High Court Sidesteps Guantanamo Bay Case

[malmapus]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday dodged a dispute over the government's plans to conduct military trials for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s former driver and other foreign terror suspects, avoiding another clash over the president's powers.



Justices were asked to decide if the Bush administration is trying to shortcut the rights of non-Americans facing trials at the Guantanamo Bay Navy base in Cuba. They declined, without comment.


The court's intervention would have been unusual because an appeals court also is considering the issue and has scheduled arguments March 8. Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan — a Yemeni charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, murder and terrorism — tried to speed things up by bypassing that court and filing the Supreme Court appeal.


The Supreme Court dealt with several terrorism cases last year, and in a landmark decision held that the war on terror did not give the White House a "blank check" to detain people without legal rights.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050118/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_terror_suspects

[UL_Approved]

1. This doesn't mean much yet

You can't sidestep courts of law without a very good reason. The lawyers needed to take it through the lower court first.

On the other side, though, this is going to go against presidential power, and it will make some limitation. THIS IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES. It is imperative that this case not be thrown out on the grounds of infringing on the powers of the president. The executive branch has checks and balances, just like the other two branches of government. This needs to be kept in our system of government.

[TahitiNut]

2. Besides, the regime is thumbing its nose at earlier rulings.

It's appalling.

[Supersedeas]

3. no blank check...but here's an invisible line of credit

[Rose Siding]

4. It feels like this will never get worked out

Sorry, Ben. We couldn't keep it.