TBO.com > News > Latest News Reports
- Moffitt Among Quarterfinalists For Lott Award
- Two Women Thrown From Boat When It Hits I-75 Bridge
- Judge Imposes Stay On Lethal Injections
- Poll: More Coastal Residents Would Not Evacuate For Hurricane
- Robbers In Ninja Garb Strike Hampton Inn
- Deputy Is Accused Of Domestic Battery
- 2 Men Burst Into Home, Steal More Than $7,000
- Temple Terrace Man Wounded In Shooting
- Polk Deputies Charge 17 Men After Weekend Cockfight
- Baby Dropped Off At Fire Station
- Jury Awards $21.1 Million In Wrongful Birth Case
- Deputies Investigate Bank Robbery
- Grandpa Robbed; Grandson Charged
- Composite Sketch Of Armed Carjacker Released
- Progress Village Homicide Victim ID’d
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.
Two years ago, the court rejected Bush’s claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.
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 lead 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.
Interactive: Do you agree with the justices?
I did want to respond to the person who thinks it is a joke to be concerned to have your privacy invaded because your wife might just be asking you to get milk. It doesn’t matter what conversation is going on...it is private. I have nothing to hide but I do not want the government in my personal business. Don’t forget that if our three pre-existing “intelligence” agencies had been working together (without wiretaps) they might have put together what was going on 9-11. Also,don’t forget the Downing Street Memo when you blindly believe what the government tells you…
It is amusing that whenver some people get flustered, they resort to generalized name calling. However, our constitution protects our right to privacy, period. If our government can find all the other high ranking al queda figures, why can’t they find Osama, a six plus foot tall man on dialysis? Do you think there’s a reason that George W hasn’t mentioned his name in over 2 years? Regardless that Al Queda didn’t sign the Geneva Convention, WE did. It is about human rights. When we proselytize democracy for the rest of the world and start a war for oil but name it a war for democracy, shouldn’t we lead by example? The Patriot Act opens the door for the government to arrest U.S. citizens during and after this war...in the name of safety. Like I said earlier, they can call you a terrorist or a supporter and NEVER have to show you evidence or give you a trial. Imagine if McCarthy had been as persuasive as Bush.
It’s amazing how many people cheer each time an effort to stop terrorism is hampered. We have to treat prisoners like kindergarten children. We can’t listen in on phone conversations between terrorists. After all, someone may be on the line when the wife asks you to stop by Publix and pick up some milk. We can’t be examining bank records. Someone might be looking at your numbered bank account in Switzerland. Right…
What amuses me is that the very same folks stand around with a cocktail in their hands talking with their tofu munching friends and say “six years, and that moron Bush hasn’t caught bin Laden yet.”
Roberts was NOT “sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.”
He recused HIMSELF because he had previously heard the case. His decision on the case had no bearing on his recusal.
Yes, we signed the Geneva Convention. When did Al-Queda sign in? This defeat for Bush was a victory for Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard. Not some kid from Jersey, not some hapless innocent victim. Note that following the Geneva Convention, combatants out of uniform on the field of battle can be treated as spies.
FDR used Military Courts, so did Abraham Lincoln. Of course, their excuse was that thousands they were taking actions to save American lives during a war.
These people are enemy combatants. They are NOT American citizens, therefore they have NO protection under our Constitution. They should be tried by military tribunals.
However, I just love it when Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Dimocrats come out firmly on the side of our enemies, by praising the Supreme Court decision.
This just cements a Republican victory in November.
The question isn’t whether or not these people are terrorists or criminals, the question is who is Mr. Bush to make or break the rules to suit his own aspirations. If all the countries of the world were run by people with the Bush mentality, we’d be squarely in the middle or World War III! We have a political system that’s based upon checks and balance...our present administration has completely circumvented that system for its own self-serving goals disguised as a fight against terrorism. In many ways, Mr. Bush is every bit as much a criminal as those that we are trying to destroy.
Thank you for bringing up the Geneva Convention! I am proud to be an American but am ashamed at our government’s actions in the area of human rights. With the Patriot Act, you can be held for an indeterminate period of time and w/out knowing why and with no trial. Because of the Patriot Act, the government can intercept your mail, your calls, your banking, etc. That law is a door that has been opened to invade your privacy in the name of safety. A prominent American, a signatory to the constitution said “those who give up freedom for security deserve neither”.
Wow, the rule of law prevails! I
expected the reactions I’m reading.
I thought we were supposed to be morally
superior. Since we’re a signatory to
the Geneva Convention, I would hope that
we would honor it. Just because Bush says we’re not bound by the law, doesn’t
make it so. You don’t forget the law
because they’re bad guys. We’re no less safe because of this decision. Maybe
reason is beginning to return.
This is ridiculous. These people are terrorists, or people who are affiliated with terrorists, whose intention it is to destroy the U.S. They do not deserve any type of civilian trial. This is still a WAR, and they are prisoners of war.
absolutely not. it seems people have forgotten what happened 9/11 and that we’re still fighting a war against terror.
This is a big defeat for America.
It sucks!
The prisoners at Gitmo should stay put. The military is doing there best. Remember these are prisoners not your local neighbor.
Advertisement
Posted by Dominick Alesandrini, Tampa on 06/30 at 04:26 PM
George Bush oversteps his authority? Noooooo!