Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rasul v Bush - Scalia Dissents
SCOTUS ^ | 6/28/04 | Justice Scalia et al

Posted on 06/28/2004 6:21:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 last
To: FreeReign
So you claim that as far as Gitmo is concerned there is a state of lawlessness and there is no controlling legal authority, and that such lawlessness is just fine with a conservative like yourself and anyone who thinks that anyone acting with the authority of the US government is bound by the laws of that government wherever in the world said official happens to be is a liberal.

Ok, I want our laws and our constitution to govern the acts of our officials civil and military wherever they are in the world. If that makes me a liberal then I guess I am a liberal.

161 posted on 06/28/2004 11:21:24 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: woodyinscc
While we just gave the jihadist access to american juris prudence, they are hacking off heads, and plotting our doom.

Great. The same defense lawyers that got OJ Simpson a not guilty, are going to be defending jihadists terrorists. Best to be like the russians. Kill the jihadists and be done with it.

162 posted on 06/28/2004 11:27:08 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I want to know why you think Ted Olson left out the suspension of habeas corpus in time of war argument. Is it that Ted Olson is a constitutional dunce? Or is it that he didn't think the argument any good? If he didn't think the argument any good, then why do you think it any good? Or maybe Ted Olson just plain forgot to think it up? Maybe we just have to face up to the possibilty that you are really smart and Ted Olson is really dim.


163 posted on 06/28/2004 11:28:18 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
While we just gave the jihadist access to american juris prudence, they are hacking off heads, and plotting our doom.... Great. The same defense lawyers that got OJ Simpson a not guilty, are going to be defending jihadists terrorists. Best to be like the russians. Kill the jihadists and be done with it.

That is not quite what the decision actually says. Perhaps you should go read it.

164 posted on 06/28/2004 11:29:45 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape; janetgreen; Dan from Michigan
Paging Stanley Cohen!

Paging Stanley Cohen!

165 posted on 06/28/2004 11:55:16 PM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

You did not quote me correctly. I did not type the first sentence. I responded to the first sentence. For the record, I personnaly dont think the jihadists are 'plotting our doom'. I think they are plotting their own doom. And the Supreme Court appears to be accelerating the process. How many Jihadists will be taken 'alive' after Johnny Cochran gets a Gitmo jihadists detainee to walk freely on national TV ? There needs to be some acceleration of the process at Gitmo, but giving them access to the US criminal defense system is absurd.


166 posted on 06/29/2004 12:20:39 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
There needs to be some acceleration of the process at Gitmo

The supreme court agreed with you

but giving them access to the US criminal defense system is absurd.

The Supreme Court did not do this. They merely said there has to be a process and pointed favorably to military tribunals.

167 posted on 06/29/2004 4:22:58 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
A layman's point of view:

There will be a lot fewer prisoners taken.
;O)

168 posted on 06/29/2004 4:34:47 AM PDT by metesky (You will be diverse, just like us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I believe Lincoln did, exactly that.

And got his hand slapped by Justice Taney who pointed out that the Constitution only grants this authority to the Congress, said clause in the constitution appearing under article I summarising the powers and limitations of the legisltative branch. Later the Congress passed an act suspending habeas corpus.

169 posted on 06/29/2004 4:44:02 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Out of the mouths of layman come words of wisdom.

Well some laymen anyway. The only wisdom this layman had went in the can with my wisdom teeth.

170 posted on 06/29/2004 6:17:44 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
" I'm sick of it. I'm buying a big boat."

What?? And leave the Titanic?

171 posted on 06/29/2004 7:18:30 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Eva

this article underestimates the effect of the 600 cases, and the appeals, to be brought in the federal courts on behalf of the Gitmo detainees. Its going to be chaos, its going to spread to other US bases where prisoners are held, its going to force the military to have soldiers behave more like police officers making an arrest.


172 posted on 06/29/2004 8:30:12 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

James Taranto said on Best of the Web that the US could avoid all the cases by moving the prisoners to a base in another country where they do not have autonomous control, and where maybe the ruling government is not as scrupulus about interrogating prisoners as the US. We could send them all back to Afghanistan and try them there, for instance.


173 posted on 06/29/2004 8:37:51 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Maybe we just have to face up to the possibility that you are really smart and Ted Olson is really dim.

Ted Olsen works for a President that will not stand up to the Supreme Oligarchy, the one that Jefferson foresaw and warned about. Of course the wimps in Congress bare the real responsibility, they have the authority to reign these morons in, but I suppose that they really don't want to. It is very convenient to have some one to blame for doing your dirty work.

174 posted on 06/29/2004 4:15:43 PM PDT by itsahoot (The lesser of two evils, is evil still...Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson