Focus on the Language
Note the language in the first few paragraphs of the AP report covering the Supreme Court's recent ruling on military tribunals (with my emphasis added):The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a strong rebuke to the administration and its aggressive
anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the
proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva
conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard
and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S.
prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from
1996 to November 2001.
The ruling raises major questions about the legal status of about 450
men still being held at Guantanamo and exactly how, when and where the
administration might pursue the charges against them.A more even-handed approach might go as follows:
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a military war crimes trial for Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard would be unlawful.
The ruling , a setback to the administration and its anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were not consistent with U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.
The ruling raises questions about the legal status of about 450 men still being held at Guantanamo and exactly how, when and where the administration might pursue the charges against them.
posted by JM @ 4:53 PM
<< Home