Posted on 06/29/2006 3:50:16 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
"These are not legal decisions. There is no crime involved. These are and must be military decisions."
You've got it exactly right with your analysis, marron. You hit the nail on the head. It is perceived threat. In particular, if the enemy combatant is picked up on the field of battle, you don't know who he has or has not already killed, or how many more of our troops he intends to kill, you just know that he has been captured on the field of battle, where he shouldn't be if he is a harmless non-combatant, and therefore he is an enemy threat. You can't quantify the enemy combatant's crimes, but you know he is a big threat, in particular for the duration of the battle and also for the period of the entire war itself. So you lock him up, and throw away the key at least until the war is over.
Of course, that's assuming a regular war, fought with regular troops. Here we have a terrorist assymetrical war, no military uniforms, guerrilla type warfare, no rules of engagement. A war of this kind can go on for years, such as happened in Ireland vs. the U.K. with the IRA. So, how to deal with captured terrorists for a "war" that can go on and on for years. It's a different kind of war we are now dealing with. My own opinion, is you lock the enemy combatants up, which we did, you probe them for intelligence value and to assess their level of physical danger to our troops and others, which we did, you try to "give back" some of them to their countries of origin, which we did, and those that are left over are either the hardcore combatants that are a danger to anyone and everyone, and/or those that their own countries don't want to take back. Lock them up and throw away the key or put them before a military tribunal and execute the most dangerous among them. Everyone else (the Supremes, the Congress) should butt out.
He could, but I am betting he won't. Remember what his brother Jeb said, "The court has ruled and their decision is final."(Terry Schiavo case)
Especial thanks for slogging through the garbage in the rest of the ruling.
Perhaps my friend and then again, mayhaps it is I who has misconstrued the article and comments.
When it comes to the law and rulings issued by our courts(although I consider myself somewhat astute to some of its language and interpretation) it is a morass (dare I suggest, a "swamp") and easily open to subjective/objective understanding depending on one's viewpoint on a particular matter.
I suspect we will have a few brave Conservatives who will raise this issue and conversely, the sound coming from the RATS, will be deafening.
Understandable. Like I said excellent job.
Sorry, I read the PDF version on the Supremes website. I haven't come across an HTML version yet.
Remember Justice Roberts had to recuse himself since this was a decision he rendered while on the District Court. He was not allowed to rule on this. This is the last dying gasp of the lunatic Clinton/Bush 1 court. Bush 2's appointments are solid. We need 1 more. To get it we need the Republicans to hold Congress and one more Leftist Justice to resign soon. Gitzburg and Stevens are both in ill health. Stevens was born in 1920. With a Republican Congress approving a Bush Justice we would have 5 Conservative Justices running the court for the 1st time since the 1930s. It is that close.
I thought Thomas did a pretty fair job of bitch slapping the Leftist. Scalia isn't the only one who has a rapier like pen.
INTREP re: Decision.
Except of course all the reporting on the story has been completely wrong. All the Court said was Congress, not the President, had the right to set up the Military Tribunals. So while they work the Leftists work into a frenzy, the Republican Congressonal Leadership is preparing a bill. And when that bill comes up the Democrat Congresscritters will have a choice, backstab their froathing Leftist base and defend the country betray the country and piss off the bulk of the American Voters. It's a lose-lose for the Democrats any way it goes.
I love it-Pubbies FOR HANGING JUDGE MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR TERRORISTS..
Dhimmicrats Against, SO TERRORISTS CAN GET OFF ON A TECHNICALITY AND KILL YOUR AUNT SALLY......
Karl Rove needs to get to work...
Be Seeing You,
Chris
...........
You might like the following, don't know if it has been posted, but anyway:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658154/posts
It's a good read.
Yes, we can only hope we retain the Senate and get at least one more conservative jurist on SCOTUS.
Read later.
[In answer to your questions, the way to get Justices on the Court who will obey the law and the Constitution, rather than rewriting them, requires two things: 1) Elect Presidents who will nominate Justices who will obey the law. 2) Elect Senators who will approve such Justices. There is no other way.]
Exactly.
Question, what about the costs involved and time in trying these cases in military tribunals? It almost seems more expedient to release the less dangerous detainees back to countries of origin (or somewhere). It could literally take years to try all of them.
Our great Supremes deliberately applying International Law to these terrorists, to the detriment of our country and our people. That is what I see.
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.