|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 10:00:30 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
In what way?
Torture; oppression; coerced confessions
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
What charge were 425,000 German, Italian, and Japanese detainees incarcerated on during WWII? Was that an 'inquisition'?
The charge: no charge, just an executive order in the name of "national security." Sound familiar?
Inquisition: No-- there was no torture, no one was forced to confess to anything. But it was unjust, and eventually the interned innocents and their decendants were vindicated in court.
Not surpisingly, your point is another logical fallacy. It is an irrelevant appeal: "Since anyone who criticizes Gitmo and their tactics is a liberal Democrat, I'll attack FDR because he is a Democrat icon." But this does not address the topic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneJohn410
All the U.S. in required to do at this point is say, why- you are being held here because of suspicion of aiding and abetting actions of terror against the world? That's why this is not a terrible thing?
Yes it is, because at that point it becomes like the old Salem witch trials when someone could get in very serious trouble- even executed- based on nothing more than fear, suspicion, and rumor. In this scenario, anyone can be held under "suspicion" of practically anything whether or not there is actually any evidence supporting the suspicion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
I'll ask again, do you know what an unlawful combatant is? You argue as if this classification doesn't exist.
No, what I am saying is that many of the detainees were not unlawful combatants at all.
quote:
The Magna Carta applied to British subjects only, not to all citizens American justice appeals to parts of the Magna Carta as a model for our own system. You should know that.
quote:
Again, what torture?
This article from the other thread.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/21/2008 4:07:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 10:18:15 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 714
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, what I am saying is that many of the detainees were not unlawful combatants at all.
If you read the commentary on the Geneva Convention there are several statements that dispute the notion of unlawful combatants. According to the author, a person that is captures is either a POW or a civilian. There are no other classifications.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 12:18:55 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1856
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you read the commentary on the Geneva Convention there are several statements that dispute the notion of unlawful combatants. According to the author, a person that is captures is either a POW or a civilian. There are no other classifications.
That isn't true at all. You cannot dress in a uniform of your adversary and get captured expecting some kind of rights. You cannot fight a guerilla battle with no identifiable markings and no chain of command (even a loose chain of command) and expect to receive some kind of treatment.
The Geneva conventions are clear on what is a soldier and what is a civilian and some types of people are neither or get the rights of neither.
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 12:25:14 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 218
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
We had declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan. The detainees named in the OP action are all citizens of countries that we are not at war with. A different situation, to say the least.
RIGHT!! Making them unlawful combatants with NO RIGHTS!!
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
You have the right if you are arrested in almost every country in the world to contact your consulate.
quote:
You are very wrong here my friend. Rights of non-citizens are protected via treaties with other countries which usually affords them the same (sometimes better) rights as their own countries. If not covered by treaty theirs that little thing called international law that has set a precedent as to how we act with citizens of a foreign nation. At the very least they are afforded access to embassy personnel from their own country.
So you're comparing an Al-Qaeda terrorist from outside Iraq or Afganistan, captured on the battlefield fighting our troops, to a foreign national arrested on US soil for, what, a DUI? Again, it shows that y'all either don't know or don't care who these people really are.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 12:29:41 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1856
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you're comparing an Al-Qaeda terrorist from outside Iraq or Afganistan, captured on the battlefield fighting our troops, to a foreign national arrested on US soil for, what, a DUI? Again, it shows that y'all either don't know or don't care who these people really are.
What is happenning is you are putting words in my mouth. You made the statement that "no society ever" gave rights to "non-citizens of their country" That isn't true and that is what I was addressing.
As for all of the combatants being "AQ" they aren't. AQ isn't fighting us in Afghanistan the Taliban are.
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 1:33:13 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 218
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
What is happenning is you are putting words in my mouth. You made the statement that "no society ever" gave rights to "non-citizens of their country" That isn't true and that is what I was addressing.
As for all of the combatants being "AQ" they aren't. AQ isn't fighting us in Afghanistan the Taliban are.
Okay, I'll ammend my statement. No society has ever given constitutional rights to non-citizens. If that were the case, we wouldn't need international laws. We are violating neither with our treatment of the Gitmo detainees. They are being treated humanely, better than they've ever been treated by their own backwards societies.
As for the second quote, even if it were true that there weren't AQ operatives in Afganistan (which of course there are), you're nit-picking, which again shows weakness in your position.
Face it, you're advocating for the worst human beings on the planet, who are engaged in a brutal, bloody jihad against any-and-everyone who doesn't agree with their dark vision for the world (fellow Muslims included), while at the same time waging a non-bloody political jihad against the decent people and institutions of this country that are laying their lives and livelihoods on the line to protect you from them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 2:42:22 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 305
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
No society has ever given constitutional rights to non-citizens.
This is demonstrably wrong. There are national constitutions which do in fact guarantee freedoms to everyone on national soil.
quote:
They are being treated humanely, better than they've ever been treated by their own backwards societies.
Leaving aside the point that (I assume) they get an appropriate amount of food, I sincerely doubt that being jailed amounts to better treatment than they had before.
quote:
Face it, you're advocating for the worst human beings on the planet, who are engaged in a brutal, bloody jihad against any-and-everyone who doesn't agree with their dark vision for the world (fellow Muslims included), while at the same time waging a non-bloody political jihad against the decent people and institutions of this country that are laying their lives and livelihoods on the line to protect you from them.
I will advocate for any human being who is being treated unjustly. This obviously includes those who are not terrorists as well. And I am not in a position to judge who is a "worse" human being. I'm not a particularly good human being myself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 2:47:06 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Face it, you're advocating for the worst human beings on the planet, who are engaged in a brutal, bloody jihad against any-and-everyone who doesn't agree with their dark vision for the world (fellow Muslims included), while at the same time waging a non-bloody political jihad against the decent people and institutions of this country that are laying their lives and livelihoods on the line to protect you from them.
Besides the fact that we don't know they're the worst human beings on the planet until we've actually given them due process, from a Christian perspective, there is no worse sin, there is no worse person. We are all fallen human beings, and the fact that certain politicians (Bill, George, whoever) lie a lot make them just as bad in God's eyes as the terrorists, because it's still sin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 3:02:32 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1856
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I will advocate for any human being who is being treated unjustly. This obviously includes those who are not terrorists as well. And I am not in a position to judge who is a "worse" human being. I'm not a particularly good human being myself.
I agree.
quote:
Face it, you're advocating for the worst human beings on the planet, who are engaged in a brutal, bloody jihad against any-and-everyone who doesn't agree with their dark vision for the world (fellow Muslims included), while at the same time waging a non-bloody political jihad against the decent people and institutions of this country that are laying their lives and livelihoods on the line to protect you from them.
The worst of the worst?
quote:
McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
And former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said it best years ago when he commented that many of those being held didn't belong there up to 1/3.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/2969800
So I take it you must be FOR the capture and mistreatment of Mohammed Akhtiar who was a friend and ally of the Afghan government who was turned over to the US because he refused to ally himself with the Taliban? This is according to a senior Afghan Intelligence officer.
Congratulations on advocating torture for those who helped the Afghan government and us. I guess if it makes you feel safe at night when you sleep. : )
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 3:36:37 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3758
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Besides the fact that we don't know they're the worst human beings on the planet until we've actually given them due process, from a Christian perspective, there is no worse sin, there is no worse person. We are all fallen human beings, and the fact that certain politicians (Bill, George, whoever) lie a lot make them just as bad in God's eyes as the terrorists, because it's still sin.
Christ himself told Pilate others had a greater sin, one that doesn't take of his won is worse than the infidel, and Christ didn’t say it would be better if everyone would have a millstone around their neck but a select few…
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 3:38:22 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Christ himself told Pilate others had a greater sin, one that doesn't take of his won is worse than the infidel, and Christ didn’t say it would be better if everyone would have a millstone around their neck but a select few…
John
Yes, but you're missing the fact that all sin carries the same divine punishment. Thus, all sin is equal.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 4:02:21 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3758
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Christ himself told Pilate others had a greater sin, one that doesn't take of his won is worse than the infidel, and Christ didn’t say it would be better if everyone would have a millstone around their neck but a select few…
John
Yes, but you're missing the fact that all sin carries the same divine punishment. Thus, all sin is equal.
God's decree of the punishment doesn't negate what He states in His word regarding greater sins... A fact you seem to be missing...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 6:45:45 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 218
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
rlj
I will advocate for any human being who is being treated unjustly. This obviously includes those who are not terrorists as well. And I am not in a position to judge who is a "worse" human being. I'm not a particularly good human being myself.
Maybe so, but since you haven't called me an infidel and issued a fatwah for my murder just because we disagree, I have no problem judging that you are a far better human being than the murderous thugs at Gitmo.
quote:
Face it, you're advocating for the worst human beings on the planet, who are engaged in a brutal, bloody jihad against any-and-everyone who doesn't agree with their dark vision for the world (fellow Muslims included), while at the same time waging a non-bloody political jihad against the decent people and institutions of this country that are laying their lives and livelihoods on the line to protect you from them.
quote:
The worst of the worst?
Yes, absolutely! They are the violent, wicked men mentioned all throughout Psalms, Proverbs, et al. David, Solomon and the other authors, all imperfect humans, had no problem calling wicked men wicked men, and obeyed God in opposing them. We are called to do the same.
quote:
McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
So I take it you must be FOR the capture and mistreatment of Mohammed Akhtiar who was a friend and ally of the Afghan government who was turned over to the US because he refused to ally himself with the Taliban? This is according to a senior Afghan Intelligence officer.
Congratulations on advocating torture for those who helped the Afghan government and us. I guess if it makes you feel safe at night when you sleep. : )
Uh, it states that those were 66 RELEASED detainees. Sounds like they had some kind of legal review. Reading the link you provided, it sounds like they were released for their own protection from the above mentioned "worst of the worst". And again, WHAT torture?? Being thrown down some stairs? Even if that's true (doubtful), it hardly qualifies as torture, and it certainly doesn't merit all the self-righteous outrage and hysteria over this issue. Again, the only thing that does explain it is political expediency and hatred of Bush and his administration.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 8:00:33 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1856
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
And again, WHAT torture??
Exactly where did I say torture? People keep saying that all of these men are the "worst of the worst" when they clearly are not.
My point was that not everyone captured and sent to Gitmo was the "worst of the worst" and some I don't believe even belong with those who perpetrated the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, etc. As I pointed out the former Secretary of the Army said in 2002 that 1/3 of the detainees shouldn't have been sent there. Mohammed Akhtiar the main person mentioned was detained for over 3 years for what? Looks like a very distinguished career over there up until the part where someone turned him in, pocketed their cash and off to Gitmo he went. All they had to do was verify his claims with the new Afghan government and had they done so with the same energy they locked him up with this could have been done years sooner. That is my problem with Gitmo. I don't care if you take the perps of the Cole or the embassy bombings and crucify them upside down, dip them in sugar water and unload a few thousand bees while you drip acid on their feet about 1 drop a second. I don't care. I do care when there are people who don't deserve to be there who everyone trumpets as the "worst of the worst" when they aren't. I never had a problem with Gitmo until it started leaking out that those who were there weren't as bad as we said.
quote:
Maybe so, but since you haven't called me an infidel and issued a fatwah for my murder just because we disagree, I have no problem judging that you are a far better human being than the murderous thugs at Gitmo.
Thank you, you'd be surprised at what people on CW have been called for not agreeing with the administration.
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/21/2008 11:58:06 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 218
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
rlj
Exactly where did I say torture?
Post #384 above, for one. You congratulated me on advocating torture.
quote:
Thank you, you'd be surprised at what people on CW have been called for not agreeing with the administration.
Sorry to hear that, although it can't be as bad as what I've seen Bush and the administration called and accused of on CW and elsewhere. All for doing their job of protecting us.
2,475 days without an attack on US soil, and counting. Nobody, NOBODY thought we'd go that long without another attack. If they've made a few mistakes along the way, so be it. I'm thankful that GW has been the one leading the fight, as should we all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/22/2008 1:08:33 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1856
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Post #384 above, for one. You congratulated me on advocating torture.
Yes I did and didn't realize it.
quote:
2,475 days without an attack on US soil, and counting. Nobody, NOBODY thought we'd go that long without another attack.
Depends on definition really. I agree with you. However many have decided that any attack on any US embassy anywhere in the world constitutes US soil and in that case we have had more attacks on our embassy in Baghdad then all other attacks on "US soil" combined. It's when the rhetoric gets to that point it becomes simply empty rhetoric.
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/22/2008 10:32:53 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 953
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Depends on definition really. I agree with you. However many have decided that any attack on any US embassy anywhere in the world constitutes US soil and in that case we have had more attacks on our embassy in Baghdad then all other attacks on "US soil" combined. It's when the rhetoric gets to that point it becomes simply empty rhetoric. THANK YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/22/2008 12:21:14 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 218
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Depends on definition really. I agree with you. However many have decided that any attack on any US embassy anywhere in the world constitutes US soil and in that case we have had more attacks on our embassy in Baghdad then all other attacks on "US soil" combined. It's when the rhetoric gets to that point it becomes simply empty rhetoric.
quote:
relady
THANK YOU!
Our embassy in Baghdad is in a war zone and guarded by Marines who are prepared for and expecting an attack. That's where we want the terrorists to come. If y'all are equating an attack on that embassy with surprise attacks on innocent civilians, ala 9/11, or even the embassy bombings of '98, then I've got to say, you're stretching credulity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/22/2008 3:39:38 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1856
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Our embassy in Baghdad is in a war zone and guarded by Marines who are prepared for and expecting an attack. That's where we want the terrorists to come. If y'all are equating an attack on that embassy with surprise attacks on innocent civilians, ala 9/11, or even the embassy bombings of '98, then I've got to say, you're stretching credulity.
As I said there are those who claim that any attack on a US embassy is an attack on US soil. You'll have to bring it up with them so they can sanitize what they say and change it around a little to make the administration look good. ; )
I also wanted to add that the area is so dangerous that we are forcibly making diplomats go there.
< Message edited by rlj -- 6/22/2008 3:46:50 PM >
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/23/2008 5:59:15 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2010
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
So you're comparing an Al-Qaeda terrorist from outside Iraq or Afganistan, captured on the battlefield fighting our troops, to a foreign national arrested on US soil for, what, a DUI? Again, it shows that y'all either don't know or don't care who these people really are.
They haven't even shown PROOF that these are AQ terrorists. So just you stating they are doesn't just make it so. Why is that? Are they lacking in evidence? They've had years to make a case? Or are all the people in the military justice system fighting in Iraq?
What good is a country's leadership that claims human rights, rule of law, democracy, and wraps himself with the Constitution and the flag and then tramples on those very same principles? A liar and a hypocrit at best and that's the face of America we are giving to the rest of the world. We're liars and hypocrits!
I guess y'all don't care about moral and legal ethics!
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/23/2008 6:04:36 AM
|
|
|
tracydolls
Posts: 1611
Joined: 3/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What good is a country's leadership that claims human rights, rule of law, democracy, and wraps himself with the Constitution and the flag and then tramples on those very same principles? A liar and a hypocrit at best and that's the face of America we are giving to the rest of the world. We're liars and hypocrits!
Liar and Hypocrite at BEST....
Best being the key word, so what's the worst? LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/23/2008 11:13:02 PM
|
|
|
greataunt
Posts: 1
Joined: 6/23/2008
Status: offline
|
From Pajamas Media:
In Boumediene v Bush, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:
The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence.
The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.
The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.
The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.
The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.
The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.
The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence
The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.
As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.
The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.
Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient — and the result?
Their decision granting them the right to habeas corpus relief in federal courts.
Look, this issue isn’t going to go away, so consider these things the next time you hear someone defend the Supreme Court’s majority opinion as an attempt at “basic fairness” and to help prevent an innocent sheepherder from being improperly detained:
First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?
The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.
Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.
Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.
Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.
Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.
It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/23/2008 11:15:14 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3758
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
So you're comparing an Al-Qaeda terrorist from outside Iraq or Afganistan, captured on the battlefield fighting our troops, to a foreign national arrested on US soil for, what, a DUI? Again, it shows that y'all either don't know or don't care who these people really are.
They haven't even shown PROOF that these are AQ terrorists. So just you stating they are doesn't just make it so. Why is that? Are they lacking in evidence? They've had years to make a case? Or are all the people in the military justice system fighting in Iraq?
What good is a country's leadership that claims human rights, rule of law, democracy, and wraps himself with the Constitution and the flag and then tramples on those very same principles? A liar and a hypocrit at best and that's the face of America we are giving to the rest of the world. We're liars and hypocrits!
I guess y'all don't care about moral and legal ethics!
I am just surprised that there is such outrage now... Nothing new here...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/24/2008 12:04:24 AM
|
|
|
OneJohn410
Posts: 399
Joined: 6/1/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneJohn410
All the U.S. in required to do at this point is say, why- you are being held here because of suspicion of aiding and abetting actions of terror against the world? That's why this is not a terrible thing?
Yes it is, because at that point it becomes like the old Salem witch trials when someone could get in very serious trouble- even executed- based on nothing more than fear, suspicion, and rumor. In this scenario, anyone can be held under "suspicion" of practically anything whether or not there is actually any evidence supporting the suspicion.
This article from the other thread.
The rights of people whose circumstances are not known (the detainees) is not going to be decided with this thread. If U.S. military forces took custody of these people during a state of war, then these people fall under a different jurisdiction of laws (the rules of war) than you or I walking down the street in downtown Anywhere, USA. For instance, let's just say that in Iraq a nondescript pickup truck with many people sitting all over it speed past a lookout point without following a directive to stop. Is that truck driver going to have a military vehicle start chasing after them with a blue light flashing on it... for reckless speeding? No. What happens next is typically based on orders given to the commanding officer present, who is tasked to follow those orders.
US troops are not going to go capturing every single suspicious looking person they see and try to hold them at Gitmo, nor are they going to shoot everyone either. Gitmo would overflow with detainees, and US troops are not ruthless killers. Argue all you want about this, but there's no room for arguing civil law into a situation like we are presently in. Saying the actions of those in a state of war have got it all wrong, because from a setting of relative peace on the other side of the world where civil laws apply, is saying the orange is the apple.
OneJohn410
< Message edited by OneJohn410 -- 6/24/2008 12:18:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/24/2008 1:16:01 AM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 218
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
What good is a country's leadership that claims human rights, rule of law, democracy, and wraps himself with the Constitution and the flag and then tramples on those very same principles? A liar and a hypocrit at best and that's the face of America we are giving to the rest of the world. We're liars and hypocrits!
I guess y'all don't care about moral and legal ethics!
And I guess y'all don't care that the SCOTUS justices, flying in the face of both the Executive AND Legislative branches, gave the most brutal, vicious people in the world rights that, under the constitution, are reserved for American citizens.
Time to grow up, though, 'cause after this ruling, the stuff, and the suicide bombs, will be hittin' the fan, and your side has NO CLUE how to deal.
[Edited by moderator - inflammatory & TOS 5]
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 6/24/2008 9:20:04 PM >
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
