Posted on 05/03/2004 7:21:17 PM PDT by Dr. Marten
The plane that hit the Pentagon turned left at my house to get there!
At the moment it would seem we have the upper hand to a greater degree than was expected by the enemy or you'd be in some serious trouble ~ from them because you are here (to be targeted), and from us (because you want to tie our hands so we can't respond to the enemy).
Says who? You?!
You are free to imagine that I am.
Almost forgot the other point...
There was no other point. You initially stated that a court ruling against the administration would deter our forces from taking POWs in time of war. I explained to you why that was wrong. All you have in response is a bunch of unimpressive chest-thumping.
Since there apparently isn't anyone else left around here to do it, I'll tell you myself - The idea that the Senate has some sort of power to conspire with foreigners to tell Americans how to live and what to do, acting in complete opposition to the very will and sovereignty of the American people, is repugnant to the concept of a free republic.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
It's the congress you are accusing of operating on a "whim".
They authorized the use of military force against members of Alqueda and the Taliban- not the executive.
If you can think of a safer place to put the war power than in the legislature, offer an amendment to the constitution and it wil be well received.
And indeed it is. At worst this is a concern about US citizens on US soil. Not about US citizens anywhere else or aliens anywhere.
It's not such an indefinite decaration either- it does not give authority to use military force against ALL or ANY terrorists- just specifically those involved in the 9/11 attack.
They really had to give at least that authority, more would have been nice IMHO.
Don't bother shooting the messenger; it won't change the message.Forget what you *feel* is repugnant. Concentrate instead upon what is actually law.
Now, if you can show me where the SCOTUS has ever ruled to override a foreign treaty that the U.S. has legally ratified in the Senate, then that would be another thing altogether...
Until then, the Geneva Convention governs how we handle enemy combatants.
I fail to see that there is a really serious moral question concerning prisoners of War held for just over two years.
If there is, please explain.
During wartime that second job is very important to our national survival.
The focus is on a couple of guys who are incidentally American citizens who are being held as enemy combatants. I suppose we could ship one of them back to the field of battle for Mr. Karzai to take care of. With respect to Mr. Padilla, if they'd simply announce the time and place they were going to release him, that would resolve that issue.
I saw what public spirited citizens did to the special traffic flow control entrance light system installed in California on the Freeways. Presumably there are other public spirited citizens with at least that much concern over a guy whose intention was to acquire the materials to build a "dirty bomb" and kill tens of thousands of innocent people.
It's like this, if the Executive can't handle Padilla because the Supreme Court says Padilla has rights that supersede the right of the People to protect themselves, then just turn him loose!
It was a sneak attack.
For some reason that seems to be a concept some folks just can't seem to grasp.
"Article. VI.
Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."
I you know how to read commas and semi-colons, you have here the reference to what is very nearly a metaphysical concept ~ that is "the United States" which has "authority", separate and distinct from "This Constitution" and "all Treaties".
We could probably argue all day and into the night on whether or not this clause equates Treaties and the Constitution, or if it makes nothing other than a logical distinction between DOMESTIC AFFAIRS and FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Typically the way we resolve most of our problems with Treaties is to have Congress pass a piece of "enabling legislation" that recasts everything in our own terms. That way if a court gets hold of a case which seems to have something to do with treaty provisions, the litigants are going to have to first argue their way through American law first. This keeps the Senate and a bunch of foreign guys from stuffing nonsense down our throats.
The burden is on you to show where SCOTUS has ruled that when a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the treaty would prevail. That would be a real prize, since such a conclusion would defy all common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.