U.S. Supreme Court blocks Guantanamo war crimes trials

[Riverwind]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

This is great news for the US and the world - bad news for Bush.

[August1991]

I agree that this is good news. The Supreme Court takes the basic principles of the US constitution seriously.

OTOH, I don't think this should really be portrayed as a "defeat" for Bush Jnr. He tried to do something and the Court told him he can't do it.

Breyer wrote in a separate opinion, "The court's conclusion ultimately rests on a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"

Reuters

[Riverwind]

OTOH, I don't think this should really be portrayed as a "defeat" for Bush Jnr. He tried to do something and the Court told him he can't do it.

Bush has played the 'we are at war I can do anything I want' many times. The court decision only covers Gitmo, however, it undermines Bush's credibility in a number of other areas.

[Argus]

OTOH, I don't think this should really be portrayed as a "defeat" for Bush Jnr. He tried to do something and the Court told him he can't do it.

Bush has played the 'we are at war I can do anything I want' many times. The court decision only covers Gitmo, however, it undermines Bush's credibility in a number of other areas.

He will simply ask congress for permission and they will give it. Case closed.

[Guest Warwick Green]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

This is great news for the US and the world - bad news for Bush.

In the despotic Arab world this will be portrayed as a defeat for Bush. In effect it is a victory for democracy and something that could never happen in the Arab world where the government controls the courts and the courts do the government's bidding.

[Riverwind]

In the despotic Arab world this will be portrayed as a defeat for Bush. In effect it is a victory for democracy and something that could never happen in the Arab world where the government controls the courts and the courts do the government's bidding.

Which is why the ruling is so good for the world - it demonstrates that even the leader of the most powerful country on earth cannot do anything he wants - rules must be followed.

[BubberMiley]

He will simply ask congress for permission and they will give it. Case closed.

You might find that, in an election year, even a Republican congress isn't going to march in lockstep with a president polling 30% approval.

[Guest Warwick Green]

He will simply ask congress for permission and they will give it. Case closed.

You might find that, in an election year, even a Republican congress isn't going to march in lockstep with a president polling 30% approval.

With apologies to Dr Johnson, nothing concentrates a poltictian's mind more than an upcoming election. If Bush tries to play silly bugger with the SCOTUS decision he will get no support from the GOP in Congress.

[Argus]

He will simply ask congress for permission and they will give it. Case closed.

You might find that, in an election year, even a Republican congress isn't going to march in lockstep with a president polling 30% approval.

It has nothing to do with his popularity. From all I've seen most Americans approve of these people being kept locked up.

It's a quandary. National criminal laws were never intended for use against foreign military groups. But the Geneva Convention was never designed for dealing with a disorganized mass of violent religious fanatics.

Then again, if you treat them as POWs, the Geneva convention says that you hold POWs until their nation or organization surrenders. Since international terrorist group rarely surrender you should, I would think, be able to simply hold them forever.

Or the US could simply deport most of them to their countries of origin. Most would then be immediately shot or dumped into far worse prisons than the Americans possess.

[Liam]

As a lawyer, I think it is vital that we as a nation follow the law. We need to get some fluidity to the due process of law for these people. We aren't much of a civilized country or a member of the law-abiding and rights-respecting community of nations if we hold people indefinitely without charges.

The problem for the Bush folks is that they have continuously hammered home that we are at war with these people. To my knowledge, only combatants wage war and captured combatants are afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. (By the way, there are provisions in the Geneva Convention which address non-government combatants and those provisions should be applied to captured suspected terrorists.) So, either we aren't really at war, in which case certain domestic due process laws apply, or these people are combatants who are owed certain Geneva Convention rights.

I'm not a fan of these militarists -- not by any stretch of the imagination -- but I firmly believe that we have to prove to the world that we are better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

[Argus]

To my knowledge, only combatants wage war and captured combatants are afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. (By the way, there are provisions in the Geneva Convention which address non-government combatants and those provisions should be applied to captured suspected terrorists.)

Like what? As I understand it, none of these "provisions" include ever being released until and unless the organization of which they are members surrenders or makes peace.

That would mean, for example, that even if they never try the little scumbag Khadr kid, they can hold him until he drops dead of old age. Unless, of course, al Quaeda signs some kind of peace treaty with the US.

[Riverwind]

That would mean, for example, that even if they never try the little scumbag Khadr kid, they can hold him until he drops dead of old age. Unless, of course, al Quaeda signs some kind of peace treaty with the US.

If it was that simple why didn't the US make that argument to start with? The could have claimed complete compliance with the Geneva Conventions and came out smelling like roses.

[KrustyKidd]

but I firmly believe that we have to prove to the world that we are better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

Their heads are still on their bodies. Proof enough for most.

[Riverwind]

but I firmly believe that we have to prove to the world that we are better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

Their heads are still on their bodies. Proof enough for most.

Not most people. Only proof for people would support Dubya's policies even if he sawed off their heads himself.

[KrustyKidd]

Not most people. Only proof for people would support Dubya's policies even if he sawed off their heads himself.

Then most people would be morons if that were the case. We know that the US does not saw heads off to horrify or deliberately kill civillians, therefore, they are automaticly better than the terrorists and so called insurgents. Unless of course, your 'most people' think that sawing heads off is acceptable behavior.

[Riverwind]

Then most people would be morons if that were the case. We know that the US does not saw heads off to horrify or deliberately kill civilians, therefore, they are automatically better than the terrorists and so called insurgents. Unless of course, your 'most people' think that sawing heads off is acceptable behavior.

The argument that what Bush does must be OK because terrorists do worse does not wash. Democracies must live up to higher standards. This decision confirms that principal.

[KrustyKidd]

The argument that what Bush does must be OK because terrorists do worse does not wash. Democracies must live up to higher standards. This decision confirms that principal.

Think you are trying to do the wrong load here. The comment was that the US has to prove there are

better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

Simply by not beheading prisoners does that. My reply to the above comment shows that the terrorists and insurgents are so far off the civilized map that this 'proof' being spoken of is only for the western world.

Unless of course you feel that beheading hapless aid workers, journalists, policemen and so on is legitimate in any bizarro reality of yours. If that is the case, please enlighten us. If you are only going on with legal semantics to base your case, then I'll buy that and stand down but to say that beheadings, torture of victims by limb amputation and gutting is better than any US system is wrong in my book than anything the US has done. Therefore, the US is morally more in tune with humanity than the so called insurgents and terrorists and therefore has squat to prove except to minor legal points which, only seem to be obeyed by the west.

[Riverwind]

Therefore, the US is morally more in tune with humanity than the so called insurgents and terrorists and therefore has squat to prove except to minor legal points which, only seem to be obeyed by the west.

You cannot say the US has done nothing wrong simply because terrorists do worse. It is wrong for the terrorists to kill innocent people _and_ it is wrong for the US to imprison people without due process.

[sharkman]

Therefore, the US is morally more in tune with humanity than the so called insurgents and terrorists and therefore has squat to prove except to minor legal points which, only seem to be obeyed by the west.

You cannot say the US has done nothing wrong simply because terrorists do worse. It is wrong for the terrorists to kill innocent people _and_ it is wrong for the US to imprison people without due process.

What if they are P.O.W.s? I can't get away from that. I think they are, and the Americans have done nothing wrong to imprison them.

[KrustyKidd]

It is wrong for the terrorists to kill innocent people _and_ it is wrong for the US to imprison people without due process.

So, who gives more due process, guys taken off a battlefeild in Afganistan with traces of cordite on their hands who are transported and imprisoned at great expense and trouble as they don't fly everybody over, only those most sure of being guilty. Or known journalists, aid wokers, politicians, mayors, soldiers and simply foreign workers who are swept off the streets to have their beheadings shown on video after they are raped, burned, beaten for days and have limbs and didgets cut and pulled off? If you have a choice, which do you pick? I pick the US as the more innocent and benign captors. If you do not, then I sure would like to know what rational you base that on. Beheadings are pretty violent and holding a person prisoner in an air conditioned cell with food and water, who is more than likely guilty is relevently passive in comparisson to the rotten food that hostages are subject to.

Therefore, given that your response will be somewhat within the realm of sanity, the US proves that our system is

better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

As we all would like to slowly torture these people to show them what they are messing with but we don't. Why? Because there are checks and balances. Wondering, how many hostages have commited suicide? Answer: none. They don't get the chance as they are killed well before they get that opportunity and, they are tied hand and foot with no option to do a 'hunger strike' or whatever.

BTW, have you gone onto any Conservative, Militant Islamist sites and told them you think they are wrong to do this stuff to anybody trying to provide help to the Iraqi people? What all did they say when you protesed their treatment of prisoners? Bet you fell for the 'chick with smoke in mouth is far worse than having head cut off' line.

[KrustyKidd]

What if they are P.O.W.s? I can't get away from that. I think they are, and the Americans have done nothing wrong to imprison them.

They are not POWs as there is no front. It is an ideal, a dream with a broad based vision these people are working towards. The only conection with war is that the tools used are both philosophical and militaristic and, as such require force to provide the detterent to the second part of the formula and protection to what they threaten.

The US figured this would move a bit faster than it did, and, that the prisoners had more int than they were able to provide - hence, the need to keep them available for questioning rather than in a UN sanctioned POW camp in Pakistan. The higher fish escaped leaving morons like Jon Lihgn Walker and Kadhr behind to take the fall. And, the US has this target for anti war people sitting there, low key prisoners they cannot release, lots of press attention and, morons pointing out that the US is immoral and so called insurgent and terrorists are almost just in their actions as the US holds people who they cannot under any circumstances allow to go back to either get executed by their home country or fight again those who captured them.

[Guest Warwick Green]

That would mean, for example, that even if they never try the little scumbag Khadr kid, they can hold him until he drops dead of old age. Unless, of course, al Quaeda signs some kind of peace treaty with the US.

Better than sending him back to Canada where the Left will give him a ticker-tape parade and insist he be allowed to address Parliament.

[Riverwind]

So, who gives more due process, guys taken off a battlefeild in Afganistan with traces of cordite on their hands who are transported and imprisoned at great expense and trouble as they don't fly everybody over, only those most sure of being guilty.

People are in Gitmo because the US thinks they may have useful information - not because they are actually known to do have done anything wrong (other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time). The US released 4 British citizens only after a lot of pressure from Britain.

who is more than likely guilty is relevently passive in comparisson to the rotten food that hostages are subject to.

That is the entire problem - you assume that the US military system is infallible and innocent people are never accused (look at the Maher Arar case). That is why there must be due process to determine who is really guilty of something. Frankly, I find it incredible that you put so much faith in a organization that has been proven to be so completely wrong in the past. Perhaps I can interest you in some water front property in central Florida?

[KrustyKidd]

you assume that the US military system is infallible

That is not what I believe. It is as falable as any system. However, I'm sure there are many innocent people deliberately killed by so called insurgents and terrorists but there are no innocent people deliberately imprisoned by the US.

Now, please answer the question I'm trying to get you to in order to make my point....would you rather be in a US prison or have your head sawed off? If you choose the former then my point is made and the US is

better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

,

if the latter, please explain your rationale.

[Riverwind]

Now, please answer the question I'm trying to get you to in order to make my point....would you rather be in a US prison or have your head sawed off? If you choose the former then my point is made and the US is

Your question is irrelevant. The 'enemy' could eat babies for breakfast but what the US is doing in Gitmo is still wrong.