Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS blocks Gitmo trialsFollow

#1 Jun 29 2006 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Busy day in the world of terrorism!
The AP wrote:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which 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 body guard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo. 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.
No comment on what the ratio of yays and nays was.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jun 29 2006 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
You just love typing SCOTUS don't you.
#3 Jun 29 2006 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Well, Bush has said that he was waiting on this decision to move on closing Guantanamo. I wonder what excuse, if any, he can dig up now.
#4 Jun 29 2006 at 9:54 AM Rating: Decent
Does this mean they have to be sent to a civilian court? Or that they can neither be tried, nor be detained?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#5 Jun 29 2006 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Word on the split:
Quote:
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.

#6 Jun 29 2006 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Well, Bush has said that he was waiting on this decision to move on closing Guantanamo. I wonder what excuse, if any, he can dig up now.


Stall tactic or rendition, one of the two
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#7 Jun 29 2006 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Some more info, from the AP:
Quote:
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."

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.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying 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 said, "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, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "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.

AHA. Stall tactic.
#8 Jun 29 2006 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
Plan B is extradite them to Suadi Arabia, where thye will be executed after a very speedy 3 week trail. =)
#9 Jun 29 2006 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Remember that time I was right, that was awesome.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#10 Jun 29 2006 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
Remember that time I was right,
Um, no. No official word from the White House yet, Speedy McPuss. I know you're used to galloping to what is, only for you, a climactic finale, but try to hold the rythym for the rest of us that enjoy a good beat, mkay?
#11 Jun 29 2006 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Plan B is extradite them to Suadi Arabia, where they'll be celenrated as heros in the streets and showered with rose petals


Right. Nothing like fammily.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12REDACTED, Posted: Jun 29 2006 at 10:09 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) or he could just ignore the scrotus. It's not like they have any real authority seeing how we're in a time of war.
#13 Jun 29 2006 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Very premature of me, I know.

It doesn't take any prescience to realize whats gonna happen though.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#14 Jun 29 2006 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
A good article on what the Gitmo issues are RE:returning them to their nation of origin.
All it mentions about the SCOTUS decision is that only 10 folks were even charged, so if that's illegal, I do suppose the only way out of it is to toss them all back.
#15 Jun 29 2006 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Plan B is extradite them to Suadi Arabia, where they'll be celenrated as heros in the streets and showered with rose petals

Right. Nothing like family.
It could just be that he spelled "extradite them to Soviet era prisons in Estonia and the Czech Republic" wrong, you know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Jun 29 2006 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
*******

Damn it, not on my GAP dress!!! Smiley: mad
#17 Jun 29 2006 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
Quote:
Plan B is extradite them to Suadi Arabia, where they'll be celenrated as heros in the streets and showered with rose petals

Right. Nothing like fammily.


I beg to differ, there are sympathizers in Suadi Arabia but the rulers are very anti al-Qaida. They began executing people associated with al-Qaida in 2005 after nearly a ten year break in executions.

Quote:
Saudi Executes Three Convicted Terrorists , 1st since 1996
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Saudi authorities executed three Saudi militants convicted of assassinating several officials two years ago, Saudi authorities said as this Gulf state continued its campaign to stamp out terrorism.
The three men were beheaded in public Friday in the northern Saudi city of al-Jawf where they carried out their crimes, the Interior Ministry said. After the executions, authorities displayed the executed militants in a public square outside a mosque, tying their bodies to poles on top of which were placed their heads.
Their execution marked the first time Saudi authorities announced penalties against convicted terrorists since 1996. The Saudi monarch had announced an amnesty last year promising that repenting militants will not be sentenced to death.

Militants have carried out multiple suicide bombings and kidnappings and fought gun battles with security forces since May 2003. The attacks have been blamed on al-Qaida, the terrorist group headed by Saudi-born terrorist Osama bin Laden, and allied militants.
#18 Jun 29 2006 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I beg to differ, there are sympathizers in Suadi Arabia but the rulers are very anti al-Qaida. They began executing people associated with al-Qaida in 2005 after nearly a ten year break in executions.


I don't want to make some blnket statement like you're a moron for mistaking a PR stunt for sentiment or anything, so I'll instead say "Hey, you're right, a single event in a 60 year history is way more important than the huge piles of cash streaming out of Saudi Arabia into the hands of Al Queda daily."

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Jun 29 2006 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Well, it seems Bush took time out from his busy Showing-The-Japanese-PM-Graceland Schedule to make a statement:

Quote:
After a Supreme Court decision overruling war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, President Bush suggested Thursday he would seek Congress' approval to proceed with trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals.

ADVERTISEMENT

"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."

Bush said little more, saying he had received only a "drive-by briefing" on the ruling just out earlier Thursday morning.
Still no word on whether he still plans to hold them without trial, or ship 'em back to whence they came.
#20 Jun 29 2006 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Quote:
Thomas said the president was within his authority as commander in chief to create a justice system to deal with the unique threat posed by al-Qaeda.



$10 says Bush goes with Clarence Thomas' dissent and just holds the trials anyway. I mean, hey, one of the Justices agree with him, it can't really be illegal right?
#21 Jun 29 2006 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
He will do nothing.

Drag it out in congress, if that fails something else. Those camel jockeys are gonna sit in Gitmo for awhile. You won't see it getting closed down unless he gets pigeonholed which probably won't happen until he is good and ready.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#22 Jun 29 2006 at 10:08 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,463 posts
Quote:


The Nuremberg Trials were the trials of officials involved in World War II and the Holocaust during the **** regime. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949, at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT),



From Wiki.

I wonder what the difference is here. Int'l and not US comes to mind, but....
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 385 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (385)