Justices rule 5-3 that the President overstepped his authority in ordering military trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
• Charges Against Hamdan (FindLaw pdf)
• Suit to Supreme Court (FindLaw pdf)
• Fast Facts: Gitmo Ruling
• Video: Gitmo Ruling
This battle Truth and Justice won, but the war against Neoconservative American tyrany goes on.
I’m sure we’ll all see more of these in the future; the Courts pimp slapping an aggressive and reckless Executive.
Next let’s close Gitmo and remove this stain from our national identity. Let the historians deal with the debate.
The debate is simple. Are the terrorists uniformed enemy combatants or nonuniformed enemy combatants? If they are uniformed enemy combatants, they are afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If they are nonuniformed combatants, the Geneva Conventions allows for and US and European precedence calls for them to be executed. Under the Geneva Conventions, the military tribunals are called for to simply determine their status as uniformed or nonuniformed combatants, nothing else.
Under the Geneva conventions, uniformed combatants may be detained for the duration of the war as POWs without writ of habeous corpus or charges being filed because they are NOT criminals, they are enemy combatants. Likewise, nonuniformed combatants may be detained indefinitely or executed at the discretion of the convening authority.
Gitmo is far nicer than these brutal animals deserve. We are not required to provide them with better meals than our soldiers get, nor should they receive them. They should be on a standard ration cycle of one hot meal and two MREs a day like we feed our own soldiers in a field training environment. It’s still far better than they would be getting in Tora Bora.
While Amnesty International and the ACLU may not like Gitmo, international law requires that the Red Cross be the NGO that monitors POW camps and they don’t have a problem with Gitmo.
I will say that I don’t agree with them not being allowed to attend their own tribunals. They should be given enough rope and allowed to hang themselves.
Seeing as we are providing them with attornies, I would have to believe we aren’t exactly abusing them.
I say we should have them judges impeached and removed from the bench we dont need these idiots:mad:
For shame, the 5 judicial Leftist activists that voted in the majority. They are 100% WRONG, and I don’t give a damn how educated or brilliant anyone thinks they are. FAO (#2) is RIGHT, they are WRONG.
The Geneva Convention, in part what they 5 fools based their ruling on, SPECIFICALLY excludes non-uniformed combatants, and those that are not part of an organized military of a signator Nation.
Last I checked, the vermin at Gitmo fail all three of those parameters!
This just shows how far off course our judicial system has gone and how if it isn’t fixed, there isn’t much future for this “American experiment”.
Emotionally, I’d like to see Bush do the Andrew Jackson thing: “You made your ruling, now let’s see you enforce it” and tell the SCOTUS to ESAD. But that is a very bad precedent. What needs to be done is 1) Emergency legislation authorizing tribunals, 2) Clear the Leftist whackjobs out of the Courts, starting with the SC. Then the Ninth Circle-Jerk Court of Schlemiels. Then we won’t need legislation to correct the obviously wrong.
ANYONE who thinks this decision is proper or good is mentally ill. Sorry, but that’s a fact.
Post #1: WRONGEST opinion of the week? Month? Year? How about a poll on it?
Yeah. Wrong opinion, huh?
Ummm…you’re smarter than the SCOTUS?
sure you are.
Yes. The average American, with common sense and who served in the military understands the terms of the Geneva Convention, is apparently smarter than the 5 morons on the SCOTUS. Either that, or those 5 have ruled according to their personal political agenda instead of reading the Geneva Convention and using commonn sense. It is one of the two. Take your pick.
Now just tell us that the terms of the Geneva Convention covers non-uniformed combatants, who are not part of any organized military, and are not from a Nation that has signed the Geneva Convention. Just try to somehow tell us that. We’re waiting…
And also try to convince us that said vermin should somehow be accorded the rights of U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution?
If you can do the above two, then the SCOTUS 5 (Scrotal 5) are right. If you can’t, then they, and you, are WRONG.
And when you’re finished with that, try and make the argument that these vermin should be given free legal defense in U.S. Courts. It took us years and millions of dollars just to try Mousawi (sp). You mean we should spend years and millions on each of these vermin? I say better to take them out and shoot them tomorrow (as allowed by the Genenva Convention).
We’re waiting, Liberal Man. Give it your best try. This should be good…
As for the Geneva Conventions, I want someone to show me where in the Constitution it allows the Scotus to use international law to determine cases? Look really hard because it isn’t in there. Likewise, Congress revoked the federal court’s ability to even hear any cases concerning the Gitmo detainees after the last bad Scotus decision, but the court ruled that the law that Congress passed didn’t apply to this case because it was filed before the law was passed. All told, the congress is simply going to pass another law restoring (not giving, the President has the power under the Constitution) the executive power to fight this war and hold these detainees indefinitely. Personally, I think Gitmo is getting overcrowded and there is some wonderful shark fishing off the Cuban coast. To hell with shipping them back for a proper burial, shoot them in the head and feed them to the fishes.
Well I see SFL is nowhere to be found. He can’t answer WOSG because he knows that every one of the points in the WOSG post is correct.
The 5 SC klowns in the majority are flat wrong. They are yet another example of the corruption of the SC with ideology.
San Fran Liberal: See post #10.We’re still waiting…
SF Liberal has no response. He’s quick on the draw with an opinion, but can’t back it up.