|
Court: President exceeded authority by creating Guantanamo tribunals
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: | Court: President exceeded authority by creating Guantanamo tribunals
BY LESLEY CLARK
[email protected]
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court this morning found President Bush exceeded his powers by creating military tribunals for prisoners at the much-maligned Guantanamo Bay detention center, reining in a portion of the administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism.
The ruling, a setback for the administration's aggressive anti-terrorism stance, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, signed by the United States in the aftermath of World War II.
''Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion. The decision does not address whether the controversial camps should be closed, dealing only with whether the administration can pursue plans to try the detainees under the type of military trials not seen since World War II.
President Bush said he will work with Congress to find a way to try the detainees before military tribunals -- and two leading Republicans suggested they're ready to help.
''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,'' Bush said at a press availability with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. ``The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street.''
Bush stopped short of saying the ruling would hasten efforts to close the prison -- as many world leaders have encouraged him to do.
''We will seriously look at the findings, obviously,'' Bush said, noting he'd only had a ''drive-by'' briefing on the decision. ``And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is, I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People have got to understand that. I understand we're in a war on terror; that these people were picked up off of a battlefield; and I will protect the people and, at the same time, conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.''
Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, who back Military Commissions, were quick to announce they'd help Bush with a legislative fix.
''We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the court can and should be fixed,'' the two said in a joint statement.
Graham and Kyl said they found it ''inappropriate'' to try terrorists in civilian courts, arguing it threatens national security and puts jurors in danger.
''In his opinion, Justice [Stephen] Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem,'' the senators said, 'He wrote, `Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.' ''
The case was brought by Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, Salim Hamdan, one of hundreds of men flown to the Guantanamo camps, which opened in early 2002 as a site for the United States to hold and interrogate al Qaeda and Taliban suspects flown in from Afghanistan.
The president created special Military Commissions to try 10 or more of some of the 450 captives being held there. But Hamdan challenged the legal proceedings, arguing that they violate international law and the U.S. Constitution.
Stevens agreed, writing that the commission ''lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures'' violate both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, in a sharply worded dissent, disagreed, saying the decision ``openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the executive's judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs.''
The decision, Thomas noted, would ''sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy'' and he called his colleagues' ''willingness to second-guess'' the president ``both unprecedented and dangerous.''
But lawyers for the detainees hailed the ruling as upholding the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war.
''We're looking at this with welcome hopefulness that the democratic institutions in this country are stepping forward to take their power back from a president [who] has tried to seize it for the last five years,'' said Barbara Olshansky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of detainees.
''The court has clearly stated that the president cannot invoke wartime powers to circumvent U.S. laws and international treaties that the United States has ratified,'' said Amnesty International attorney Jumana Musa, who had been a Pentagon-approved observer at the commissions.
In arguments before the court in March, Neal Katyal, Hamdan's attorney, said the Pentagon had concocted a conspiracy charge that isn't a war crime, had ignored rights retained in the Geneva Conventions, such as prisoner-of-war status, and fell short of standards that Congress has set for how the United States conducts either military and civilian justice.
''This is a military commission that is literally unbounded by the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States,'' he told the court.
Critics have argued that the accused would be more fairly treated in the civilian courts or through a traditional military court martial.
But Solicitor General Paul Clement argued on behalf of the United States that Congress had given President Bush the power to craft the Military Commissions when it authorized the use of force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He called such commissions ``part and parcel of the [presidential] war power for 200 years.''
The ruling is all but certain to increase international scrutiny and calls for the camps' closure -- pressure that has mounted following the suicides earlier this month of three captives.
Bush has acknowledged the camps hurt U.S. credibility abroad and has said he'd like to close the detention center -- but warns it holds dangerous detainees who should be tried for their crimes. Others, he said, can be released, but the United States has had difficulty finding suitable countries to accept them.
The State Department has said U.S. diplomats are seeking agreements with dozens of countries to let some detainees return home, while seeking assurances from their native countries that the men won't threaten U.S. soldiers, security or American targets.
But State Department officials said the task is complicated by a number of countries that deny the detainees are actually nationals of their countries.
And the U.S. has ruled out repatriation to some nations, including China, for fear that Muslim nationals now held at Guantanamo would be tortured if returned to the communist country.
One detainee has been returned to Iran, but the administration continues to detain two dozen Algerians, along with Iraqis, Libyans, Palestinians, Somalis, Sudanese, Syrians and Uzbeks -- men from countries that are either too unstable or have human rights records that would suggest the U.S. is unable or unwilling to negotiate their return.
The Pentagon, however, announced last Saturday that it had sent 14 Saudi detainees home, the second major transfer in little more than a month.
Miami Herald staff writer Carol Rosenberg contributed to this report from Guantanamo Bay Navy Base, Cuba. |
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...ws/14930131.htm |
Bush: 750
Constitution: 1
The battle continues. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Bush: 750
Constitution: 1
The battle continues. |
I'm actually shocked. I figure with his two nominees (1 of which who couldn't vote, but probably would have upheld like he did at the lower circuit and made it 5-4 instead of 5-3), he'd stacked the court well enough. He seems to be getting everything 5-4 these days in his side's favor. No surprise from the 3 in favor of giving him the blank check, though. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I'm actually shocked. I figure with his two nominees (1 of which who couldn't vote, but probably would have upheld like he did at the lower circuit and made it 5-4 instead of 5-3), he'd stacked the court well enough. He seems to be getting everything 5-4 these days in his side's favor. No surprise from the 3 in favor of giving him the blank check, though. |
shocked? about what? stacked the court? even if Rhenquist was still on board it would have still come out the same way. even your bias makes no sense. you got life and bull all f**ked up.
this was pretty much a disasterous decision...for the detainees! think about it logically. leave aside your hatred for a second. what exactly did the court say, and what does Buler do now with'em? |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
shocked? about what? stacked the court? even if Rhenquist was still on board it would have still come out the same way. even your bias makes no sense. you got life and bull all f**ked up.
this was pretty much a disasterous decision...for the detainees! think about it logically. leave aside your hatred for a second. what exactly did the court say, and what does Buler do now with'em? |
First off, I didn't get into it much in the first post, because I haven't had much time to review everything coming out since it just happened today while I am at work, but I'll try to argue based on what I'm aware of now. I don't even understand what was controversial in the orginal post, but whatever.
Stacked the court? Are you even going to deny that in the past year, there has been a huge shift in power on the Supreme Court. Lots of decisions that would have went 5-4 are still going 5-4, but in the other direction. Just look at what's been decided lately. Surely you're more informed than this, or do your conservative blogs not bother to mention how much ass-kicking their "activist judges" are doing now. They're ruling in the opposite direction of what the court 5 years ago would have on a lot of big decisions.
Are you trying to say that what the Bush administration wanted, military tribunals, is what was best for the detainees? I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that it sucks for them that they're now left hanging in limbo for a 2nd time since the Bush administration instists upon violating their rights. For those who are going to be found guilty, why is this worse for them? For those, who once Bush and co. come up with a new, 3rd plan that abides by what the now conservative leaning Supreme Court says is acceptable, may be found innocent, this is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately does drag out their time in Gitmo. I guess the bottom line is, would you rather be processed quickly and unfairly, or drag it out, but do it right?
Also, this "enemy combatant" bull is just an insult to both our government and the Geneva convention, as Bush insists all the time "We're at war," but refuses to treat them as POWs, because he'd have to treat them better to abide by Geneva. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
shocked? about what? stacked the court? even if Rhenquist was still on board it would have still come out the same way. even your bias makes no sense. you got life and bull all f**ked up. |
Oh, and one more thing. You do realize that Roberts replaced Rehnquist as CJ and that Roberts wasn't allowed to vote on this because he'd already ruled at the Appellate level? Had Roberts voted, the same as he did before, it would have been 5-4, so yes, it still would have come out the same way.
When I say stacked, I mean O'Connor -> Alito. Rehnquist was already a conservative on the court, replacing him with Roberts didn't do that much. O'Connor at least was a moderate, who was replaced with another conservative. I wouldn't be surprised if she was still on and Alito wasn't in the picture, that it'd have been 6-2 rather than 5-3, so the end result would be the same.
Personally, I fear what happens if Stevens, who I consider to be a moderate, dies before 2008. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Oh, and one more thing. You do realize that Roberts replaced Rehnquist as CJ and that Roberts wasn't allowed to vote on this because he'd already ruled at the Appellate level? Had Roberts voted, the same as he did before, it would have been 5-4, so yes, it still would have come out the same way. |
and what i said is that O'conner and Rhenquist, if they had decided, would have prolly ruled the same. so your right. i'm right.
| quote: | | When I say stacked, I mean O'Connor -> Alito. Rehnquist was already a conservative on the court, replacing him with Roberts didn't do that much. O'Connor at least was a moderate, who was replaced with another conservative. I wouldn't be surprised if she was still on and Alito wasn't in the picture, that it'd have been 6-2 rather than 5-3, so the end result would be the same. |
O'conner became a moderate. she was appointed a conservative. this is what usually happens. but you're still filled with hate.
| quote: | | Personally, I fear what happens if Stevens, who I consider to be a moderate, dies before 2008. |
why fear? the Donks will obstruct till the next administration and you can live free of any fear and loathing because everything will be peaches and cream. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I don't even understand what was controversial in the orginal post, but whatever. |
Buler puts two of the finest jurors in the country on the SCOTUS and you spout propaganda from the feverswamp about "stacking" the court...thats whatever, whatever.
| quote: | | Are you even going to deny that in the past year, there has been a huge shift in power on the Supreme Court. |
yes and no. what decisions do you take issue with?
| quote: | | Are you trying to say that what the Bush administration wanted, military tribunals, is what was best for the detainees? |
yes. as apposed to what, in your opinion?| quote: | | I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that it sucks for them that they're now left hanging in limbo for a 2nd time since the Bush administration instists upon violating their rights. For those who are going to be found guilty, why is this worse for them? For those, who once Bush and co. come up with a new, 3rd plan that abides by what the now conservative leaning Supreme Court says is acceptable, may be found innocent, this is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately does drag out their time in Gitmo. I guess the bottom line is, would you rather be processed quickly and unfairly, or drag it out, but do it right? |
so what you're saying (and i'm sorry to keep doing this to you) , by this decision, is that the "liberal" judges have got it wrong in the larger scope of this beyond just Hamden, right?
| quote: | | Also, this "enemy combatant" bull is just an insult to both our government and the Geneva convention, as Bush insists all the time "We're at war," but refuses to treat them as POWs, because he'd have to treat them better to abide by Geneva. |
thats because you think this is just Buler's war, and nothing else. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
and what i said is that O'conner and Rhenquist, if they had decided, would have prolly ruled the same. so your right. i'm right.
O'conner became a moderate. she was appointed a conservative. this is what usually happens. but you're still filled with hate.
why fear? the Donks will obstruct till the next administration and you can live free of any fear and loathing because everything will be peaches and cream. |
No, I was saying that it would be 6-2, because O'Connor would have voted in the majority, and Alito voted in the minority on this one. I was surprised because one of your normal guys didn't side with you this time, because even he viewed Bush as going too far this time. I think it's great when people actually think for themselves instead of falling into line because you're supposed to. That doesn't happpen often enough, thus the shock. I expected it to lock 4-4 and Roberts be the tie-breaker, approving.
I know O'Connor was a conservative turned moderate. Hopefully the same happens to you with age. BTW, not sure if I've mentioned before, but I was a Republican at 18. It was primarily the Republican's current insistence upon imposing it's "moral values" and taking us to this war that should have been handled when we actually had cause, not lies, that caused the change. I own guns, violent video games, like money and big business (with some responsibility, there's a point where enough is enough and causing the genereal public harm can't be accepted), etc.
I'm glad how much you realize who's taking this next congressional election since your boys have been ing up so bad.
Lastly, Buler :conf: |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Buler puts two of the finest jurors in the country on the SCOTUS and you spout propaganda from the feverswamp about "stacking" the court...thats whatever, whatever.
yes and no. what decisions do you take issue with?
yes. as apposed to what, in your opinion? so what you're saying (and i'm sorry to keep doing this to you) , by this decision, is that the "liberal" judges have got it wrong in the larger scope of this beyond just Hamden, right?
thats because you think this is just Buler's war, and nothing else. |
Jurors :conf:, Jurists, maybe. And, yes, it was whatever, because it was a stupid comment. I don't think anyone'll deny that he's stacked the court. Fortunately, eventually, half of your Republican posts break rank lately because you guys are going too far. I mean, 7 of 9 are Republican appointed, 4 by the Bushes.
Skipped. Do your own research and read the news, you know I'm right.
Opposed. How many words have you misspelled in your jabs at me today. Didn't realize I was your new target. It's OK, I prefer reaction to unnecessary pre-emption anyhow.
It is a war, right?? Why aren't they prisoners of our "War on Terror?" Follow the ing Geneva Convention, that we signed back when Bush wasn't the President, and I have no problem. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Bascially it just means they won't be tried via Bush's way.
That doesn't mean they're going to be let go or freed.
They're still going to get their day in court; just in a different manner.
It's a win for the libs in the sense that the Islamofascists, who don't believe or recognize modern justice, now have more rights than those that perished in 9/11.
I understand the ruling and it does make sense; it was a slip of beaucracy on Bush's part and for that, a longer wait for everyone... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
It's a win for the libs in the sense that the Islamofascists, who don't believe or recognize modern justice, now have more rights than those that perished in 9/11.
|
:eyespop: :eyespop: :eyespop:
Oh yeah, they had the RIGHT to be tortured, humiliated, and dehumanized. :rolleyes: Even though mojority of them are completely innocent. :rolleyes: Lay off the crack dude. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Bascially it just means they won't be tried via Bush's way.
That doesn't mean they're going to be let go or freed.
They're still going to get their day in court; just in a different manner.
It's a win for the libs in the sense that the Islamofascists, who don't believe or recognize modern justice, now have more rights than those that perished in 9/11.
I understand the ruling and it does make sense; it was a slip of beaucracy on Bush's part and for that, a longer wait for everyone... |
I completely agree, I'm not pissed that they're not being let go in either route. I'd just rather see justice performed in a manner which abides by the laws of our country and by rules that conform to the treaties we've signed.
I'm not a fan of stooping to others' levels and ignoring principles. Criminals always disobey the laws, does that mean the police system can do the same, or do we have some rules and standards? We have enough ability to prevent this sort of thing from happening, abiding by our own laws and principles. I hardly side with these cowardly s that attacked us. I just believe in trying criminals as criminals, and that's not what's happening with the current course of action.
Like I said before, I'd rather a longer wait to apply proper justice than letting unlawful actions take place. I'll be happy when a properly balanced stack of a couple of conservatives, a couple of liberals, and a couple moderates get thrown up there and we get things decided on a fair basis, rather than down party lines (with the occasional Republican defector. |
|
|
|
|
