Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Roberts was one of the judges in the Gitmo Military Tribunals case-Hamdan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:44 PM
Original message
Roberts was one of the judges in the Gitmo Military Tribunals case-Hamdan
http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/ap/guantanamo_military_tribunals

Hamdan's lawyers said President Bush violated the separation of powers in the Constitution when he established military commissions.

The appeals court disagreed, saying Bush relied on Congress's joint resolution authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as well as two congressionally enacted laws.

"We think it no answer to say, as Hamdan does, that this case is different because Congress did not formally declare war," said the decision by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who was appointed to the appeals court by the first President Bush. He was joined in the ruling by Stephen Williams, a Reagan appointee, and Judge John Roberts, placed on the court by the current President Bush.

One of the leading critics of the Pentagon's military commissions, the Center for Constitutional Rights, called Friday's ruling "misguided" and said it could have an impact beyond the status of Hamdan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Roberts gets clearer and clearer. Thank you for posting this.
snip>

More broadly it said that the 1949 Geneva Convention governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members. That supports a key assertion of the Bush administration, which has faced international criticism for holding hundreds of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without full POW protections.

"I think pretty much the entire opinion would be welcomed by the administration. I think there's nothing in there that is adverse to the administration's positions," Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, said in a telephone interview. "It's a very pro-administration decision."

snip>

Two lawyers representing Hamdan, Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles D. Swift, said the appeals court ruling "is contrary to 200 years of constitutional law."

"Today's ruling places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and long-standing treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States," the two defense lawyers said in a statement.

snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC