The international KKK leader Dubya was sent to Congress for permission to continue his reign of terror against agent of mass destruction. Hamdan captured and detained at Guantanamo Bay is deemed an enemy combatant while serving as the driver of Al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. Hamdan is not allowed to plead innocence, he is deemed guilty through association with bin Laden. The president authorized a military commission to presence an air of fairness for captured detainees having a "type of hearing." However, these detainees are not privy to the charges against them or to see the evidence nor are the attorneys assigned to the detainees cases to discuss the evidence with the detainees. Well, the attorney decided to ask the United State Supreme Court, if President KKK is in his right mind, or has the branches of government lost their right mind in allowing the President unfettered discretion to do whatever in the name of fighting terror.
Questions presented: (1) Whether the military commission established by the President to try detainees for alleged war crimes in the "war on terror" is duly authorized under Congress' Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224; the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); or the inherent powers of the President?
(2) Whether the detainees can obtain judicial enforcement from an Article III court of rights protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention in an action for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their detention by the Executive branch?
(3) Whether the courts have been stripped of jurisdiction to hear habeau corpus petitions filed by detainees at Guantanamo Bay before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act?
That the crime of conspiracy did not rise to the level warranting a military commission authorized by the President that did not involve genocide. And that there is a separate of power, that the President has forgotten, maybe because it is republican packed, concerning the check and balance of the three branches of Government. The president during time of war is the Commander in Chief, and Congress declares war, and makes and define laws. That during times of war, the president can establish military commission, but is not given a "blank check" by Congress, according to Justice Breyer, to create military commission for whatever. Therefore, military commissions authorized by the president can be reviewed by the Court to determine if the military commission is necessary.
The Geneva convention cover how detainee should be treated and tried. Hamdan, was not entitled to see the evidence or the charges he was charged with, and his defense attorney could not discuss with Andean evidence that was shown to the defense attorney against Hamdan. The Court ruled on Hamdan being tried by a military commission authorized by the President was not necessary. The Court determined that the military commission for Hamden was in violation of DTA, UMCF, and AFMC and the Geneva Convention.
The court has jurisdiction on cases pending before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act. That the acts charged against Hamdan happen before September 11, 2001, exempting him and probably other from the DTA. "None of the overt acts that Hamdan is alleged to have committed violates the law or war," writes Justice Stevens. The offense [itself' alleges is not triable by law of war military commission," continues Justice Stevens.
The ruling is interesting, and I need to read some more about the dissent opinion on allowing the President, to detain those who start a whispering campaign or leak secrets undertaken by the government against its own people to new reporters and so on and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment