PDA

View Full Version : Military Judge Denies Obama Request to Suspend Hearings at Guantanamo



Full-Auto
01-29-2009, 02:55 PM
A military judge in Guantanamo Bay has denied the Obama administration's request to delay proceedings for 120 days in the case of a detainee accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship, an al-Qaeda strike that killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.

The decision issued Thursday throws into some disarray the administration's efforts to buy time to review individual detainee cases as part of its plan to close the U.S. military prison at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba. The Pentagon may now be forced to temporarily withdraw the charges against Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent.

SOURCE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012902021.html?wprss=rss_nation)

Full-Auto
01-29-2009, 02:55 PM
Oops, Barry got the slap down by a military judge. Gotta love that shiznit.

djones520
01-29-2009, 03:00 PM
Oops, Barry got the slap down by a military judge. Gotta love that shiznit.


Trying to figure this one out. Cause this sounds to me like an Officer telling his CinC that he will not follow the order, and i've not seen an justification for it yet.

tacitus
01-29-2009, 03:33 PM
This should be very interesting. http://planetsmilies.net/eat-drink-smiley-5168.gif

If the military judge is not slapped down by the administration, O will look like he can't control the military.

Full-Auto
01-29-2009, 04:59 PM
It appears as if the administration made a "request" and didn't issue an "order".

I'm sure an order will be forth coming, then it could get interesting.

Lars1701a
01-29-2009, 05:04 PM
It appears as if the administration made a "request" and didn't issue an "order".

I'm sure an order will be forth coming, then it could get interesting.

Could Obama order this judge to stop the proceedings?

Full-Auto
01-29-2009, 05:06 PM
Could Obama order this judge to stop the proceedings?

Yes, he can.

Lars1701a
01-29-2009, 05:11 PM
Yes, he can.



That sucks, but on the bright side it will make the magic negro look bad :D

tacitus
01-29-2009, 06:05 PM
That sucks, but on the bright side it will make the magic negro look bad :D


He would have to look good first.

Let's say he does order the judge to stop all trials and at some point in the future these terrorists are set free by the administration. We have already seen that some of those that have been set free have gone back to their terrorist roots and continued to kill. So if some time in the future one or more of these freed terrorists decode to blow up NYC or some other city with massive loss of lives does O shoulder the blame? I say no since it would be Bush's fault for confining them to Gitmo in the first place, or at least that is what the left would claim.

3rd-try
01-29-2009, 10:48 PM
Good for the judge. If Obama wants these proceedings stopped and that results in a "kinder gentler" trial, as soon as one of these guys is ID'ed in a repeat performance, there will be no rethugs to blame, and no way to spin it so. I.E. he'll be taking the responsibility for his decision. They don't like that, you know.

AHeneen
01-30-2009, 12:10 AM
Yes, he can.

How?

Odysseus
01-30-2009, 02:05 PM
Trying to figure this one out. Cause this sounds to me like an Officer telling his CinC that he will not follow the order, and i've not seen an justification for it yet.
Sort of. It's a dicey area. Technically, you can refuse a request from your commander, but not an order. This was a request. However, a request from the Commander-in-Chief is bit more than simply a reqest from your boss. I would not want to be his rater when it's time for his OER.

How?
The Department of Defense is subordinate to the POTUS in his role as Commander in Chief. Military tribunals are empowered under the UCMJ, and the authority to convene UCMJ actions rests with the chain of command. The president has the authority to conduct these tribunals or to order them shut down. Since the terrorists at GITMO are unlawful combatants, they have very few rights under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, we had the option of summary execution on the battlefield when they were captured, but because of their intel value, they were taken prisoner. The GC states that unlawful combatants can be detained for the duration of hostilities or tried for war crimes and sentenced. The procedures are determined by the signatory power (the nation that is a signatory to the conventions and which has custody of the bad guys).

BTW, we made a huge PR mistake with these guys. As unlawful combatants, they are war criminals. That's how we should have referred to them. The ACLU might not have been so anxious to take up their cause if we'd called them war criminals instead of detainees.