Quote :

"Hicks' military trial ruled 'illegal' Michael Gawenda, Washington June 30, 2006 THE US Supreme Court has ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to try Guantanamo Bay detainees, including David Hicks, are illegal and have to be abandoned. The court's 5-3 ruling said that the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war had to be applied to proceedings against all detainees at Guantanamo. The court ruled that the Bush Administration's position that detainees held at Guantanamo and elsewhere are illegal combatants and not covered by the Geneva Conventions is unconstitutional. The decision has thrown the Administration into turmoil and means that they are back to square one in setting up a system to try detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere that complies with the Geneva Conventions. It means that at the very least, the Pentagon will have to set up standard courts martials for detainees, with all the protections afforded by US law. It is not clear how the Administration will respond or how long it will take for them to set up military courts martials to try detainees such as Hicks, who have already been charged with offences that may not be legal under Geneva Convention rules. Hicks has been at Guantanamo for more than four years and is one of eight detainees charged with specific offences. President George Bush last week said that he wanted to close Guantanamo as soon as possible and was waiting for the Supreme Court decision. The court ruled that the Administration had the right to detain the prisoners held at Guantanamo, but ruled that if they were to be tried, it had to be through regular court martials. Some observers say that it could be months, perhaps even longer, before a new system to try detainees is set up. The Australian Government has supported the Bush Administration's position on the military commission - and is now faced with the prospect of David Hicks remaining in detention with no prospect of a hearing for a year or even longer. The Supreme Court decision follows months of criticism from international jurists of the military commissions, which many labelled kangaroo courts. Senior US military lawyers have warned they do not deliver justice. If the Pentagon proceeds with regular court martials, evidence of alleged torture will be admissible."

6/29/2006 1:26:57 PM

HOOOOLEEEEE SHIT

THE TERRRRISTS HAVE WON

Within a week we'll all be talking that crazy DURKA DURKA DURR talk and wearing turbans and beating women 'n' shit.

[Edited on June 29, 2006 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2006 1:28:46 PM

I guess we'll all have to figure out which way is east in order to face Mecca when praying.

6/29/2006 1:38:50 PM

an American article:

Quote :

"Supreme Court's decision a broad strike back at Bush By Naftali Bendavid Washington Bureau Published June 29, 2006, 11:12 AM CDT WASHINGTON -- Today's Supreme Court decision rejecting the Bush administration's use of military commissions to decide the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a broad strike back at the powers asserted by the president since the 9/11 attacks. Following those attacks, the administration and its supporters argued that since the commander-in-chief is authorized by the Constitution to wage war, the president has sweeping authority to adopt such tactics as designating enemy combatants, holding them indefinitely, creating military commissions, treating possible terrorists in Guantanamo Bay without deference to the Geneva Conventions, crafting guidelines on torture and so on. To bolster its case, the White House cited a broad congressional resolution adopted shortly after 9/11 authorizing Bush to pursue terrorists and those responsible for the attacks. But recently the judicial and legislative branches of government have begun to fight back. Some members of Congress reacted angrily to revelations that the president had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on phone conversations into or outside of the United States without a warrant if one of the parties had suspected ties to Al Qaeda. Congress also passed a law aimed at preventing the administration from using torture, over the strenuous objections of Vice President Dick Cheney and others. As for the Supreme Court, it has restricted the president's policy of designating enemy combatants and holding them indefinitely without access to lawyers. Today's decision is the strongest statement yet that the other branches of government will not allow the president unfettered authority when it comes to pursuing the war on terror. It's not clear what will happen now regarding the detainees. The administration drew up plans for military commissions because it faced a dilemma. With hundreds of prisoners it said were possible terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, the administration needed a process for adjudicating their guilt or innocence and deciding what their fate should be. But officials were reluctant to give them ordinary trials, because of the possibility that classified information might be released or that the defendants would use the proceedings as a soapbox. Now officials at the White House and Pentagon must decide how to handle those detainees in light of the court's decision. And an emboldened Congress may want to weigh in more forcefully this time, especially given Bush's current low poll ratings. Even Bush's approval ratings on his handling of terrorism, which had been one of his strong points, have fallen significantly. The Supreme Court's decision also is likely to have political ramifications, confirming for conservative activists the importance of putting at least one more conservative on the Supreme Court. Today's ruling was 5-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts abstaining because he ruled on the matter as a lower-court judge. Had Roberts voted, the result would have been 5-4. It's becoming ever clearer that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the new swing vote on the court following the departure of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Kennedy joined the four-member liberal bloc in Thursday's decision. The opinion itself was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's most liberal justice—and its oldest. Whether Bush will have the opportunity to name another justice before his term expires is uncertain. What is clear is that this is a major decision regarding presidential powers, one likely to be talked about for years, if not decades. "

6/29/2006 1:42:55 PM

WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT HATE OUR FREEDOM?!?

6/29/2006 1:51:20 PM

this supreme court descision was brought to you by the letters F and u

6/29/2006 2:28:13 PM