|
Posted on 06/22/2008 7:09:45 PM PDT by Uncle Ralph
JAG does a pretty good job of putting them at risk too.
bttt
Other than gaining some Intel, this tells me that you don’t take any Prisoners.
She’s right. The Supremes ought to keep themselves cognizant that the JAG is a serious group of attorneys. Maybe the most professional and righteous in the country. Much better than the “big” firms.
The 9th circuit courts of America will now be interpreting law for battle field decisions?
United States of America; Constitutional rights for all!
This is one of the comments to the article. I think the writer makes some strong arguments:
I read Ms. Rotunda’s article (and the comments) as a deployed Servicemember in a far-off land. I have recent first-hand experience as to just how the Boumediene decision endangers our troops. As a military attorney, part of my job is to supervise detention operations. The Boumediene decision, under the guise of civil liberty, bascially means that the individuals that were detained by my fellow Servicemembers now have the right to challenge the grounds of their detention in federal court. If such is the case, then I can only assume that the rules of evidence and procedure used in our federal courts also apply. Under those circumstances, I cannot reach any other conclusion than that these detainees will inevitably be released. Why? Because the decision to detain someone is usually tactical (as opposed to legal) in nature.
The decisions to detain or release is almost always made under difficult, if not hostile, circumstances. The young men and women in uniform making those decisions have no formal legal training, and their primary concern is the safety of their comrades. I can imagine countless scenarios in which our troops will be exposed to increased and unnecessary risk in order to insure that a detainee will not be released due to lack of evidence or some other legal technicality. In fact, it is already happening. I have personally had to travel into harm’s way, the backyard of a waiting enemy who is all to happy to kill me and others, in order to exploit the scene of a roadside bomb or some other act of terrorism in an attempt gather more and better evidence. Fortunately, in that situation, the Federal Rules of Evidence hadn’t yet applied. The best I could do was to obtain a statement from a young troop who was directed to detain a certain individual. When asked why he detained that individual, he explained that some fellow troops had observed the individual attempting to plant a roadside bomb. Any first year law student can immediately spot the evidentiary issues presented under such all-too-common scenarios. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen are warfighters, not police officers or forensic experts.
In my opinion, if the detainee is a U.S. citizen, then they should have access to our courts. But to extend such Constitutional protections to non-citizens, who are captured overseas attempting to commit acts of terror against American citizens is not only without ANY historic legal precedent, but it cheapens what myself and the thousands of other fine young Americans in uniform are trying to accomplish.
Finally, it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs when the anti-Bush brow-beating has risen (or perhaps sunk) to the level of resorting to ad hominem attacks on someone who has actually picked up a weapon in the name of something larger than herself.
Battlefield interrogations followed by battlefield summary executions...
“Our military will adapt - and will just kill terrorists instead of capturing them (or turn them over to the locals for some local justice)...”
You got it...and that goes against the spirit of the Geneva Convention too..If this rule had been applied duuring WW II there would have been no American, British, or German P.O.W.’s as they all would have been killed somehow on the battlefield.....We will probably never see another Gitmo on American territory so this decision will stand on it’s own as the way not to manage the legal ramifications of war...
I don't believe that is the affect of boumedienne. Commanders can still capture enemy combatants and send them to GITMO the same as they have done all along, the difference is that now a civilian judge can order their release.
[Maybe the most professional and righteous in the country. Much better than the “big” firms.]
And when the dems have driven this country almost into the proverbial ‘crapper’ it will be the military coup with the JAG that takes care of business.
I hope you are kidding. The military would never turn on the American people and that is where Obie and his ilk will have a problem. Obie thinks he needs to reign us in and what he needs to reaign in is the Islamists.
If the boumedienne case doesn’t get the job done, the four girlie boy justices and ms. ginsburg will strengthen it further in whatever way is necessary so that the military is thoroughly undermined. The courts are full of weasels, but who knew they were also traitors?
|
That’s the point. Some judge will release for lack of evidence.
How are soldiers to gather evidence during battle. IF they come back after the battle evidence is destroyed or contaminated or some other crazy thing.
Then whey woule have to travel to the US and appear in court.
This whole thing is the rats doing everything possible to lose the war because a Republican is in office.
If a rat was in office none of this would be happening.
It may simply create a ‘take no prisoners’ attitude on the battlefield.
"The problem isn't that the U.S. is releasing too few detainees -- it is releasing too many."
That's what I would do.
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.
