Excerpts from the Guantanamo ruling
June 30, 2006
THE US Supreme Court has struck down as unlawful the military tribunal system set up to try prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Here are five excerpts from the 177-page ruling which included six different opinions:
"We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the Geneva Conventions,"
- Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the opinion for the 5-3 majority. He was referring to the US military rules and the Geneva Conventions, the international agreements signed in 1949 that cover treatment of prisoners of war.
"Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules in this case. ... The military commission was not born of a desire to dispense a more summary form of justice than is afforded by courts-martial; it developed, rather, as a tribunal of necessity to be employed when courts-martial lacked jurisdiction over either the accused or the subject matter ... Exigency lent the commission its legitimacy, but did not further justify the wholesale jettisoning of procedural protections."
- Justice Stevens.
"The court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank cheque'. Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the nation's ability to determine - through democratic means - how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our court today simply does the same."
- Justice Stephen Breyer.
"Assuming the president has authority to establish a special military commission to try Hamdan, the commission must satisfy (Geneva Convention)...requirement of a 'regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples.' The terms of this general standard are yet to be elaborated and further defined, but Congress has required compliance with it by referring to the 'law of war'...The court correctly concludes that the military commission here does not comply with this provision,"
- Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"Hamdan also claims that he is entitled to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. There is no merit to Hamdan's claims. ...The president has determined that the convention is inapplicable here, explaining that 'none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world'. ...The president's findings about the nature of the present conflict with respect to members of al-Qaeda operating in Afghanistan represents a core exercise of his commander-in-chief authority that this court is bound to respect."
- Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion.
Link Here
Fallout: Decision leaves prisoners in a legal limbo
Factfile: Guantanamo & the Geneva Convention
Quotes: Key players respond to the judgment
THE US Supreme Court has struck down as unlawful the military tribunal system set up to try prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Here are five excerpts from the 177-page ruling which included six different opinions:
"We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the Geneva Conventions,"
- Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the opinion for the 5-3 majority. He was referring to the US military rules and the Geneva Conventions, the international agreements signed in 1949 that cover treatment of prisoners of war.
"Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules in this case. ... The military commission was not born of a desire to dispense a more summary form of justice than is afforded by courts-martial; it developed, rather, as a tribunal of necessity to be employed when courts-martial lacked jurisdiction over either the accused or the subject matter ... Exigency lent the commission its legitimacy, but did not further justify the wholesale jettisoning of procedural protections."
- Justice Stevens.
"The court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank cheque'. Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the nation's ability to determine - through democratic means - how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our court today simply does the same."
- Justice Stephen Breyer.
"Assuming the president has authority to establish a special military commission to try Hamdan, the commission must satisfy (Geneva Convention)...requirement of a 'regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples.' The terms of this general standard are yet to be elaborated and further defined, but Congress has required compliance with it by referring to the 'law of war'...The court correctly concludes that the military commission here does not comply with this provision,"
- Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"Hamdan also claims that he is entitled to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. There is no merit to Hamdan's claims. ...The president has determined that the convention is inapplicable here, explaining that 'none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world'. ...The president's findings about the nature of the present conflict with respect to members of al-Qaeda operating in Afghanistan represents a core exercise of his commander-in-chief authority that this court is bound to respect."
- Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion.
Link Here
Fallout: Decision leaves prisoners in a legal limbo
Factfile: Guantanamo & the Geneva Convention
Quotes: Key players respond to the judgment
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 2:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home