US FED JUDGE HALTS GITMO WAR CRIME TRIALS-"BUSH OVERSTEPPED CONSTITUTION"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/09gitmo.html?ex=1257742800&en=75a982e72e7851a5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland



Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo
By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: November 9, 2004


UANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Nov. 8 - federal judge ruled Monday that President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.

The ruling by Judge James Robertson of United States District Court in Washington brought an abrupt halt to the trial here of one detainee, one of hundreds being held at Guantánamo as enemy combatants. It threw into doubt the future of the first set of United States military commission trials since the end of World War II as well as other legal proceedings devised by the administration to deal with suspected terrorists.

-snip-,

About 30 minutes into the afternoon proceedings, the presiding officer, Col. Peter S. Brownback III, was handed a note from a Marine sergeant. Colonel Brownback immediately called a recess and rushed from the room with the commission's two other officers. When he returned, he announced that the proceeding was in recess indefinitely and he departed quickly.

-snip-

In the 45-page ruling, the judge said the administration had ignored a basic provision of the Geneva Conventions, the international treaties signed by the United States that form the basic elements of the laws governing the conduct of war.

The conventions oblige the United States to treat Mr. Hamdan as a prisoner of war, the judge said , unless he goes before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is not. A P.O.W. is entitled to a court-martial if there are accusations of war crimes but may not be tried before a military commission.

The United States military did not conduct Article 5 tribunals at the end of the Afghanistan war, saying they were unnecessary. Government lawyers argued that the president had already used his authority to deem members of Al Qaeda unlawful combatants who would be deprived of P.O.W. status.

But Judge Robertson, who was nominated to be on the court by President Bill Clinton, said that that was not enough. "The president is not a panel," he wrote. "The law of war includes the Third Geneva Convention, which requires trial by court-martial as long as Hamdan's P.O.W. status is in doubt."

The government is in the midst of conducting a separate set of tribunals here at Guantánamo, similar to those required by the Geneva Conventions, to determine whether detainees were properly deemed unlawful enemy combatants. Those proceedings, called combatant status review tribunals, were quickly put into place by the Bush administration after the Supreme Court's ruling in June that the Guantánamo prisoners were entitled to challenge their detentions in federal court. Judge Robertson said, however, that those tribunals were not designed to satisfy the Geneva Convention requirement and were insufficient.

more at

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/09gitmo.html?ex=1257742800&en=75a982e72e7851a5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

with over 150 conservatives appointed and taking the bench - this country and the constitution are in deep trouble.

This judge was appointed by Clinton. I hope he's very young and will be on the bench a long long long time

bush will have the guy offed so he can fill the bench with one of his Neocons.

for each time someone here calls all Marines babykilling thug hypocrits.

they are killing so there are no prisoners

not letting men 45 and under leave the city - is the same as putting them in front of a firing squad

except if they did put them in front of a firing squad they would be tried for that

instead they make them sitting ducks in a city they are bombing and firing on - so the men have no chance - will not be captured and are just plain killed - leaving no survivors for trials

not as famous as beheadings - but the end results are the same and the brutality is the same -

The right doesn't completely control the courts yet. Give 'em time ...

:scared:

-Laelth

We're going to need a constututional amendment to protect our God-given right to lock people up forever, torture them and execute them after their trial in kangaroo court.

that movie said a lot but the rw would call them traitors as they did kerry - how long before bush replaces judges who stand up to him

will they have a retrail in front of a Bush appointed judge who is willing to break the law both domestically and internationally.

,...is precisely what the so-called "conservatives" want,...isn't it?

We need to explain to all those manipulated by Rove tactics and betrayed by their leadership that the neocons are the ones who have been "activist" law-makers (and breakers).

We should also let people know that, the character that exclaimed "You can't handle the truth!" in "A Few Good Men" was court marshaled for breaking the rule of law (that which is necessary for a successful democracy).

If they were interested in getting rid of terrorists then they would do the ground work and be more careful.

Kissinger, Rumsfield, and Ashcroft, maybe, and go on about their business.

Cudos to a true patriotic judge.

My hatred of Bush grows daily. Arrest him now. He's the one who should be facing trial.

those damn acivist judges.

for rememberin gthe Constitution of the US.

And that will send a message to any other judge with the audacity to follow the law, instead of Karl Rove's orders.

Oh, you have just been following the news. Same ole story. But we will see.

Let's just say that I have an insider's perspective on how such things work.

he will pay no attention to the court.

and took it out from under AWoL's muddied feet.

of bush reign?

I have not seen this case before, so this information may be well known to most. Still, I doubt I'm the only clueless person here either.

Was Mr. Hamdan captured in Iraq or Afghanistan? I got the impression it was Afghanistan, but am not certain. I was under the impression that Afghanistan was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. If that is the case, do its stictures still apply, or is it strictly U.S. law that covers the case? If it is U.S. law, how much of the Geneva Convention is written into our law?

I'll admit that I have a problem with the idea that Geneva Convention applies to non-signatories. If that is the case, it seems we should withdraw from it, since any other signatories must still apply its limitations to us. By the same token, I'd be pleased if we incorporate most of it into our own law - how's that for a mixed review ;-)

Anyway, on to more question. The article closes talking about the combatant status review tribunals. Why did the judge think those tribunals were insufficient?

Thanks for the help,

Drew Garrett

Welcome to DU!! :toast: