Posted on 07/21/2004 2:43:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Had Bush II done what Bush I did in GWI - i.e. hold tribunals to settle the status of folks captured - then we would not have been in this mess. We are here because no hearings were held at all. The way out is the one the adminstration is now engaged in which is to set up tribunals and hold hearings. That is what they should have done a long time ago. That having been done should settle the issue.
In particular, in public remarks, O'Conner said that the government needs to set up tribunals. Kennedy said it in his concurrence.
Having done that, the voting on the next habeas case to come up will shift by, at a minimum, those two votes and that will settle that issue.
They said that Bush has to commission a judge to hold a hearing (military tribunal) and decide whether or not they are terrorists. It is really very simple and not so hard.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY JUDGES ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO DECIDE WHO IS A TERRORRIST AND WHO ISN'T THAN TRAINED MILLITARY EXPERTS ? SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE JUST DRUMMING UP MORE BUSINESS FOR THE AMBULANCE CHASERS . ARE YOU A LAWYER YOURSELF ? WHEN NON-LAWYERS ARE ALLOWED TO BE JUDGES THEN PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED AS LONG AS THE LEGAL PROFESSION HAS AN ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT PROTECTED MONOPOLY ON JUDGES THEN I'D RATHER TRUST OUR ELECTED PRESIDENT.
What part of convene military tribunal can your dim mind not understand? The SC merely said that you, the President of the United States under the laws of the United States which allow for the convening of Military Tribunals, should convene said military tribunal (as you always used to do) and find that said terrorist is a terrorist. Then you can lock him away forever as far as we are concerned..
Absent you the President of the United States, convening a lawfully consituted military tribunal, which you have legal authority to do, and always used to do to determine that said terrorist is said terrorist, you are going to be subject to a writ proceeding . The simple way that you, the President of the United States can avoid a writ proceeding is to convene a military tribunal, which you have the legal authority to do, and determine that said terrorist is a terrorist and not an American citizen who happened to be on vacation in the wrong place.
What part of convene a military tribunal and find the guy guilty of being a terrorist or unlawful combattant does your feeble mind not understand?
I really suggest to stop opinionating about stuff that you just don't understand. GET A CLUE. GB1 did this in GW1.
As Kennedy said in concurrence getting on for two years with no plan for any sort of hearing does not constitute in due course.
Why this is kind of a bit of an issue is that a couple of the detainees are Australian who claim they never did nothing - they ought to get to state that to a military judge and the other side needs to show the picture of him in IRAQ with the AK47 and then we can put that issue to bed.
And why you should care is that one of the detainees could be your kid or my kid in the wrong place at the wrong time or hauled off to Guantanimo because someone doesn't like him. Until there is a minimal amount of even pseudo-military justice - with statements taken in the Court record under oath - you can't know whether or not that is happening. You cannot know!
Also, Guantanimo is not exactly IRAQ. It will not strain the the resources of the united states government to put a couple of reserve military JAG judges with their staff on a plane set up a tent and get started.
You are an idiot. It is against just this sort of idiotic justification for locking someone up that the barons fought KJ1 at Runnymeade and has been the purpose of habeas corpus ever since.
"Your honor, my reason for locking the defendant up for the last five years was not to keep him from protesting at the white house. I was worried he might rob a bank and I thought I would keep him out of harms way. It wasn't punative merely prevantative." Don't worry. We plan a trial when we get around to it.
What part of clueless don't you understand?
Without habeas you don't have the minimal right to say hey, I am an American citizen and you cannot do this to me. All some low level jackbooted thug has to do is haul you off to Guantanimo, and without habeas there you rot. It isn't about rights for terrorists and POW's. It is the minimal foundation for you and me to have any rights whatsoever.
Imagine Hillary with the power to hold "terrorists" in detention without right of trial. What fraction of the VRWC would be held in detention in places like Guantanimo for years without benefit of trial just to "keep them off the battlefield." The habeas privelege provides YOU the right to challenge the detention and then the government would either have to bring YOU before a judge, or else provide evidence that YOU had had due process somewhere sometime.
It is so simple that I don't know why you are doing cartwheels and backflips to escape it.
Since you think this is an outrageous decision try answering four questions:
1. What right is conferred on a detaineed by the habeas corpus privelege?
2. What does habeas corpus force the government to do that it ought not to do under these circumstances?
3. Tell me what the deleterious effect of this decision will be in the conduct of the war on terror?
4. Why is the habeas corpus privelege important? (clue Hitler's first act was to suspend habeas corpus)
Once you answer those questions with objective answers then we will have a basis for discussion.
However, I suspect like everyone else around here you do not know, which is why you and everyone else have gotten bent out of shape that the Supreme Court found the habeas corpus clause in the Constitution.
You see, you are a whimp terrified to trot out all of your intellectual horsepower and try to make an argument that we can all argue about. Again all you can do is resort to name calling. You cannot tell me what the practical effect of this decision is.
Has any war been fought where combatants haven't been taken prisoner?
Oh for goodness sakes - are you that stupid that you think everyone else is that stupid. Of course. The whole case is about how to handle illegal combattants.
Two words .... MARTIAL LAW.
A complete thought - something of which you are completely devoice - requires a sentance. Try writing one. Subject, verb, object - and try to keep it relevant to the point you are trying to make.
Second - martial law is exactly what we are talking about. Under martial law, due process is conferred by trying cases by military tribunal. None were set up. The SC told the CinC either set up tribunals or else absent any due process you are going to be subject to writ hearings.
It is really so awfully simple I would have thought that even you could understand it.
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.