Supreme Court Once Again threatens to Undermine the "War on terror"

[tnitsuj]

from the New York Times

 

[UltraQuiet]

The high court said it will consider the appeal from Yaser Esam Hamdi, whom the government has labeled an enemy combatant ineligible for ordinary legal protections and a danger to the United States.

Good

"Hamdi is a classic battlefield detainee -- captured in Afghanistan, an area of active combat, with an enemy unit," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court.

Ted Olson should have been reassigned right after 9/11. He has no business advising this administration on terrorist/terrorism issues.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

The high court said it will consider the appeal from Yaser Esam Hamdi, whom the government has labeled an enemy combatant ineligible for ordinary legal protections and a danger to the United States.

Good

"Hamdi is a classic battlefield detainee -- captured in Afghanistan, an area of active combat, with an enemy unit," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court.

Ted Olson should have been reassigned right after 9/11. He has no business advising this administration on terrorist/terrorism issues.

But don't you see. If the president can't detain and if neccessary torture anyone he wishes without explantation..the TERRORISTS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[chess9]

Justin:

But if he does, the terrorists win!!!!!!!!!!!



-Robert

 

[Spencer278]

"Hamdi is a classic battlefield detainee -- captured in Afghanistan, an area of active combat, with an enemy unit," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court.

Doesn't that make him a POW?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

"Hamdi is a classic battlefield detainee -- captured in Afghanistan, an area of active combat, with an enemy unit," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court.

Doesn't that make him a POW?

Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda signed the Geneva convention..which the reasoning goes means we can do whatever we want with them.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

The high court said it will consider the appeal from Yaser Esam Hamdi, whom the government has labeled an enemy combatant ineligible for ordinary legal protections and a danger to the United States.

Good

"Hamdi is a classic battlefield detainee -- captured in Afghanistan, an area of active combat, with an enemy unit," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court.

Ted Olson should have been reassigned right after 9/11. He has no business advising this administration on terrorist/terrorism issues.

But don't you see. If the president can't detain and if neccessary torture anyone he wishes without explantation..the TERRORISTS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't mistake my support of the SC decision to hear the case as support of them ruling against the admin. You should also not be surprised when the SC rules that the admin is not doing anything wrong. The courts have always given the executive branch wide latitude when it comes to waging war and protecting the country. They may decide that it was this guy's activities, not his nationality, that determines his status. I have said from the beginning that since there was so much disagreement as to the status of the detainees that the independent tribunal , that the Geneva Convention calls for, should have been established and their status determined thus. Of course, as someone who is on active duty, I always support my chain of commands decisions in these matters. As for T.Olson, his wife died on the plane that hit the Pentagon and I question whether or not he can be objective.

 

[CaptnKirk]

UQ is right on on this one.

How many of you realize that Ted Olsen's wife was a passenger on the plane that hit the Pentagon ?

Emotional baggage, too close to home -
the vengance factor could be present,
either consiously or subconsiously.

 

[tnitsuj]

yes, the Supreme Court has historically made the right decision deferring to the executive branch during WWII for example in the internment of the Japanese. Hopefully, they will be similarly inclinedl now.

 

[LunarRay]

Oslen's wife should not be an issue for him. He's too good an advocate for the emotional link. Least ways, he would have recuse himself if he felt that way.
Regarding the USSC... "the terrorist wins".. not hardly. We lose when we don't follow the rule of law. That is all that matters in this or any other legal matter. The rule of law! It is the core of our society and what we seek to enable others to achieve. I'd rather they be tried in US courts under US code or be tried in the Hague under international law. I strongly believe that since IMO a state of war existed between the US and the persons and the nation supporters of those persons that attacked the US on 9/11 that the Hague is the appropriate venue..

 

[UltraQuiet]

Oslen's wife should not be an issue for him. He's too good an advocate for the emotional link. Least ways, he would have recused himself if he felt that way.

The issues here are of a magnitude that doesn't allow for the hope of someone doing the right thing.

I couldn't agree with your "rule of law" comments more. I do, however disagree with your position about the Hague.

JMAO

 

[labrat25]

If the president can't detain and if neccessary torture anyone he wishes without explantation..the TERRORISTS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does that mean he can detain and torture women and children? civilians? Pakastanis? European Citizens?
At what point do we become the terorists?

Not to mention that this does not solve the problem of terrorism!

Is not the sign of a civilized society, behaving civilized (ie. follow the Geneva Convetion) even when those who oppose us do not? (We did this in WWII with the Germans and Japanese POWs, even though they did not. We did it in the first Gulf War.)

 

[Miramonti]

The greatest threat to the war on terror is the war on scenility, where gw is commander in chief of the infiltration.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
yes, the Supreme Court has historically made the right decision deferring to the executive branch during WWII for example in the internment of the Japanese. Hopefully, they will be similarly inclinedl now.

I guess you say stuff like this so regularly that nobody here bothers to challenge you. Korematsu v. United States is regarded as one of the low points in american jurisprudence. You can be assured the Supreme Court did not take cert on this case in order to affirm it, no matter how conservative this Court may be regarded to be.

 

[UltraQuiet]

nm

 

[chess9]

Justin:

The internment of the Japanese is one of the blackest pages in American history.

Sheezh.....

-Robert

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
yes, the Supreme Court has historically made the right decision deferring to the executive branch during WWII for example in the internment of the Japanese. Hopefully, they will be similarly inclinedl now.

I guess you say stuff like this so regularly that nobody here bothers to challenge you. Korematsu v. United States is regarded as one of the low points in american jurisprudence. You can be assured the Supreme Court did not take cert on this case in order to affirm it, no matter how conservative this Court may be regarded to be.

That case has absolutely nothing to do with the case that the SC has agreed to hear. Nothing. Maybe you thought you could post some ignorant BS and nobody would call you on it. Sorry.

I suppose you are pointing out factual differences between us citizens classified as enemy combatants captured in bfe versus us citizens rounded up at home to prevent them from sabotaging/infiltrating west coast institutions (let me know if I'm incorrect). You take a pretty narrow view to say these cases have nothing to do with each other. They both involve civil rights to be accorded to US citizens and involve wartime* actions by the government (since the US is now permanently at war, apparently). If you are going to "call" me on this, perhaps you should be more specific in your critique (beyond your identification of the post as "ignorant BS"). thanks

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: chess9
Justin:

The internment of the Japanese is one of the blackest pages in American history.

Sheezh.....

-Robert

The black pages I believe are the blackest pages in american history.

 

[chess9]

Jjsole:

I wouldn't disagree. The pun would be almost funny if it weren't so tragic.

-Robert

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: chess9
Jjsole:

I wouldn't disagree. The pun would be almost funny if it weren't so tragic.

-Robert

True.

 

[Bitdog]

Ok, we've detained some people. Now the issue is: who controls their fate?
Human past history has proven that, when one person has full control/power over another,
they abuse that power.

I don't think it would be the end of the world if we allowed others to investigate
their situation in detention, the reason they got detained, & determine approperate
resolutions. I believe that there are some people being detained that shouldn't be.
If GW has full control, those people have no rights untill he gets around to re_enstating them.
AND, he's got better things to do.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
yes, the Supreme Court has historically made the right decision deferring to the executive branch during WWII for example in the internment of the Japanese. Hopefully, they will be similarly inclinedl now.

I guess you say stuff like this so regularly that nobody here bothers to challenge you. Korematsu v. United States is regarded as one of the low points in american jurisprudence. You can be assured the Supreme Court did not take cert on this case in order to affirm it, no matter how conservative this Court may be regarded to be.

That case has absolutely nothing to do with the case that the SC has agreed to hear. Nothing. Maybe you thought you could post some ignorant BS and nobody would call you on it. Sorry.

I suppose you are pointing out factual differences between us citizens classified as enemy combatants captured in bfe versus us citizens rounded up at home to prevent them from sabotaging/infiltrating west coast institutions (let me know if I'm incorrect). You take a pretty narrow view to say these cases have nothing to do with each other. They both involve civil rights to be accorded to US citizens and involve wartime* actions by the government (since the US is now permanently at war, apparently). If you are going to "call" me on this, perhaps you should be more specific in your critique (beyond your identification of the post as "ignorant BS"). thanks

My "narrow" view is certainly more accurate than the stretch you're making trying to link these cases. Is every case that involves civil rights linked? The case you referenced has never been cited or referenced in any of the court cases involving the illegal combatants at Gitmo. Why? Because it is not germane to that situation hence my "ignorant BS" comment. Maybe you need to do a more in-depth review of the cases or were you hoping for the same thing you accused tnitsuj of?

Just for the record I deleted the post you quoted before you posted because I really didn't feel like having this discussion.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Oslen's wife should not be an issue for him. He's too good an advocate for the emotional link. Least ways, he would have recused himself if he felt that way.

The issues here are of a magnitude that doesn't allow for the hope of someone doing the right thing.

I couldn't agree with your "rule of law" comments more. I do, however disagree with your position about the Hague.

JMAO

Only the Hague because of the state of War issue, otherwise I'd agree but, under the situation we have being the agrieved party and all.. it seems any verdict will be met with 'what did you expect' unless of course 'not guilty' is found in which case 'they had to show some appropriate Kangaroo court finding to support all the innocent guilty findings.. ' IMO..

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
yes, the Supreme Court has historically made the right decision deferring to the executive branch during WWII for example in the internment of the Japanese. Hopefully, they will be similarly inclinedl now.

I guess you say stuff like this so regularly that nobody here bothers to challenge you. Korematsu v. United States is regarded as one of the low points in american jurisprudence. You can be assured the Supreme Court did not take cert on this case in order to affirm it, no matter how conservative this Court may be regarded to be.

That case has absolutely nothing to do with the case that the SC has agreed to hear. Nothing. Maybe you thought you could post some ignorant BS and nobody would call you on it. Sorry.

I suppose you are pointing out factual differences between us citizens classified as enemy combatants captured in bfe versus us citizens rounded up at home to prevent them from sabotaging/infiltrating west coast institutions (let me know if I'm incorrect). You take a pretty narrow view to say these cases have nothing to do with each other. They both involve civil rights to be accorded to US citizens and involve wartime* actions by the government (since the US is now permanently at war, apparently). If you are going to "call" me on this, perhaps you should be more specific in your critique (beyond your identification of the post as "ignorant BS"). thanks

My "narrow" view is certainly more accurate than the stretch you're making trying to link these cases. Is every case that involves civil rights linked? The case you referenced has never been cited or referenced in any of the court cases involving the illegal combatants at Gitmo. Why? Because it is not germane to that situation hence my "ignorant BS" comment. Maybe you need to do a more in-depth review of the cases or were you hoping for the same thing you accused tnitsuj of?

Just for the record I deleted the post you quoted before you posted because I really didn't feel like having this discussion.

You'd be hard pressed to find the Korematsu case cited much, because its universally regarded as wrong (except by tnitsuj, maybe). No court is going to cite that case because its worthless as legal precedent (moreover, it was later scratched through some obscure procedure based on mistake of fact or something). I'm not trying to be hard on you, because I know you are not a lawyer, but your "ignorant BS comment" was irritating to me and remains so because you continue to defend it.

Anyway, if you don't want to discuss further, I'm not trying to bait you. I think we both made our positions clear.

 

[LunarRay]

Onelove,
Re: Korematsu

I think similar cases to Korematsu v US are controlled today by the 14th Amendment 'equal' and 'due process' decisions. Justice Jackson dissented among two I think but, Jackson went on to prosecute in the war crimes issues. That may have been a reason he was asked to go.
The question is, I think, whether or not civil rights extend to folks who are not citizens tried under US law and those who may have been deemed by the Executive to have forfeited their rights by their actions without due process on that issue.

edit:
"... Korematsu v. United States, the Court could no longer ignore the core issue of whether loyal citizens could be summarily relocated to detention camps solely on the basis of their race. Although a majority of the Court agreed with Justice Black's view that military necessity justified the relocation, three members of the Court, Frank Murphy, Owen J. Roberts and Robert H. Jackson, dissented. Justice Murphy's dissent, which most bluntly dealt with what he termed a "legalization of racism ..."