Welcome to PatsFans.com

Justices, 5-3, Broadly Reject Bush Plan to Try Detainees

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,093
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +270 / 11 / -11

    The ruling was more significant than I realized. And, to think, they're stopping Bush from using evidence gathered by coercion or hearsay and requiring him to be civilized. What audacity the court has! Bush be civilized? He's a frickin' chimp for crying out loud!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/washington/30hamdan.html

    WASHINGTON, June 29 — The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.

    ...

    The courtroom was, surprisingly, not full, but among those in attendance there was no doubt they were witnessing a historic event, a defining moment in the ever-shifting balance of power among branches of government that ranked with the court's order to President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 to turn over the Watergate tapes, or with the court's rejection of President Harry S. Truman's seizing of the nation's steel mills, a 1952 landmark decision from which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy quoted at length.

    ...

    The provision requires humane treatment of captured combatants and prohibits trials except by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."

    The opinion made it clear that while this provision does not necessarily require the full range of protections of a civilian court or a military court-martial, it does require observance of protections for defendants that are missing from the rules the administration has issued for military commissions. The flaws the court cited were the failure to guarantee the defendant the right to attend the trial and the prosecution's ability under the rules to introduce hearsay evidence, unsworn testimony, and evidence obtained through coercion.
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,880
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +242 / 8 / -13

    A less biased report from the Wash Times:

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060630-121949-9439r.htm

    Interesting that some of the justices chose to ognore the legislation congress passed authorizing the procedure that the administration was attempting to use. In this decision the majority stated that the procedures the administration wants to follow will be legal if authorized by congress?

    The underlying question, if we use black ops to capture someone like Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, should we have to reveal to the defense in OPEN court the intel resources and processes used int he capture. This could lead to the death of informants, and the exposure of techniques used to catch the bad guys. Interesting this ruling came out the same week as the hubub over the NYT revealing the tracking of the money transactions of terrorist.
     
  3. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,275
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +183 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    This is great news for all you terrorist fans out there.

    Is it that you love the terrorist or that you hate the POTUS? Hate can be a much stronger emotion than love.

    Now we will hear BS about civil liberties and due process for TERRORIST.

    I'm just glad that I don't hate Democrats or Republicans enough to take the side of terrorist or scum like Saddam. But, to some on here the hating of the president or partisan poltitics is stronger than the love of the country.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2005
  4. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    SORRY...LOVE of country does NOT equal hating this ruling....
    In fact JUST the opposite is true....
    Those who hate this ruling wish to take the US into the same gutter as terorists..THERE is nothing as anti-US as that...If you wish to go into the same gutter as them..NO BETTER!!
    The love of the country is loving the constitution and all the liberties it provides; what it stands for and NOT running scared and shredding it when there is pressure to. The terrorists have won if there are many that do NOT think this country is strong enough to have the same civil liberties at a time of a war on terrorism as when there is peace....THAT is one thing the terrorists want..and strangly enough, it is those that wrap themselves in flags
    so tight that are the ones that do that, but I don't expect they would ever understand that.
     
  5. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +100 / 7 / -14

    #37 Jersey

    How old is Justice Stevens? Isn't he about ready to kick the bucket?
     
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,880
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +242 / 8 / -13

    If you equate military tribunals (our approach) with cutting off heads (their approach to prisioners), it says a lot about you.
     
  7. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,275
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +183 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    First, the terrorist are no US citizens and do not have any constitutional protection. They are not even on US soil.

    If we treat them as POW's then they will be subject to Military Tribunals if they are suspected of committing "war crimes". Just like the Germans and Japanese were treated.

    I've unwrapped myself and I'm eager to learn why these people should be brought into the US and tried in a cilvilian court. Please enlighten me.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>