Yeah, things have been so bad for him that he's opened up a 6-7 point lead over McCain. (larger then any lead Bush ever had over Kerry) How dare the librulz in the supreme court try and find out if people are actually guilty before locking them up for the rest of their lives!? Damn that liberal constitution!
Yeah, things have been so bad for him that he's opened up a 6-7 point lead over McCain. (larger then any lead Bush ever had over Kerry) How dare the librulz in the supreme court try and find out if people are actually guilty before locking them up for the rest of their lives!? Damn that liberal constitution!
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Whoa there son, I never said that I approve of the current situation, or our current processes... I merely described the conundrum we face, and I also touched on the differences between detainee and POW status'.
So relax your quick-draw stereotyping please.
kkthx
Well, excuse me all to hell, Palehorse. Per the Bush Admin, detainees are "unlawful enemy combatants" by definition. None have ever been convicted of anything, and those released have been deemed to "no longer be a threat", which carries the implicit meaning that they all were some kind of threat at some point, right?
If you don't want to be taken as one of the faithful, then you shouldn't repeat their propaganda verbatim.
You'd serve yourself better to touch on the differences between detainees alleged to be unlawful enemy combatants vs actual enemy combatants, the latter apparently being a rather small % of the former... and the dilemma you describe is the same one faced wrt the war on drugs or the war on crime, the same dilemma that the constitutional convention wrestled with over 200 years ago. They understood terrorism even then, they just didn't have that particular term to describe much of what happened during the French and Indian War, or the Revolutionary War, for that matter...
If you don't want to be taken as one of the faithful, then you shouldn't repeat their propaganda verbatim.
You'd serve yourself better to touch on the differences between detainees alleged to be unlawful enemy combatants vs actual enemy combatants, the latter apparently being a rather small % of the former... and the dilemma you describe is the same one faced wrt the war on drugs or the war on crime, the same dilemma that the constitutional convention wrestled with over 200 years ago. They understood terrorism even then, they just didn't have that particular term to describe much of what happened during the French and Indian War, or the Revolutionary War, for that matter...
Just went and donated more to the ACLU.
Trying to save my country from the totalitarian wackos like Cheney/Bush and Scalia. Not to mention Chief Justice John Roberts who seems unable to separate himself from Cheney's ideas on right and wrong.
How can anyone construe the Constitution as saying that defendants have no rights to confront their accusers, and see the evidence against them.
Sure go ahead and put all the defendants in a multitude of different boxes and say that different rules apply to each box. Scalia would applaud that methodology.
I say BS! If you have evidence then present it to a jury and let them decide whether it merits punishment. The notion that the Executive Branch has all the wisdom and knowledge in our culture is just wrong.
Trying to save my country from the totalitarian wackos like Cheney/Bush and Scalia. Not to mention Chief Justice John Roberts who seems unable to separate himself from Cheney's ideas on right and wrong.
How can anyone construe the Constitution as saying that defendants have no rights to confront their accusers, and see the evidence against them.
Sure go ahead and put all the defendants in a multitude of different boxes and say that different rules apply to each box. Scalia would applaud that methodology.
I say BS! If you have evidence then present it to a jury and let them decide whether it merits punishment. The notion that the Executive Branch has all the wisdom and knowledge in our culture is just wrong.
Bush will find some way to get around this again. He has made it pretty clear that he doesn't care what the courts think. I imagine if he were somehow able to have a third term as president the USSC would eventually get mad enough at him that it would simply slap him down for good and give him a concrete order he couldn't ignore, but he'll be gone shortly.
His successor will probably just quietly undo whatever atrocious shit Bush is going to do in the next 7 months or so. I feel like a big problem Obama will have in the beginning of his presidency is that he will be uncovering reams of insanely stupid/terrible shit that Bush has been doing, and it will be a problem for him to air it all out without being accused of embarking on a partisan witch hunt.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Quit your idiotic blathering about "pacifism", "friends", and the threat that these people would just as soon kill me as look at me. Did you consult a neo-conservative handboook before typing that post? Most of what you pass as your opinion is nothing but the fearmongering you've listened to for seven years.
Wake up! Of course people detained are going to be unhappy with the US, particularly when they are held indefinitely, with no trial, with no idea of what they're being charged with. I'm sure plenty of those being held are probably there for a good reason - but what about the ones who aren't? Why do we have a right to pluck them off the street, ship them halfway around the world, and hold them for as long as we feel like? How would you feel if the situation was reversed? I bet that the minute you got released, you'd also go out and attack the nearest symbol of your captors.
If the detainees are being held for real reasons, it shouldn't be hard for the military to put together a case. If they are not, then these people should be released. We cannot imprison the entire ME based on the belief that some of them might harm us.
Nobody wants to hold them by their hands, sing a song, hug, and be friends. by imprisoning so many people, and by doing so in such an opaque way I think we are destroying what little credibility or respect we might have the in Arab world and, while you might not think that's important, I do. I think it's in our best interest to act in a manner befitting our self-proclaimed democratic principles. I think it's in our best interests to actively work to change negative opinions of the US abroad.
If I learned anything from this thread, it is that BMW540I6speed is extremely smart and makes great posts. Why isn't this guy a mod? Best posts I've read in months probably. Sound and well reasoned and grounded. Props to you.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Damn those activist judges! All the detainees will now have to be released. I mean, none of the soldier probably read any of them their miranda rights. In addition any evidence must be thrown out since there was no warrant. We better ground all the drones. From now on all U.S. soldiers are to announce themselves before engaging with any foreign combatants.
If terrorists are captured on the battlefield, and are outside the workings of the geneva convention, should the whole constitution now apply to them? Because it is now within their constitutional right to have a day in public court. Better get those public defenders lined up.
He and several other memebers should seriously consider starting blogs. I'd bet they'd even make a buck or two with a few ads.
I see your premise, and can relate. And agree to a extent.
As a lawyer, I & many of my colleagues are tired of this administration breaking the law useing the thinly veiled "War on Terror" meme. Does Bush/Cheney/Scalia honestly not remember the other "extraordinary" existential threats to our country that occurred in their lifetime? Has he forgotten the height of the Cold War and the thousands of nukes aimed at us and an apparent readiness on both sides to enter into that madness? Does he not remember the massive firepower of the Axis forces in World War II?.
My associates & I have been disccussing this ruling...
One could ask the question: If they weren't held at Guantanamo, but instead were held on a military base in Baghdad or in Afghanistan, there'd be no question - habeas petitions would not be entertained?.
Presumably the Geneva Convention would be applied in full, however, and the status of POW would be afforded to detainees, instead of this legal fantasy limba narnia-land we now employ by calling them "enemy combatants".
As far as I know, detainees, if held in Afghanistan or Baghdad, would not have a right to habeas corpus, because neither is under U.S. jurisdiction. but the bush administration would then be confronted with the inconvenient right of those detainees to be visited by the International Red Cross and other international rights organizations that, under international law, are charged with monitoring the conditions in which detainees are maintained. The bush administration, of course, did not want that, and so they transferred the detainees to a jurisdiction - Guantanamo - where they could argue that the international organizations could be denied access. Actually, they're not "held abroad". The U.S. has, by treaty "complete jurisdiction" over Guantanamo.
Unfortunately, the degree of U.S. jurisdiction necessary to permit an argument that we could deny access to international organizations is also a degree of jurisdiction that requires the application to detainees of habeas corpus rights.
One could ask the question: Has there ever been a time in our history where habeas was afforded to alien combatants, captured by our military and held abroad?
Well, has there ever been a time in our history (prior to gitmo) where alien combatants, captured by our military were not held as POWs?.As has been pointed out before, one problem with the whole "enemy combatant" thing is that no such animal ever existed before.
One could ask the question: What great difficulty would be caused by treating the Gitmo detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention?
If they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, then they are prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war now, they have always been prisoners of war. If they have always been prisoners of war then the US treatment of them amounts to war crimes. The Geneva Conventions levy on the signatories the right, nay, the duty, to seek out perpetrators of war crimes and even to try them in their own courts if necessary.
This why the Military Commissions Act of 2006 tried to statutorily deny the detainees any relief under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and also to grant "federal employees" immunity from prosecution under federal war crimes and torture statutes.
We'll see if this ruling is detrimental or not.
The ruling is the first time in US history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. government in a place where the US. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nevertheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus wherever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.
To me, and many of my colleagues, The US should remain on the offensive to protect the American people. It should continue to bring the world?s most dangerous terrorists to justice, and it should do so in the context of the rule of law. One of the most enduring features of the American system is the fact that the US is a government of laws and not of men. The Constitution reflects a position that the government should not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and that we want governmental authority to remain subordinate to the rule of law.
Arrest and detention without charge truly offends the Constitution and should rarely be permitted. seizing citizens of foreign nations and placing them beyond the reach of law is antithetical to the principles of justice so dearly held as core values of the American society.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
I don't buy the whole "they're not Americans, they don't get our rights" argument - why should they not? As far as I'm concerned, any action taken by the US government should follow the rules of the constitution, so why should the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended when it's convenient for them? This is our rule of law, and I think we need to be fair and consistent with it application, regardless of those being tried.
Germany in 1933 to 1945 was a radically left wing government... Smoking bans, gun confiscations, modern liberal utopia! Hitler, like many here, was a big fan of attacking business and the private property rights of citizens as Fuher (leader) of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (the Nazi party).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704277/posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nazi_Party
.. you might want to pick another example to support your leftist slant next time, unless you're ok with admitting that modern socialist liberalism has much in common with the period and place in history you cited?
... because they are NOT American citizens, nor identifiable members of a standing army that adheres to the Geneva Convention. These are known terrorists that have directly or indirectly been involved in killing US citizens or attacking our interests internationally. We are at war with these people as authorized by congress. I consider the Guantanamo detention a waste of my tax dollars, it's not like they have cozy camps set up to keep any US soldiers they capture safe and warm... The best a US soldier can hope for in the hands of one of these animals is mutilation and torture, perhaps followed by having their booby trapped body dumped in the desert.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
its not enough just to say we are at war and they are our enemies. This is a "war" with no known enemy state, it might as well be a crusade against terror.
The rest of your comments are just emotional tag lines. I expect real smart people within our judicial and administrative systems to work something out and get this whole issue out the the "grey area" that our government is all too fond of working in.
doubt it will happen though.
So you're arguing against giving them the right to challenge their status as illegal terrorist enemy combatants based upon the idea that you already know that they're illegal terrorist enemy combatants.
Nice creepy proto-fascist rhetoric there. I like your frothing, rabid description of them as subhuman as well. I'm sure it makes your opinion that I commented on before easier to stomach.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,824
- 2,611
- 136
The right the Supreme Court recognized is habeus corpus, THE bedrock principle of Ango-American jurispurdence since before Columbus was even a glint in his father's eye.
I don't have a problem with this decision-with a little INTELLIGENT rule drafting we could easily live with this and still have solid anti-terrorist protection.
Personally, I'm very glad of this decision. For the third time an extremely conservative Supreme Court has pushed back against GWB's efforts to change the American presidency into an unrestricted emporer. It's about time someone had this sort of backbone. Too bad they didn't way back in that 5-4 decision back in 2000-one that will rank with Dred Scott as one of the worst US Supreme Court decisions ever.
I don't have a problem with this decision-with a little INTELLIGENT rule drafting we could easily live with this and still have solid anti-terrorist protection.
Personally, I'm very glad of this decision. For the third time an extremely conservative Supreme Court has pushed back against GWB's efforts to change the American presidency into an unrestricted emporer. It's about time someone had this sort of backbone. Too bad they didn't way back in that 5-4 decision back in 2000-one that will rank with Dred Scott as one of the worst US Supreme Court decisions ever.
Look, just because you read Jonah Goldberg's hilariously awful book doesn't mean much. The "socialism" in the NSDAP was a rhetorical device and had way more to do with nationalism then it did with socialism. Here's a good hint towards how socialist Hitler was: he threw socialists and communists in concentration camps or killed them.
A large part of the justification of his invasion of Russia was based upon fear of leftist domination of the world. The mistake you're making is somehow that subjugation to state power is somehow a phenomenon of the left.
Of course, you actually attempted to link to Freep as a source for your arguments. This says everything we need to know.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter