What do you make of the Supreme Court decision today regarding Guantanamo Bay?

Question

I don't see it as a holding that Bush is wrong, or lied....but that the SC would not allow the Presidents power to encompass placing suspected terrorists on trial...I think this could be a bad thing....what about you?

Answer 1

I think that everyone, terrorist or not, should have access to a fair trial... it's the American way... it's what separates us from them...

if we aren't civil... then we are just like the terrorists...

what's the point of fighting animals, if you are an animal too?

Answer 2

In sum, the Court said that the Executive branch cannot create its own court system, and that doing so violates the Constitution. For anyone who has read the Constitution, this is a no-brainer.

"Cuddles" misses a fundamental point, probably because of not reading the Constitution. The judicial authority of the Supreme Court extends to all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (Article III). Anyone accused or held in custody by the US (federal or any state) has constitutional rights, including Habeas Corpus and 6th Amendment rights to counsel and a fair trial.

The fact that they are being held in US custody on a US military base in another country is absolutely irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. The protections extend to anyone in US custody and to anyone subject to prosecution by the US government. These are simple direct direct textual guarantees in the Constitution. Again, for anyone who has read the Constitution, this is another no-brainer.

"TerryL" also doesn't seem to understand the concept of the judiciary. It's not being an activist judge to quote the Constitution and to say that what someone is doing violates those rules. It's like calling someone an activist for pointing out that the sun sheds light and heat. Just because you don't like the law is no justification to ignore it, despite what Bush may think.

As to the Geneva Convention, whether that treaty applies here or not is irrelevant. The protections already come straight from Articles I and III, and the 5th and 6th Amendments. The fact that the Geneva Convention also grants these same protections is just a redundant guarantee, in case people weren't clear on the question.

The Supreme Court reminded everyone that not even the Commander-in-Sheik can just ignore the Constitution with impunity, and better not continue ignoring federal law.

Answer 3

The big part of it is that the President cannot BY HIMSELF create a whole new system of courts that do not answer to the legislative or judical branch (as in the appeals do not go to federal court & the judges are not confirmed by the senate). The written oppinions seem to say it is completely okay for Congress to pass a law & the President to sign it which would create these secret courts, just so long as it includes an established system of appeals. It seems congress is going to do exactly that & things will go on just as they were before with no change at all.

The bigger issue was in stating the non-compliance with the geneva conventions. That seems to indicate these folks should be treated as POWs. I'm fine with that personally with the exception that terrorist suspects with knowledge of imepending operations do need to be questioned, which is almost not allowed under POW rules. Frankly according to geneva convention rules, a combatant not in uniform is subject to execution. Actually, I think the best thing is to call for a world conference to develop a new treaty as a part of geneva that specifically covers terrorists & non-state actors, and if signatorys to the convention are strictly bound by its rules when at war with a non-signer who is torturing & executing the prisoners they take.

Answer 4

Tony Snow said that the President had an answer to either outcome. However, without knowing specifically what the President will do, in my opinion it is a bad thing. Since the combatants have no uniform & hide within the population they should not have the rights granted in the Geneva Convention. I belive that the Supreme Court should not reference the Geneva Convention when dealing with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. This is an issue that is unprecedented in American history & should be approached with our security in mind.

Answer 5

Over the history of American, we have claimed certain qualities that are basic to our character, not only to us for ourselves, but to others in the world. Our reputation is based on these qualities, ideals and goals. One hard fought and won bench mark of the American character both personal and governmental is enshrined in what is called the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Convention spells out appropriate behavior by the parties in a conflict concerning Prisoners of War or combatants of any kind. For Example, torture and humiliation are banned by the convention. The United States has claimed through President Bush to be excluded from that provision.
But the Supreme Court of the United States just rule that President Bush or any President can not ignore the principles of the Geneva Conventions. What are these Principles?
Go to yahoo search and type in "The Geneva Convention." Good question.

Answer 6

Probably is doesn't hold Bush responsible. I have to tell you that I think the Founders of this country were onto something when they built checks and balances into the system. Even if you think Bush is a good man, an intellectual and moral person, you must realize that things will change in the future many times.
Should we have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to drive a car? I think not. It's best to have an overall system all people, except for the most radical fringe on both ends would be able to work with.
I think we are in danger of abandonning our Constitutional rights and many of our human rights in the name of "security". What then if we end up with a dictatorship? I think that could be a bad thing.

Here's an old song, "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell. Did you ever hear it?

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot,
With a pink hotel, a boutique,
And a swinging hot spot.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum.
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Hey, farmer, farmer, put away that D.D.T., now!
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees, please!
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Late last night I heard the screen door slam.
And a big yellow taxi took away my old man.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Answer 7

Activist judges and naive people including many liberals should not use the Geneva Convention as an example to follow in this case because we are trying to win a war against an untraditional enemy who doesn't really deserve the rights of the Genva Convention. It's seems that more and more people are undercutting our power to protect this country from terrorists and other radicals.

Answer 8

I think the Supreme Court's decision was made not with Bush in mind, but with the Constitution. The Constitution should be available for all people on American soil, be it in the US or out. It shows that America is indeed accountable in the international forum.

Answer 9

Umm...that "only a chunk of paper", in accordance to President Bush, that takes position to be our U.S. structure. the component that makes us a u . s . of regulations. Even the British in the course of the imaginitive warfare were given a honest and quick trial. This u . s . become in preserving with concepts that persons imagine we can only throw out the window every time the going receives demanding. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini set the precedent for throwing people into hell-holes with no trial, or any info that they did something incorrect, so why won't be able to President Bush keep on with healthful? nicely, he did, because no one stood up for the rights of the persons who're accused of negative crimes. no one stricken to ask even if all of them were even responsible. submit to in innovations that dozens of those suspected terrorists were released after spending a number of years in places like Guantanamo and enduring intense treatment and torture, because someone ultimately discovered that they had arrested the incorrect individual. OOPS. a buddy who served in Iraq defined how they discovered that assorted those people were terrorists. An informer would tell them about the terrorist in replace for nutrients and funds. they'd park a U.S. military jeep in the front of the suspect's abode for some hours. Then they'd damage into the abode to arrest him the subsequent morning; if the suspect and his relations were nevertheless alive, that meant that they were terrorists.

Answer 10

The judical, executive and legislative branches were designed to check and balance one another.. Holding someone indefinitely is so vile... you take their whole future away from them... They each deserve to go to trial with Due Process rights... but most importantly, the fact that military trials are to be conducted in secrecy and that the defendant cannot see what charges/evidence the government has against him are horrendous.... we are not above the Geneva Conventions in any way whatsoever....

Answer 11

I think its limiting what one person's power. IN something like this you need more consenses. Also I feel that the POWs should be treated under the Geneva Convention. In situations like this protocal must be followed as well as conventions and treaties. I think it is a good thing as it allows more reason and more minds to collectivly decide rather than one man.