or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Bush's plug is pulled but ehe USSC! |
Erewhon |
06/30/06 |
In a stinging rebuke of President George Bush's high handed and illegal tactics in the war on terrorism, the mighty US Supreme Court yesterday struck down as unlawful Bush's military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.
By a 5-3 vote, the country's highest court declared that the tribunals, which Bush created in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, violated the Geneva Conventions and US military rules.
"We conclude that the military commission convened to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan [Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur] lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the judgment.
Stevens said the military commissions were not authorised by any act of the US Congress but added that Mr Bush was free to seek the necessary authority (that he already thinks, erroneously, that he holds in his prwesidential paws!)
The decision was a stinging blow for the administration in a case brought by Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan. Hamdan, one of hundreds of foreign terrorist suspects at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was captured in November 2001.
It prompted immediate calls for the US authorities to swiftly release prisoners or allow fair trials for all the detainees, who include eight British residents.
Kate Allen, the UK director of Amnesty International said: "This ruling should now lead to the US administration ending the scandal of holding Guantanamo prisoners in defiance of international human rights law. The Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed and all detainees allowed fair trials or released to safe countries."
Jose-Luis Diaz, a spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, said the decision also appeared to vindicate "the need for vigilance" in protecting rights, including those of terrorist suspects.
The US currently holds about 450 detainees at the facility. The Pentagon says 136 of these detainees have been approved for release or transfer, but cannot be released because they are either too dangerous, unwanted by their home country or are at risk of being tortured if returned to their countries. LOL!!!
Ten detainees have had charges filed - they were due to be tried by the military tribunals now ruled unlawful.
The ruling, on the last day of the court's 2005-06 term, followed the deaths of three Guantanamo prisoners this month and increased calls for Mr Bush to close the prison camp. US treatment of inmates at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn international criticism.
Within the past few months, Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Minister, and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, have called for its closure. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has only said that the camp is an "anomaly" that should be dealt with "sooner or later".
One of Hamdan's military lawyers, Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, praised the court action. "All we wanted was a fair trial," he said outside the Supreme Court. "Yes, it is a rebuke for the process... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."
Justice Stevens said in his 73-page opinion: "The rules specified for Hamdan's trial are illegal."
He said the system has to incorporate even "the barest of those trial protections that have been recognised by customary international law".
The tribunals, ruled Stevens, failed to provide even the most fundamental protection under US military rules - the right for a defendant to be present at a hearing.
===
Bush is shown to be the tyrant he is. I told you he would be found out and I am vindicated by no less a body than the US Supreme Court!
|
Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 06/30/06 7:27 pm:
Steve,
Your lack of grace and acceptance noted, as is your ever-present need to attack and kill the messenger. That is your way, so I say "the Lord judge between thee and me and reward you according to his kind will."
The Supreme Court's decision striking down the military tribunals set up to try the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay is far more than a narrow ruling on the issue of military courts.
It is an important and welcome reaffirmation that even in times of war, the law is what the Constitution, the statute books and the Geneva Conventions say it is — not what the president wants it to be!
Nuff said!
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/30/06 7:37 pm:
Yes Ron ;it was Congress that made the law . That is their legitimate role . Note they did not attempt to strike that law down . The law clearly says the courts have no business ruling on this case .
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 06/30/06 7:52 pm:
Ronnie,
Your lack of grace noted as well, as in saying:
"Bush is shown to be the tyrant he is. I told you he would be found out and I am vindicated"
Golly gee Ronnie, I didn't know it was all about you, that explains a lot. You really should learn what "attacking the messenger" really is. It certainly isn't pointing out the obvious, such as making note of how uncomely it is for a 'Christian' to gloat over the decision and his perceived 'vindication.' So, I'll see your Lord judging between me and thee and raise you a "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
Also I didn't know that telling the president you can't do it this way, but you can still go about it another way, was an indication the Supreme Court considered Bush a tyrant.
I can imagine a tyrant saying "screw the court, we're doing it our way," not "We will work with the Congress", "some of these people need to be tried in our courts", and " I will.. protect the people, and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court."
If you would have begun with "It is an important and welcome reaffirmation that even in times of war, the law is what the Constitution, the statute books and the Geneva Conventions say it is," that would have been seasoned with grace and there would be no need for this discussion, but you chose the low road to begin with.
SteveClarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 06/30/06 11:30 pm:
That's what Bush has done all along, 'screw the courts,' or had you forgotten? It's a pity you have to scream when his wrongding is exposed, and that you can't see it for yourself. delusions are powerful things.
Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 07/01/06 5:11 am:
I haven't tried to shut you up Ronnie. Read what I write and not what you assume I've written. I wonder at your glee to find Bush wrong even in the face of disaster for this country.
I have no proof those people being held have tried to murder me but I do have some trust in my country and it's processes, that they know things that the general public (which includes you) do not know. When in war, does the general public get all the information???
Your postings just come off as being very happy that Bush does some things wrong because it proves your right about this whole thing.
People are not captured and held in prison without reason. Live with that thought.
Do you know George Bush personally? How can you know what's in his heart? How can you paste titles on him without proof?
You see this goes both ways. It's not only yours.
I am not one who has delusions but I am wondering about you lately.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/01/06 1:34 pm:
Ronnie, the pity is in someone so engrossed with hatred for Bush they can't see anything else. The court allowed Bush a remedy, said nothing of unconstitutionality, only that the tribunals violated a section of the UCMJ. They in essence said "we're going to give you a do-over, take a mulligan and try again."
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
