Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

[Shade Everdark]

How important do you think this Supreme Court decision is?

What effects, if any, will it have on the Bush administration?

[Msterbeau]

Not much if the Republican controlled legislature has it's way....

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...302&ft=1&f=1001

This the second time the Supreme Court has rebutted Bush's administration and his claim to powers to do as he pleases in conducting the war on terror. I guess Congress doesn't care about The Geneva Convention nor the Military Code of Justice on which these decisions were based.

[Blackmail]

How important do you think this Supreme Court decision is?

What effects, if any, will it have on the Bush administration?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They should shut down Guantanamo Bay just out of principle.

But as for the legal decision, I find it odd that the Supreme Court sidestepped the 1942 ruling that upheld Military tribunals for German "insurgents" during WW2.

I agree with Scalia in his dissent, but then, I almost always agree with Scalia. So from a legal perspective I agree with Scalia. From a regular joe standpoint, I see no harm in granting lawyers and having regular trials for suspects at Guantanamo.

And to answer your question.....I was talking about this with a lawyer friend of mine and he said it's all in the wording. Hamden is the only person this ruling applies to according to my friend's theory. This won't change anything according to him. I am not saying I disagree but I am only now digging thru the whole ruling in pdf form.

[Blackmail]

Not much if the Republican controlled legislature has it's way....

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...302&ft=1&f=1001

This the second time the Supreme Court has rebutted Bush's administration and his claim to powers to do as he pleases in conducting the war on terror.  I guess Congress doesn't care about The Geneva Convention nor the Military Code of Justice on which these decisions were based.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the Supreme Court did not decide that Geneva Convention laws were broken in terms of Guantanamo. As for your assertion that the President thinks he can do whatever he wants, well, the Supreme Court pretty much said so today. Did you read Breyers opinion? Breyer basically said in his opinion that all the white house needed to do was have congress change the laws a little.

[Msterbeau]

Actually, the Supreme Court did not decide that Geneva Convention laws were broken in terms of Guantanamo.  As for your assertion that the President thinks he can do whatever he wants, well, the Supreme Court pretty much said so today.  Did you read Breyers opinion?  Breyer basically said in his opinion that all the white house needed to do was have congress change the laws a little.

Well.. I obviously disagree with "just changing the laws a little." We expect the world to treat our soldiers fairly but then the Bush administration has gone out of it's way to ignore the same rules we expect of others in it's conduct of the war on terror. If this is war then treat these people as enemy combatants not vilanized demons. If there case is so strong, put them on trial, prove them guilty and then lock them up in a legitimate prison.

[Blackmail]

Well..  I obviously disagree with "just changing the laws a little."  We expect the world to treat our soldiers fairly but then the Bush administration has gone out of it's way to ignore the same rules we expect of others in it's conduct of the war on terror.  If this is war then treat these people as enemy combatants not vilanized demons.  If there case is so strong, put them on trial, prove them guilty and then lock them up in a legitimate prison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you in theory, I'm just not so sure anything illegal is happening. Well it's not legal either obviously as the supreme court has stated in it's 5-3 decision.

I am not sure what Hamden is guilty of but he was Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard so I wouldn't mind hearing all the facts rather than a secret tribunal.

And as I said, they should shut down Guantanamo in my book.

[Shade Everdark]

Actually, in this case (I am still currently reading the Court's opinion), the Court does maintain that violation of the Fourth Geneva convention did take place in the detention and trial of the defendant.

From page 2 of the Court opinion, delivered by Justice Stevens:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ [uniform Code of Military Justice] and the Geneva Conventions."

I have not yet reached the section of the Court opinion detailing these violations. However, in perusing some of the articles of the Third Geneva convention, I did come across a rather interesting mandate in Article 5. Article 5 states:

"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. "

Link to Text here and Here.

Since it seems that there has been some question as to whether these persons are or are not prisoners of war, the Geneva convention pretty explicitly states that they are to be granted all privileges of prisoner of war status until a tribunal can be convened to determine their status. I don't know whether such a tribunal has been convened in the US, but if it has, it's gotten remarkably little media coverage.

[Blackmail]

Actually, in this case (I am still currently reading the Court's opinion), the Court does maintain that violation of the Fourth Geneva convention did take place in the detention and trial of the defendant.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok I guess I was wrong. The rest of the courts opinion seemed to be about whether Hamden was a POW or now. Thanks for correcting me, I should have read the entire decision before commenting.

[Shade Everdark]

Seems I made a mistake myself.

The Court did not indicate which of the Geneva Conventions, in particular, were violated, merely (in that sentence) that Geneva Conventions were violated.

I'll post more when I've finished the Court opinion.