Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Breaking...
Update:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a body guard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo...
Excerpt. Read more at: Fox News
That's a healthy skepticism, though.
Being a nation of laws with a system of checks and balances is annoying for some, but usually only when it runs contrary to their opinions.
Roe V. Wade is a seperate issue. I tend to think it was RIGHTLY decided, but again, that's up to our Court to decide, our Congress to argue/debate...and ultimately, for the American people to agitate or NOT agitate in favor or against it.
That has nothing to do with how we treat terrorists we capture, or legitimate POWs.
Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.
If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
If legitimate POW, hold in appropriate facility humanely with oversight from Congress and SCOTUS, and release after end of our wars.
Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.
Well...I have never looked at Playboy, so I wouldn't know.
Sorry!!
Be gone, noob, pre-law major.
So you've voted in one election?
Pretty snotty for a newbie.
In summary, there are no laws that anticipated Terrorism. The Geneva Convention was designed for uniformed conflict. IIRC, you actually get to hang spies who attempt to hide their combatant status.
SCOTUS screwed the pooch on this one.
And mind your manners, newbie. You should be thankful you haven't been ZOTted -- the mods must be in a generous mood today.
Well what I have read so far mentions nothing about individual rights it rather is a ruling on what powers are granted to the President in regards to treating with foreign national/enemy combatants. Not really the same thing.
And Yes the SCOTUS does have the mandate to do that.
We may not always like how the SCOTUS rules but it is part of their mandate, to see if law is Constitutional.
I still say that we treat these "combatants" as we do to any non-citizen residing in the U.S. who commmits "terrorism".
Try, prove guilty, imprison
Try, prove innocent, release.
That's what should happen with non-state, religious-motivated, Al-Qaeda types.
No wussy liberalism there...if they're guilty, throw away the key!
If they are non-uniformed then kill them as spies, as allowed by international law.
Unfortunately for PFC Tucker, the terrorist have another idea of humane treatment.
Yes,
The issue at stake is whether the President can indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" without due process, without Geneva Convention protections (IF THEY APPLY), and give them military commisions outside of SCOTUS jurisdiction as their only due process. SCOTUS disagreed with this today. Don't know where it will go, but my view is that we should...
Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.
If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
If legitimate POW, hold in appropriate facility humanely with oversight from Congress and SCOTUS, and release after end of our wars.
Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.
nothing conservative about ole jamie, and you are right, the script is being hammered home repeatedly. first day posters with an agenda usually don't last more than a few hours.
To say that Bush has assumed powers close to "dictatorship" is bull****. He is dealing with a handful of irregular soldiers captured in a war zone, and who are allied with a terrorist organization that attacked the U.S. on several occasions. If Bush were a dictator, he would have ordered them shot, end of the matter. He wouldn't have had lengthy consultations with his legal staff regarding precedent and the pertinent laws and treaties, and he wouldn't have waited for the Supreme Court to rule. I am really sickened by this casual, flippant use of the word "dictatorship."
Certainly not "fallacious". We are in a death struggle. If we are bound by rules our enemy are not, it favors them.
This is not a game or a classroom scenario. This is our survival.
This nation has consistently compromised it's peacetime values in time of wars for it's existence in the course of it's history.
The record is there.. read it. Start with Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, among others, and go back. We have never flinched when our survival was at stake, and we won and survived.
None.
Or maybe you can call it "Constitution Defenders".
It's a silly organization...I have this silly problem of feeling like a patriot and defending what the Founders wrote down should be our way of life.
Pay it no mind...
That's the letter of the law, folks.
No, it's not. Not even close. Not if they don't abide by the rules of warfare. Every one that attempted to blend in with civilians committed a punishable violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now, the Iraqi soldiers we fought and captured? With the exception of a few held for crimes, they were released long ago...
Also, among other things, the Taliban was never the government of Afghanistan. Even at that, we released their marked soldiers unless we had specific evidence of a crime.
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.