It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Where did he say he was going to "go around the Supreme Court"? That's total BS.

Oh Ok if you say so. As if he didn't know it was illegal from the get-go.



President Bush told reporters he promised to take the findings of the court "very seriously". But he signalled he might seek congressional approval to resurrect the tribunals.



Source




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
This Just In....Trent Lott is outraged by decision, but admits he didn't even read it.



Appearing on Fox News this afternoon, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) lashed out the Supreme Court, which ruled today that the Bush administration’s military commissions were illegal. Lott said the decision was “ridiculous and outrageous” and likely had our enemies “laughing at us.” Then he admitted he hadn’t read it.

thinkprogress.org...


[edit on 30-6-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Oh Ok if you say so. As if he didn't know it was illegal from the get-go.



President Bush told reporters he promised to take the findings of the court "very seriously". But he signalled he might seek congressional approval to resurrect the tribunals.



Source


What does that prove? The SC didn't prohibit him from going back to Congress. From the base article:

While the administration could come up with a new system, a better option would be to hold regular military courts-martial for detainees, the high court said.




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
This Just In....Trent Lott is outraged by decision, but admits he didn't even read it.

Means nothing. Very few Senators read the Patriot Act before passing it, 98 -1.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What does that prove? The SC didn't prohibit him from going back to Congress. From the base article:


No matter how you wanna twist it. It was Illegal. Do you understand the word ILLEGAL? Not allowed by law. He is the President of the United States , do you mean to tell me that this man has no comprehension of the laws of the USA? He made his own law which is something that is generally not done without checks and balances. Just as he has done with Domestic Wiretaps , just as he has done by altering and signing bills that have not been passed. These are laws which he makes up himself. This is not Conspiracy theory, this is known fact that some people wish to ignore.

Thank the heavens support for this guy is dropping steadily.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobeckyMeans nothing. Very few Senators read the Patriot Act before passing it, 98 -1.


Yes, that shows the quality of the congressman in America today. They do not take the public's lives serious enough to actually read what they are making into law.

As well, what would you say to a poster on ATS were they to respond without actually reading anything in a given article? They read a headline and, without all the facts, start with their same tired old lines. Think about that, and then think about that Trent Lott is not some poster on ATS, but is a senator entrusted to make decisions for millions of people.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by jsobecky
What does that prove? The SC didn't prohibit him from going back to Congress. From the base article:


No matter how you wanna twist it. It was Illegal. Do you understand the word ILLEGAL? Not allowed by law. He is the President of the United States , do you mean to tell me that this man has no comprehension of the laws of the USA? He made his own law which is something that is generally not done without checks and balances. Just as he has done with Domestic Wiretaps , just as he has done by altering and signing bills that have not been passed. These are laws which he makes up himself. This is not Conspiracy theory, this is known fact that some people wish to ignore.

Thank the heavens support for this guy is dropping steadily.






Legal or illegal is often merley a matter of interpertation, and given the conplexity of the issue and the fact that the high court itself was split over the decision your contention that Bush knew it was illegal doesn't wash.
As an example my company has a legal department whose job it is to ensure that all of our business practices are in line with the laws of the countries we do business in, yet even in the fairly uncomplicated world of international trade, there have been times when our legal staffs interpertation of legal statues has differed from that of the Judges in certain juridictions. If the law were as clear as you attest, there would be no need for a supreme court to decide issues like this in the first place.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I extracted this post from an earlier discussion of this very topic and I'm putting it here so people can go to the link Grady provided. His link discusses the problem in good detail.

posted on 29-3-2006 at 06:30 AM - single QUOTE

quote: Originally posted by deltaboy

[Is Osama a soldier or a civilian?


Therein lies the crux of all the problems the U.S. is having trying to meet out justice to the terrorists. In the case of Osama it seems pretty clear-cut, but for many of the people being held (that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks) the answer is not so readily apparent. Most of them, in fact, did not even commit terrorist acts, they fought coallition troops in one way or another. Are they civilians?, or are they military? The Bush administration has labeled them as "illegal combatants" and says they do not not warrant treatment under the Geneva Conventions of war. Most legal scholars seem to have agreed with the Bush administration on that score. So, they aren't soldiers (in any sense that people have always understood that term). However, they don't appear to be civilians either, at least that is what the Bush administration contends.

Well if they aren't soldiers and they aren't civilians (in the legal meanings of those terms) then what are they and who/what has jurisdiction over them and how do you try them?

If they are civilians then many of them committed crimes, but if they are soldiers then they can't be held personally accountable for most of their actions. The Bush administration has said they fall in between somewhere and is attempting to try them via special military tribunals. The defense lawyers for one of them (Hamdan) has said the tribunals are themselves unconstitutional and have no legal standing to try him (for conspiracy anyway). The current court case is to decide the issue one way or the other--ostensibly--but the court may duck the issue in several different ways or they may deadlock.

This link (provided by Grady) discusses the problem:

www.ccc.nps.navy.mil...

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



[edit on 30-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Now, if you read the recent Supreme Court decision concerning this issue you will see that they didn't really decide what to call the detainees. They indirectly hinted that they might be combatants (i.e., soldiers) when one of them said Court Martials seemed like a good way to go, but they did not come right out and say what these people were. However, from the Bush Administration perspective it would seem that if they call them soldiers then they will have to simply let most of them go. Their only alternative would be to return (for example) the Afgani citizens to Afganistan and let the civil authorities there decide what to do with them.

This whole issue is still a legal mess no matter how you look at it.

What's really needed is some definition by the Hague or the U.N. of what a soldier is and is not in todays world. Eventually we will probably get something like that, but it may take years.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion
If the law were as clear as you attest, there would be no need for a supreme court to decide issues like this in the first place.


Not clear? I always thought it was pretty clear. If you are a criminal you get a Criminal trial where you are allowed to speak to an attorney, a jury of your peers and you were given the right to a speedy and fair trial. If you are a Military criminal you were also entitled to representation, and judged by military judges in a court martial.

Constitution Article 3 section 2
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



"The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment," Kennedy wrote in one opinion



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
To clarify this.

The Geneva convention can only apply following a formal declaration of war on a nation state.

No nation state has, or can be, identified for "terrorists"

As such these people are not prisoners of war, despite the fact that the US refers to their detention as part of the "war on terror". (How can you have a combat action against an adjective?)

If they are not prisoners of war, they are civilians. They may have been armed civilians, and in that case they may have been involved in acts of murder.

If they they were involved in acts of murder against a foreign national, they should be formally exradited, charged and tried for that murder under the legal system of the country of the victim, and afforded the rights of the legal system in that country, as required by international law.

"Enemy combatant" is a term that is nothing more than a sham, that has no basis in international law and is used by the US administration to try and come up with a third way of defining people they class as "undesirable" and that the US administration cannot present clear evidence of their actions.

Guantanamo Bay is a crass exploitation of a legal loophole, whereby the land isn't US soil but it is exclusively used by the US and operated under false pretences. Its a well crafted "limbo" that provides an excuse to hold people with no direct recourse to US law.

I'm not justifying what the people at Gitmo may have done, nor am I saying that they are guilty. What I am saying is that the pretence they are held under, and the facility they are held in is, at best, highly dubious and at worse is a direct violation of their human rights and stands the US on a footing with the people they claim to be "better" than.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
This is democracy in action. I have heard the voices of disdain, indicating the U.S. is not a democracy, and yes, argument can be made it is not a true representative democracy, though that is not the point I wish to make.

The following quote can be found here

"If the legislative branch does not agree with the way in which the judicial branch has interpreted the law, they can introduce a new piece of legislation, and the process starts all over again."

And so, it is the judicial branch which has weighed in on the matter, and I expect the legislative branch to step up to the plate in the not too distant future. Both branches serve to place a "check/balance" on the executive branch, in this case, your friend, President Bush.


The argument as to whether terrorism is a legal matter or a matter of war can be made either way, prior to 9/11 it seems to have been a legal matter, however, it is quite obviously now a matter of war.

I suspect new legislation is in the making on how to deal with the question of the terrorist in terms of the Geneva Convention as it leaves this question unadressed, likely due to the fact of the changing environment in which the world wages war.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by jsobeckyMeans nothing. Very few Senators read the Patriot Act before passing it, 98 -1.


Yes, that shows the quality of the congressman in America today. They do not take the public's lives serious enough to actually read what they are making into law.


You're absolutely right, Jamuhn. A better response would have been "It doesn't surprise me at all". Sorry for coming across otherwise.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by jsobecky
What does that prove? The SC didn't prohibit him from going back to Congress. From the base article:


No matter how you wanna twist it. It was Illegal. Do you understand the word ILLEGAL? Not allowed by law.

Now now, calm down.

It was not illegal. It has been done before, during WWII, as another poster pointed out.

If it were illegal, the SC would not have stated that he could use it as an option after Congressional approval.

It was not illegal. There was just no law allowing it.


Thank the heavens support for this guy is dropping steadily.

A poll released yesterday stated his approval rating was up a point to 43%.



Bush Job Approval
Feb 2005 - Current
Approve Disapprove
Jun 29 43 56
Jun 28 42 56
Jun 27 42 56
Jun 26 41 57
Jun 25 42 56
Jun 24 43 55
Jun 23 44 55
Jun 22 43 55
Jun 21 42 56
Jun 20 41 58
Jun 19 40 59
Jun 18 40 59
Jun 17 40 58
Jun 16 41 58
Jun 15 41 57
Jun 14 41 58
www.rasmussenreports.com...


[edit on 30-6-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
The real illegal act in this horror story is the supreme court jester ruling itself. As of 1803 the court itself has been "unconsitutional". The mighty robed ones have overstepped thier authority everytime they "rule" on law as constitutional. That is not authority granted to the Supreme's anywhere.

Those whom voted and wrote this opinion need to be impeached..............



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
They can be held until the end of hostilities.

They can be held in perpetuity. When the british invaded the two boer republics, they defeated the army, and engaged in a long brutal war against boer "commandos", who fought as insurgents/guerillas. When they caught them, they'd put them into detention camps that were on the other side of the planet, permanently. Some of the Boer leaders spent the rest of their life in captivity, even after the war had been over for years and the boers were a well adjusted part of society.

There's no reason for the US to release anyone, ever, that its not reasonably convinced isn't a jihadi.


thepieman
If you are a Military criminal you were also entitled to representation, and judged by military judges in a court martial.

Please cite that law that states this. The military has a number of ways in which it decides how to determine a person's status. Courts Martial is one of them. Military Tribunals is another. They can make up ad hoc commissions to deal with people they capture. A Courts Martial would usually be reserverd for a captured and properly consituted enemy soldier, ie, one that is part of a command structure, wears a uniform, and obeys the laws of war. The jihadis don't wear uniforms, operate as independant cells, and dictate their own interpretation of sharic law, or otherwise summarily execute anyone captured.
A similar case is a spy, or, in the past, a ship that doesn't fly a national flag. People caught as such are specifically not given the same protections as soldiers. Captured spys, for example, or commando soldiers not wearing a proper uniform, do not normally get a courts martial, they get tried and executed by ad hoc commissions. The SCOTUS here has ruled that that is not acceptable in this case, and I beleive that this has nothin to do with the validity of tribunals, its because these tribunals weren't properly consituted. The 'defense' wasn't properly protecting their 'clients', the bylaws of the trials weren't proper, etc. Thus they stated that a courts martial should be used, which has an already established structure that is recognized as acceptable.
Its actually a rather difficult position to argue with. If the tribunals had been 'properly constituted', then everything would've been fine, becuase they don't have a right to a courts martial. Unfortunately, the admin/military didn't do that.


nefermore
If they they were involved in acts of murder against a foreign national, they should be formally exradited, charged and tried for that murder under the legal system of the country of the victim

This is actually incorrect. The people captured are generally either handed over and not claimed by any nation, or were caught within occupied territory.

The US is an occupying power. Under international law, it has responsibilities, just as the occupied population has responsibilities, and, btw, a legal right to violently resist an occupation. Occupying powers are NOT required to treat resistors to the occupation as 'criminals' in a civil court of any nation, NOR as "POWS". They still, according to international law and common sense, must be tried, and cannot be summarily executed, regardless of the fact that they don't obey that rule themselves.



jsobecky
It has been done before, during WWII, as another poster pointed out

That was in refernce to an american citizen being captured, in america, stripped of his protections as a citizen, and classed as an enemy combatant. That applies, here, to Padilla and a few others. The others are also 'enemy combatants', since they are not soldiers.

the SC would not have stated that he could use it as an option after Congressional approval.

Indeed, the SCOTUS didn't state that military tribunals are illegal, it ruled that these particular ones weren't formed correctly, and recommend/stated that it should go to courts martial. Military tribunals are still, of course, legal.


thermopolis
they "rule" on law as constitutional. That is not authority granted to the Supreme's anywhere

What in god's good name are you talking about? The entire logic of the Court is that it is the arbitrator when there is a question if a law violates the constitution.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
It's interesting that Roberts was smart enough to stay out of this while Alito is proving himself
to be a rubber stamp neo-con shill as suspected.

I think Roberts knows that he will be there a long time after Bush and Cheney are impeached.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Bush and Cheney clearly aren't going to be impeached, and roberts had to recuse himself because he had ruled on this sort of case previous to being Cheif Justice.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Although this had to be done by the sumpreme court,the mainstream were already saying this is actually a coup for bush,as congress will now take years deciding what to do with the prisoners-thus they can stay locked up for more time before they finally get to court.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
One of the ways you might think of this issue is to put yourself back in time to the American Revolution. There you are, no uniform, no identifying military badge(s), etc. and you get captured by the British during some battle or another. What might become of you? Back then it seemed a lot more clear cut to everyone and the british would just have shot or hanged you, but jump forward in time again to today's world and answer that question. You would have been a combatant but you would not have been part of a "nation state" yet.

Picture a different scenario, this one in the future. There you are a member of a semi-secret group of American citizens who have found it necessary to try to rise up and throw the then present crop of politicians in Washington out. The then current administration marshals segments of the armed forces against your group and during some engagement you get captured. What do they do with you? Are you simply a common criminal? Are you a soldier?

This issue is not quite as easily dismissed as many seem to believe. Most of the detainees had better hope they get classed as soldiers because then they will have a lot more legal protections.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join