Has the US Supreme Court, given credence to the Terror Community, and validated their beliefs and actions as representative of the Global
Supreme Court rules against Bush on Gitmo trials
By Gina Holland
The Associated Press
Washington - The Supreme Court ruled today that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay
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 international Geneva conventions.
I was always under the presumption (maybe thats my problem though) that these being held, where neither under the Geneva Conventions, or U.S. Law,
simply due to the fact they represent no one, other than their own criminal intent. They represent no Country, or Political Party. They are not part
of an Armed Force under any jurisdiction, nor do they or have they previously been a signatory party of any of these agreements.
"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," Kennedy wrote in his opinion.
So, this is the basis of the ruling put forth by the Supreme's, but what is this really saying. The U.S. Supreme Court has power to regulate Court
Actions outside of the U.S.? Or are they moving the Terrorist scum, up the ladder of acceptability, and giving them legitimate claims of due process
as provided by the Laws of the International Community and U.S. Law?
In the days that have followed, more questions are now faced than we had two weeks ago. What is to be done?
News Analyis: Bush takes a step back on detainees
By Scott Shane The New York Times
Published: July 12, 2006
......In the meantime, the Supreme Court was knocking down some of the administration's key assertions of presidential power in the battle against
In Rasul v. Bush in 2004, the court ruled that American courts had the authority to decide whether foreign terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay,
Cuba, had been rightfully detained. And on June 29, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court rejected the administration's rules for military commissions set
up to try Guantánamo detainees, saying it had failed to seek Congressional approval and had fallen short of the standards set by law and the Geneva
It was the Hamdan ruling that prompted England's memo. "It is my understanding," he wrote, that all current Defense Department rules were already
in compliance with Article 3.......
Now this is where I get lost on this.
Civil People deserve Civil Treatment, and I do not think anyone would argue this, but this seemingly represents a conflict between the Judical and
Excecutive, and the will of both, deeming who really holds the Power.
In light of this, Terrorist are now being granted Civilian Rights, and Judical Rights afforded only to those who are part of the International
Community, or entitled to U.S. Law.
With this said, it can be then argued, they are entitle to defense at the Tax Payer's expense, and the protections afforded Civilians and Countries
at war, to which Terrorist are part of neither.
Now, I do understand, Congress is being spoken to in respects to this, and some measures maybe able to be ratified inorder to expedite the disposal of
these Terrorists in a timely fashion. I trust YOU people will write or Email your Congress man/woman, and request them to support the Executive Branch
and it's plans, so they can start to get rid of these people in Gitmo as soon as possible.
Sitting without Charge or Trial, is an abuse, and one that should have been the main concern of the Supreme's, not delaying these trials further, and
throwing roadblocks in the path of justice.
In doing what they did, it seems to me, that now any Terror Group, will be afforded the same liberties, despite their intent on destroying those same
liberties they are now being granted.
Not to forget, they now become like every civilian or representative of a foreign combative group, and have Court recognition as a legitimate entity,
rather than the scum of the earth they truly are. Cockroaches, that should be stomped. Not coddled and your tax expense.
And it thought the Catch Phrase was, you either with us or against us. Seems the Supreme's have chosen to be against.