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]
You're absolutely right. Let them try and pull that crap.
I see the dim rat libs have managed to put one over on the pubbies once again visa vie the courts.
It wouldn't have made a difference. Is 5-3 any worse than 5-4? You still lose.
This will actually be good for the Republicans because once they get a proposal on the congressional floors for a vote it will put the Rats on record of whether they are for a military tribunal for terrorist or traitors of America.
I didn't say "specially nicely", I said treat them according to the law. As I would want to be treated. Isn't that the Golden Rule, after all?
I find it amusing to see that at the first moment of a challenge to our country's values, most "super patriots" are willing to jettison what makes us different from other countries and become dictatorship-accepting drones.
No special treatment needed...if Al-Qaeda, try them, prove they are guilty, and IF guilty, IMPRISON. If POW's from Afghanistan or Iraq, hold them until the wars are over (according to whatever legal standards we follow and that are in conjuction with international legal standards on POWs), and then release them at the end of the war.
Special treatment there?
Go back to DU already.
So it is your view that these were not war crimes?
Help me out... just got here and i'm not getting it.
So our troops don't take prisoners now; do the terrorists (non-uniformed combatants), now have Geneva protections; we send the prisoners where, to do what?.
Like others have said this is actually pretty good for the President. Now the RATS will have to vote for or against these tribunals in Congress for these terrorists.
BINGO
I am disappointed...it's a huge stain on our legal system, our values, and what we claim to stand for....
We should give them all trials, and seperate the Al-Qaeda ones from Taliban or Iraqi insurgnets ones.
Al-Qaeda ones are guilty of international war crimes for terrorism and other non-state, illegal warfare attacks. IMPRISON them IF PROVEN guilty in a court of law.
Iraqi Insurgents or taliban Resistance fighters are entitled to POW status (just like our soldiers are), and should be held according to the Geneva Conventions, and then released after the end of our conflicts with their countries.
That's the letter of the law, folks. Either we stand up for our laws and our commitments to international law, or we start making it up as we go...in which case, we're no different than any other non-law-abiding regime. This is not a conservative or liberal position or issue...it's a question of what is legally mandated that we do.
Sure would solve a bunch of problems in one.
[Where did I say I align myself with Al-Qaeda and 9/11 in those statements?]
You didn't have to, you just signed up today...
So what.
He can't try them.
They didn't say he has to release them. They didn't say he has to close Guantanamo.
All they said was that he can't order war crimes trials. Big deal.
what is a legal studies major? an undergraduate majoring in PRELAW?
They stated that if the Executive Branch had premission from Congress, they could be held for military tribunals. They also said that these terrorist can be held until the end of the war.
that likely explains why Sandy Day O'Connor is running around the country pouting and whining about the political debate "infringing on judicial independence"...I think the light they see at the end of their tunnel is an oncoming train.
A bit of both, actually... the quote is Jackson; Taney did rule against Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus in MD.
Lincoln simply ignored the USSC on this one; something I pray Bush 43 would seriously consider doing in this case.
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.