Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo

rick_reno

Moderator
It'll be interesting to see how creative Alberto Gonzales can be with this one.

5-3 ruling says military trials would violate U.S. law, Geneva conventions

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 international Geneva conventions.

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

Moderate joins liberals
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, handed down on the last day of the court’s 2005-06 term, 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.

The administration had hinted in recent weeks that it was prepared for the court to set back its plans for trying Guantanamo detainees.

The president also has told reporters, “I’d like to close Guantanamo.” But he added, “I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darn dangerous.”

Other justices make comments
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court’s decision would “sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.”

The court’s willingness, Thomas said, “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.”

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.

In his own opinion siding with the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said that “Congress has not issued the executive a ’blank check.”’

“Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,” Breyer wrote.

No word on prison status
The court’s ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial.

“Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order,” Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

The prison at Guantanamo Bay, erected in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, has been a flash point for international criticism. Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban — including some teenagers — have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped there since 2002.

Three detainees committed suicide there this month, using sheets and clothing to hang themselves. The deaths brought new scrutiny and criticism of the prison, along with fresh calls for its closing.
 
Military Tribunals of Gitmo Detainees Struck Down by SCOTUS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201530,00.html

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, the 5:3 decision simply says that Bush overstepped by moving forward on these secret trials without Congressional Authorization. Nor does it state that Gitmo has to close or the detainees be released.

What I do find interesting is the split along party type lines....again:
Alito, Scalia and Thomas wished to uphold the tribunals (Roberts could not vote, having judged the case in a lower court).


Still waiting to see the actual opinion but the murkiness of our position has always troubled me:
- We claim these detainees are not subject to the Geneva Convention, because they are not soldiers; yet we wish to try them for War Crimes.
- The definition of "terrorist" (like "hate crime") is sufficiently vague to eventually encompass domestic groups who might take vociferous issue with the (then) current administration.

These are potentially dangerous trends and, on the face of it, I'm glad to see SCOTUS come down on the side of conservatism (though it was the "liberal" Justices who did so). Though these are foreign born (possible) combatants; the same procedures might well be used in future, by a different Executive to prosecute domestic mal-contents.
Rich
 
Though these are foreign born (possible) combatants; the same procedures might well be used in future, by a different Executive to prosecute domestic mal-contents.

The "enemy combatant" label (and attached lack of either POW or criminal defendant rights) was attached to Jose Padilla for four years, and he's a U.S. citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil.
 
Still waiting to see the actual opinion but the murkiness of our position has always troubled me:
- We claim these detainees are not subject to the Geneva Convention, because they are not soldiers; yet we wish to try them for War Crimes.
- The definition of "terrorist" (like "hate crime") is sufficiently vague to eventually encompass domestic groups who might take vociferous issue with the (then) current administration.

Does the Geneva Convention not make diffferent stipulations about the treatment of uniformed and non-uniformed combatants, legal and illegal combatants? If we were to catch a foreign, non-US Citizen in an act of espionage, would he be tried by tribunal? If you disagree with the method of trial posed for Gitmo detainees, a military tribunal, what would you have them do instead? Try them in public US courts? In Iraq? Bench trial? Jury trial?

I do not feel our Constitution can offer much in the way of protection to these people, mostly because thay are not US citizens or in the process of naturalization. Also because they are, in most cases, some form of combatant against the US. As such, I feel extending protections we provide for our citizens to foreign combatants to be approaching foolishness.

Having said that, I think 4 years of detainment without trial is unfair and unacceptable. I also think it is perfectly legal, but very poor managment and administration.

As far as defining terrorism is concerned, I don't think the slope is as slippery as you make it out to be. Especially since "domestic groups" are going to be comprised of US citizens who can speak as they wish without fear of being labled terrorists by many people other than Anne Coulter and Michael Savage. For our purposes action, rather than words, is key in defining terrorism.
 
The "enemy combatant" label (and attached lack of either POW or criminal defendant rights) was attached to Jose Padilla for four years, and he's a U.S. citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil.
That was unconstitutional.
 
The problem is that in many cases, these individuals were taken from the battlefields where they were captured and brought to Gitmo for interrogation. They should have been left where we found them for that nation's gov't to deal with.
 
And a lot of these guys get turned in on tips for nothing more than an old grudge. I'm all for just executing terrorists and handing over insurgents to be executed by the Iraqi / Afghanistan government, but I don't like the idea of innocent guys getting farked.
 
As such, I feel extending protections we provide for our citizens to foreign combatants to be approaching foolishness.
Let's discuss this one SCOTUS thread according to the facts.

SCOTUS has not granted these detainees US Citizen Protections. It simply has said that the Executive cannot simply decide to start prosecuting individuals in secret tribunals without Congressional Approval (which, one might hope, inlucudes "oversight"). SCOTUS has not sent these cases to US Courts or released the detainees; it has simply told the Executive that the Tribunals are illegal under US Law.

Such rulings used to be called "checks and balances"; today, they're called "impediments"...to what?

As far as defining terrorism is concerned, I don't think the slope is as slippery as you make it out to be.
He's already been mentioned twice in this thread. Let me mention him a third time: Jose Padilla
- US Citizen
- US Soil

Anybody remember the Black Panthers? Weather Underground? Montana Militia? Philly's MOVE? KKK? Tim McVeigh? At the time, nobody in America would have countenanced the thought of prosecuting those groups by a secret military tribunal, even though some of them fit "somebody's" definition of "terrorist". For that matter Koresh or Weaver might easily have met the test, depending upon the Administration in power at the time.

That's pretty durned "slippery" to me. ;)
Rich
 
SCOTUS has not granted these detainees US Citizen Protections. It simply has said that the Executive cannot simply decide to start prosecuting individuals in secret tribunals without Congressional Approval. It has not sent these cases to US Courts; it has simply told the Executive that the Tribunals are illegal without Congressional approval (which, one would hope, inlucudes "oversight").

Such rulings used to be called "checks and balances"; today, they're called "impediments"...to what?
I don't see why the tribunals need to be secret. What congressional oversight is normally afforded to military tribunals?

He's already been mentioned twice in this thread. Let me mention him a third time: Jose Padilla
- US Citizen
- US Soil
As I've already said, I feel that was blatantly unconstitutional. Padilla will have his day in criminal, civillian court, and then he'll probably have a much happier day in civil court. Given your long list of potentially terroristic organizations and acts in the US, it is readily apparent that the historical treatment of such makes the mistakes made with Padilla by far the exception rather than the rule.
 
Mad Martigan, as buzz_knox stated, but you may not have picked up on it, the moment the prisoners hit US soil (and it has already been determined that Gitmo is US Soil for purposes of jurisdiction), then they are covered by US Law.

If these people had been left outside of US jurisdictional limits, the Supreme Court wouldn't be having this argument.

I just came home for lunch and haven't read the opinion yet. But the above is true, based upon other Supreme Court rulings.
 
Mad Martigan, as buzz_knox stated, but you may not have picked up on it, the moment the prisoners hit US soil (and it has already been determined that Gitmo is US Soil for purposes of jurisdiction), then they are covered by US Law.
BS. As has already been stated, "SCOTUS has not granted these detainees US Citizen Protections," and "I feel extending protections we provide for our citizens to foreign combatants to be approaching foolishness."
 
Given your long list of potentially terroristic organizations and acts in the US, it is readily apparent that the historical treatment of such makes the mistakes made with Padilla by far the exception rather than the rule.
Incorrect. the only thing that is "readily apparent" is that, Post-911, this administration attempted to to change the way "domestic terrorists" have been traditionally handled; Padilla was their test case.

So it is with the Gitmo detainees: For the first time, we had "(non) enemy combatants" subject to "Military Tribunal". If you can have it both ways with foreign nationals on US soil, it's a teeny tiny step to have it both ways with US Citizens on US Soil. Remember, the Administration's operative term in the case of Padilla was not "citizen" but "terrorist".

Don't get me wrong....I'm not a Bush Basher and not against the war (small "w"). But I am against the way it's being prosecuted on our own soil, in some cases against our own citizens...and, in many cases, without any oversight.
Rich
 
Incorrect. the only thing that is "readily apparent" is that, Post-911, this administration attempted to to change the way "domestic terrorists" have been traditionally handled; Padilla was their test case.
They attempted that use of executive power and have failed.

It is a GIGANTIC step to treat US citizens the same as foreign combatants, and also the other way around.
 
"Does the Geneva Convention not make diffferent stipulations about the treatment of uniformed and non-uniformed combatants, legal and illegal combatants? "

Yes, it does. Terrorists not fighting in uniform or wearing a promiinent identifying device are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
 
You mean combatants not wearing recognizable uniforms, bearing their arms openly, or adhering to the laws of war are treated differently than other combatants? ;)
 
the cliff notes I think for those in the majority

please feel free to correct me if I am wrong or add to the list.

1. Accused is not a member of the military
2. Tribunal is not part of the established military justice system
3. Public Importance of the Issues
4. Courts have a duty to protect constitutional safeguards for all
5.The Government had no argument to excuse the Courts from performing its duties in No. 4.
6. No Congressional authorization for the commision
7.Commision violates the UCMJ and Geneva Convention
8. The defendant and his lawyer had no rights to know the charges against him and could be denied acess to material. This would lead to the argument that the defendant nor the lawyer could mount an effective defense.
9. Introduction of any evidence the Presiding Officer thought a reasonable person would allow (no hard rules of evidence)
10. No basis to presume that the trial will be conducted in accordance with the law....

Basically a fish shoot in a barrel is what the majority were saying. They were telling Bush what his administration needs to do to fix the problem to ensure that rights and liberties are protected and that no kangaroo courts are being held under U.S. Jurisdiction. The Court is not saying Bush can never try them. All he has to do is adress those issues and fix them.

now I will have to digest the dissenting folks opinion.
 
To put it in a few words....

This tribunal is illegal under existing law, UCMJ and an international agreement. There is no authority under the UMCJ nor law for it. That there is no presumtion that the tribunal would conduct itself in accordance with the law or the UCMJ. This tribunal was pulled out of the administrations hat with no basis in the law. Bush even as the President must follow established law and can not make up stuff . IMO it was a warning shot across the administration's bow.

The Supreme Courts Job is just doing its job to ensure that constitutional safeguards are protected.
 
We certainly have quite a history of using military tribunals for them to have no basis in law. Are you sure about that? What existing law do military tribunals violate? What aspect of the GC do military tribunals violate?
 
Back
Top