home

Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review

by TChris

Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan have asked the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling from the D.C. Circuit that permits Hamdan to be tried before a military tribunal. Terming the decision (in which Judge Roberts joined) “extreme,” Hamdan’s lawyers accuse the circuit panel of disregarding established law.

"Its decision vests the president with the ability to circumvent the federal courts and time-tested limits on the executive," wrote Neal K. Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University who represents Mr. Hamdan. "No decision, by any court, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has gone this far."

The Hamdan decision is frighteningly deferential to the executive branch of government. The court held that Hamdan has no right to enforce the Geneva Conventions in court, and that, in any event, “the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members.” Hamdan denies membership in al Qaeda, but the court left that determination up to the president.

Mr. Hamdan's lawyers said that ruling was sweeping and "held that the president has the power to decide how a detainee is classified, ... how he is treated, what criminal process he will face, what rights he will have, who will judge him, how he will be judged, upon what crimes he will be sentenced and how the sentence will be carried out."

< March 11 Atlanta courthouse shooting results in 8 firings | The Myth of Meth >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Only a signatory can invoke a treaty. Which signatory country to the Geneva Conventions is appealing to SCOTUS on HamDan's behalf? Any?

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Arguably, Hamdan's lawyers are not invoking a treaty, but rather the US law that RESULTS from such a treaty being signed. In the absence of a functional impeachment process, no amount of executive overreach is tolerable. The attempt to 'stun' the Constitutional checks and balances has been the Bush-coup's modus operandi lo these five years -- in no case have those actions been anything but treason. Giving mercs a carte blanche in a foreign occupation is patently illegal, and is indeed a form of terrorism. Bush is a terrorist on several counts, so his grab for unconstitutional power is not so suprising. Nor is Roberts' water-carrying. He's a shill; underqualified, and aligned to a coup in our government. Prosecute Bush; Hamdan is small fish in comparison.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Et al... The court held that Hamdan has no right to enforce the Geneva Conventions in court, and that, in any event, “the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members.” Everybody here got that? How many times have the leftie posters on here been told that? Let me repeat that for those of you hard of reading ..."the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members". Can we finally put this Geneva Convention stuff to rest? Thanks you!

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    LOVE how the wingers-who-support-warcriminals want to shut down the discussion, over and over, of the war crimes their war criminals have committed, and continue to commit. IF Hamdan is AQ, let the government prove that in a TRIAL. Because Bush has NO credibility. A war criminal like Bush does not have the right to abuse executive power -- he just does it anyhow. The fact that Roberts abets the crimes and predations on law and Constitution of his keepers is not suprising. It's just another count against him. No independence can be expected from a shill.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    BB-Slaves were considered less than human and may still be where it exists. You sound like you are less than Human to me, hope no one minds too much about locking you up in a dark cold cell, possibly with loud noise from a broken fan on to remind you of your windy arrogance. Enemy Combatant indeed....what BS.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    the court held that Hamdan has no right to enforce the Geneva Conventions in court, and that, in any event, “the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members.
    which is exactly why he appealed to a higher court.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Squeaky... remind you of your windy arrogance. Sorry you don't agree...but anyone that blows themselves up ..taking as many innocent people with them as possible ... IS LESS THAN HUMANE!

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    As opposed to bombing from several thousand feet and incurring 'collateral damage.' I guess the words Cowardly, Innocent, and Humane, are pretty loose in your book. Have you been discussing methodology with suicide bombers lately, and their wacko motivation to kill "as many innocent people as possible. I guess you are safe, because you are far from innocent. BTW, I would not advise traveling out of the US, you may be on a list deeming you rabid american, and be removed from society without a trace.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Squeaky.. As opposed to bombing from several thousand feet and incurring 'collateral damage.' You watch too many Micheal Moore movies.... There is currently no bombing going on from "thousands of feet" ..and when there was..it was over "troop concentrations" & not civilian areas. Why is it you are all so quick to blame our military? We are not the bad guys here! Talk about leading lemmings to the sea. You guys suck up bad info like a sponge...eagerly believing every single negative thing published about our military.... Jeeeez! Have you been discussing methodology with suicide bombers lately, and their wacko motivation to kill "as many innocent people as possible No...have you? Are you trying to tell me they are justified? Well, they're not... No matter what their motivation might be. It's attitudes like yours that will keep this war going. For every simpathizer here in the US...10 more wackos are willing to join the fight. I guess you are safe, because you are far from innocent. I am...how so? What have I done but try to defend my country against people that want to see it crumble. I would not advise traveling out of the US, you may be on a list I have news for you...you (if you are indeed an American) are on that same list... the fact you simpathize with these fanatics won't stop them from killing you as quick as they would me.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Posted by BB: "There is currently no bombing going on from "thousands of feet" ..and when there was..it was over "troop concentrations" & not civilian areas." You're a liar, BB. FALLUJAH was a pogrom, the bombing destruction of HALF of the buildings in that city. Using INCENDIARY bombs, no less. The invasion is illegal; it's actions are WAR CRIMES. Keep on whistling, though. It's going to be a few years before we NUREMBERG the sh*t out of your favorite traitors to humanity.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Paul ... You're a liar, BB. FALLUJAH was a pogrom, the bombing destruction of HALF of the buildings in that city. Using INCENDIARY bombs, no less. No Paul..you are the liar. That never happened. No link to a biased lefty web site..huh?

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Very few survivors to tell the tale as well. The press has been cleansed as well.

    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Why anyone would object to a fair trial when the military has admitted that many of the gitmo prisoners are innocent is beyond me. It is telling that the commenter doesn't consider them human. From the left wing outlet the Voice of America:
    T he United States has to date transferred about 70 Guantanamo detainees to the custody of their home countries and given about 200 others their outright release.
    FYI:Fallujah
    Throughout the summer and fall of 2004, the U.S. military conducted sporadic airstrikes on Fallujah, often on residential areas.

    [...] In October and early November, 2004, the U.S. military prepared for a major offensive against the rebel stronghold with stepped up daily aerial attacks

    [...] About 7000 to 10000 of the roughly 50,000 buildings in the town are estimated to have been destroyed in the offensive ([16], [17]), and half to two-thirds of the buildings have suffered notable damage.


    Re: Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    No wonder Bush/Bolton hate the UN. In Falluja "It is estimated that 40 percent of the buildings were completely destroyed, 20 percent had major damage, and 40 percent had significant damage." From Juan Cole: "Of 300,000 residents, only about 9,000 seem to have returned, and apparently some of those are living in tents above the ruins of their homes."