« Take the handcuffs off our soldiers | Main | Who Are They? »
July 03, 2006
Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials
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.
Wild Thing's comment...
Oh, the response to this is easy: find the guys on the battlefield; ask them the questions we need to ask; and them shoot the ones who don't answer. No trials. No fuss, no muss.
Since when does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists, who wear no uniforms, belong to the military of no country, have no authority for their actions, and do not observe the rules of war? Or am I wrong here does anyone know what the true deal is on this?
I am very disappointed in the S.O.B. Kennedy, who is once more showing his true colors. Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted our way. Roberts had to recuse himself because he already had ruled on the case as an appeals court judge. The rest sided with the terrorists. It doesn't help to have our court system, half of our politicians, and most of the media on the side of the enemy.
Message to soldiers, dead terrorists don't speak to the ACLU. It is celebration time for the left, as Al Qaeda terrorists now have ‘protections’ via the Geneva Conventions thanks to the US Supreme Court.
Posted by Wild Thing at July 3, 2006 02:55 AM
Comments
I said from the very beginning in Afghanistan, 'take no prisoners' this latest move by our gutless politicians proves my point. Hell, lets move all of the Gitmo detainees to Hyannis Port and turn them loose so they'll be amongst kinfolk.
Short of armed revolt we can vote out the nitwits come November.
Posted by: Jack at July 3, 2006 01:26 PM
Nitwits proliferate in government. Sometimes that is all offered up for the vote. It makes me wonder how long a free society really can last as it becomes self absorbed and refuses to realize a World of real aggression and violence. These judges are absorbed in their power more than in reality, and the asswipe moslems are more absorbed in aggression and hate and certainly have no respect for these judges in return.
These 5 judges did as much damage to the war effort as several divisions of terrorists. And the judges will pay no price.
Posted by: TomR at July 3, 2006 02:22 PM
Of all the things liberalism is, it's first of all stupid. Second, it's a mental disease.
One purpose behind the Geneva Convention was to regularize war...or to provide an incentive for combatants to put on uniforms, to organize and behave in generally accepted ways. It even works, within limits.
To extend Geneva Convention protections to the kind of combatants the Convention hoped to discourage or eliminate is idiotic. That liberal judges don't know this was predictable, but still disgraceful.
The decision renders the Geneva Convention null and void by philosophically cancelling the reasons for it. It's equivalent to removing a drunk driving penalty if the the driver is arrested for speeding, then found to be drunk. Or forgiving a wife beater of the assault charges if the marriage is common law.
You can carry this further. What is a hate crime now? What is terrorism? Whom they Gods would destroy, they first make liberal.
Posted by: Rhod at July 3, 2006 04:15 PM
It’s amazing that the Supreme Court is more concerned with the “rights” of terrorists than they are of United States Citizens such as in Emanate Domain cases.
Posted by: BobF at July 3, 2006 04:38 PM
