Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo

5-3 ruling says military trials would violate U.S. law, Geneva conventions.
And guess who were the justices that were in the minority. You’ve got 3 guesses & the first two don’t count.

It’s a good day for the Constitution of the US!!!

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
WASHINGTON - 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 international Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. 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.


There goes those silly ideas that “It’s good to be the King” and the unitary executive theory. D’oh!!!

Nope - Bush will find ways to get around this ruling. He’s done that every time.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 29 2006,11:49)
Nope - Bush will find ways to get around this ruling. He's done that every time.

And when exactly has he found a way to get around a Supreme Court ruling??

Give 'em time, mate.

Quote (phoo @ June 29 2006,12:35)
Give 'em time, mate.

Who, Toker or Bush??

Dudes, there’s a Australian in Guantanamo Bay who’s been there just as long - no trial yet, dual citizenship in Britain and Australia, but no one wants him, so he’s stuck there awaiting a trial in a court with no jury of peers, no unbiased judge and no hope of a fair trial and no course of appeal.

It’s a farce, and anyone agreeing that it’s a constitutional setup is a fool.
http://www.theage.com.au/article…torylhs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

I don’t particularly care if he’s guilty or not - he’s probably no saint - but ffs, get on with the trial. Guantanamo Bay is an icon for everything GWB stands for and his methods of operation. He’s not even keeping the terrorists on US soil!

Willy.

Quote (Willy @ June 29 2006,12:50)
Dudes, there's a Australian in Guantanamo Bay who's been there just as long - no trial yet, dual citizenship in Britain and Australia, but no one wants him, so he's stuck there awaiting a trial in a court with no jury of peers, no unbiased judge and no hope of a fair trial and no course of appeal.

It's a farce, and anyone agreeing that it's a constitutional setup is a fool.
http://www.theage.com.au/article....torylhs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

I don't particularly care if he's guilty or not - he's probably no saint - but ffs, get on with the trial. Guantanamo Bay is an icon for everything GWB stands for and his methods of operation. He's not even keeping the terrorists on US soil!

Willy.

Re-read your last sentence. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why that is the case.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
He’s not even keeping the terrorists on US soil!


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Re-read your last sentence. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out why that is the case.


Shouldn’t that be “suspected terrorist”?

Or are you a big fan of conviction without legal trial ksdb?

It’s a good thought though…think of all the time and money we’d save on the legal process…all it’d take is for someone to suspect that someone else has done something wrong; then just tell the cops to go in and waste the suspect…a lot cheaper, just half a gallon of gas for the squad car and the cost of a couple of rounds of 38.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,16:09)

Shouldn’t that be “suspected terrorist”?

That’s a good question that you should address to the original author.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,16:09)
Or are you a big fan of conviction without legal trial ksdb?

No, but perhaps you can tell us who specifically has been convicted without a trial.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,16:09)

It’s a good thought though…think of all the time and money we’d save on the legal process…all it’d take is for someone to suspect that someone else has done something wrong; then just tell the cops to go in and waste the suspect…a lot cheaper, just half a gallon of gas for the squad car and the cost of a couple of rounds of 38.

Cops have used lethal force in many situations. Real life is tough. Enemy combatants detained from battlefields in other countries do not have inherent rights granted to American citizens. They are not merely “suspects.”

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
No, but perhaps you can tell us who specifically has been convicted without a trial.


Read my post again ksdb, I said legal trial, and it’s the Supreme Court that have said the trials on Gitmo are illegal.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Enemy combatants detained from battlefields in other countries do not have inherent rights granted to American citizens. They are not merely “suspects.”


That statement is so full of shit that it’s not worth replying to.

But tell me ksdb; in our War on Terror, if we’re prepared to violate the Constitution, ignore the law, then what exactly are we fighting for? ???

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,16:26)


Read my post again ksdb, I said legal trial, and it’s the Supreme Court that have said the trials on Gitmo are illegal.

No need to restate the obvious. You didn’t answer my question. Who has been convicted??

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,16:26)


That statement is so full of shit that it’s not worth replying to.

Nonsense.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,16:26)
But tell me ksdb; in our War on Terror, if we’re prepared to violate the Constitution, ignore the law, then what exactly are we fighting for? ???

How has the constitution been violated?? You’re using a lot scary rhetoric, but it’s not factually supported.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Quote (ksdb @ June 29 2006,11:56)

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 29 2006,11:49)

Nope - Bush will find ways to get around this ruling. He’s done that every time.

And when exactly has he found a way to get around a Supreme Court ruling??

Quote (ksdb @ June 29 2006,12:37)

Quote (phoo @ June 29 2006,12:35)

Give 'em time, mate.

Who, Toker or Bush??


Is it really that hard to keep track of what we are talking about, ksdb?

You so full of it ksdb! :laugh:

American and foreign nationals have been imprisoned without recourse to law. And that is the whole point. Legal trials have not been carried out, but people have still been imprisoned and tortured.

Violations of international law at Gitmo:

2003: International court at the Hague rules that the USA is in violation of the Geneva Convention and other international laws at Gitmo.

The White House ignores the ruling.

2004: The supreme EU court rules that the USA is in violation of the Geneva Convention and in violation of laws between NATO members and treaties between its EU allies, and is illegally holding EU citizens.

The White House ignores the ruling.

2006: The Supreme Court rules that the White House is in violation of US and international laws.

Wanna take any bets?

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,17:02)
You so full of it ksdb! :laugh:

Right, another typical comment of the rhetorically bereft.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,17:02)
American and foreign nationals have been imprisoned without recourse to law. And that is the whole point.

No, earlier you mentioned something about convictions and have shown none.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,17:02)
Legal trials have not been carried out, but people have still been imprisoned and tortured.

Torture is unacceptable, but taking prisoners of war during a conflict without trials is not unusual or illegal. After a conflict is over and treaties have been signed, prisoners are then released.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,17:02)

Violations of international law at Gitmo:

2003: International court at the Hague rules that the USA is in violation of the Geneva Convention and other international laws at Gitmo.

The White House ignores the ruling.

What jurisdiction does the International court have??

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,17:02)
2004: The supreme EU court rules that the USA is in violation of the Geneva Convention and in violation of laws between NATO members and treaties between its EU allies, and is illegally holding EU citizens.

The White House ignores the ruling.

Again, show how the WH is directly under the jurisdiction of the Supreme EU Court.

Quote (Gizmo @ June 29 2006,17:02)
2006: The Supreme Court rules that the White House is in violation of US and international laws.

Wanna take any bets?

Bets about what?? These prisoners were not released. They will still have to go through a trial or tribunal, depending on the authorization given by Congress.
Quote (phoo @ June 29 2006,17:00)

Quote (ksdb @ June 29 2006,11:56)

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 29 2006,11:49)

Nope - Bush will find ways to get around this ruling. He's done that every time.

And when exactly has he found a way to get around a Supreme Court ruling??

Quote (ksdb @ June 29 2006,12:37)

Quote (phoo @ June 29 2006,12:35)

Give 'em time, mate.

Who, Toker or Bush??


Is it really that hard to keep track of what we are talking about, ksdb?
Now you have to question how I structure posts?? And you wonder why I don't consider you to be friendly??

Simpler…

phoo: Give 'em time, mate.
ksdb: Who, Toker or Bush?
phoo: Bush.

I’m not question how you structure posts. I’m question why you couldn’t infer that my comment was directly related to Bush since the VERY LINE BEFORE that you made was DIRECTLY related to the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Quote (phoo @ June 29 2006,17:30)
Simpler.....

phoo: Give 'em time, mate.
ksdb: Who, Toker or Bush?
phoo: Bush.

I'm not question how you structure posts. I'm question why you couldn't infer that my comment was directly related to Bush since the VERY LINE BEFORE that you made was DIRECTLY related to the Supreme Court's rulings.

Your comment was extremely vague and made as much sense with either Bush or Toker inserted. I'm not going to assume what you meant to say. See, that's called courtesy.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Torture is unacceptable, but taking prisoners of war during a conflict without trials is not unusual or illegal.

If it’s unacceptable, then I assume that you think that Bush should stop using water-boarding. A simple yes or no will suffice.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
phoo: Give 'em time, mate.
ksdb: Who, Toker or Bush?
phoo: Bush.

I understood what phoo was saying. Must be some liberal 6th sense - huh?