| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Court Ruling Halts Guantanamo Proceedings |
| 2004-11-09 |
| A U.S. federal court ruled Monday that Osama bin Laden's driver was entitled to a legal hearing on whether he is a prisoner of war - a landmark opinion that could prevent military trials of alleged enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. The government said it would immediately seek a stay of that ruling and file an appeal. It was the first time a federal court halted legal proceedings before U.S. military commissions, resurrected from World War II, at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. No trials have been held, although tentative trial dates for four detainees had been scheduled. A U.S. District Court judge in Washington halted the pretrial proceedings of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen, after his lawyers filed a petition. Hamdan - who is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, murder and terrorism and says that he never supported terrorism - was to be the first detainee tried, on Dec. 7. The judge rejected the U.S. government's contention that Hamdan and other detainees are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants, a classification affording fewer legal protections under the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan was declared an enemy combatant last month by a review tribunal during a hearing his lawyer was barred from. ``Unless and until a competent tribunal determines that petitioner is not entitled to protections afforded prisoners of war under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention ... of Aug. 12, 1949, he may not be tried by military commission for the offenses with which he is charged,'' U.S. District Judge James Robertson said. ``There is nothing in this record to suggest that a competent tribunal has determined that Hamdan is not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.'' |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 Yes, CS there is a way, but it requires your Congressmen to have a fraction of the huevos that any marine, soldier or airman is demonstrating today. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach judges for bad behavior. What is bad behavior? If you listen to the judges and lawyer, they claim the authority to define it. However that is opinion not fact. Congress can by acting, impeaching, define what bad behavior is. Definition by precedent. In time of war, per Senate Joint Resolution 23 Congress could act to stop this behavior right in its tracks. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-11-09 2:31:35 PM |
| #8 I wonder if there is a legal way to stop this nonsense? These people were captured on a battlefield, not robbing the 7-11. And they are NOT U.S. citizens. How are they even remotely protected by the constitution? They are trying to drag the government into some prolonged legal battle over the detainees. Maybe we should lock up the lawyers as accessory to commit terrorists acts against the U.S.? Many of those in detention have indicated that that is exactly what they will be doing if released. Anyone forgot that Dutch-Arab that was released and told us we could use his signed promise as âtoilet paper?â Now we have lawyers and judges using U.S. and international laws as toilet paper to help these terrorists? Shame shame shame! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-11-09 2:06:16 PM |
| #7 The Republicans need to start hammering Clintion appointees with every legal maneuver they can, until they either learn to follow the Constitution or they leave the government. We have way too many judges more interested in making law than in applying it. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-11-09 1:22:22 PM |
| #6 One word solution: Transfer the f*ckers. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-11-09 1:00:42 PM |
| #5 The bad guys aren't leaving Guantanamo any time soon. If the military needs to jump through a few more legal hoops before certain individuals can be evaluated for release, I don't have a problem with that. It takes years and years for a case to wind its way up to the Supreme Court... and back down again when the SC refuses to hear it. Minds may be changed if the process takes long enough, and in the meantime they can just keep themselves busy as they have been: praying 5x/day and masturbating at their female guards. Not a lifestyle that appeals to me, but who am I to judge? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-11-09 12:41:09 PM |
| #4 The judge rejected the U.S. government's contention that Hamdan and other detainees are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants, a classification affording fewer legal protections under the Geneva Conventions. WTF??? Was this Hamdan guy a member of some country's armed forces? Was he caught wearing a uniform of some country's armed forces? No? The he's not a prisoner of war. For the thousandth time, the Geneva Conventions only apply if both parties abide by it. How difficult is this to understand??????? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-09 11:44:12 AM |
| #3 One more reason Specter must not be chairman; he'd continue approving judges like this if Hildebeast wins in '08 but the trunks keep the senate. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-09 7:49:40 AM |
| #2 "He added that the judge's ruling ``has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war." -Exactly right. If this is allowed to stand, we're back to fighting terrorism with a law-enforcement model Thats not how I read it. Means terrism is a form of warfare. Since "cut-aways" are the only way to avoid nuclear response for a nuclear nation, expect to see more terrorism if we don't come down like a bag of hammers against terrorists, and states we suspect sponsor them. hint hint, China is not the friend is seems to be. |
| Posted by: flash91 2004-11-09 7:44:45 AM |
| #1 Of course, a Bill Clinton appointed judge. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-11-09 12:28:13 AM |