Bastards. All five of them.

The Supremes are intent on ruling the country by any means. This once again underscores the desperate need for originalists on the court.

When exactly does one deserve a war crimes tribunal? Now we're going to have an OJ trial for each of these cretins.

"Did the SCOTUS just rewrite the Geneva Convention from the bench?"

It did worse than that. It just declared its power to toss out any statute law for any reason it chooses.

A blessing in disguise. Now those captured on the battle field without a uniform can be tried by the battle field commander, (most likely a Lt or Capt), and shot in the field. Eleminates a lot of problems with one shot.

Taking terrorists as prisoners has always been problematic. Given this ruling, U.S. forces may not be so inclined to take prisoners. Not that they would kill someone who obviously surrenders, but rather by not soliciting surrender. One way to insure Muslims fight to the death would be for the U.S. to have some women record a surrender message, and then play that message whenever terrorists are in a hopeless situation.

The convention binds nations when dealing with other signatories, not with those who have not agreed to reciprocity.

That is false.

The GenCons specifically declare that if you are a signitory you are expected to abide by your agreements even if you're fighting a nation which is not a signatory.

But the GenCons are very explicit in their definitions on who gets protections and who doesn't.

The reason the folks in Gitmo were sent to Gitmo in the first place is that they didn't fit the definitions of those who garnered specific GenCon protections.

That's why we have been very very careful to never use the term "POW" to describe them.

possible fallout -- in the future when we run up against such people there will be a great temptation to shoot them, whenever possible, rather than capture them.

That may lose us some intelligence (don't know how much we've learned from questioning these folks), but if the alternative is giving terrorists Geneva Convention rights, I wouldn't blame any soldier for pulling the trigger

...if the alternative is giving terrorists Geneva Convention rights...

It's worth noting here that the GenCons do not grant POWs the "right" to an attorney ...

All captured combatants are liable to detention until the end of hostilities, without charge, without representation.

Well, I suppose this means no more prisoners captured on the battlefield.

Another possible fallout from this decision is that it will pretty much doom the "law enforcement/criminal trial" approach to fighting terrorism that the Democrats are so fond of.

Looks like this decision isn't a "win" for anyone except the terrorists.

The American media and the SCOTUS have made fighting this war immeasurably more difficult.

Right after 9/11 when passions were running high, most of us were of the mind-set of "go get 'em!" So Bush did exactly that: carefully, in the shadows--even doing what the New York Times pontificated he should do--and now people don;t want to do it anymore.

Well guess what? The problem isn't going away.

We're dealing with a 7th century mentality that has been unleashed on the world to maim, kill and destroy anyone that does not adhere to its brand of Islam. We haven't perfectly executed the fight against these nuts, but there has never been a perfectly executed war in all human history.

Because this war is being fought largely against organizations and cults/sects and their sponsors, and occasionally against regimes themselves, we needed new tools to fight it.

Unformtunately, the American media and now the SCOTUS have taken it upon themselves to deny us the tools we need to figh the war.

I have less of a beef with the SCOTUS, because they are doing what they are appointed to do--review cases and make rulings. I have a huge problem with the self-anointed media, because no-body has any oversight over them, and they think that they alone are the sole arbitors of what is right and what is wrong.

But the SCOTUS ruling is what it is, so team Bush will have to deal with it.

It would be nice if we had an enemy that cared about the rights of prisoners, but we all know what happens to them. And my guess is now that we aren't going to be taking very many prisoners anymore.

Rulings such as these will always have unforseen consequences.

OK, I contradicted myself a tiny bit in there. I blame Britney Spears on the Harpers Bazzar cover.

"the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law"

It's about f*cking time.

It's about f*cking time.

Hard to break that 230 y.o. tradition, Lee. You know that.

Don't be a putz.

It's too bad that Roberts could not participate in this one, because I have little doubt the outcome would have been different.

Read Justice Thomas' dissent, which he read out loud (in part), the first time he has done so in 15 years. His point: Since when does the SCOTUS get to interfere in the duties of the commander-in-chief?

But Bush will take this all in stride and find something else to do with these murderers and butchers who are our guests at Gitmo.

Perhaps he could intern them at the New York Times building while they await a civil trial?? :)

I have never understood taking terrorists as prisoners anyways? just wipe them out and take no prisoners. they are scum after all.

Since these guys fall under the Geneva Convention they can be shot as spies for being out of uniform right?

Also from the AP:

"The court's ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial."

Am I wrong, or does mean indefinite prison terms for jihadists?

Am I wrong, or does mean indefinite prison terms for jihadists?

As combatants captured in hostile action, they were subject to indefinite detention anyway.

Today the movement for true freedom, justice, and peace took a huge hit today. What a way to celibrate the USA's 230th Birthday a few days ahead by giving terrorists rights that they did not have. Our nation's founding fathers must be spinning bigtime in their graves.

Oh, and there's only one solution to combat this decision: Just like Nazi Weirwolves of 1945 who were caputerd, execution on the spot.

No trial, no hearing, no GC, no Gitmo. Just bye-bye.

Since these guys fall under the Geneva Convention they can be shot as spies for being out of uniform right?

So we just keep them in EPW camps without trials. The military trials was mostly done because the Libs and MSM ask for trials.

Mo

Good advice as usual. Maybe they should be held at Yale under full scholarships? Why stop there, give them voting rights and a trip to the dems polling places as well. Hell, let them be keynote speakers at the next Democratic convention..

Since these guys fall under the Geneva Convention they can be shot as spies for being out of uniform right?

[i hope i haven't inadvertently posted a partial...]

If we're going to be following the letter of the GenCon law now ... we, as signatory to the GenCons must accept an offered surrender of a combatant in hostile action if:
1] it is viewed as genuine, and
2] the combatant is "recognized" as a combatant.

To be "recognized" as a combatant under the GenCons the combatant must be:
1] uniformed; or
2] a civilian in service to the uniformed services; or
3] a civilian member of a militia which is marked by a uniform or other "identifying" emblem; or
4] a civilian member of a spontaneously formed militia created to resist the invading force

Taliban and al Qaida forces are not #1; they are not #2; since there is nothing "identifying" about wearing that "thing" on their head, they aren't #3; and since they pre-dated the invasion of A'stan, they were not "spontaneously created".

Technically, we would not be obliged to accept their surrender, which means they can be shot on sight.

...which is, as noted, what happened to the Germans who landed on Long Island in WWII to conduct sabotage in the US. If you don't fight according to the rules of war, the rules of war allow your enemy to ignore those rules in your specific case as well.

Now, let's pay attention to what the SCOTUS actually said, guys...

Bush does not have the authority as Executive to create the military tribunal process whole cloth by himself. As with ANY change in either the civil or military legal structure, the authority to create such changes begins with the Legislative Branch of gov't.... which means the GOP controlled Congress and Senate must create the structure for the tribunals and approve a suitable bill for signing...

Hmmmm.

Listkeeper - do you seriously expect the lipwristed GOP Congress to create such legislation?

Not really. I learned a long time ago that Congresscritters aren't problem solvers. That's part of Bush's problem... He's not a true politician... But he's a very effective problem solver. This is why politicians and management professionals don't get along well together.

While this ruling does not directly effect Guantanamo, it does effect the public's perception of what is taking place at Guantanamo, and will likely result in renewed calls for reform.

This is a HUGE win for the GOP (and Bush). Here's why, it intensifies and focuses on the issue of the importance to electing GOPers to fight off the lefties/Dems/Liberal SCOTUSites who severely weaken our efforts in the GWOT.

Hey lee lee my "public reponse" is to furnish all of them with a rope to save on bed sheets. Do you need a rope?

If Update III above is correct, and the SCOTUS didn't have the authority to review this case, then this decision is meaningless, and it's the SCOTUS that overreached its authority.