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
You failed to read my procedures. If Al-Qaeda, follow procedure #1. If pow, follow #2.
Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.
#1 If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
#2 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.
"I stick by that...through thick or thin"
Then you shall certainly fall by it in the "thick". And the values forgotten in the dustbin of history.
jamie keeps repeating the ACLU talking points.
Technically, the SC has always applied "strict scrutiny" to such rights and the question of whether they can be removed.
The key clause on our point in the decision, cited from the Riggs case is:
It would not be contended that [the acceptance of a treaty as the law of the land] extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."
In essence, the statement divides the constitution into fundamental and less-than-fundamental structures. It is a distinction that is impossible to maintain, as witness the recent SC decision on capital punishment where Kennedy borrowed foreign precedents. The Reid case and its relatives are not, I suspect, controlling in terms of treaties. I still would like to see the Bricker amendment passed. I will, however, say that I did not give any hint of subtlety in my response and maybe I should have. You are making a good argument; I just don't think it is sufficient to override the SC's use of the Geneva convention today. Well, I hope that this is coherent and thank you for a brisk exchange.
McVey
Shall we deport these terrorists back to Afghanistan and away from the SCOTUS jurisdiction? Shall we open a Gitmo 2 inside a cave somewhere in Afghanistan?
I know that President Bush has said that his sacred duty is to protect us from another terrorist attack on American soil, but the SCOTUS and the media are hampering his efforts as much as they can.
Spamming a thread does not constitute an argument or a debate.
Like the terrorists, you are unencumbered by any national allegiance, although you have the temerity to call yourself a patriot.
You are not advocating Constitutionality, but the leftist ideology learned at university.
War Rule of Law #1: "Try to kill me and miss; I'll make sure I won't!"
You've taken copy-n-paste to a new level. Also, you've lasted much longer here with your views than most Freepers ever would at DU.
TROLL!!!
if given long enough they do always reveal themselves and their agenda.
It would be somewhat fun to stay and watch the wreck, but I have better things to do today. See ya later.
Who died and put the Supreme Court in charge of the military? Who's the birdbrain that even gave them authority to rule on this? What qualifies them to be even remotely familiar with military matters. Are you SCOTUS prople trying to see how retarded you can appear to people?
Fighting without uniforms in the service of no nation, they should be executed as spies.
The idea that they should be given access to our laws and courts is from left field.
oh so you have come out in the open then? good.
World opinion disagrees friend. Most countries would feel our open, civil system is more dependable and fairer than our military system of justice. Different standards, different responsibilities, and in one of them, those judged AGREE to set themselves within a structure of justice outside of civil law (those in the military).
Enemy combatants, as bad or good as they may be, did not sign up for our military. They should be tried either by internationally-agreed standards, or throw our open, legal system.
What's good for Americans is good for EVERYONE who is charged by our nation for any crime. What if tommorow YOU were charged with terrorism. Would you want a military commision or the regular system? I believe Jesus said..."do unto others as you would want them to do unto you".
Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.
#1 If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
#2 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 Steve I guess terrorist have more rights with the SC than an unborn baby does.
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.