P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/30/104915.shtml?s=us
Court Refuses to Hear Guantanamo Prisoners' Case
NewsMax.com Wires Monday, April 30, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the case of two
Guantanamo Bay prisoners who want to challenge the legality of military
commissions.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr face commission trials - Hamdan for acting
as a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, and Khadr for throwing a
grenade that killed a U.S. Green Beret soldier.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would have
granted the request to hear the case, the court said in turning it down. It
takes four votes, though, to hear a case.
The court's action follows its April 2 decision not to step into related
aspects of the legal battle regarding other Guantanamo Bay detainees. The
issue there is whether the prisoners may go to federal court to challenge
their confinement.
It was Hamdan's military commission case that led to a repudiation of the
Bush administration last year in the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor
of Hamdan, declaring President Bush's system of military commission trials
violated U.S. and international law.
Subsequently, the Bush administration and its Republican allies on Capitol
Hill pushed through a law reconstituting the military commissions, giving
them the congressional imprimatur that had been missing from the earlier
system created by executive order.
Lawyers for Hamdan and Khadr had been seeking to challenge the new system,
saying it is identical in most respects to the old one the court rejected a
year ago. Coerced testimony is allowed, lawyers for the two men said in a
filing asking the court to take the case.
In its 2006 decision, the Supreme Court said Hamdan could invoke rights
secured by the Geneva Conventions. Yet the new Military Commissions Act
states that no one subject to such trials "may invoke Geneva Conventions as
a source of rights," lawyers for Hamdan and Khadr noted in court papers
The case is Hamdan v. Gates and Khadr v. Bush, 06-1169.
Court Refuses to Hear Guantanamo Prisoners' Case
NewsMax.com Wires Monday, April 30, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the case of two
Guantanamo Bay prisoners who want to challenge the legality of military
commissions.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr face commission trials - Hamdan for acting
as a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, and Khadr for throwing a
grenade that killed a U.S. Green Beret soldier.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would have
granted the request to hear the case, the court said in turning it down. It
takes four votes, though, to hear a case.
The court's action follows its April 2 decision not to step into related
aspects of the legal battle regarding other Guantanamo Bay detainees. The
issue there is whether the prisoners may go to federal court to challenge
their confinement.
It was Hamdan's military commission case that led to a repudiation of the
Bush administration last year in the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor
of Hamdan, declaring President Bush's system of military commission trials
violated U.S. and international law.
Subsequently, the Bush administration and its Republican allies on Capitol
Hill pushed through a law reconstituting the military commissions, giving
them the congressional imprimatur that had been missing from the earlier
system created by executive order.
Lawyers for Hamdan and Khadr had been seeking to challenge the new system,
saying it is identical in most respects to the old one the court rejected a
year ago. Coerced testimony is allowed, lawyers for the two men said in a
filing asking the court to take the case.
In its 2006 decision, the Supreme Court said Hamdan could invoke rights
secured by the Geneva Conventions. Yet the new Military Commissions Act
states that no one subject to such trials "may invoke Geneva Conventions as
a source of rights," lawyers for Hamdan and Khadr noted in court papers
The case is Hamdan v. Gates and Khadr v. Bush, 06-1169.
