Supreme Court rebukes Bush on Gitmo - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 03:53 PM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Supreme Court rebukes Bush on Gitmo

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

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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/
White trash wagon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 04:15 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
So by actively being committed to supporting Al Qaida, or other terrorist groups, and trying to destroy America through terroristic acts doesn't make them POW's? How?

Just because they use unconventional tactics does not mean that they should not be handled in a conventional way when it comes to prosecution.

Keep Gitmo open until every one of those fuckers are dead or in Leavenworth Prison.

"You can't fight a junk yard dog with ASPCA rules."
SVTVenom is offline  
post #3 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 04:33 PM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
Just because they use unconventional tactics does not mean that they should not be handled in a conventional way when it comes to prosecution.
I think that was the point of the majority opinion.
Casper is offline  
 
post #4 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 05:16 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper
I think that was the point of the majority opinion.
No, the majority is wanting them to have a normal trial like any other person. These are not normal people. They are war criminals and should be treated as such. They are not American citizens and should not be afforded the rights of one.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #5 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 05:29 PM
v2004 rebooted.
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 30,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
No, the majority is wanting them to have a normal trial like any other person. These are not normal people. They are war criminals and should be treated as such. They are not American citizens and should not be afforded the rights of one.




What kind of rights should they be afforded? Didn't we go to Iraq to set up a government like ours? Not that I would wish that upon them due to present conditions, but I digress.
talisman is offline  
post #6 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 05:37 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman
What kind of rights should they be afforded? Didn't we go to Iraq to set up a government like ours? Not that I would wish that upon them due to present conditions, but I digress.
They should be afforded no rights whatsoever because technically, they have no rights. Under the Geneva conventions only honorable men in uniform have rights when captured. That part of the agreement is very deliberate in its intent because it seeks to limit the number of civilian casualties during war. The idea being that having guerilla fighters masquerading as civilians does nothing but put civilians at risk of being killed or wounded.

Now, with that said, do I think they should be burned alive or anything like that? No, but I do not think they should have a civilian trial. At the very least they should be treated as other soldiers are treated, which would be a generous gesture on our part.

IMO all this is political grandstanding anyway. Doesn't matter how most of these guys are tried, the majority of them are going to be in prison for a long, long time.
AL P is offline  
post #7 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 06:02 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
They should be afforded no rights whatsoever because technically, they have no rights. Under the Geneva conventions only honorable men in uniform have rights when captured. That part of the agreement is very deliberate in its intent because it seeks to limit the number of civilian casualties during war. The idea being that having guerilla fighters masquerading as civilians does nothing but put civilians at risk of being killed or wounded.

Now, with that said, do I think they should be burned alive or anything like that? No, but I do not think they should have a civilian trial. At the very least they should be treated as other soldiers are treated, which would be a generous gesture on our part.

IMO all this is political grandstanding anyway. Doesn't matter how most of these guys are tried, the majority of them are going to be in prison for a long, long time.
Exactly.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #8 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 06:24 PM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
Turn the clock back 35 years and move to Southeast Asia. I'd rather have a few hundred prisoners be detained indefinitely than burn village after village and massacre every male capable of holding a gun. Both are very effective, one is significantly more humane.

Personally I'd love nothing better than to have all them get "reprogrammed" or "brainwashed" and have 600+ Manchurian candidates all working to get close to Bin Laden. Imagine what kind of intel we'd have if we had that many covert agents in place. We could release them all, keep the liberals happy and help win the war in the same step.

Buell 1125R
Raptor 700R
No fast cars though
BP is offline  
post #9 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 06:28 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP
Turn the clock back 35 years and move to Southeast Asia. I'd rather have a few hundred prisoners be detained indefinitely than burn village after village and massacre every male capable of holding a gun. Both are very effective, one is significantly more humane.

Personally I'd love nothing better than to have all them get "reprogrammed" or "brainwashed" and have 600+ Manchurian candidates all working to get close to Bin Laden. Imagine what kind of intel we'd have if we had that many covert agents in place. We could release them all, keep the liberals happy and help win the war in the same step.
No need to brainwash because greed works just as well. Ask Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Someone he knew is now $25 million USD richer. Everyone has a price, its just the matter of finding the right person.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #10 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 06:34 PM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
guess what, without Gitmo

more terrorists will die, kill them instead of trying to extract info at Gitmo. That's the result of this ruling as I see it. Why do terrorists have Geneva conventions rights, are they a signer of the conventions, NO.

I think we should hand them over to the U.N. and let them decide what to do since they have all the answers and most of the prisoners home countries won't take them back.
jyro is offline  
post #11 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 06:38 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyro
more terrorists will die, kill them instead of trying to extract info at Gitmo. That's the result of this ruling as I see it. Why do terrorists have Geneva conventions rights, are they a signer of the conventions, NO.

I think we should hand them over to the U.N. and let them decide what to do since thay have all the answers and most of the prisoners home countries won't take them back.
I agree on the low level guys, but they definately need to extract info. from key guys they capture. They know how these fucksticks operate and where they are hiding out at.

The U.N. is a joke. All they do is sit on their hands and talk all day long. The only thing terrorists respect is force.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #12 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 07:37 PM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
No, the majority is wanting them to have a normal trial like any other person. These are not normal people. They are war criminals and should be treated as such. They are not American citizens and should not be afforded the rights of one.
They didn't say that. They said the executive branch cannot assume the powers of the judicial branch. That is a good ruling in that one aspect, although the only alternative now is international criminal court OR US criminal court, which the US does not want (and I agree). Had they ruled in favor of the tribunals, that would have been a blow to the rights of actual US citizens, who could be denied a trial.

This does not mean they have to release them, and this does not mean they cannot be interrogated. It also does not mean they cannot be extradited somewhere else; remember the Afghanis who were released from Gitmo? They were sealed in a steel shipping container and left to rot. Together. Courtesy of the new Afghani government. Sure saves on trial costs...
Casper is offline  
post #13 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 08:13 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper
They didn't say that. They said the executive branch cannot assume the powers of the judicial branch. That is a good ruling in that one aspect, although the only alternative now is international criminal court OR US criminal court, which the US does not want (and I agree). Had they ruled in favor of the tribunals, that would have been a blow to the rights of actual US citizens, who could be denied a trial.

This does not mean they have to release them, and this does not mean they cannot be interrogated. It also does not mean they cannot be extradited somewhere else; remember the Afghanis who were released from Gitmo? They were sealed in a steel shipping container and left to rot. Together. Courtesy of the new Afghani government. Sure saves on trial costs...
Ruling in favor of the executive branch wouldn't have affected U.S. Citizens rights because the prisoners at Gitmo aren't U.S. Citizens. They should have none of the rights that are afforded to Americans for being legal citizens.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #14 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 08:19 PM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
Ruling in favor of the executive branch wouldn't have affected U.S. Citizens rights because the prisoners at Gitmo aren't U.S. Citizens. They should have none of the rights that are afforded to Americans for being legal citizens.
Again, they did not say that the prisoners were afforded the rights of citizens, but that the executive branch would be overstepping its bounds. The judicial branch even has authority under UCMJ (within certain bounds). That is why the military cannot prevent you from hiring a civilian lawyer. And the international treaties ratified by the legislative branch still hold as well.

It was a good ruling on the whole. Like I said, it doesn't prevent the prisoners from being extradited to another country for criminal trials there.
Casper is offline  
post #15 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 08:31 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper
Again, they did not say that the prisoners were afforded the rights of citizens, but that the executive branch would be overstepping its bounds. The judicial branch even has authority under UCMJ (within certain bounds). That is why the military cannot prevent you from hiring a civilian lawyer. And the international treaties ratified by the legislative branch still hold as well.

It was a good ruling on the whole. Like I said, it doesn't prevent the prisoners from being extradited to another country for criminal trials there.
I understand that they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but for them to be treated and tried like a common criminal is a joke. They are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #16 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 10:18 PM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
I understand that they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but for them to be treated and tried like a common criminal is a joke. They are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.
Well, yeah, and the treatment they do get is sanitized because everyone in the world is focused on them. A texas jail would be a downgrade in a big way. Can't speak for any other states from experience, but I bet its similar elsewhere.

But give the boys in the whitehouse some credit, they are really pretty crafty SOBs. They knew how this was going to go, and they started at the top and worked down like a car salesman on memorial day. First they said they could hold them as long as they wanted and a trial was optional. The court said no, that just goes against our principles as a nation. They didn't set a timeline or anything else. This was a "serious blow to Bush" Now we have yet another "serious blow to Bush" but all they nixed was the administration's insistence that they alone will decide what a proper trial venue is.

Think about this a minute; come another year, this will all be ironed out, Bush will take some credit for closing the Gitmo holding facility (or resolving the issue in some fashion, after all any intel by now is likely questionable just due to time) and take a campaign stump away from the 2008 dem challenger. In fact they could do it AFTER the nominations and give credit to the GOP candidate for "talking frankly to Bush about it". Now THAT would be a serious blow

And what really makes me feel better about the whole thing, don't you think closing the thing down is a really smart thing to do considering the possibilities of the next election?
Casper is offline  
post #17 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-29-2006, 11:17 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
So by actively being committed to supporting Al Qaida, or other terrorist groups, and trying to destroy America through terroristic acts doesn't make them POW's? How?

Just because they use unconventional tactics does not mean that they should not be handled in a conventional way when it comes to prosecution.

Keep Gitmo open until every one of those fuckers are dead or in Leavenworth Prison.

"You can't fight a junk yard dog with ASPCA rules."
I think the ruling is saying that the government must treat them as POWs and not battle field combatant, which is some libo status. I think the Supreme Court properly ruled that the US being part of the Geneva Convention, agrees to abide by those rules, even if others don't.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #18 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 08:41 AM
Lifer
 
Paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
I saw a talking head who said that military tribunals were still a possibility but it would have to be done differently. He said that Congress could work with Bush to get that accomplished and that this ruling was just about Bush's proposal for military tribunals, not that military tribunals were banned. Anyone else hear an opinion like this?

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
post #19 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 10:03 AM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90 Notch
I saw a talking head who said that military tribunals were still a possibility but it would have to be done differently. He said that Congress could work with Bush to get that accomplished and that this ruling was just about Bush's proposal for military tribunals, not that military tribunals were banned. Anyone else hear an opinion like this?
Correct , the proper procedure is for the president to request Congress to approve a military tribunal, Bush skipped Congress and was going to set up tribunals on his own....which he is not empowered to do. It's odd Bush did that, seeing as how the Republican led Congress will rubberstamp it anyway.

Scott
White trash wagon is offline  
post #20 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 10:39 AM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
Correct , the proper procedure is for the president to request Congress to approve a military tribunal, Bush skipped Congress and was going to set up tribunals on his own....which he is not empowered to do. It's odd Bush did that, seeing as how the Republican led Congress will rubberstamp it anyway.

Scott
I think it was because this takes longer, and any political milage needs to be saved until next year.
Casper is offline  
post #21 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 10:53 AM
Meeeeooowww
 
ALLAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the MCO airport
Posts: 20,309
Put them on a L-1011 and use it for target practice.

10 of the durkas we have let go were recaptured fighting again.

ALLAN is offline  
post #22 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 10:59 AM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLAN
Put them on a L-1011 and use it for target practice.

10 of the durkas we have let go were recaptured fighting again.
That would be too kind. They should all be publicly hanged and have it broadcast over the news world-wide.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #23 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 11:42 AM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Feed em to the hogs. Then send the hog-filtered remains to their families.
Casper is offline  
post #24 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 01:54 PM
Lifer
 
Paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
Correct , the proper procedure is for the president to request Congress to approve a military tribunal, Bush skipped Congress and was going to set up tribunals on his own....which he is not empowered to do. It's odd Bush did that, seeing as how the Republican led Congress will rubberstamp it anyway.

Scott
I also heard a theory that this delayed the trials/hearings and gives them more time to hold them. Regardless, this wasn't really a big deal to Bush like some may think. It was just a rejection of his PROPOSAL to have the tribunals without going through Congress. OK, let's go through Congress now. No biggie!

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
post #25 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 01:57 PM
Lifer
 
Paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper
Feed em to the hogs. Then send the hog-filtered remains to their families.
A co-worker of mine tells the story of when he was visiting a country, I forget which one, but they had several muslim groups that were terrorizing people and committing some robberies and murders. they caught the group, found them guilty and court, and promptly took them outside, lined them up, and dipped some bullets in pigs blood. they then shot each one of them with those bullets. Apparently musilms stopped being such a nuisance in that country soon after.

I have no idea if the story is true, but I sure like the idea. Kill them and make them think their imaginary virgins will not be forthcoming in the afterlife. LOL

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
post #26 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 02:16 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90 Notch
A co-worker of mine tells the story of when he was visiting a country, I forget which one, but they had several muslim groups that were terrorizing people and committing some robberies and murders. they caught the group, found them guilty and court, and promptly took them outside, lined them up, and dipped some bullets in pigs blood. they then shot each one of them with those bullets. Apparently musilms stopped being such a nuisance in that country soon after.

I have no idea if the story is true, but I sure like the idea. Kill them and make them think their imaginary virgins will not be forthcoming in the afterlife. LOL
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

Quote:
Status: Undetermined
Once in US history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.

Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #27 of 28 (permalink) Old 06-30-2006, 02:42 PM
BOOSTED32V Jr.
 
SVTVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The 40 Acres
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
NOW THAT IS BADASS! Too bad the liberal fucktards wouldn't let anything like that ever occur.
SVTVenom is offline  
post #28 of 28 (permalink) Old 07-02-2006, 03:02 PM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTVenom
NOW THAT IS BADASS! Too bad the liberal fucktards wouldn't let anything like that ever occur.
What liberal fucktards? Your President, your congress, your governor, and your state legislature are all "conservative" Republicans.........

Scott
White trash wagon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome