Supreme Court erklärt Guantanamo-Tribunale für nicht rechtens
"... In einem am Donnerstag (29.6.2005) verkündeten Grundsatzurteil kommt der Supreme Court zu dem Schluss, die von Präsident George W. Bush zur Strafverfolgung von Terrorverdächtigen eingerichteten Tribunale seien nicht rechtens.
Diese Tribunale seien nach der US-Verfassung und den Genfer Konventionen illegal, erklärte Richter Paul Stevens, der das Urteil verfasste. Das Gericht hatte sich konkret mit dem Fall des in Jemen geborenen Fahrers von Osama bin Laden, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, befasst, der seit vier Jahren in Guantanamo sitzt. ..."
Quelle: www.dw-world.de
"... The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a 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.
... Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men. ..."
Quelle: www.nytimes.com
Diese Tribunale seien nach der US-Verfassung und den Genfer Konventionen illegal, erklärte Richter Paul Stevens, der das Urteil verfasste. Das Gericht hatte sich konkret mit dem Fall des in Jemen geborenen Fahrers von Osama bin Laden, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, befasst, der seit vier Jahren in Guantanamo sitzt. ..."
Quelle: www.dw-world.de
"... The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a 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.
... Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men. ..."
Quelle: www.nytimes.com
0 Comments:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
<< Home