Supreme Court Rules Bush Overstepped Authority RE: Guantanamo Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was great listening to Fox News this morning, so many callers were calling up to complain about that liberal controlled Supreme Court, as if they'd forgotten about Alito and Roberts. And the host was right there with them agreeing. How quickly we forget.
 
US President George Bush has refused to rule out military tribunals for inmates at Guantanamo Bay detention centre. His administration was dealt a blow on Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled it had overstepped its authority in setting up the tribunals.

But Republican senators immediately began planning how to win congressional approval for new tribunals. The ruling came in response to a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal, but demanded to be tried by a civilian tribunal or court martial, where proceedings would be more open and defendants would have greater access to the evidence against them and greater opportunity to confront their accusers.

His lawyer said he was "awe-struck" at the court's ruling. The Cuba-based facility currently holds about 460 inmates, mostly without charge, whom the US suspects of links to al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

In its ruling, the court said military tribunals contravened both the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners, and the US code of military justice. It also ruled that the tribunals were not expressly authorised by any congressional act, and there was no "sweeping mandate for the president to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary".

But the ruling does not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo, and it does hold out the possibility of coming up with another way of trying those held. President Bush promised to take the findings of the court "very seriously" when he spoke to reporters shortly after the ruling on Thursday. But he signalled he might seek congressional approval to resurrect the tribunals.

"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.

And within minutes of the court ruling, reports the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington, a small group of Republican senators were working the phones trying to sort out the mess. A former military lawyer who is leading these efforts to salvage the tribunal system, Senator Lindsey Graham, predicted that the Senate would begin work on ideas for new tribunals within weeks and vote on the plan in September.

Meanwhile, Sen Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who chairs the powerful judiciary committee, introduced an "Unprivileged Combatant Act" which would, he said, balance "the need for national security with the need to afford detainees with sufficient due process".

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow underlined the administration's resistance to abandoning the special courts. Nobody gets a 'get out of jail free' card," he said. "The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

Mr Hamdan had success in his first legal outing, in the US District Court in Washington, which ruled that he could not face a military trial unless he had previously been found not to be a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

He claims POW status, but like all camp prisoners, he is denied this and is instead designated an "unlawful combatant" by the Bush administration. However, an appeal court reversed this decision and said Mr Bush had the authority to order the trials.

This latest decision was welcomed by human rights groups, lawyers for inmates and some politicians including senior Democrat Senator Carl Levin. "The Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its vital constitutional role as a check and balance on the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government," he said in a statement. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5131812.stm
 
Lo-Volt said:
At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow underlined the administration's resistance to abandoning the special courts. Nobody gets a 'get out of jail' card," he said.

Fixed.
 
Once again, Scalia argues from pragmatism ("They'll ALL want to file habeas corpus, and the courts will be ever so busy sorting things out!"), and everyone votes the way you'd expect.
Dr_Cogent said:
And if you people think that these guys are just some hapless victims who happened to be walking down the street and picked up by accident and they are completely innocent, then you are totally clueless. There are many dangerous people in there that would love nothing more than to kill you and your entire family and basically anyone who doesn't believe in their agenda. We aren't talking about shop lifters here.
Over 200 prisoners have been released from Guantanamo Bay. One of the three recent suicide cases was going to be released; nobody told him.

So either many people are being detained who shouldn't be detained, or the US is releasing a bunch of terrorists. Gee, if only there were some way to convene some kind of court, where evidence would be presented to determine someone's guilt...

This is basically the argument you're making: "I trust the people in charge of the government so much, that they can arrest whomever they want, regardless of location or citizenship, and not have to provide any evidence that this person has done anything wrong."

Do you really want to sign on to that statement?



Even if they're not lawful or regular combatants, the Fourth Geneva Convention says they have to have "regular" trials, and be "treated with humanity," which probably rules out waterboarding.

Even if they're not a signatory, there are parts of the GC that apply specifically to signatories, and some that apply to all cases, including non-signatories. There's some talk of having a one-sided contract with Al Qaeda, but that's a pretty shoddy moral argument, besides not being legally true.
 
Mandark said:
Once again, Scalia argues from pragmatism ("They'll ALL want to file habeas corpus, and the courts will be ever so busy sorting things out!"), and everyone votes the way you'd expect.Over 200 prisoners have been released from Guantanamo Bay. One of the three recent suicide cases was going to be released; nobody told him.

So either many people are being detained who shouldn't be detained, or the US is releasing a bunch of terrorists. Gee, if only there were some way to convene some kind of court, where evidence would be presented to determine someone's guilt...

This is basically the argument you're making: "I trust the people in charge of the government so much, that they can arrest whomever they want, regardless of location or citizenship, and not have to provide any evidence that this person has done anything wrong."

Do you really want to sign on to that statement?



Even if they're not lawful or regular combatants, the Fourth Geneva Convention says they have to have "regular" trials, and be "treated with humanity," which probably rules out waterboarding.

Even if they're not a signatory, there are parts of the GC that apply specifically to signatories, and some that apply to all cases, including non-signatories. There's some talk of having a one-sided contract with Al Qaeda, but that's a pretty shoddy moral argument, besides not being legally true.

That anyone at this point trusts what this Administration has to say about anything is more a mystery to me than even the irrational fear Dr. Cogent displayed. I notice how this is all being played in the media as a "rebuke to Bush" instead of say, a victory for the rule of law. Can't go on and piss off the King!
 
Trapped on a plane for most of yesterday, I found out about this via Fox News, as JetBlue doesn't carry anything CNN related except Headline News. I'm glad that was the case, though, because watching John Gibson's head spin over this was more entertaining than anything else I could've wished to have been on at the time.

ANYWAY...
I'm glad this decision fell the way it did for very pragmatic reasons:

1) I find it reprehensible that we go around the world screaming "FREEDOM!" and "DEMOCRACY!" yet have no issues with holding people in detention for an indefinite amount of time, never filing charges, and just generally letting them rot. If they're full-blown terrorists, try them; if they're not, let them go. It seems pretty simple to me, and the government's hemming and hawing on that simple logic alone would be funny if the repercussions weren't so serious.

2) President Bush sorely needs a reality check. Just because Congress passed a resolution allowing him to use force to fight terrorism doesn't mean he has the power to do as he pleases (e.g., signing statements), when he pleases (Only 10 of Gitmo's prisoners have been brought to trial so far), and how he pleases (Government spying on U.S. citizens). Those that support that philosophy, if I may be frank, don't deserve to be a citizen of the United States.

bob_arctor said:
I notice how this is all being played in the media as a "rebuke to Bush" instead of say, a victory for the rule of law. Can't go on and piss off the King!

I don't have all of the details, but I think this case also involved a related decision regarding a quietly-passed law that said that the court system - certainly the Supreme Court - couldn't even examine issues regarding Gitmo (or something.) In that respect, it was most definitely a rebuke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom