Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo

[merh]

Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo
5-3 ruling says military trials would violate U.S. law, Geneva Conventions

Updated: 7:20 p.m. CT June 29, 2006


Art Lein / NBC News
This court sketch shows the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who faces charges of conspiring against U.S. citizens and whose case was the center of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.


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.

In brief comments, Bush said he will work with Congress to get approval to try terrorism suspects before military tribunals.

-snip-

More @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

[tiptoe]

1. (Doh!) MSNBC: "The ruling prompted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (R-Tenn.), to pledge..." nt

[PA Democrat]

2. Article is dated 2006.

[tiptoe]

4. ... June 29 2006 ...close enough :)

[merh]

6. It was an anniversary post - I did include the date, didn't I?

And posted it in GD rather than LBN.

I was just remembering when I still have faith in SCOTUS, now I am not so sure.

[tiptoe]

7. yep..i thought i was in LBN at time...my bad. Thanks for the refresher!

You feelings about the SCOTUS are shared by the dem-controlled Congress, I suspect. Bush/Cheney might be trying for a confrontation in the courts/SC.

[Spazito]

3. That's from 2006, interesting though....

given the USSC decided, as announced yesterday, to hear another Gitmo case.

[merh]

5. I'm wondering how that will turn out, given this opinion.

Also, do you remember if Bush attached a signing statement to the legislation Congress did pass? I can't seem to find anything.

[Spazito]

8. I was wondering the same thing....

The specifics in the current case before the USSC will be different, would have to be in order for the Court to agree to hear it instead of simply referring to their previous ruling, I haven't read up on the case yet, but I am wondering if they will use this case to, in essence, overturn their previous ruling while citing different case law.

Given yesterday's decision, ANYTHING is possible, sadly, imo.

[Canuckistanian]

9. A 5 to 3 ruling? Who was missing?

Was this when the Court was missing one justice?