Bush Exceeds Authority; Supreme Court Rules

[Nati Ice]

[quote][b]Supreme Court blocks Bush war crimes trials for Guantanamo detainees[/b]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down President Bush's plan to hold military tribunals for foreign terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, naval base, saying Bush exceeded his authority by setting up the trial system without authorization from Congress.

In a 5-3 vote Thursday that brought a dramatic end to the court's annual term, the justices said Bush's plan — which would not allow a defendant to see all of the evidence against him or attend all court hearings — lacks enough protections for detainees. The court said the plan violated the U.S. Military Code of Justice and the Geneva Conventions dealing with prisoners of war.

The ruling came in a case involving Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni accused of serving as a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and delivering weapons to al-Qaeda. It forces the administration to come up with another way to try foreign terror suspects and possibly to seek permission from Congress for a new plan.

Bush and Pentagon officials said Thursday that they were still digesting the ruling, and it was unclear what would become of the 14 detainees who have been designated for trial by tribunals or more than 400 other prisoners at the camp that has been the focus of international controversy.

Bush said he hoped to work with Congress "to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue" for bringing foreign terror suspects to justice. Absent congressional action, the administration could court-martial detainees under military law.

"This is a blockbuster decision," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a supporter of the president. "But (the court) opened the door to a legislative remedy."

Critics of the administration's moves to detain foreigners in Cuba indefinitely and keep them out of federal and international courts suggested the ruling could lead to the closure of the Guantanamo prison. It was set up in 2001 "to evade the jurisdiction of the federal courts," said Gene Fidell of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington. "The whole purpose of Guantanamo has been undercut."

The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, a Navy veteran from World War II who won the Bronze star, emphasized that Bush cannot go it alone in the war on terrorism. After Stevens read portions of the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia read an acerbic dissent.

Justice Clarence Thomas then read a separate dissent, noting that never before in his 15 years on the court had he been provoked by a majority opinion to announce his dissent from the bench. Thomas said the president was within his authority as commander in chief to create a justice system to deal with the unique threat posed by al-Qaeda.

Scalia and Thomas were joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate; he had been on a lower court that upheld Bush's plan.

Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, rejected the administration's claims that Congress' approval of military force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and other legal grounds gave the president the power to impose the tribunal system.

The case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184.[/quote]

[Guest steggyD]

Bad news is, I hear the detainees are screwed. The word is that they will be held prisoner until the "war on terror" is over. Ironic, eh?

[whodey319]

unrelated but i am confused on this: I was watching MSNBC and a Dem Senator was talking about the geneva convention and all that and he said the US as a nation is not allowed to be in it because as a nation we dont qualify but he didnt expand on this. Any ideas? he also said the geneva convention is a load of crap in so many words

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/the_common_arti.html"]Some commentary[/url]

[Guest fredtoast]

[i]After Stevens read portions of the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia read an acerbic dissent. [/i]

Scalia sided with the White House? His dissent was acerbic? Wow, isn't that a shocker?

[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/15/politics/main588582.shtml"]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/15/...ain588582.shtml[/url]

[TheBZ]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6062902300.html[/url]

Just another article...But one that paints a government that has (somewhat) been placed back into the hands of democracy.

I suppose we will have to see whether this is really a meaningful event or not. At the very least, it is a good sign that elected representatives still have some role to play in the business of the administration.

BZ

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]Due process should be a fundemental human right ... regardless of what race, motive, or group you are fighting for.

Everyone locked up should have a chance to face their accuser and speak on the charges they are being held for.

Every human being should have a chance to prove they are innocent and be made aware of why they are in bondage.


But then again these are foreign concepts to some .... [/b]