Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1.    #1  
    US Supreme Court blocks Guantanamo trials
    By Simon Freeman, Sam Knight and agencies


    The US Supreme Court today blocked the trial of Guantanamo Bay prisoners in special military courts, ruling that the process drawn up by the Bush Administration broke both American law and the Geneva Conventions.

    In a blow to the executive powers of President Bush, America's highest court decided that the first 10 military tribunals of Guantanamo detainees - originally scheduled for later this year - will not go ahead.

    The courtís ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut, dealing solely with the proposed trials.

    The "structure and procedures" of the proposed military commission violated international laws governing the treatment of prisoners of war, it said, essentially, that prisoners should not be tried by their military adversaries.

    "Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," wrote Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority decision. The court ruled against the White House by a narrow margin of 5-3...
  2. #2  
    Holy crap! A ray of sanity shines through the clouds.

  3.    #3  
    Yeah, I was surprised and relieved. I hope this is an indication that future rulings won't be based on merit, not on ideology.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Holy crap! A ray of sanity shines through the clouds.


    I agree! BIG sigh of relief considering the current make-up of SCOTUS!!
  5. #5  
    I can't understand how any reasonable being could have thot the outcome would be any diufferent....even in the "new" court. However how many years before these people get their day in court. Whether they fry or fly, they have a right to a trial within areasonable time frame.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    I can't understand how any reasonable being could have thot the outcome would be any diufferent....even in the "new" court. However how many years before these people get their day in court. Whether they fry or fly, they have a right to a trial within areasonable time frame.
    Which the court also had to rule on 2 years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by From The Article
    This is the second time that the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush Administration on a Guantanamo Bay case. Two years ago, the court rejected the White House's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    I can't understand how any reasonable being could have thot the outcome would be any diufferent....even in the "new" court. However how many years before these people get their day in court. Whether they fry or fly, they have a right to a trial within areasonable time frame.
    John Roberts recused himself, and he had voted FOR the administration's case in the appeals court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented from today's decision.

    So, the decision could easily have gone the other way. This was not a "bipartisan" or unanimous decision by any means.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8. #8  
    So the "deny us our civil rights" justices were their usual selves, huh?
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Treo
    So the "deny us our civil rights" justices were their usual selves, huh?
    Well ... Alito's Princeton alumni group opposed the admission of women and affirmative action for minorities.

    Scalia denied that the Constitution protected the right to engage in sodomy, and in various cases he has argued that the Constitution does not protect a right to have an abortion.

    Clarence Thomas, (aside from signing on to every one of Scalia's opinions, and pubic hairs in his coke), has had opinions against desegregation programs in the south, and has authored opinions AGAINST affirmative action.

Posting Permissions