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

Skip to comments.

(3-judge panel, 9th Circuit) Rules ALL GITMO detainees must have access to an attorney
Fox

Posted on 12/18/2003 11:46:39 AM PST by Dog

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-323 next last
To: DugwayDuke
I guess I don't understand the distinction you're making.

A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress.

There's been no such Declaration.

If there's some other statute, law, or provision that defines this thing called "state of war," please cite it and I'll stand corrected.

281 posted on 12/19/2003 6:37:44 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
I fail to see how, if there is a lease that states Cuba retains sovereignty over the leased land, any US Court other than a military tribunal can assert jurisdiction over anyone on Gitmo.

Precisely.

282 posted on 12/19/2003 8:33:46 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith (The Guns of Brixton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Dog
9th Circuit the Left wing court. Here is an idea..if this stands..I say release these guys march them out the gate at GITMO and let Castro deal with them. I rather let them go than have their left wing lawyer use their trials as a soap box to run down the US
283 posted on 12/19/2003 8:39:02 AM PST by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
bump to your post 18!
284 posted on 12/19/2003 8:41:40 AM PST by votelife (Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Redwood71
The Ninth Jercut Court needs to be disbanded and it's members jailed, at least until the war is over.
285 posted on 12/19/2003 9:32:52 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: angkor
If you refuse to realize that we are at war, why don't you move your sorry ass to France or Germany.
286 posted on 12/19/2003 9:35:47 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Time for Bush to imitate Lincoln.....
287 posted on 12/19/2003 9:37:17 AM PST by Dan from Michigan ("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Isn't this the same 9th Circus Court that makes all the other nutty decisions we've heard lately. Like the Texas sodomy case.
288 posted on 12/19/2003 10:09:00 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress.

There's been no such Declaration.

It is longstanding precedent that a Declaration of War by the U.S. is only neccessary for the making of war when we have not yet been attacked, nor has war been declared against us. The Founding Fathers noted this in the incidences with the Barbary Pirates. A full declaration of war by our Congress results in many, many laws which severely abridge freedoms to go into effect - and so the Congress did a half-measure, by authorizing and funding a war.

289 posted on 12/19/2003 10:41:10 AM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: lepton
a Declaration of War by the U.S. is only neccessary for the making of war when we have not yet been attacked,

Interesting statement. Then why did Congress enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973?

Anyway, you're not clearly reading these posts.

I'm saying that there is no legal definition for anything called "a state of war," and certainly there is no actual "state of war" without a formal Declaration Of War from Congress.

Authorizations Of Force are not Declarations Of War, and you guys know it. Stop pretending they're the same thing, they are most certainly not.

290 posted on 12/19/2003 11:48:23 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
If you refuse to realize that we are at war

Hey, why don't you just cut the BS, OK? Let's see if you're bright enough to follow:

You know that only Congress can declare war. Yes?

You also know that Congress has not declared war. Correct?

Then you also know that we are not at war in the technical and legal sense mandated by the Constitution.

Get it?

291 posted on 12/19/2003 12:29:57 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Regardless, we are at war and you know it.
292 posted on 12/19/2003 1:01:18 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
we are at war and you know it.

Oh, you mean slicing and dicing jihadis? Of course. Don't be silly.

But I also believe that 9/11 warranted a formal Congressional Declaration Of War against al Qaeda and all other groups we deem as terrorists. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it, while the "war on terror" is both lame and imprecise.

It is a war against identifiable Islamist groups and their supporters, and the sooner we name them, formally Declare War on them, and kill them, the better.

293 posted on 12/19/2003 1:14:48 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: angkor
I can agree with you on one point, we need to formally Declare War on them, and kill them. However, all those against our current war effort (especially the 9th Circle of Jerks) are nothing more than the Enemy Within.
294 posted on 12/19/2003 1:27:36 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Authorizations Of Force are not Declarations Of War, and you guys know it.

Then what are they? They are not identical, but with the exception of not invoking broad DOMESTIC powers - such as triggering about 150 emergency provisions in the law, such as the right to impose censorship, to expedite licensing for nuclear facilities, and to control communications - the authorization is effectively the same.

Interesting statement. Then why did Congress enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973?

Because they felt like it. BTW, no later President has ever acknowledged the authority of that Act. They have always been very clear to abide by it as an official courtesy rather than legal obligation. Its Constitutionality is questionable - though all that is aside from the previous point.

Hamilton wrote that war "between two nations is completely produced by the act of one -it requires no concurrent act of the other. . . [W]hen a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary."

Thomas Jefferson noted similarly while he was President.

295 posted on 12/19/2003 1:32:18 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: angkor
The Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution states: "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

That's pretty clearly a limited Declaration of War - limited to external force and procedures, and which denies authorization for "triggered" domestic powers over U.S. citizens.

296 posted on 12/19/2003 1:44:26 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
They can be impeached for malfeasance in office, which, for a federal judge, is almost impossible to prosecute, since they have such broad protections.

True, but are we sure about this with Reinhardt? He generally is considered to be a "bully," as well as the most liberal appellate judge in the country, or at least the most activist in his beliefs. His opinion makes clear that he does not HAVE to issue it, since the SC will be taking up the other Guantanamo cases. I clerked on a federal court of appeals and we would almost always have waited when a parallel case is before the SC; anything else is completely wasteful, since you'll probably have to write a new decision when they rule. So besides being totally wrong on merits, the timing of the opinion is strange.

Except that ... Reinhardt's wife is Ramona Ripston, the head of the LA ACLU. Reinhardt says he is issuing the opinion to "help" the SC with its cases -- indicating that he recognizes issuing the opinion is DISCRETIONARY. But won't the ACLU file an amicus brief on behalf of the Guantanamo prisoners? Won't it be able to cite Reinhardt now? If it does, Reinhardt's decision (which is indefensible on the merits) appears to me to better explained as an attempt to influence the SC cases in which his wife has an arguable institutional interest than as an independent resolution of the California case.

Consequently, Reinhardt has an apparent conflict of interest and his actions create the appearance of impropriety, bringing into question the integrity and independence of the judiciary (i.e. a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics). This is grounds for impeachment, but it has to wait until the ACLU files its brief. I realize the impeachment would probably be unsuccessful, and even if successful, the Senate would not convict, but I disagree that he has not made himself potentially eligible for the procedure. And no, I am not Larry Klayman.

297 posted on 12/19/2003 2:09:12 PM PST by Turin_Turambar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: lepton
I think you're aware that the debate we're having has been going on for 200+ years.

You think the Authorization is sufficient. I do not. That's all, fini.

298 posted on 12/19/2003 2:09:55 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I'm ok with this, just as long as they all get this guy:

http://www.rateitall.com/showimg.asp?k=2D716DDD-804B-4DAE-B8F8-6ABC02218955-0

299 posted on 12/19/2003 2:11:57 PM PST by ChicagoHebrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
"A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress."

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war. It does not stipulate the method. It does not, for example, say: Congress shall pass a "Declaration of War".

"If there's some other statute, law, or provision that defines this thing called "state of war," please cite it and I'll stand corrected."

A state of war exists whenever a country chooses to use military force to achieve it's objectives. A "Declaration of War" is not a necessary condition. For example, do you doubt that a "state of war" existed between the US and Japan, the instant the first Japanese aircraft released the first bomb over Pearl Harbor? Was this prior to the passage of a "Declaration of War"?

Just cite the portion of the Constitution that states the Congress "shall" pass a declaration of war in order for a state of war to exist.

BTW, this was resolved by the US Supreme Court in the early 1800's. Even these dodo judges admit as much in their opinion. Did you read it?
300 posted on 12/19/2003 2:42:59 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-323 next 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