Supreme Court to Hear Tribunals Challenge

[maddezmom]

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the Bush administration's military tribunals for foreign terror suspects, a major test of the government's wartime powers and a case presenting the first conflict for new Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justices will decide whether Osama bin Laden's driver can be tried for war crimes before military officers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Roberts, as an appeals court judge, joined a summer ruling against Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

He did not participate in Monday's action, which put him in the difficult situation of sitting in judgment of one of his own rulings. Lawyers for Hamdan were expected to ask Roberts to participate in the case, to avoid a 4-4 tie.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials;_

[UpInArms]

1. from the SFChron

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/07/national/w070831S82.DTL

excerpt:

Roberts, as an appeals court judge, joined a summer ruling against Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

He did not participate in Monday's action, which put him in the difficult situation of sitting in judgment of one of his own rulings. Lawyers for Hamdan were expected to ask Roberts to participate in the case, to avoid a 4-4 tie.

The court's intervention was a surprise. In 2004 justices took the first round of cases stemming from the government's war on terrorism. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote in one case that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

The announcement of the court's move came shortly after President Bush, asked about reports of secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorism suspects, declared anew that his administration does not torture suspects.

<snip>

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, including Roberts, ruled against Hamdan, finding that the 1949 Geneva Convention governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members.

The ruling was handed down shortly before Roberts was named to the Supreme Court. Ethics experts have disagreed over whether Roberts should have recused himself from that case, because he was being interviewed for the O'Connor seat while the matter was pending.

...more...

ummm..right..

This assclown is going to have some conflicts like...forever :argh:

[Moderator]

2. kick

[SharonRB]

3. Supreme Court to Take Up Dispute Over Military Trials

Supreme Court to Take Up Dispute Over Military Trials
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear a challenge to the Bush administration's plan to try accused foreign terrorists in special military courts, setting the stage for a ruling on whether the Geneva Convention trumps the president's go-it-alone policy in its anti-terrorism effort.

The case, to be heard in the spring, will set the rules for the first war crimes trials for foreign prisoners since World War II.


The legal battle will take place against a backdrop of growing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of foreign prisoners. To the dismay of some U.S. allies, the White House said four years ago that foreign fighters who were picked up in the war on terrorism were not entitled to the Geneva Convention's protections for prisoners of war.

The Defense Department also has refused to account for all the foreigners being held by the United States or to allow international inspectors to check their conditions.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to "make rules concerning captures on land and water," but lawmakers have not passed rules on the handling of prisoners who were captured in the campaign against terrorism.

Last year, the Supreme Court took a first step toward reining in the White House over its handling of foreign prisoners who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The administration had maintained that those men were outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts because they were outside U.S. territory.

Disagreeing, the Supreme Court said the Constitution gave these prisoners — and indeed all persons held in U.S. custody — a right to challenge their detentions in court. Some of the men held at Guantanamo said they were innocent victims of warlords in Afghanistan, and they said they should have a chance to prove their innocence.

<snip>

Find the rest of the story at http://www.rawstory.com

[Massacure]

4. Alito has a strict interpretation of the constitution...

If he gets a seat on the Supreme Court, he may end up ruling against Bush on grounds of 'no cruel or unusual' punishment.

On the flip note, I expect him to screw up a bunch of environmental regulations as well.

[Orsino]

5. He's not being installed to rule against Bush on anything important.

Important = money/torture.

[hootinholler]

6. Didn't Roberts just rule on this in an appellate court? n/t