Republican-Dominated Supreme Court SMACKS DOWN BUSH & CHENEY

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:25am

Amazing. The most right-wing Supreme Court in history rules against the administration's un-American desecration of the Geneva Conventions. Can you imagine how bad things must be in Guantanamo for the Supreme Court to smack down Bush and Cheney.

In times of repression, hope sometimes comes from the most unexpected sources!

==

Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo war trials

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago

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 Geneva conventions.

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

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. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.

Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Pentagon and Justice Department were planning to issue statements later in the day.

Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo war trials

Updated On: 6/29/06 at 11:25 AM

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:29am

It's about time! I was starting to lose hope that any branch of the US government would uphold the constitution. Congress certainly is not doing their oversight job. Diane Feinstein is a disgrace for voting FOR the flag burning ammendment.

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:31am

Just shows that no amount of political string-pulling can stop the law from seeing blatant law-breaking. The UN can't do anything any more because the admin just ignores it. Remember the last time an international grouping collapsed because someone tried to ignore it? It was Hitler and the League of Nations. The comparison can be drawn. I'm not calling America fascist, not by any stretch of the imagination. I just hate Bush.

Updated On: 6/29/06 at 11:31 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:36am

We can have a whole OTHER thread about the many shameful capitulations that congressional Democrats have made to this tyrannical administration. This has been what Lillian Hellman called the McCarthy era: a "Scoundrel" time, in which everyone acts badly.

But this thread is about an unexpected ray of sunshine from a branch of the government most of us had given up on: the Supreme Court. May this be the first of many decisions in which the nine justices rouse America to once again stand up for justice and freedom and peace.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:38am

all they really said is that the gov't can't try 'em using military tribunals. they don't dispute the right of the gov't to hold 'em until the end of hostilities (or indefinitely), just that they can't try 'em. i'll take that. i never thought trials of any kind were of much use in these instances anyway.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:41am

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. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:42am

Does anyone here actually think it's right to hold people without charge for years, to the extent that they kill themselves? Then we are told they were making a political statement! THEY KILLED THEMSELVES! There's a difference between desparate suicide and the sickos who perpatrated 9/11. The Camp X-ray suicide victims were trying to escape from it all. Not take it all with them.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:47am

"Does anyone here actually think it's right to hold people without charge for years..."

It's a disgrace. But nothing Bush does is a shock anymore. He does as he pleases and then tries to say it is in the name of protecting the country. He would like nothing better than to abolish the Bill of Rights (look at the attacks on the press, too) and declare himself "President for Life"!

[thirdrowcenter]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:48am

Al Qaeda (the prisoners at Guatanamo) would never hold prisoners of war without charging them. Unfortunately, they would behead them instead. I truly do not care if they all committed suicide.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:50am

The three justices who sided with the administration were Scalia, Alito and Thomas, aka Moe, Larry and Curly.

The important thing to remember here is that the Court made a substantive move toward curbing the Bush Administration's active dismantling of international and domestic law.

That's major. It's puts the rest of the Judiciary Branch, as well at the Legislative Branch and the press on notice: SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE STATE...and something needs to be remedied.

Updated On: 6/29/06 at 11:50 AM

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 11:59am

'I truly do not care if they all committed suicide.'

Tell me you didn't mean that. It's disgusting. Many are completely innocent. A few were released recently after two years of their lives had been taken away from them by mistake! We should put a turban on you and they'd stick you straight in prison. See how you like it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:01pm

actually what it does is sign a treaty for the united states without legislative or executive oversight. thanks to the supreme court, we have effectively added al qaeda to the geneva convention despite their refusal to demonstrate even the most basic adherence to any law, despite the fact that al qaeda consistently flouts every tenet of that treaty in practice and spirit.

can someone point me to a list of "international laws"? is there an international constitution under which we can review signatories? how many signees does this "international law" have?

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:04pm

There are a few different International legal systems. The Geneva Convention and other conventions are legally binding to signatories. Declarations such as the one for Human Rights (IDHR) are not binding, because, for example, you have the right to shelter, but you can't throw a government in jail because there is homelessness.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:10pm

Yeah. As tempting as it is sometimes, I have to say that I believe it's important not to give in to the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. I understand that it may not be the most effective method and that resorting to random beheadings might make the US more powerful, but by giving in and becoming more and more like the enemy makes no sense either. By bypassing the very principles on which this country is based, we have already lost an important part of what we are fighting to defend.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:14pm

"actually what it does is sign a treaty for the united states without legislative or executive oversight."

LOL! Sounds like a Bush signing statement. Those darned activist judges. The nerve of them upholding the US Constitution!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:27pm

iflit, i have said before and i will say it again, i do not believe that anything the united states military has done to detainees demeans us as a people. but placing our interrogation techniques under the blanket statement "torture" is to put them at an equivalent level with that of those we fight and i submit that they are not and never have been.

also, by assigning signee status to a group who has no intention of honoring even the most basic tenets of a treaty you render that treaty worthless.

Updated On: 6/29/06 at 12:27 PM

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:31pm

Do you know that people from Europe (or anywhere for that matter) have to fill out forms including questions like 'ARE YOU A TERRORIST' and if you're bringing weapons into the country to attack people with? Why is it so important for America to screen everyone coming in, and yet not for other countries. And why (this bit is irrelevant) can only people born in the US be President and yet Americans have no problem taking care of affairs in other countries. Ireland's first Taoiseach (Prime Minister) was American, and he was later President in Ireland also. And the administration seems to forget about the idea of Americans running America when applying the idea elsewhere. What about Afghans running Afghanistan? They appointed their friends to the important posts in Afghanistan. That's nepotism.

Updated On: 6/29/06 at 12:31 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:36pm

hamid karzai, the democratically elected president of afghanistan was born in kandahar.

here's his cabinet:

http://afghanland.com/history/cabinetkarzai.html

which ones are americans?

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:40pm

Sorry, what I meant was not that they were americans, but that the first administration (the interim one) was appointed and it was full of American - involved people, some involved in Haliburton, things like that.

Hamas getting elected is a similar situation. I don't like it any more than other people do, but we can't stop it because the Palistinian People chose them and we have to respect their voice.

Sorry, I'm completely off the point now. Let's get back to the thread. My fault.

Updated On: 6/29/06 at 12:40 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:46pm

nah, just yer wrongly maligning a democratically elected government.

as far as hamas, there's nothing that says we have to fund the palestinians. nothing at all. hey, ya want hamas in charge, knock y'selves out, but you won't be using our money to do it.

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:50pm

Fair enough. I don't think anyone should be depending on your money. But if so many countries weren't laden so heavy that they can't afford interest, never mind their debt, then they might be able to care for themselves. On the other hand, Palistine is different because it hasn't even been a recognised country for a while. Again, I'm off the point. Sorry.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 12:55pm

it's never been a country. ever.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 1:11pm

I will still never buy into the doctrine that, just because it's not AS bad, it's ok.

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 1:13pm

In what context? What's not as Bad? Hamas? Guantanamo Bay? What's this in relation to?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 1:16pm

just as i don't buy into the theory that anything that falls outside the kind of behavior exhibited under the marquis of queensbury rules is torture.