SCOTUS Hamdam ruling:

"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.

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.

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.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.

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.

Of about 450 prisoners at Guantanamo, only Hamdan and nine others face charges before a tribunal. Human rights groups have criticized the tribunals, formally called military commissions, for being fundamentally unfair.

Hamdan’s lawyers had challenged Bush’s power to create the tribunals and said he is covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore rules governing U.S. courts-martial should be applied."


How about we let Justice Stevens adopt Hamdan and take him home and feed him and cuddle him and get him therapy. Cripes first libs rule a developer can take my house, now they rule that Al Qaeda can live in it! Can we get a separate detention facility for them?

Better yet, remember in November, liberals will get you killed.

UPDATE: Ok readers,....remember, per bench memos:

"The Supreme Court's assertion of jurisdiction over , and subsequent invalidation of, the military tribunals should not come as a surprise. According to early reports, the Court specifically held that the commissions were illegal under both domestic and international law. On the other hand, the Court apparently reaffirmed the executive's authority to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. Justice Stevens wrote the primary opinion, though there is also a concurrence by Justice Kennedy. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, and each wrote an opinion."

Each of those opinions Thomas, Scalia and Alito can be revisited if need be. This ain't over yet. Besides that, Stevens is still going to have to wait until the END of hostilities before he can adopt Hamdem. Being that the GWOT is going to be going on for about oh, twenty more years, I don't think he'll be around anyway.

UPDATE: Will have no impact on day to day operations per commander.

Heh...per reader Allan:

"Or we could just adopt Hamas or Al-Qaeda's standards for treating their captives. Amnesty et al never have anything bad to say about that plus the terrorists don't have to resort to the expense of a trial."

I'm for that - a little "jail house rock".

More, Andy McCarthy called this:

"Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda — which no President, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance. (Compare this.) The Constitution consigns treaty-making to the political branches, not the courts, but a conclusion that Geneva protects Hamdan (and, by extension, his fellow savages) would ominously mean that the courts, under the conveniently malleable guise of "customary international law" can rewrite treaties to mean whatever they like them to mean.

Imagine Judge Lance Ito presiding over a steady stream of Al Qaeda defendant trials and their theatrics. This, unlike flag burning, is a real problem that only the confirmation of conservative justices can resolve and, if it were competent, the GOP should be able to use this issue to club the Democrats in November. This is a preliminary posting and I hope I'm wrong as the full opinion is analyzed, but it does not look good."


No it doesn't.

UPDATE II: Opinion posted here, not being a lawyer, but this wasn't a slam dunk. In fact, it could be easily revisted.

This ruling is not a ruling but an "opinion", and again, one which will only aid and comfort the enemy. In fact I will say that this decision will go down in history as one of the most treasonous acts ever committed on US soil. It's judicial seditition.

Make no mistake if we are attacked in the future, Justices Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsberg and Bryer, will bear the responsibility alone.

I say that the President takes the position of President Andrew Jackson reportedly said in a simuliar case.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Oh and by the way, Justice Stevens, drop dead.

UPDATE III: Ready to really hit the wall? Per the SCOTUS blog:

"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 "[t]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. "

I don't know about all of that. I think what we do is stop capturing and start exterminating. Geneva that!

Nevertheless, I'm going to be reading the decision throughout the afternoon and will update as needed.

Rolling updates at Michelle Malkin.

Further...a legal friend of mine tells me that the comeback from the administration is that they "sound like", they're going to tell the SCOTUS to go stuff itself through the Congress (a strong possibility). In any case the President's words indicate that nothing is going to change. There you go. Commander and Chief trumps five peanut head justices.

Nope, ain't over by a long shot.

UPDATE: The SCOTUS overstepped THEIR authority by ruling outside of their jurisdiction (see here). this will open the door for a simple reversal by Congress in the coming weeks. Per Robert Alt at Bench Memos:

"While today's Hamdan decision gives conservatives reason for despair, there is reason to believe that it could have good electoral effects. The damage done by the Court may be undone by Congress by simple legislation, and press releases already issued by Senators Cornyn, Graham, and Kyl make clear that they plan to do just that. In response to any legislation, expect the usual suspects from the left to hyperventilate about how Congress is stomping on the Geneva Convention. And the more they hyperventilate, the more the American people will distrust Democrats about national security issues.. A point also made over at The Counter Terrorism Blog.

How are the chances of that? Very good indeed.

Aforementioned remarks by Senator Graham and Kyl:

"“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.

“It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.
“In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, ‘Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.’

“We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute.”


The Government will move to overide the decision by passing the legislation, simple as that. In the mean time this decision is not going to do well for the Democrats (already labeled appropriately as the Cut and Run Party). Watch and see.





0 comments

Support our Vets!



Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio