Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantanamo

[RickSp]

Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantanamo

The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that the military tribunals it created to try terror suspects violate both American military law and the Geneva Convention. In a 5-to-3 ruling, the justices also rejected an effort by Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. And the court found that the plaintiff in the case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, could not be tried on the conspiracy charge lodged against him because international military law requires that prosecutions focus on specific acts, not broad conspiracy charges. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens declared flatly that "the military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedure violate" both the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the American military's legal system, and the Geneva Convention. Justice Stevens rejected the administration's claims that the tribunals were justified both by President Bush's inherent powers as commander in chief and by the resolution passed by Congress authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11. There is nothing in the resolution's legislative history "even hinting" that such an expansion of the president's powers was considered, he wrote.

Amazing - the Supreme Court reminded the war criminal in the White House that he is, in fact, not emperor and that the most ancient of all rights, habeas corpus, still trumps his whims. A good day for the republic, which has had very few good days in recent years.

[underbear1]

I just read on Raw Story this ruling may also undermine the NSA spying..........HA!

Alberto Gonzales..........f*cktard, you got EVERYTHING WRONG! Where'd you get your law degree some Tijuana boom boom room?

[bishop]

scary to see how bush's hand-picked fascists voted though...

too bad the majority justices here can't outlive those dissenters.

[Zeebadee]

No doubt we'll soon see a new Executive Order that "reverses" this ruling. That will make Mr V happy again.

[Apeman81]

I’m not so sure that treating foreign terrorist like domestic criminals is such a great idea.

Are POWs treated as domestic criminals? With speedy trials and rights to face accusers? Yes; If they are charged with a crime. But they can be held as POWs for the duration of the war without trial and tried for any crimes afterward.

Should that not be the case for these Prisoners, detained in a time of war? Are these people deserving of greater rights than our soldiers? A captured American soldier can be detained without trial for the duration (if he’s not tortured, decapitated, castrated, mutilated and left in the streets to be found).

Why does the enemy deserve better than our troops?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Apeman81 ...duration of the war...a time of war... Why does the enemy deserve better than our troops?

Is there a war?

[underbear1]

There's limits on presidential powers................who knew?
not Gonzales!

[dreamer]

I see, that's why its getting bad in the middle east, because whats happening at home is caching up fast.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 Are POWs treated as domestic criminals? With speedy trials and rights to face accusers? Yes; If they are charged with a crime. But they can be held as POWs for the duration of the war without trial and tried for any crimes afterward.

bush says they are not POW's.

[bishop]

yup.. they're "enemy combatants" who have the right to be tortured.

[Apeman81]

“Is there a war?”

“bush says they are not POW's.”

“yup.. they're "enemy combatants" who have the right to be tortured”

Ah, I see. Too much shoulder clapping because “we stopped Bush” for intelligent debate.

Moving on then.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 Are POWs treated as domestic criminals? With speedy trials and rights to face accusers? Yes; If they are charged with a crime. But they can be held as POWs for the duration of the war without trial and tried for any crimes afterward.

You want debate? Then try putting forward something with substance in it.

If they are POW's then they have certain rights accorded them by the Geneva Accords. bush doesn't want them to have these rights, so he doesn't classify them as POW's.

If they are criminals, they have the right to be charged and tried as criminals. bush also doesn't want them to have these rights, so they're not criminals either.

bush wants the right to just lock people up, never presenting any evidence that they've done anything wrong, with no legal rights at all, for as long as he wants, no questions asked. No one, bush included, should be allowed to lock people up for whatever whim without some legal oversight. While we have GI's fighting and dying in Iraq to "bring them democracy", bush is violating at Guantanamo and other places the very ideals he professes to honor so much. The fact tha the claims to be doing it for our own good doesn't sway me in the least, given his track record for lying and hypocrisy.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Moving on then.

Just as well. The "our enemies are monsters and we should be as inhumane as they are is" line is as offensive as it is counterproductive. Interesting that you are so offended by the basic right of habeas corpus, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremburg Principles.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Zeebadee You want debate? Then try putting forward something with substance in it. If they are POW's then they have certain rights accorded them by the Geneva Accords. bush doesn't want them to have these rights, so he doesn't classify them as POW's. If they are criminals, they have the right to be charged and tried as criminals. bush also doesn't want them to have these rights, so they're not criminals either. bush wants the right to just lock people up, never presenting any evidence that they've done anything wrong, with no legal rights at all, for as long as he wants, no questions asked. No one, bush included, should be allowed to lock people up for whatever whim without some legal oversight. While we have GI's fighting and dying in Iraq to "bring them democracy", bush is violating at Guantanamo and other places the very ideals he professes to honor so much. The fact tha the claims to be doing it for our own good doesn't sway me in the least, given his track record for lying and hypocrisy.

Bush SHOULD NOT call the detainees POWs. Because they are not. From the GA

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
_______________________________________________________________________
The detainees do not meet the requirements to be POWs. Fairly simple.
However, from the 1977 Protocols

Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war
This is the most controversial section of Protocol I. More specifically the paragraphs 3 through to 5. It is the primary cause for US administrations not adopt this protocol.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
________________________________________________________________________
Hence, to make it easy to follow, I use the name they do not deserve, as their treatment is similar.
And they can be held for the duration of the hostilities, no trial, no charges. And hopefully they will be.

[RickSp]

So you are basically arguing that the Bush administration is not violating the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court obviously is saying that you are wrong.

Once upon a time, America stood for something more than brutality. Washington established as policy that all British prisoners would be treated humanely regardless of the abuses committed by the British against Americans. A 230 year old tradition of humanity trashed by the Bush administration. The Bushbots must be so pround, finally putting that wimp George Washington in his place.

If we match barbarism with torture, murder with "collateral damage" where woman and children are blown away with a backhanded slur that it was "their own damn fault," then the difference between ourselves and our enemies gets pretty damn small.

[Apeman81]

"So you are basically arguing that the Bush administration is not violating the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court obviously is saying that you are wrong."

The USSC has adjudicated that the detainees, should they be tried for certain
criminal acts not directly related to combat operation, cannot be tried by military tribunal, but rather by a civilian court. The USSC has made NO statement about violation of the GA in relation to this case. Your interpretation of the case highlighted in this thread is flawed.

"Once upon a time, America stood for something more than brutality. Washington established as policy that all British prisoners would be treated humanely regardless of the abuses committed by the British against Americans. A 230 year old tradition of humanity trashed by the Bush administration. The Bushbots must be so pround, finally putting that wimp George Washington in his place."

The treatment of the detainees by American Forces are not only arguably within the limitations of the GA (no one has proven otherwise, nor has a serious protest been so adjudicated) but are closer to the intent of the GA than has been accorded by any other combatant nation in the last 100 years. Certainly better than how the enemy treats just about anyone they can get their hands on.

Stop the blind bush bashing bullshit and think before you spew.

"If we match barbarism with torture, murder with "collateral damage" where woman and children are blown away with a backhanded slur that it was "their own damn fault," then the difference between ourselves and our enemies gets pretty damn small."

It always the same tired line of "we shouldn't act like them", all or nothing, bilious swill.
No one is advocating decapitation of living captives. No one is advocating castrating the enemy.

As for collateral damage, try telling the shitbags to stop hiding behind women’s skirts to carry out their attacks. Have them put on a uniform and come and fight. Better yet, tell the foreign led scum to stop fighting for the right to maintain a repressive terror driven regime and go the hell home and rethink their perverted view of religion.

[Scribbler1]

It seems apparent that if the court shoots down a few more Bush EOs and he won't be able to use the "...in time of war" or "Congress gave me the authority to..." blanket excuses for everything anymore. The upshot of this may be he is forced to THINK about what he does before he does it.

"Will this pass the Supreme Court?" might be asked a lot more from now on.

[rmnunez]

THERE IS DUE PROCESS FOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES!

By a 5-3 vote it was held trials of the suspects violated US law and the Geneva Conventions. Those trials were the ad-hoc Military Tribunals used to determine whether specific suspects were covered by those Conventions. The Court’s holding sounds pretty clear to me, but there have to be efforts to mitigate its effects.

Bush has already said it doesn’t mean they’re releasing the detainees and we can expect he will now seek legislation to proceed lawfully. In the short term future captures probably will be held secretly and offshore until appropriate legislation can be implemented. White House counsel says they are just now trying to figure out how to design military tribunals that would pass muster under the decision.

The Court found that the Military Tribunals had to comply with due process requirements derived from the Constitution and Geneva Conventions absent express authorization from Congress. It was also held the Supreme Court would retain jurisdiction for appeals.

J. Stevens, delivered the opinion of the majority finding that the Bush administration lacked the authority to take the "extraordinary measure" of scheduling special military trials for inmates, in which defendants have fewer legal protections than in civilian US courts. This indicates the distinction based on nationality is not applicable, therefore the same proceedings seen for US citizens charged as terrorists would be applicable, pending legislation for these detainees from Congress.

I wonder how this will play politically on the eve of elections, presumably none of these legislators wants to appear too defensive of Guantanamo detainee rights, but they must be sallivating at the prospect of citing that their nemesis "exceeded his authority" language.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 The USSC has made NO statement about violation of the GA in relation to this case. Your interpretation of the case highlighted in this thread is flawed.

Nope you have it exactly wrong. Read the ruling. See for yourself. It specifically cites violations of the Geneva Convention. HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al

The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan's challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a "conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum," certain provisions protecting "[p]ersons ... placed hors de combat by ... detention," including a prohibition on "the passing of sentences ... without previous judgment ... by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees ... recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The phrase "all the guarantees ... recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him.

And the ruling goes on. So do you still claim that "USSC has made NO statement about violation of the GA in relation to this case."

The treatment of the detainees by American Forces are not only arguably within the limitations of the GA (no one has proven otherwise, nor has a serious protest been so adjudicated) but are closer to the intent of the GA than has been accorded by any other combatant nation in the last 100 years. Certainly better than how the enemy treats just about anyone they can get their hands on. Stop the blind bush bashing bullshit and think before you spew.

Wrong again, Ape. Speaking of bilious bile. Somehow I doubt that beating prisoners to death or waterboarding is even close to "the intent of the GA".

Quote by: ape It always the same tired line of "we shouldn't act like them", all or nothing, bilious swill. No one is advocating decapitation of living captives. No one is advocating castrating the enemy. As for collateral damage, try telling the shitbags to stop hiding behind women’s skirts to carry out their attacks. Have them put on a uniform and come and fight. Better yet, tell the foreign led scum to stop fighting for the right to maintain a repressive terror driven regime and go the hell home and rethink their perverted view of religion.

Even I don't think you are that stupid. You think that insurgents fighting very successfully in a guerilla war should put on uniforms and line up so that we can shoot them. Sure. Right. That'll happen right after they find Jesus.

And you seem so happy to look the other way when families die in a hail of machine gun fire at a checkpoint or when their house is blown away by JDAM. You seem to be claiming that is their own damn fault for living in the country that your criminal president/emperor chose to invade. America should stand for something more than barbarism.

[underbear1]

Alberto Gonzales...........whispers in Bush's ear, you can do any damn thing you want, and I'll twist the laws and cover for your excesses....Lord Tyrant