Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Trials

Actually this will do very little to the future of Gitmo.

I don't follow... this is good because they can no longer be put on war trials at Gitmo?

No, its good news because they're finally telling Bush that he cannot illegally hold detainees at Gitmo, which is not only against US law, but also against the Geneva Convention.

Only 1 prisoner at Gitmo has been charged - when do you think the other's are going to be charged, much less get trials? You need to read the article.

Actually, that is not what this recent case involved. They only said that he can not put them on a military trial for war crimes. Having said that, I agree. But please everyone, tell me that Bush didn't actually say this:

"I'd like to close Guantanamo." But he added, "I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous."

He didn't say that? Did he? Naw, Please, say it isn't true. Bush is a parody of himself.

Only 1 prisoner at Gitmo has been charged

Well, Reuters says:

Ten detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before the tribunals, and prosecutors have said they will charge as many as 25 more if the court rules in favor of the commissions.

A bit of an exaggeration on your part or Reuters?

A bit of an exaggeration on your part or Reuters?

My mistake - that was my own messup. An article I read was way outdated.

Still, ten out of nearly 500 - the difference isn't much better.

Supreme Court Ruled that Trying This Detainee By Military Tribunal Not Allowed Under US Law

Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order. Located within a single branch, these courts carry the risk that offenses will be defined, prosecuted, and adjudicated by executive officials without independent review. Cf. Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 756-758, 760 (1996). Concentration of power puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid. It is imperative, then, that when military tribunals are established, full and proper authority exists for the Presidential directive....

In light of the conclusion that the military commission here is unauthorized under the UCMJ, I see no need to consider several further issues addressed in the plurality opinion by Justice Stevens and the dissent by Justice Thomas. - Justice Kennedy

The good news is that the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law and held that the President is not above the law. The bad news is that 3 Justices appear to believe that the President is above the law when it comes to the war on terror and that the Chief Justice probably would have joined them if he hadnt recused himself.

Actually -
They are saying that the Special Tribunals are illegal. This does not stop them from using regular Courts Martial , or the Federal Criminal Courts we already have in place. The Danger in these type of activities that the Administration has been doing - is not what they are trying to tell the public. This does not mean there cannot be trials. Only the Secret kind.

One of the major issues that was that the government was secretly taking people into custody - denying them all the rights afforded to criminal suspects and then trying to set up secret trials, which there were no appeals from.

The danger is that we have set up rules to protect people who are charged with crimes. And the President was trying to circumvent these. All the detainees were not terrorists. Many American Citizens were rounded up and held with out lawyers or formal charges.

This is not about letting terrorists go free. Its about believing in our system of Justice - and making sure that the President doesn't just " round up people" that they don't want around and hold them in a dark cell indefinitely.

This was one of the major issues at the time of the Revolutionary war. This is why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution address these issues. We believe that there needs to be a rule of law - not a rule of individual men. And these protections are in place to protect all of us.

If someone commits a crime - then put them on trial, with the right to attorney's and all the other access that a suspect gets. Innocent until proved guilty - is a powerful and necessary idea in a free society.

It's nice to see that the Supreme's got it right.

They can't use UCMJ or regular civil channels.

For virtually all of these detainees, the only reasoning for holding them is "conspiracy". Military courts don't really recognize conspiracy as a charge, since they work under the assumption that your enemy is almost certainly conspiring against you. As the enemy, it's what he does.

And of course in a civil trial there's all sorts of thing that could (and probably would) go wrong for the Bush administration. In the hands of a good lawyer, it would be really ugly.

The only court they want is a kangaroo court.

Your understanding of civics is flawed. The Department of Justice is led by the Attorney General who is a member of the Executive, not Judicial branch. The Chief of the Executive is the President, so by rebuking the DOJ, the Court is specifically rebuking the President, who directed the DOJ to pursue these illegal* trials.

*Yes, illegal. Now that the Court has ruled them as such, that is precisely what they are unless an Amendment is passed to the Constitution specifically allowing them. There is no further appeal. The tribunals as constituted are unconstitutional.

The Decision Was the President's Decision: The Supreme Court has ruled that decision was illegal.

Adepic Acid is correct. In addition, I will add that the decision to pursue this was a decision made by the President and his political appointees. The policy struck down is Bush's policy. Furthermore, this policy was developed by the White House and the Pentagon.

From the Syllabus of the Decision:

Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes. While the syllabus isnt part of the holding, the opinions of both of the majority and dissenting opinins recognize this was the Presidents decision.

Read the opinion and you will see clearly that the Presidents decision was found unlawful.

Hehe... I think you misunderstood the point of my original post. But rather than getting into a yelling match about what I felt my post implied - but did not say - i'll just leave it at saying... you're right.

I, for one, thought your use of acronyms was absolutely brilliant ;-)

Hehe... I think you misunderstood the point of my original post. But rather than getting into a yelling match about what I felt my post implied - but did not say - i'll just leave it at saying... you're right.

I dont want to yell, but I guess it depends on your perspective since in my opinion the Supreme Court holding the President accountable to following the law is the most important part of the case. Congress can change the law and allow this to go forward under this holding although it could be subject to further challenge.

I also think its worth noting that the DOJ (Department of Justice) had nothing to do with prosecuting this case nor have they been blocked. It was the DOD (Deparment of Defense) that was blocked from carrying out the Presidents unlawful order. This was a mililtary tribunal. Its not an accident that the first named defendant in the case is Secretary Rumsfeld and not AG Gonzales.

The full case name:

Lieutenant Commander CHARLES SWIFT,
as next friend for SALIM AHMED HAMDAN,
Petitioner,
v.
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, United States Secretary of Defense;
JOHN D. ALTENBURG, Appointing Authority for Military Commissions,
Department of Defense; Brigadier General THOMAS L. HEMINGWAY,
Legal Advisor to the Appointing Authority for Military Commissions;
Brigadier General JAY HOOD, Commander Joint Task Force, Guantanamo, Camp Echo,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States,

i'll just leave it at saying... you're right.

Now seeing that the headline has changed (thank you AP!), I guess... this thread is meaningless :)

Now seeing that the headline has changed

Apparently you werent the only one who comlained. I still think the first one was perfectly fine, but the new one works too.

I suspect we have a tiny influence on shaping the news. Now it's called "Supreme Court Blocks Guantamano Trials". It kind of makes you mad, but, after all, it's just us chickens who get steamed up about these discussion threads. Maybe the AP changes the name when a story "has legs" because it tends to make the news consumers take another look.

What was it before?

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

It's about time government had an enema.

Perhaps, oh, protecting the 4th amendment?

Will other instances of "presidential authority" be questioned?

I certainly hope so. This is the entire point of checks and balances. Being in a war doesn't suddenly mean limitless power for one branch.

Can Bush just add a "signing statement" and decide when he feels this decision is in his interest to uphold?

depends on how tight the crown is that day.

paperdragon -

Hopefully many , many more actions of the president will be questioned.

I for one am not a big fan of an imperial leader - who decides what's best for us in a vacuum of secrecy. I don't think this man - or many of the others who have been President- has the intelligence, wisdom and best interests of all citizens in mind when making high minded proclamations from the top of the hill.

Following the president blindly is just as bad as following any leader or cult figure, without making up your own mind about things.

I am so glad that finally, people are not walking around totally freaked out and scared about every little thing and are starting to realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I don't believe Roberts would recuse himself THAT many times.

What is stupid about stopping illegal war trials where one country gets to act as judge, jury, and executioner on people who were born thousands of miles outside of our borders?

Yeah. Bad news for the War on Terror. Good News for Humans.

They never said these guys couldnt be tried, they just have to follow the rule of law. How is this bad news?

Because we cant hold people forever without a trial? because we need a real trial and not a tribune?

This is definitely bad news for our fight in the war on terror. I hope the congress will act and inact legislation that will revoke this stupid ruling.

Does someone need to pull the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention for you? How about the contitution?

War does not put a country above the law.

I did not say they did not deserve a trial I just think they should be tried in front of a military tribunal. Lindsey Graham just said he and John Kyl will make that happen. These terrorist don't deserve the same protections that we give to traditional criminals. This war is like no other we have waged and it has be handled differently.

CompMike, they can't. There are only 3 ways to change a Supreme Court ruling on Constitutionality.

1) A new Supreme Court ruling

2) An amendment to the Constitution.

3) Revolution

This is a very good thing, this backs down a President bent on consistently and arbitrarily changing the balance of power between our three branches of government, removing checks and balances between the branches and hiding behind the cloak of national security.

These terrorist don't deserve the same protections that we give to traditional criminals. This war is like no other we have waged and it has be handled differently.

As far as that is concerned, I won't comment on whether they deserve the protections, however the basis of our system of jurisprudence says they are entitled to them. We cannot chance the assumption of innocence and the idea of equal protection under the law with out endangering every principal this country stands for. These are non-negotiable ideals that make this country great, to seek to change them for any reason, especially for the expediency of the moment is a tragic mistake.

I agree with you that this is a different war than any we have ever faced before, it is a war of ideals. To undermine our own ideals, weakens us and potentially disarms us. We have to prove that our belief in the ideals set forth by our founding fathers is stronger than the terrorists belief in their god. We cannot sacrifice our ideals for an instant, that is the path to defeat, not victory

These terrorist don't deserve the same protections that we give to traditional criminals.

Correction: These alleged terrorists.

Alleged terrorists, many of whom claim they were just in the wrong place at the wrong
time and have never been charged with anything, much less tried. They are losing years
of their life on the Bush administration's suspicion that they are terrorists!

There are only 3 ways to change a Supreme Court ruling on Constitutionality.

You left out correcting the defect in the law or presidential directive. If the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not give the President certain power or privileges, Congress can pass a law giving him those power or privilege and then it's Constitutional.

Alleged terrorists, many of whom claim they were just in the wrong place at the wrong
time and have never been charged with anything, much less tried. They are losing years
of their life on the Bush administration's suspicion that they are terrorists!

Exactly. There are several accounts of people traveling who said they were detained for days to months at a time simply because they are of Arab descent, in a foreign airport, etc.

They at the very least need to charge the people they're detaining, to show to everyone that they aren't detaining people for no reason.

Most being held haven't even been informed of why they are there, on ground of (what else?) "National Security"

I know that we are the "Superior Nation", full of Superior, more worthy beings than any other country in the world - How dare the Supreme Court require us to Follow international laws or the Constitution??

We can and always have been able to try criminals and terrorists. This does not change things.

It only changes the procedure - From one that was illegal - to one that is legal. Period. We can and always have had the methods avvailable to prosecute terrorists. The President just wanted to make up his own rules - so he alone can declare what is right or wrong - like a monarch - instaed of a representative of the people.

This will not impact the war on terror in any way - Except that we wont be able to arbitrarilly decalre someone an enemy of the state and make them dissapear ( Like in the Former USSR)

Stop believeing the B.S. Rhetoric of the Right Wing - They are lying to you!!
Because if you are scared and terrified to walk out the door in the morining - they can control you in everyway and keep you from ever having any power in your life.

Uhhh . . . I'm confused . . . Democrats are the party of fear . . . Fear of the rich, fear of global warming, fear of more dead in Iraq, fear of economic ruin, fear of loss of rights (like privacy, that was lost a long time ago when Al Gore invented the Internet), the list goes on and on.

I tend to disagree -
You have characterized issues of concern as being fear mongering - and I would not say that is not the case.

Republicans would have you be afraid of anyone who is foreign, of things that are not " traditional"- that while we live in the safest country in the world - when it comes to terrorism - we must suspend our civil liberties - trust all the rulers and not question authority because these are frightening times. I have to say I am not afraid of terrorists in this country. Many countries in the world have terrorist attacks every day. We had two in the last six years and we are running around like chickens with our heads cut off.

It's right out of a science fiction novel. Not wanting more Americans to die is not about fear - but about compassion. If ou think people dying there is a good thing - enlist and go there. Economic ruin - well, the spread between the wealthy and the poor is getting so big in this country and personal debt is so high - it is something to be looked at. In the 1960's the spread between CEO's and the lowest paid worker was this: The average American CEO made 24 times what his lowest paid worker made. Today, the average CEO makes over 200 times what his lowest paid worker makes. Many People don't have health care coverage that would provide treatment with a major illness. This in the richest country in the world.

I would say there is more an empathises on "Human rights over property rights", that is in a battle between the two - people should count for more than money or things. The Global Warming issue - I don't want to go into that. It's a fact -it is occurring. Why and how and what to do about it are the issues of debate.

And the misquoted, Al Gore reference, re-worded out of context and inaccurately, is getting so old on these boards . Please, the knee jerk reactionary use of that one is getting old. Too bad it wasn't around sooner. Maybe Dan Qualye could have used an on line dictionary to learn to spell.

So, move to a socialist country. It is the possibility that you, too, might rise to such economic heights that make so many want to come and be a part of this place. Half the writers on Newsvine are foreign students here to gain an education. They don't come here because America or Americans are bad.

Besides, lighten up. I didn't say it, Al did. Possibly you would prefer I talk about the admitted felony of perjury commited by Clinton. Now, that was not only "illegal" but "criminal" and should have been punished with at least 5 years in Federal prison. Oh, I know, it was just a blow job. But, hey, he was under oath and lied. I know men who have been in prison for less. So, don't whine to me. I've seen too much.

What is being accomplished in Iraq is difficult and its way too early to judge if it has been successful. From your comments, it is apparent that there isn't anything you believe is worth fighting for. Let me ask you to look at the historical perspective. At this point following WWII, would Europeans (especially Germans or Japanese) believe their countries would ever be as robust as they are today? No, they whined that it was just awful. And, it was, for a while. But when it got better, it got WAY better than what they had known previously. That may still happen in Iraq. Smart money is not betting against it. Take Hillary for instance. She is very smart (if hopelessly corrupt) and she's not condeming the effort. Lesson to be learned there.

Take Hillary for instance.
no you can take her
world was against the war
no wmds found
was never an imminent threat
no threat of a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud
the iraqis dont want us there
the elected government barely wants us there.
MY question for you on the clinton thing, if it is proven libby lied to the grand jury, should he get five years? would you be fine with a pardon?
My morals are not partisan, i hate law breakers and corruption and even the unethical, no matter what party they belong to.
You want to help the iraqi's, let iraqi companys do most of the rebuilding. They could get assistance from companies like haliburton if they needed it, but they would be in control of the ball..and they could decide if an american embassy was more important than basic utilities.

Orwell Else

Yeah. Bad news for the War on Terror. Good News for Humans.

If it truly is bad news for the war of terror if would also follow to be bad news for the humans that are caught in their crosshairs.

If it truly is bad news for the war of terror if would also follow to be bad news for the humans that are caught in their crosshairs.

OH! You must be one of those people who think the "War On Terror" is not a sham. I've heard of you people but I wasn't sure you actually existed. Nice to meet you.

jnearen
Besides, lighten up. I didn't say it, Al did.

Actually, jnearen, he didn't. It's always helpful, however, to have someone drag out this tired canard, as it demonstrates very clearly just how capable they are of thinking for themselves and of doing a couple of minutes of research.

Possibly you would prefer I talk about the admitted felony of perjury commited by Clinton. Now, that was not only "illegal" but "criminal" and should have been punished with at least 5 years in Federal prison.

As I'm sure you know, Clinton was tried and acquitted of perjury in the Senate. Had the prosecutor still been convinced that he was guilty of something "illegal" or "criminal," criminal charges could have been brought. He wasn't. They weren't. Get over it.

BKLA pointed out the weaknesses in your diatribe about "fear," and the best you can do is to insult BKLA, tell him to move (as though it were up to you to decide who should be a citizen of your country), and then launch into a completely off topic rant about a previous President and Vice President, and follow it up with some sort of meaningless speculation about Iraq, when the topic under discussion is the "war" on "Terror?" Surely you can do better than personal attacks, insults, misdirections, and out-and-out falsehoods, jnearen. Or, maybe not.

Only a person who went with the majority can write the majority opinion, a justice in the minority also acan write a desenting opinon. He didnt appoint himself to write the opinion, that is the ways the rules are.
DO you concider the supreme court as liberal?

Roberts voted in the majority of the Appeals court that the SCOTUS upheld. There would have been no difference in the outcome if he had been involved in this case. One of the things that supposedly makes us different from the jihadists is a respect for the Rule of Law. If we wish to merely be thugs like them, then we lose a great deal of the moral justification for fighting them in the first place.

Try them in the courts. Present the evidence and if they are guilty sentence them. Last I heard, the death penalty was still an option for terrorism under federal law. Will they try to game the system for propaganda purposes? Of course. That is the price we pay for choosing civilization over tribal barbarism.

A Correction:

It appears I read too fast while going over the case files on this. Roberts did not side with the Appelant at the appeals level. The entire history of the case is available at findlaw, although in an incredibly confusing fashion. I guess you can call it a way of guaranteeing full employment for lawyers.

In any case, the outcome would have been the same whether Roberts voted or not. He recused himself for a reason and it was his decision to do so.

If people must speculate, odds are it would have been a 5-4 decision if he hadnt recused himself.

Micrastur

With a ragged 5 to 3 ruling, the courts have swooped in and told both the President and a lap-dogCongress to get in line with the Geneva convention.

They have also told the administration, if you read the decision, that they can go back to congress and pass a bill that mitigates this decision.

What you will soon see are releases of the terrorist acts committed by the detainees (this interview is a good source) for which they were detained and also terror acts committed by some of those that have been previously released. Congress will act, (with the Democrats concurence because they can't afford not to politically) and with the exception of the 130 that have been designated for release previously will be in Gitmo for a very long time.

Now they will be able to invoke this decision in courts all over the world.

Oh? Because a US Supreme Court decision affects international courts? No.

I'm no leftist and I support this decision. This is a victory for those who believe in the rule of law. We either stand for something or we are no better morally than our opposition. I do not care one whit that the jihadhis would not extend the same consideration to me: that's why we are on the correct side.

Chief Justice Roberts voted the tribunals unconstitutional before he was elevated from the appeals court, so it's going to take two votes to overturn it as he doesn't believe that laws are only to be enforced when convenient. Sorry about that, but it bears repeating. The Chief Justice, a Bush appointee, is already on the public record as agreeing that these kangaroo courts are just that and was on the record saying that prior to his confirmation.

Why are you afraid of bringing these thugs to justice in the courts? If what we are told is true, they are criminals, plain and simple. Try them. If they are guilty, punish them. That's what civilized societies do.

Now they will be able to invoke this decision in courts all over the world.

Funny how during this war, I haven't seen other countries breaking the Geneva convention or international law.

Only ours.

And like Dom Pody said - our court's decision to force our country to abide by its own laws does not affect what other countries. They signed their treaties. They do it their way.

Funny how during this war, I haven't seen other countries breaking the Geneva convention or international law.

Only ours.

Really? Iraq and Afghanistan followed the Geneva Convention?

You'll have to remind me at what point terrorists with no certain nationality became military members of those countries.

Oh, wait. You can't.

Indecent, you just hit the nail on the head, without even realizing it. The terrorists, since they are not a part of any national army, have been ignoring the Geneva Conventions. The laws of warfare obviously don't apply to them. But what this means, is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to their treatment either. I'll look it up, but I'm quite sure the Geneva Conventions states as much.

This is one of the unfortunate positions we've gotten ourselves into by declaring "war" on an idea and then treating it as though it were a _real_ war. Since these people don't live in the nation of "Terror" and don't wear "Terror" uniforms, and don't have allegiance to the President of "Terror," it becomes impossible to tell whether they should be treated as "soldiers," who have one set of rights, or "criminals," who have another, completely different set of rights. The administration has seen fit to "mix and match" depending on the particulars of the situation, and in some cases to act as though suspected terrorists don't fall into either category, and therefore have no rights. The legality of doing so, as evidenced by today's ruling, is anything but certain.

The terrorists, since they are not a part of any national army, have been ignoring the Geneva Conventions. The laws of warfare obviously don't apply to them. But what this means, is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to their treatment either. I'll look it up, but I'm quite sure the Geneva Conventions states as much.

Actually parts of the Geneva Convention only apply if both parties are signatories, but some portions apply to a signatory even if the prisoners are not.

From the Opinion:

Com-mon Article 2 provides that "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the HighContracting Parties." 6 U. S. T., at 3318 (Art. 2, ¶1). HighContracting Parties (signatories) also must abide by allterms of the Conventions vis-à-vis one another even if one party to the conflict is a nonsignatory "Power," and must so abide vis-à-vis the nonsignatory if "the latter acceptsand applies" those terms. Ibid. (Art. 2, ¶3). Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection,falling short of full protection under the Conventions, toindividuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory "Power" who are involved in a conflict "in the territory of" a signatory.

if "the latter acceptsand applies" those terms.

Operative words. Terrorists do not and have not accepted and have not and do not apply the terms of the Geneva conventions. Therefore we are not obliged to treat them according to the conventions.

As an aside, I always thought it strange that there are actually rules of warfare. It seems like such an oxymoron. War is about killing people, but hey let's play nice while we are doing it. Weird, isn't it?

Yes. Let's stoop to their level and become our enemy because they didn't ratify it.

You still forget there are US laws we are bound to. And yes, that includes the President. And yes, it includes times of war.

indecent

Now they will be able to invoke this decision in courts all over the world.

Funny how during this war, I haven't seen other countries breaking the Geneva convention or international law.

Only ours.

Missed the news out of Somolia did you?

Or the Sudan?

Or Cheznia?

Or Russia?

Or tunnel digging Palestinians?

I could go on.....

And how many of those are terrorists that we are fighting a war against? None.

Missed the news out of Somolia did you?

Or the Sudan?

Or Cheznia?

Or Russia?

Or tunnel digging Palestinians?

I could go on.....

You left out Israel.

You'll have to remind me at what point terrorists with no certain nationality became military members of those countries.

Oh, wait. You can't.

So, in your esteemed opinion, neither Saddam nor the Taliban contravened the Geneva Convention?

Confusing Article 2 protections and less protections of Article 3

Phaedrus72 writes:

if "the latter accepts and applies" those terms.

Operative words.

You need to keep reading, the operative words "accepts and applies" ONLY apply to whether or not all full protections under Article 2 will apply to non-signatories. "By contrast," the lesser protections of Article 3 apply to all individuals involved in a conflict and have no such "operative words."

Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory "Power" who are involved in a conflict "in the territory of" a signatory.

I know that the Geneva conventions tell us what we "have to do," by way of establishing minimum standards for humane treatment of enemies upon whom we have declared war. Are there any conventions which tell us what we "should do" as a nation seeking to establish, uphold, and adhere to minimum standards of humanity, decency, and morality with respect to those same people? Should the fact that we "don't have to" treat someone humanely preclude our doing so? Is the message that we wish to send to the world about our own moral standards that "we'll do what we are legally compelled to do, and not a bit more (and even then, only when our behavior is found out and exposed to the light of public scrutiny)?" If so, should we really complain when one of our enemies (or non-enemies, for that matter) determines that they have found a legal pretext upon which to justify inhumane treatment of their prisoners, or their women, or their enemies? Could having the United States set an example by behaving in a manner that is legally justifiable, but morally reprehensible, help other countries or entities to justify similar behavior? Is there any possibility that such behavior (were it to occur) could contribute to the perception that the United States government is behaving in a hypocritical fashion?

A lot of people do need to realize (including many journalists writing about this ruling) that the United States did not sign the first protocol of the Geneva Convention

First, I don't know why this is so highly rated since it isn't really directly relevant to the discussion. The US is a signatory to common article 3, which is the point here.

Second, your characterization of the protocols is overly simplistic. A review of the signatories suggests that a large majority have signed them including all "Western nations" other than the US signed the first and second protocol. Its also worth noting that among the minority of countries that did not include all of the "Axis of Evil" Iraq, Iran and North Korea (signed the first but not the second). Others include Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

What's to stop Bush from ignoring this ruling?

That is so scary it makes me sick to my stomach thinking about it. A President and Congress (see Frist's statement) determined to strike down Consititutional protections is so 1984-ish that I feel like I'm living in some apocalyptic novel of some far-future dictatorship. Unfortunately, the dictatorship is trying to ruin our country this very second.

War on Terror? Pah! It's as logical and reasonable as the War on Drugs. An unwinnable war against nobody in particular and everybody in general.

In regard to Frist's comment: It has always been the law of the land (ha!) that you cannot be charged with a crime if when you did whatever, the crime was not against the law. I suppose enacting different judicial procedures after the fact (if, in deed, any crime was committed) doesn't fall under this category. Let's just change the laws in mid-stream to suit the dictator in power. Do you know how much the Republicans would howl if something similar was attempted by the Democrats. I wonder if they can spell hypocrite.

MGDasef

War on Terror? Pah! It's as logical and reasonable as the War on Drugs. An unwinnable war against nobody in particular and everybody in general.

So your answer is what? To ignore the drugs flowing into the country.

To ignore the jihadist cut throats in the hope they go away? It's "unwinnable" so lets just not try, is that your answer?

Sorry, quoted the wrong line:

"It is not clear where the court derives the authority — or the audacity — to contradict" Congress and the executive branch, Scalia wrote.

And Scalia claims to be a Constitutionalist?

well - The Bill off Rights was to be applied to EVERYONE - Even the people we don't like, even our enemies - even people who don't like it. It's about who WE are. About what WE stand for. It's about having the higher moral ground and acting out of principle - not fear. Not hate. We need to take the high road and strive , by example to bring the rest of the world to those standards. Not, stoop to their level.

jnearen,
I'm all for debate, but where's the sense of lumping all your opponents into the "evil empire" category? Bush has messed up through indecision. Even his packed court couldn't bail him out on this one. So he is going to have to turn to Frist. We would all be happy if he would use his office to change the situation and meet the requirements of the law. Even after six years in office he has still not learned how to lead. It's "My Way or the Highway!" The sad thing is that he and the Fox media empire are teaching a misguided segment of the population how to swagger and bully rather than to appeal to reason to realize our best interests.

NOT enemy combatants. They have no standing under the Geneva Convention and certainly not under US law. Come on guys. Enjoy your victory over Bush, but stop and think of the long term implications. You are condoning the equating of Al KaKa terrorists with Marines and Air Force men and women. That's very bad precedent.

Go ahead take the streets, the radio waves and the floors of Congress and shout to the roof, that we need to protect the rights of Al KaKa fighters! The country is about to call bull@!$%# on you. Again.

jnearen

Should be interesting to see the Democratic response. After strutting up and down the aisles for a little while, they now have to publicly support a "Terrorist Bill of Rights." The public is going to love that debate just before the 2006 elections.

I suspect in general they will remain on the sidelines for the most part. Because even they know Congress will have to act to pass a law that countermands this decision.

Greg Hoke
Even after six years in office he has still not learned how to lead. It's "My Way or the Highway!" The sad thing is that he and the Fox media empire are teaching a misguided segment of the population how to swagger and bully rather than to appeal to reason to realize our best interests.

And what will you say when most of the Democrats line-up and support a bill that negates this decision?

jnearen,

Ken Starr and the right wing talk shows are the ones who made a farce out of the presidency. Despite the fact he lied about having sex, he implemented a fiscally conservative program for 8 years and actually generated a surplus. I guess it's presumptive to assume you are a conservative, now that those who ascribe to that philosophy have doubled the national debt.

Now we have a situation where the political dialogue is caustic. We have replaced reason with deep, abiding hatred that makes us look like fools. I recommned you not go there. BTW - it's "Al Qa'ida" and Saddam Hussein did not get along with them. He was a creature of our own creation, adored by Rummy when he fought Iran. As for his use of torture and murder, are the Iraqi people any better served by us? As one Iraqi citizen said, "At least when Saddam killed people, it was far from our sight!" We have become like the very object of our hatred, which is a lesson I have seen repeated time and time again. That's why you need to get your emotions under control: to contain the beast we all can become.

indecent

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.

I thought this was still going on. If they rejected it two years ago, why are there still 490 at gitmo, most of which are not charged?

Maybe... just maybe because that decision was at a lower court.

AND the reason the case was finally adjudicated in the Supreme Court level. Not to be snarky or anything but, are you an American citizen? If so why speak to a subject you apparently have so little understanding of?

You forgot chickenhawks besmirching veterans service to their country.
Most recently (as it applies to this scotus story):
Clarence Thomas: refers to Justice Stevens' experience as demonstrating:

unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare

I guess those three years he served during WWII don't count? Not compared to Clarence's um... well he saw Rambo 3 times.