, is a threat to national security.

 

[Joby]

In regards to the last post, I think W can actually use this for a political gain. He can simply say look, because of this ruling more plans and counter-terrorist strategies are going to become known. This is going to cost the lives of US covert informants, and overt soldiers.

We still have a lot of 9-10ers ruining the efforts of the 9-11s in our government.

 

[danarhea]

“The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration.”

Haven’t read the ruling yet, can’t find the text yet, and I understand how it could violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to hang the terrorists in a timely manner, that sounds reasonable, which is why I have been upset that we haven‘t hung any terrorists yet, but we have given terrorists a good deal:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/308446-post1.html

“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.”

From that it does look like “Liberals” and a “Moderate” on the United States Supreme Court have declared that terrorism is now a legitimate means of warfare and terrorists are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, that terrorists are now “soldiers,” but we will have to read the ruling to find out.

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

“Liberals!”

PS. {Dirty word} Bush! He should have hung the terrorists by now!

Even the accused in a court martial has certain rights, but even these rights were being denied to the defendants. I believe that is why the UCMJ was applied to the case.

 

[Alastor]

I'd be interested to know how a group that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention, and who regularly and grossly violates its rules on prisoner treatment, can be protected under it.

They don't have to sign it or conform to it. Only the nations that do so are obligated to conform to it.

We're one of them.

 

[Navy Pride]

You are right. It is not a complete rebuttal. All the Administration has to do, is go back and obtain Congressional approval. Which is how our system of government is supposed to work.

My personal feelings are:

• Everyone in the world deserves due process of law.
• Classified information that compromises our national security should never be admitted into court.
• Not every issue, is a threat to national security.

Well what if classified info is needed to prove guilt...........That is the main reason the administration wanted military tribunals.......

 

[DivineComedy]

Even the accused in a court martial has certain rights, but even these rights were being denied to the defendants. I believe that is why the UCMJ was applied to the case.

I agree. I just think the ruling was wrong with regard to the war not starting like Thomas said, and the apparent claim that terrorists are “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions we have ratified. The Congress is going to have to do its job and establish proper due process so those terrorist bastards can get hung.

The UCMJ is required reading for anyone in the military, especially when anyone above you, that may have personal dislike, may “write you up” for just about anything. I started reading it early on after requesting a Captain’s Mast at my first duty station for personal reasons and having my request chit illegally “disapproved” by a forgery. The legal department had me “walk” my request chit to the top.

A couple of years later after being an “unsuccessful” defense witness at a Captain’s Mast for a white guy being harassed by a black racist…strange things started happening…the female security guard at the gate that I had become friends with warned me that the base Captain had asked them to watch me and try to catch me doing something wrong. One security truck followed me for three miles on my bicycle. They got me for not wearing a hat, after my bicycle was stolen; my hat was on my bicycle. Knowing something was fishy, I said at the Captain’s Mast something like, “Sir, anytime prior to your passing sentence if you intend to punish me in any way whatsoever I request Court Martial.” Anytime prior to sentencing at Captain’s Mast you can request a Court Martial; the legal officer along with two other officers and gentlemen lied to me prior to Captain’s Mast and said I could not request a Court Martial, so that is why I had to do it the way I did. The Commander then dismissed the Captain’s Mast for one week to harass and threaten my witness (a commissary employee that knew I was there to buy some more hats). When the week was up I repeated my “request” for a Court Martial and the Commander got beet red, dismissed the Captain’s Mast, and said, “I have never had to dismiss anyone at Captain’s Mast.” So I asked, “Sir, does that mean that everyone that has ever come before you at a Captain’s Mast was guilty?” He said, “yes.” The reason why two officers had previously, secretly, patted me on the back for standing up to the Commander became clearer to me then.

There is nothing wrong with the military lawyer that defended this case of the Al Quacka driver, he did the right thing, and did it very well. It is some proof that a military court can be just, and it is why my Commander feared a real military court of law with me having a lawyer!

I just want the due process to get around to hanging the terrorists after they are captured or surrender. All the terrorists should hang like Major John André (who was “under a feigned name and in a disguised habit"), and like all the war criminals after WWII. In my opinion justice is not served if the terrorists don’t hang.

I don’t care if they were just the Al Quacka driver, cook, hairdresser, laundry boy, or cave sweeper; all terrorists should hang!

 

[The Mark]

I agree. I just think the ruling was wrong with regard to the war not starting like Thomas said, and the apparent claim that terrorists are “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions we have ratified. The Congress is going to have to do its job and establish proper due process so those terrorist bastards can get hung.

The UCMJ is required reading for anyone in the military, especially when anyone above you, that may have personal dislike, may “write you up” for just about anything. I started reading it early on after requesting a Captain’s Mast at my first duty station for personal reasons and having my request chit illegally “disapproved” by a forgery. The legal department had me “walk” my request chit to the top.

A couple of years later after being an “unsuccessful” defense witness at a Captain’s Mast for a white guy being harassed by a black racist…strange things started happening…the female security guard at the gate that I had become friends with warned me that the base Captain had asked them to watch me and try to catch me doing something wrong. One security truck followed me for three miles on my bicycle. They got me for not wearing a hat, after my bicycle was stolen; my hat was on my bicycle. Knowing something was fishy, I said at the Captain’s Mast something like, “Sir, anytime prior to your passing sentence if you intend to punish me in any way whatsoever I request Court Martial.” Anytime prior to sentencing at Captain’s Mast you can request a Court Martial; the legal officer along with two other officers and gentlemen lied to me prior to Captain’s Mast and said I could not request a Court Martial, so that is why I had to do it the way I did. The Commander then dismissed the Captain’s Mast for one week to harass and threaten my witness (a commissary employee that knew I was there to buy some more hats). When the week was up I repeated my “request” for a Court Martial and the Commander got beet red, dismissed the Captain’s Mast, and said, “I have never had to dismiss anyone at Captain’s Mast.” So I asked, “Sir, does that mean that everyone that has ever come before you at a Captain’s Mast was guilty?” He said, “yes.” The reason why two officers had previously, secretly, patted me on the back for standing up to the Commander became clearer to me then.

There is nothing wrong with the military lawyer that defended this case of the Al Quacka driver, he did the right thing, and did it very well. It is some proof that a military court can be just, and it is why my Commander feared a real military court of law with me having a lawyer!

I just want the due process to get around to hanging the terrorists after they are captured or surrender. All the terrorists should hang like Major John André (who was “under a feigned name and in a disguised habit"), and like all the war criminals after WWII. In my opinion justice is not served if the terrorists don’t hang.

I don’t care if they were just the Al Quacka driver, cook, hairdresser, laundry boy, or cave sweeper; all terrorists should hang!

A very interesting story.

I agree with you that all AQ terrorists (and all terrorists for that matter, AQ or not) should be punished. I would prefer death for each of them, but I like the idea of keeping them around to question.

However, hanging is too brutal a death. :mrgreen: Or at least I'm sure some will consider it so.

Also, I think that the supreme court was wrong in it's decision, as it is not the supreme court's place to decide what our government's policy towards terrorists is.

 

[Iriemon]

...
“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

...

Got a cite for that quote?

 

[oldreliable67]

Here is one Gitmo detainee who thinks for himself and doesn't need a defense counsel...

In his first military commission hearing here, an accused Saudi terrorist rejected his detailed military defense counsel today, saying he didn't want a defense at all and was happy to admit to his charges.

"I did not come here to defend myself," said Ghassan Abdullah Al Sharbi, who is accused of providing English translation for a terrorist training camp and receiving training on how to build and use hand-held remote detonation devices for explosives. "I came here to tell you that I did what I did and I'm willing to pay the price, no matter how many years you sentence me. Even if I spend hundreds of years in jail, that would be a matter of honor for me."

Sharbi, an electrical engineering graduate of Embry Riddle Aeronautical University's campus in Prescott, Ariz., appeared in court wearing his tan detention uniform and spoke in fluent English throughout the hearing.

Sharbi said that he would not be violent or disruptive and would make his hearing easy for the commission. He rejected the term, "guilty," saying that he is proud of what he did.

Source.

 

[The Mark]

Here is one Gitmo detainee who thinks for himself and doesn't need a defense counsel...

In his first military commission hearing here, an accused Saudi terrorist rejected his detailed military defense counsel today, saying he didn't want a defense at all and was happy to admit to his charges.

"I did not come here to defend myself," said Ghassan Abdullah Al Sharbi, who is accused of providing English translation for a terrorist training camp and receiving training on how to build and use hand-held remote detonation devices for explosives. "I came here to tell you that I did what I did and I'm willing to pay the price, no matter how many years you sentence me. Even if I spend hundreds of years in jail, that would be a matter of honor for me."

Sharbi, an electrical engineering graduate of Embry Riddle Aeronautical University's campus in Prescott, Ariz., appeared in court wearing his tan detention uniform and spoke in fluent English throughout the hearing.

Sharbi said that he would not be violent or disruptive and would make his hearing easy for the commission. He rejected the term, "guilty," saying that he is proud of what he did.

Source.

Woah! :shock: I attended Embry Riddle Aeronautical Unversity, Daytona, FL campus for about a year a few years ago......

This terrorist seems to be one of the smarter ones.....which makes him all the more scary.