Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

June 29, 2006 in Al Qaeda, Courts, Global War On Terror, Terrorism

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

Full Story here

Fox reported that the court ruled against the Administration on every point. I am not sure exactly what this means, except that those detained will be afforded more rights. Bottom line is the rights detainees have are far more than those the detainees afforded their victims.

Updated 10:55 PM

There will likely be 3 effects of the Supreme Court Decision:

Congress will have to establish an authority to put the detainees on trial, and will have to establish what rights are granted the detainees. This will put Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry in the akward position of arguing for an Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights… Politically it won’t play out well for them. Of Course they will Blame Bush…
Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will probably not be in the mood to take prisoners much any more. The Supreme Court doesn’t feel we have the authority to put prisoners on trial… might as well leave their terrorist asses on the Battlefield… in Body Bags.
This is by far the most troubleing effect of the supreme court ruling.. With the Supreme Court stating that we must provide the detainees with Prisoner of War Status, even though they wear no uniform nor do they belong to the armed forces of any nation state, With the USSC giving them POW status elevates the status of Al-Qaeda Terrorists to that of any soldier of any nation.

Others Blogging Hot Air, Michelle Malkin Stop the ACLU Jon Swift,

6 Replies

MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan

June 29, 2006 at 1:24 pm

Assorted Babble, let me correct you on one point: The Gitmo inmates are ALLEGED killers, murderers…. Accordng to any justtice system, includng that of the US, a prisoner is only an alleged criminal until convincing evidence is forwarded to actually prove his or her crime. However, what is noteworthy about Gitmo detainees is that they haven’t even been formally charged for any specific crime. Also, we must know that the Gitmo detainees are prisoners of war, and according to the Geneva Convention as well as US laws, PoWs deserve fair trials. For example, General Penochet, who was clearly involved in the genocide of Muslims in Kosovo, was not only provided a fair trial, but also a humane treatment. This means the Gitmo inmates too–regardless of what they have done and/or against whom they have done–must be provided fair trials.

Reply
Darrell

June 30, 2006 at 12:01 am

Scribbles..

Show me where within the Geneva convention that Terrorists, not in the uniform of any nation state is considered a Prisoner of War. You also imply that Detainees at Club Gitmo are somehow not provided humane treatment. perhaps you could also show some evidence of that as well..

Thanks

Darrell

Reply
MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan

June 30, 2006 at 12:54 am

Darrell:

This is Article Three of the Geneva Convention based on which the US Supreme court gave its ruling:

“Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

“To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

… ”

With respect to Clause D of Article 3, the trials on offer by President Bush are illegal because the military commissions conducting the trials are allowed to:
1. Present evidence acquired through torture of the defendant (also in violation of Clauses A and C)
2. place undue restriction on the defence attorneys
3. keep parts of the trial secret from the defendant.

Taking into consideration Clause D of Article Three, do you think the criteria for trying those detainess provide them “Judicial guarantees which are recognized indespensible by civilized peoples”?

Reply
MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan

June 30, 2006 at 1:05 am

To prove that the US has been torturing and inhumanely treating inmates not only in Bagram (Afghanistan) and Abu Ghraib, but also in Guantanamo, I would refer you to read Human Rights Watch’s By the Numbers: Findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project

Reply
Darrell

June 30, 2006 at 11:38 am

Scribbles:

Here is a link to the Geneva Convention concerning POW’s

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now scribbles since the detainees did not wear a distinctive sign nor have they conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, the USSC providing them POW Status was certainly a mistake. It elevates the status of Al-Qaeda terrorists to that of legitimate soldiers. And as I said in my post the end result could very well be the taking of fewer prisoners, and leaving those Al-qaeda Terrorists on the Battlefield in body bags.

As far as Human Rights Watch.. They were invited to Guantanamo to review the conditions underwhich the detainees were kept. Seems obvious to me that they wanted more to issue a report critical of the US than they wanted to issue a report that was based on actual evidence and facts.

Darrell

Reply

1 Assorted Babble by Suzie Trackback on Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:07 am
U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Gitmo War Crimes Trials…

Totally shocking these are killers, murderers…..Gitmo Prisoners
They deserve no rights as our President said, but not according to our U.S. Supreme Court. This decision is not based on closing Gitmo but allows the prisoners to stand trial.Breaking…..