news.bbc.co.uk — The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. In a landmark decision, the court upheld the challenge of Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver against his trial at the US facility at Guantanamo.
Jun 29, 2006 View in Crawl 4
edverbJun 29, 2006
FYI: SCOTUS ruled that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to POWs at GITMO:------Article 3In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;(b) Taking of hostages;(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. -----------
mikeyeahJun 29, 2006
This is a good first step but now if only we could get the impeachment process started for the most law breaking President in US history.
klpowellJun 29, 2006
The supreme court is just like the other two branches they want more power and ever decision they make they make with the plan of ganing more power. Unfortunitly they also think they are above the other branches which just isn't true "Three Eqal Branches of Government"
locojonesJun 29, 2006
"Are there provisions in the Constitution or its amendments which provide for a means of removing a Chief Justice for negligence or ruling with no regard to the Constitution?"No, there are not. Justices are appointed for a lifetime term, and may only be forcibly removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. It's an almost impossible hurdle to overcome. This is why the Congressional approval process for judges is so important, because it's the last link in the democratic chain for the people, through their representatives, to grill judges on their judicial philosphies before going to a bench where they are outside the reach of the people's vote. And this is also why it's so unconscionable for judges to sit in front of the senate and tell them that they can't answer questions. Bulls**t, the people deserve to know a judge's belief on whether or not the Constitution provides for a cause of action for abortion, or provides for unchecked executive authority in time of war. Those questions don't infringe on a judge's duty to be impartial for impending cases because they don't discuss particular facts that may appear before the court. If you're a judge, and your job is to interpret the Constitution, then to you, there either is or is not a right to privacy in there. There either is or is not executive power. These judges should be under an affirmative obligation to answer, and if they don't, then no confirmation...good bye, we'll move on to the next one.There has already been an unfortunate shift in the court, and I dislike this favoritism it's hinting at toward the administration. This bench has quietly skirted all the issues dealing with the war, and that is sad, because it is supposed to act as a check and balance on the system. So detainees who haven't seen a lawyer or due process for 5 years will still remain held without charge being levied, but hell, at least we know Anna Nicole Smith can go after her fortune. sigh.
mollaromJun 30, 2006
Gee, if only there were some sort of legal body, a panel of legal experts, if you will, whose job was to hear the toughest matters of law and then judge on whether they follow the law of the land... if only...
scottishJul 6, 2006
The point is that the Digg headline is completely misleading. THAT's the innacurate part.
smooveNov 22, 2006
@mikeyeahI dugg you up even though I disagree with you. There have been so many notorious law-breaking presidents, it's hard to say that GWB was the worst. Arguably, Lincoln was the worst; he suspended the entire bill of rights, and imprisoned newspaper editors, politians and thousands of other northerners who disagreed with his policies.