[dante]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials_1

:hot:

Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo war trials

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

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.

 

[Tenchiro]

SCOTUS > POTUS

Edit -- Damnit, why can't we do acronyms properly?
Edit 2 -- Wierd it worked that time...

 

[XtCamZ]

It's about time. I'm sick of GW thinking he is above everyone.

Funny thing is that 2 of the judges were the ones he appointed. That makes me feel a little more confident in the Supreme Court

 

[dante]

It's about time. I'm sick of GW thinking he is above everyone.

Funny thing is that 2 of the judges were the ones he appointed. That makes me feel a little more confident in the Supreme Court

ummm, nope, he appointed Alito and Roberts. Roberts recused himself, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas were the ones who dissented. The reason Roberts recused himself was that he had been on the appeals court that had heard the case prior to this. Roberts, of course, had sided with the administration in that decision, so, theoretically both Justices that Bush appointed just happened to agree with him, and Thomas was appointed by GW's daddy. Hmmmm, conflict of interest anybody??

 

[Old Man G Funk]

ummm, nope, he appointed Alito and Roberts. Roberts recused himself, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas were the ones who dissented. The reason Roberts recused himself was that he had been on the appeals court that had heard the case prior to this. Roberts, of course, had sided with the administration in that decision, so, theoretically both Justices that Bush appointed just happened to agree with him, and Thomas was appointed by GW's daddy. Hmmmm, conflict of interest anybody??

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a conflict of interest. It's certainly not surprising that the judges Bush would pick would find in his favor on questions such as this, but that's different from a conflict of interest.

 

[dhbuilder]

here's a news flash everybody.

the supreme court doesn't have jurisdiction over what the commander in chief of the armed forces does with regards to the military.
congress and the american people they represent hold that honor.

this ruling can be legally ignored.
that's the last thing we need is having judges telling generals what to do.

not my opinion by any means.
it's just the facts.

 

[Changleen]

congress and the american people they represent hold that honor.

Good job they're so vocal about it then.

 

[dhbuilder]

Good job they're so vocal about it then.

and i'm very thankful that we all live in a nation where we can.
no matter what our opinions may be.

 

[Changleen]

So do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that you have held people for all these years without trial in Gitmo?

 

[sanjuro]

they're muslim terrorists, so they do not deserve a day in court

 

[DaveW]

and i'm very thankful that we all live in a nation where we can.
no matter what our opinions may be.

Although your representitives do tend to have a totalitarian bent in regards to dissenting opinion..... :redX:

 

[BurlyShirley]

DH builder is correct, and Im also glad things are set up this way. Though Im yet undecided about the gitmo detainees (there isnt ANY easy answer) it is a GOOD thing that our political decisions are made by our politicians and not by the judicial branch. Sometimes doing what's fair isnt in the best interest of the country.

 

[dhbuilder]

So do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that you have held people for all these years without trial in Gitmo?

i'm tired of everybody caring more about those sub-humans, than the agendas that they were up to.

in the process of trying to repatriotize some of them, we've found that most of their home countries don't want them back. shouldn't that tell you something.

like i've said in another thread somewhere.
this is a war with an enemy that doesn't have a country. they're not holding any territory or advancing on any.
this is almost purely fought about ideology and a hatred of us.
everywhich way our leaders turn, they face uncharted waters.
and dealing with these prisoners is just one problem that's never been faced before.

i say let em rot there.
they all were brought halfway around the world for a reason.
and it wasn't because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[sanjuro]

i say let em rot there.
they all were brought halfway around the world for a reason.
and it wasn't because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You sure about that?

"The Road to Guantánamo," relying as it does on their testimony, does not entirely answer that question. In September 2001, Mr. Iqbal flew to Pakistan to meet the woman his mother had chosen for him to marry. Shortly afterward, Mr. Ahmed, who had agreed to be the best man at the wedding, arrived with two other friends, Mr. Rasul and Monir Ali.

The story of how they ended up in Afghanistan is left a bit hazy, in spite of vivid images of miserable bus rides over bumpy, unpaved roads. The idea of crossing the border into Afghanistan seems to have arisen almost on a whim. They wanted to see for themselves what was going on and to participate in a humanitarian aid mission organized by the imam of a mosque in Karachi, Pakistan. Sitting in an outdoor restaurant one evening, they talk excitedly about the size of Afghan flatbreads, as if they were planning a culinary road trip.

As the war against the Taliban intensifies, the four young men travel first to Kandahar, then to Kabul and finally to Kunduz, where they are captured by Northern Alliance soldiers. At that point, an arduous, possibly ill-advised adventure turns into a nightmare, as they are first accused of being Al Qaeda fighters and then, after months of harsh treatment, coerced into confessing that they are.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/movies/23guan.html

 

[DaveW]

Sub-human?
Go the Nazi era jingoisim!


Got any jackboots?

if they were not brought halfway around the world as they were in the wrong place at the wrong time why is your govenment trying to repatriate some of them?

 

[Changleen]

i'm tired of everybody caring more about those sub-humans, than the agendas that they were up to.

in the process of trying to repatriotize some of them, we've found that most of their home countries don't want them back. shouldn't that tell you something.

like i've said in another thread somewhere.
this is a war with an enemy that doesn't have a country. they're not holding any territory or advancing on any.
this is almost purely fought about ideology and a hatred of us.
everywhich way our leaders turn, they face uncharted waters.
and dealing with these prisoners is just one problem that's never been faced before.

i say let em rot there.
they all were brought halfway around the world for a reason.
and it wasn't because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Independant groups say at most a 'handful' of the prisoners were enemies of the US at the time of capture. Most were just poor-ass Afghanistanis who were in the way when the US invaded. You clearly have no clue about how these people were rounded up.

You --> :nuts: <-- Fox Newz