SCOTUS Rules Bush OVERSTEPPED AUTHORITY Re: Gitmo Trials

[kpete]

Hamdan’s in — UMCJ not complied with — commissions not properly constituted and ARE NOT VALID. Remanded.

From MSNBC: Supreme Court rules Bush overstepped authority for Gitmo trials.


The Supreme Court rules President Bush overstepped his authority with military war crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay in a case involving a former driver for Osama bin Laden.

http://www.cnn.com/

UPDATE:

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating 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 the Geneva Convention.

Key ruling
The ruling was eagerly awaited by Bush administration officials, who want to bring charges against more prisoners, and by groups like Human Rights Watch, which has called on Bush to close Guantanamo.

The ruling only addressed the military tribunals, not broader issues such as whether the base should be closed.

more :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

more:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/decisions_5.html

[DrDan]

1. whoa

this will caue junior to clinch those teeth

[Rose Siding]

2. WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!

Justices: Bush went too far at Guantanamo

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruleed Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in plans for war crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay.

The case, one of the most significant involving presidential war powers cases since World War II, was brought by Guantanamo prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was a driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush established special war crimes tribunals for trying prisoners held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

[Sailor for Warner]

3. Yup

Serious problems, says Geneva Convention "bare minimum" trial protections must be met.
Maybe not a rubber stamp court after all ?

[karlrschneider]

4. Those darn activist judges

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[swag]

5. Thanks, kpete.

At least the Supremes got this one right.

[Flubadubya]

6. Who were the three justices that thought...

Bush's overstepping was OK? I can certainly guess, but would like to know for sure.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. Scalito, Alito Thomasito

[Flubadubya]

35. Oh Duh...

why am I NOT surprised? Fascist pigs!!!!! :puke:

[acmavm]

39. The three who one would expect to be ignorant of American

Jurisprudence and the rights granted to us (and others) under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In other words, the three intellectual lightweights.

[w4rma]

61. Roberts ruled in favor of the tribunals in a lower court before he was

nominated to the Supreme Court.

[endarkenment]

7. 5-3 with Roberts not voting.

Call it 5-4. The SC is one justice short of supporting overt fascism. Save your celebration for after we see what happens in november.

[dancingme]

26. 5-3 is just a number

according to Tony Snow

[PA Democrat]

54. Does anyone know why Roberts did not vote? n/t

[endarkenment]

55. He was sitting on the lower court that this case ruled on.

He was required by tradition to recuse himself.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

8. Yee Haww! n/t

[stop the bleeding]

9. Time to load all of the "terrist" onto a secret squirrel CIA plane and

whisk them away to someplace out sight and out of mind so the real torture can begin.

[spanone]

10. Will Bush* fire the Supreme Court? How will they spin this?

Junior won't like his authority being questioned.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Yes!!!!!!! Thank you for posting this FANTASTIC News!!!!!! eom

[Solly Mack]

12. Finally

"the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention"

I've been saying that for...just forever

AND...and this is very important. The piece of shit DO NOT overstep his authority - HE BROKE THE LAW....BOTH federal and international

Claiming he overstepped his authority suggest he had any authority to to set up trials to begin with...and HE DID NOT!

[UTUSN]

13. F-ing Daryn KAGAN: "limiting the power of a WARTIME PRESIDENT" n/t

[spanone]

16. Good call Daryn. WE NEED TO LIMIT HIS POWER.

You Ho.

[Protagoras]

17. apparently that takes Viagra

:P

[Philosoraptor]

14. WILL BUSH DEFY THE SUPREME COURT?

I bet he does.

[lonestarnot]

27. Are you kidding, he's probably ordering up 747's for the building right

now.

[Flubadubya]

36. Sneaky bastard...

Of course he will, we just won't know anyting about it (unless it's leaked!). He's just like a rotten child who's been denied and goes behind his Mom's back and does what he damned well pleases anyway. Just watch. This is they way the blivet will behave. :grr:

[Beetwasher]

15. Stevens Wrote The Decison, That's REALLY Gonna Chap Chimpy's Ass!

I expect the admin. to ignore this and just do what they want anyway.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. they have with every appl. and SC decision so far, unfortunately.

heck, this might lead to constitutional congress, that is if we had a real congress sitting in office, and not a trained lapdog GOP which sits, heels, rolls over and fetches on command.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Damn activist Judges.

Yesterday they were peachy keen for their disastrous Texas Gerrymandering decision and today they will be Activist Judges....according to the psycho party.

[berner59]

19. Daryn Kagan stammering...

But but but...this means we can still have GITMO, we just have to follow different rules, right? She can't bring herself to say that the King was just usurped from some powers... Bet Rush is feeding into her earpiece...

[lonestarnot]

21. A smack down on the fucking unitary executive. Well I'll be damned.

[endarkenment]

24. Does this really address their UE bullshit?

[lonestarnot]

25. Hell no!

[grytpype]

31. I think it is a smackdown.

After reading the discussion on SCOTUSblog, I haven't read the decisions, apparently the basis for the Court's ruling was that Congress did not give Bush the authority to set up these tribunals, and in fact Congress denied him that authority.

So yes, I think this is a blow at the Bush Monarchy.

Now there was no majority opinion on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to these tribunals. So maybe Congress could restore the tribunals like they were.

But the bad news for Bush is that the majority of the Court doesn't dig on the war-president/monarchy theory.

[stop the bleeding]

22. Freepers heads are exploding I bet :) n/t

[kpete]

28. Hey...

Did you EVER find what you were looking for?

Peace, kp

[stop the bleeding]

29. the transcript? No

it is at the DC Courthouse - as in a physical file and I am in Florida and only have access to what is put out electronically - I was hoping someone in DC could pick it up - but I am feeling like this has passed us by ;)

[hootinholler]

56. What transcript? Which court?

I might be able to help, but possibly not soon, depending on when I can get downtown and when the courts offices are available to request it.

-Hoot

[Junkdrawer]

30. I'll wait to celebrate when trials for the Gitmo detainees begin...

As far as I can see, this just means more detention without ANY kind of trial.

[Beetwasher]

32. MSNBC and CNN Articles CONTRADICT EACHOTHER On Important Info:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908

Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo
5-3 ruling in one of biggest presidential powers' cases since World War II

"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 court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan."

--snip--

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/inde...

High court blocks Gitmo military tribunals

"Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the Hamdan case. He had ruled against the government last year when the case was argued in a lower federal appeals court."

--snip--

Seriously, WTF???? Fucking lame ass, lazy, bullshit corporate media. Stupid fucking assholes.

[jsamuel]

48. Roberts ruled for the government, cnn has it wrong

[malaise]

33. Impeach that fugger

NOW!

[spanone]

34. CNN reporting bush* will reply to ruling @ 11:30 am est.

Temper tantrum?...maybe call them traitors? God forbid Bush* have to follow international law.

[Cameron27]

37. heard the same on msnbc...

and thought pretty much along the same line as you.

[acmavm]

42. I'll bet he's scribbling one of those double secret signing

orders to himself and Dickhead right now.

"I grant myself the power to ignore the Supreme Court of the United States. No matter what they say, it's what I say that goes."

Signed

The Unelected Fraud

[Catherine Vincent]

38. I just may watch this upcoming news conference.

I dare him to start yelling like some lunatic.

[fishwax]

40. why is msnbc hurting the war on terror by releasing this information?

[kpete]

41. HUGE part of today’s ruling

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”-including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I’m right about this, it’s enormously significant.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/

[Solly Mack]

43. Exactly....today's ruling proves Bush is a war criminal

and that he has repeatedly violated federal and international law.

It's not simply a matter of Bush overstepping his authority...it's a case of - Bush broke the law

[kpete]

44. And what a surprise:

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.

[Solly Mack]

46. "Brought to justice"....that's rich, isn't it? To use the word justice

in a case where justice has most certainly been denied through violations of the law

[tinfoilinfor2005]

62. Wonder if he would feel the same way if Clinton was the POTUS.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Uncle Clarence Thomas does it again.

[malaise]

47. It is Enormously significant

Yes it is - crimes gainst humanity - violation of the Geneva Convention and high crimes. Impeach or send him to the Hague.

[kentuck]

52. I think you are right kpete...

The Court does not hand down sentences. They only rule on the law. They ruled that Bush broke existing laws, is the way I read it. He did something illegal. Is it a crime or misdeanor? Well, if it "illegal" it is by definition against the law. Where is the precedence where the Congress would overlook the breaking of laws?

[Cameron27]

45. prez must follow laws of us....(attorney on msnbc)

may also have affect on monitoring! Wilner (attorney who represented detainees at gitmo)... interrogation techniques at gitmo must comply with geneva convention..this is a significant decision.

today supremes said you cannot wipe out habeas corpus...(wilner)

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. One more bushie corrupt judge and all pretense of democracy or even

civilization will be over. Five judges recently stood against blatant, done-at-will vote-suppressing redistricting too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2699846
SCOTUS Votes 5:4 to Uphold Voting Rights Act: Democracy by a Thread

One more judge, and it's all over. May the five honest SCOTUS judges be well and live beyond this national crisis.

[kpete]

50. I like that Breaking News banner

I like that Breaking News banner on http://www.abcnews.go.com

SUPREME COURT RULES PRESIDENT BUSH OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY BY ORDERING MILITARY WAR CRIMES TRIALS AT GUANTANAMO BAY

I turned On Fox News
They look like they had the live sucked out of them...

actual Fox News soundbite-"the Supreme Court threw a protection blanket over terrorists".

[malaise]

60. Santorum coming up on MSNBC

to discuss Supremes and floods.

[txwhitedove]

51. Yes, it's a smackdown. Somebody find the clip from CNN of

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift!!! It came right after Bob Franken's 1st report on the news, and it had me cheering. ...in effect, return to the America we know.

[malaise]

53. The spin is to blame Congress n/t

[lonestarnot]

57. Kick

[lonestarnot]

58. kick'n for 18

[LeftHander]

59. Stevens - "ILLEGAL under U.S. Law" Bush broke the law then....

Impeach him.

[Quantess]

63. Kick & Recommend

:patriot:

[PATRICK]

64. It stills seems

that these latest "setbacks" are written by the sympathetic majority, making them in effect conciliatory lose/win events for Bush with disturbing windows left open to the future and other doors of hope slammed shut.

It is still like the sportsman with a fish on the line. The line plays out, is reeled in, the end not in doubt unless the string snaps. The string and the hook is still attached. Both the organs of power and the people are at play for the little fisherman.

Bush is mightily peeved unless he gets win/win. His majesty will suffer the lose/win outcome though since it gives him time and leaves status unchanged, and gives leeway and false comfort to the "enemy". As usual in these "difficulties" Bush is stammeringly incoherent and without ideas, but in the end he can relax and take his sweet time as the Guantanamo prisoners suffer their open ended sentence mired in unresolved red tape. Gee, one big terror attack and he could just shoot them all. When will the simple world reassert itself? Hasn't Bush done all he could to make things easier and more fruitful for such a event?