Presumed Innocent... Supreme Court ruling

[sbark]

Since Obama lauds the newest Supreme Court ruling basically giving Al Queda, bin Laden USA Constitutional rights usually reserved for USA Citizens.....
Is Osama bin Laden Presumed Innocent?............then why are we trying to kill him...........Why has Obama and the Left stateing that should have always been the end goal.........just get Bin Laden and the war is over...............
In one of the greatest ironies in history, the men who fought and died for Constitutional protections for American citizens must now fight and die so that the people who killed them are covered by the same rights.

What a country.
............Now what if he is found innocent, let off on some technicallity, were his right "mirandized" at capture...........
And what a candidate. The entire planet has been granted rights under the American Constitution thanks to the Supreme Court. Why should we even bother to call it "The American" Constitution anymore when any fanatic with a grudge can kill a lot of Americans and be assured that ACLU lawyers and the far left activist attorneys who specialize in this sort of thing will take up their case?
What about the illegal immagrants...........if we grant rights under the Constitution to Terrorists...........the same rights to illegals just a step away..........
how much in legal fees does one think the mob of ACLU lawyers can milk out of the taxpayers hands to defend Gitmo's, Bin Ladens, Al queda............and then how big of donations does the ACLU then give to the Democrat Party..........price just went up

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.tacoyaki.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/cocoapuffs.jpg

[peplaw06]

http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/doing-it-wrong.jpg

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/doing-it-wrong.jpg

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Heisenberg]

http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/wrong01.jpg

[Angus]

Bravo, sbark. Don't let the liberal juvenile funnies distract you (or silence you). That decision was and is a travesty. There is no logical argument to make for your adversaries, so they must resort to attempted ridicule. They have no logical argument consistent with the US Constitution as written. Only judges (or others) who would subordinate the US Constitution to the World Court could agree with them.

:)

[arglebargle]

When you want to subvert the Constitution by ignoring American principles, or adding dangerous new legal territory, you always do it by targeting some very unpopular group: Mafia bosses, child molestors, murderous terrorists. Then you let it creep. Prosecutors find new ways to abuse the law and soon they are at your door.

Go look at the original intent of Ricco laws, and the use they have been put to.


The road to perdition was paved by men who thought their ends justified the means....

[burmafrd]

Only AMERICAN citizens deserve the full protection - not terrorists. But then the liberal loonies always seem to think its pretty bad being an American anyway.

Argel- I guess you miss the point- big surprise.

AMERICAN CITIZENS.

[peplaw06]

I really didn't think this thread deserved a serious comment, but since a couple loons have thrown their hat into the ring to back up the OP, what the hey.

All I want is two questions answered...

Hypothetical -- that means consider the following to be your current circumstances...

You stand accused of committing a crime in a foreign country, one where you do not hold citizenship.

1) Do you expect to be treated just like anyone else who is accused of committing a crime in that country?

2) If not, what rules do you expect to be treated by?

One reason people tell you to be careful when you cross the Rio Grande into Mexico on, for example, a drunken field trip, is because you could be arrested by the Mexican Police for little to no reason and held indefinitely and/or extorted for thousands upon thousands of dollars, because they assume you have money to pay their bribes.

Do you think that's right for them to do that? Do you want your country to be doing that?

[SuspectCorner]

A Government of Law, Not Fear

By Stanley Kutler ~ Posted on Jun 19, 2008

The Constitution holds, albeit by a slender thread. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled unconstitutional a 2006 law barring enemy combatants held at Guantanamo from seeking writs of habeas corpus. For now, we are not under Chief Justice John Roberts’ or Justice Antonin Scalia’s constitution. Fear reigns in their dissent amid Cassandra-like threats that we are doomed unless we scrap our constitutional protections for the duration of that never-ending and nebulous “war on terror.”

Perhaps we will have a bit of relief from President George W. Bush’s fear-mongering, which has run through our political bloodstream for the past seven years.

Justice Anthony Kennedy categorically rejected the Bush administration’s defenses, saying they failed to offer “the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus.” In words and ideas similar to those of Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, Kennedy asserted that “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force in extraordinary times.” Scalia lamented that the ruling would “almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed,” and he added: “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” Ironically, the justice who helped to override precedent and principle by handing George Bush the disputed election of 2000 railed against “judicial supremacy.”

The decision is most welcome, but also welcome is that a presidential candidate bluntly and eloquently has endorsed it and the principle of habeas corpus. No, not “Straight Talking” John McCain, who predictably pandered to his right-wing chorus and denounced the decision. “The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” former prisoner of war McCain said. He quoted red-meat sound bites from the chief justice’s dissent, and attacked “unaccountable judges” who would allow detainees to “flood” the courts.

The other candidate, Barack Obama, the former constitutional law teacher, knows his stuff, saying that the “state can’t just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process.” That, he flatly said, is “the essence of who we are.”

And the presumptive Democratic nominee had a little bit more history for his audience in Wayne, Pa.: “I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court. And that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.”

He took nothing back in a more carefully prepared statement for his Web site. He praised the court’s protection of “our core values,” and noted it had rejected the Bush administration’s attempt to create a “legal black hole” in Guantanamo—a policy already endorsed by McCain. The Illinois senator boldly rejected Bush’s reliance on a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting our concepts of rule of law. Bush’s policy has yet to secure a conviction resulting from any terrorist act in the past seven years. We should remember that our legal system coped fairly and efficiently, entirely within the parameters of our rule of law, to gain convictions of the World Trade Center bombing perpetrators of 1993.

Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act two years ago. That law, which the Boumediene case overturned, was passed by a supine Congress, terrorized and at the mercy of Bush’s weapons of mass fear. Obama’s vote is a preface to his ringing endorsement of the Boumediene ruling. He has turned the administration’s position on its head, challenging Bush’s policy as “not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend."

It would be foolhardy to predict that the court will now reinvigorate the panoply of civil liberties so twisted in the past seven years. At best, the Boumediene ruling offers a faint glimmer of hope. With the proper cases, the justices might decide to correct other constitutional travesties, such as torture, rendition and warrantless wiretaps. We can applaud the court’s majority and a scholarly presidential candidate who spoke so eloquently and affirmatively in defense of our “core values.” A rare political moment for our times.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain’s close ally and sometime spokesman, has called for a constitutional amendment to keep the Supreme Court from conducting war. Ridiculous, if not ludicrous. What posturing! Meanwhile, right-wing blogs have marched in lock step, calling for McCain to make this one of his causes. Fine.

For now, the Supreme Court—well, at least a majority of it—has reminded us we have a government of laws, not men. And maybe this time, when we get around to debates or town meetings, perhaps Sens. McCain and Obama will engage each other—and us—on these vital matters of who and what we are. That would be nothing less than audacious.

Stanley Kutler is the author of “Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes” and numerous other writings on American constitutional law and the presidency.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080619_a_government_of_law_not_fear/





Or, per Burm and some others, we could allow obsessive fear to override our moral judgment and continue to inch away from what is best about ourselves as a nation.

No Burm - you and your idol Dubya have become confused. The Constitution is NOT just a piece of paper. It is the core doctrine that defines us as a nation - and habeas corpus is a principal tenet of that document.

[The30YardSlant]

http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/doing-it-wrong.jpg

POTY candidate :laugh2:

[sbark]

When you want to subvert the Constitution by ignoring American principles, or adding dangerous new legal territory, you always do it by targeting some very unpopular group: Mafia bosses, child molestors, murderous terrorists. Then you let it creep. Prosecutors find new ways to abuse the law and soon they are at your door.

Go look at the original intent of Ricco laws, and the use they have been put to.


The road to perdition was paved by men who thought their ends justified the means....

OH.......like you mean like JFK and Bobby Kennedy who took surveilence etc to heights unknown and unseen since............

and oh ya.......they were demcrats.............

where is Joe McCarthy when we need him...........

[sbark]

When you want to subvert the Constitution by ignoring American principles, or adding dangerous new legal territory, you always do it by targeting some very unpopular group: Mafia bosses, child molestors, murderous terrorists. Then you let it creep. Prosecutors find new ways to abuse the law and soon they are at your door.

Go look at the original intent of Ricco laws, and the use they have been put to.


The road to perdition was paved by men who thought their ends justified the means....

oh.........you mean like the Clintons have some 900+ FBI files of their political "enemies", all US citizens, on their desk...............and the Left just shrugging it off as thats the way things are............

[sbark]

I really didn't think this thread deserved a serious comment, but since a couple loons have thrown their hat into the ring to back up the OP, what the hey.

All I want is two questions answered...

Hypothetical -- that means consider the following to be your current circumstances...

You stand accused of committing a crime in a foreign country, one where you do not hold citizenship.

1) Do you expect to be treated just like anyone else who is accused of committing a crime in that country?

2) If not, what rules do you expect to be treated by?

One reason people tell you to be careful when you cross the Rio Grande into Mexico on, for example, a drunken field trip, is because you could be arrested by the Mexican Police for little to no reason and held indefinitely and/or extorted for thousands upon thousands of dollars, because they assume you have money to pay their bribes.

Do you think that's right for them to do that? Do you want your country to be doing that?

...........so Al Queda is just a bunch of Muslim college kids on a "drunken feild trip" for 20 years?........

All I know, the War on Terrorism started during the Carter Admin....USA was made fools of during the Clinton Admin........got hit early in the GW admin....but have not been hit again...........

The battle (not war) for Iraq has been a giant vaccum for terrorists ....and even at that the left has tied the militaries hands and now our intelligence depts hands behind their backs, but expect them to fully protect our shores.......

but oh.........it will be GW fault if/when we get hit again.......always GW...b.s

This war cannot be fought "in the courts" as Obama and the Left want to....courts mean nothing to terrorists.....

[Vintage]

...........so Al Queda is just a bunch of Muslim college kids on a "drunken feild trip" for 20 years?........

All I know, the War on Terrorism started during the Carter Admin....USA was made fools of during the Clinton Admin........got hit early in the GW admin....but have not been hit again...........

The battle (not war) for Iraq has been a giant vaccum for terrorists ....and even at that the left has tied the militaries hands and now our intelligence depts hands behind their backs, but expect them to fully protect our shores.......

but oh.........it will be GW fault if/when we get hit again.......always GW...b.s

This war cannot be fought "in the courts" as Obama and the Left want to....courts mean nothing to terrorists.....

So....Clinton made a fool of the US in regards to terrorism, but Bush didn't?

Please. This is just more right wing mongering at its finest.

BOTH political parties underestimated Al-Qaeda. BOTH Clinton and Bush did.

[zrinkill]

BOTH political parties underestimated Al-Qaeda. BOTH Clinton and Bush did.

Finally we agree.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So....Clinton made a fool of the US in regards to terrorism, but Bush didn't?

Please. This is just more right wing mongering at its finest.

BOTH political parties underestimated Al-Qaeda. BOTH Clinton and Bush did.

Agreed and both are guilty of not getting OBL.

[peplaw06]

...........so Al Queda is just a bunch of Muslim college kids on a "drunken feild trip" for 20 years?........

All I know, the War on Terrorism started during the Carter Admin....USA was made fools of during the Clinton Admin........got hit early in the GW admin....but have not been hit again...........

The battle (not war) for Iraq has been a giant vaccum for terrorists ....and even at that the left has tied the militaries hands and now our intelligence depts hands behind their backs, but expect them to fully protect our shores.......

but oh.........it will be GW fault if/when we get hit again.......always GW...b.s

This war cannot be fought "in the courts" as Obama and the Left want to....courts mean nothing to terrorists.....

All I wanted was two questions answered, and you couldn't do it. Not surprising.

[Angus]

A Government of Law, Not Fear

By Stanley Kutler ~ Posted on Jun 19, 2008

The Constitution holds, albeit by a slender thread. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled unconstitutional a 2006 law barring enemy combatants held at Guantanamo from seeking writs of habeas corpus. For now, we are not under Chief Justice John Roberts’ or Justice Antonin Scalia’s constitution. Fear reigns in their dissent amid Cassandra-like threats that we are doomed unless we scrap our constitutional protections for the duration of that never-ending and nebulous “war on terror.”

Perhaps we will have a bit of relief from President George W. Bush’s fear-mongering, which has run through our political bloodstream for the past seven years.

Justice Anthony Kennedy categorically rejected the Bush administration’s defenses, saying they failed to offer “the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus.” In words and ideas similar to those of Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, Kennedy asserted that “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force in extraordinary times.” Scalia lamented that the ruling would “almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed,” and he added: “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” Ironically, the justice who helped to override precedent and principle by handing George Bush the disputed election of 2000 railed against “judicial supremacy.”

The decision is most welcome, but also welcome is that a presidential candidate bluntly and eloquently has endorsed it and the principle of habeas corpus. No, not “Straight Talking” John McCain, who predictably pandered to his right-wing chorus and denounced the decision. “The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” former prisoner of war McCain said. He quoted red-meat sound bites from the chief justice’s dissent, and attacked “unaccountable judges” who would allow detainees to “flood” the courts.

The other candidate, Barack Obama, the former constitutional law teacher, knows his stuff, saying that the “state can’t just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process.” That, he flatly said, is “the essence of who we are.”

And the presumptive Democratic nominee had a little bit more history for his audience in Wayne, Pa.: “I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court. And that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.”

He took nothing back in a more carefully prepared statement for his Web site. He praised the court’s protection of “our core values,” and noted it had rejected the Bush administration’s attempt to create a “legal black hole” in Guantanamo—a policy already endorsed by McCain. The Illinois senator boldly rejected Bush’s reliance on a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting our concepts of rule of law. Bush’s policy has yet to secure a conviction resulting from any terrorist act in the past seven years. We should remember that our legal system coped fairly and efficiently, entirely within the parameters of our rule of law, to gain convictions of the World Trade Center bombing perpetrators of 1993.

Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act two years ago. That law, which the Boumediene case overturned, was passed by a supine Congress, terrorized and at the mercy of Bush’s weapons of mass fear. Obama’s vote is a preface to his ringing endorsement of the Boumediene ruling. He has turned the administration’s position on its head, challenging Bush’s policy as “not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend."

It would be foolhardy to predict that the court will now reinvigorate the panoply of civil liberties so twisted in the past seven years. At best, the Boumediene ruling offers a faint glimmer of hope. With the proper cases, the justices might decide to correct other constitutional travesties, such as torture, rendition and warrantless wiretaps. We can applaud the court’s majority and a scholarly presidential candidate who spoke so eloquently and affirmatively in defense of our “core values.” A rare political moment for our times.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain’s close ally and sometime spokesman, has called for a constitutional amendment to keep the Supreme Court from conducting war. Ridiculous, if not ludicrous. What posturing! Meanwhile, right-wing blogs have marched in lock step, calling for McCain to make this one of his causes. Fine.

For now, the Supreme Court—well, at least a majority of it—has reminded us we have a government of laws, not men. And maybe this time, when we get around to debates or town meetings, perhaps Sens. McCain and Obama will engage each other—and us—on these vital matters of who and what we are. That would be nothing less than audacious.

Stanley Kutler is the author of “Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes” and numerous other writings on American constitutional law and the presidency.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080619_a_government_of_law_not_fear/





Or, per Burm and some others, we could allow obsessive fear to override our moral judgment and continue to inch away from what is best about ourselves as a nation.

No Burm - you and your idol Dubya have become confused. The Constitution is NOT just a piece of paper. It is the core doctrine that defines us as a nation - and habeas corpus is a principal tenet of that document.

Kutlers article is very well written and very well reasoned if you accept the “living” constitution argument that the constitution ought not, and does not, mean what it originally meant but must be reinterpreted to keep up with the times and thinking of the liberal elements of the world whose “core values” are evolving.

But there is a procedure for changing the original meaning of the constitution: the amendment process. If liberals really believed in democracy, they would submit the new “core values” to the amendment process to see if those values really are to be embedded in the constitution by the American people.

Since that has not been done, the “core value” argument is vacant. We have no constitution if the original meaning, without being amended by the people, is no longer the law. We are at the mercy of tyrants who can make the law into anything to agree with what they want to call “core values” regardless of what the constitution was intended to mean by the people who adopted it.

[vta]

All I wanted was two questions answered, and you couldn't do it. Not surprising.

Sure, as a tourist, I'd like to be treated fairly, as they would their own, under their laws, in the instance of a crime being committed.

But in acting out atrocities and engaging them in a militant fashion, I'd expect them to bypass their laws and kill me in retaliation.

The problem with your questions is that they liken 'crime' to acts of war.
There's a huge difference.

[Rackat]

I really didn't think this thread deserved a serious comment, but since a couple loons have thrown their hat into the ring to back up the OP, what the hey.

All I want is two questions answered...

Hypothetical -- that means consider the following to be your current circumstances...

You stand accused of committing a crime in a foreign country, one where you do not hold citizenship.

1) Do you expect to be treated just like anyone else who is accused of committing a crime in that country?

2) If not, what rules do you expect to be treated by?

One reason people tell you to be careful when you cross the Rio Grande into Mexico on, for example, a drunken field trip, is because you could be arrested by the Mexican Police for little to no reason and held indefinitely and/or extorted for thousands upon thousands of dollars, because they assume you have money to pay their bribes.

Do you think that's right for them to do that? Do you want your country to be doing that?
IMO, your hypothetical is faulty.

There is no doubt about Osama Bin Ladan being a terrorist. The same goes for a lot of those who have now been given “rights” under our laws rather than keeping them under military jurisdiction. I don’t believe those people deserve our rights. However, I understand the point you were trying to make and agree to an extent. As a “normally” law abiding citizen, I would want to be treated the same as I would be in the States. That being said, if I were to go and attack another country’s military personnel, embassies, ships, bases, civilians, and then their largest structure in their largest city, I doubt I would get, nor deserve, the best they have to offer as far as their laws go.

[peplaw06]

Sure, as a tourist, I'd like to be treated fairly, as they would their own, under their laws, in the instance of a crime being committed.

But in acting out atrocities and engaging them in a militant fashion, I'd expect them to bypass their laws and kill me in retaliation.

The problem with your questions is that they liken 'crime' to acts of war.
There's a huge difference.OK, so they're being treated as war criminals. I still haven't looked this up from the other thread, but I am sure that the UCMJ has some kind of habeas corpus provision. I seriously doubt that war criminals awaiting trial can be held indefinitely.

And even if though you could be killed if you engaged them in a "act of war," after you are detained, then you have other protections, i.e. the Geneva Convention.

They detain our guys and they refuse to follow the Geneva Convention. If we refuse to follow it and our rules that we have set up, we are no different from them.

IMO, your hypothetical is faulty.

There is no doubt about Osama Bin Ladan being a terrorist. The same goes for a lot of those who have now been given “rights” under our laws rather than keeping them under military jurisdiction. I don’t believe those people deserve our rights. However, I understand the point you were trying to make and agree to an extent. As a “normally” law abiding citizen, I would want to be treated the same as I would be in the States. That being said, if I were to go and attack another country’s military personnel, embassies, ships, bases, civilians, and then their largest structure in their largest city, I doubt I would get, nor deserve, the best they have to offer as far as their laws go.It's not faulty. It's not exactly parallel but it's not faulty. If there are laws set up to cover the scenario you are in, that country should abide them.

[vta]

OK, so they're being treated as war criminals. I still haven't looked this up from the other thread, but I am sure that the UCMJ has some kind of habeas corpus provision. I seriously doubt that war criminals awaiting trial can be held indefinitely.

And even if though you could be killed if you engaged them in a "act of war," after you are detained, then you have other protections, i.e. the Geneva Convention.

They detain our guys and they refuse to follow the Geneva Convention. If we refuse to follow it and our rules that we have set up, we are no different from them.

I'll admit to have only give a cursory look, but I don't think there is a limit to how long you can hold an enemy combatant. I think its predicated on the length of the war itself.

As for following the GC, I do agree, we don't need to lower our selves by being abusive, but I don't believe these people should be treated to the laws that do protect us, as citizens of this country. A tourist or immigrant commits a crime? Yes, they fall under our laws and I understand that. An enemy combatant? No way.

[arglebargle]

OK, so they're being treated as war criminals. I still haven't looked this up from the other thread, but I am sure that the UCMJ has some kind of habeas corpus provision. I seriously doubt that war criminals awaiting trial can be held indefinitely.

And even if though you could be killed if you engaged them in a "act of war," after you are detained, then you have other protections, i.e. the Geneva Convention.

They detain our guys and they refuse to follow the Geneva Convention. If we refuse to follow it and our rules that we have set up, we are no different from them.

It's not faulty. It's not exactly parallel but it's not faulty. If there are laws set up to cover the scenario you are in, that country should abide them.


Yeah, when you continuously claim the moral high ground, sometimes you are going to actually have to stand up there.

The whole 'enemy combatant' thing was another typical twisting of the rules to allow a free hand for them to do whatever they wanted. Prisoner of War? Don't like it! Geneva Convention? Just a piece of paper! Enemy combatant was kind of nebulous and relatively unprecedented, so it was seized upon, to give the widest ability and deniability. Like the use of signing statements in a different arena, it was used so there was no need to actually worry about constraints on their behavior.

Did you note how Afgani soldiers, properly constituted so by the legitimate Taliban government, were swept up and send to Guantanamo (and elsewhere) without even the semblence of being a POW, or a nod to the Geneva Convention? Do you think that some of those captives were held for years by mistake, because the government didn't want to face the embarrasement of saying 'Oops'? With no real recourse. Note that when they actually did start to dump people from Guantanamo, they did it on the low down, trying to keep attention from it...hmn...

A lot of these people seized are bad guys no doubt about it. But if we set the precedent for such things, and allow, uncontested. this level of presidential power and control, we are paving the way for totalitarianism.

No government will make us 'Safe' from Terrorism, or terrorists. I prefer not to have to worry about terrorists, and my own government as well. It's weird, I had always thought that one of the admirable tenants of conservatism was the desire to keep government out of people's hair as much as possible, not to allow them greater and greater power.....

[hairic]

This is just a reply to those that think the constitution only applies to citizens.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

IANAL, but that looks like all persons have legal rights. Note the differences in the wording - citizens and persons. If the constitution stated:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Then only citizens would have legal protections granted.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah, when you continuously claim the moral high ground, sometimes you are going to actually have to stand up there.

The whole 'enemy combatant' thing was another typical twisting of the rules to allow a free hand for them to do whatever they wanted. Prisoner of War? Don't like it. Geneva Convention? Just a piece of paper. Enemy combatant was kind of nebulous and relatively unprecedented, so it was seized upon, to give the widest ability and deniability. Like the use of signing statements in a different arena, it was used so there was no need to actually worry about constraints on their behavior.

Did you note how Afgani soldiers, properly constituted so by the legitimate Taliban government, were swept up and send to Guantanamo (and elsewhere) without even the semblence of being a POW, or a nod to the Geneva Convention? Do you think that some of those captives were held for years by mistake, because the government didn't want to face the embarrasement of saying 'Oops'? With no real recourse. Note that when they actually did start to dump people from Guantanamo, they did it on the low down, trying to keep attention from it...hmn...

A lot of these people seized are bad guys no doubt about it. But if we set the precedent for such things, and allow, uncontested. this level of presidential power and control, we are paving the way for totalitarianism.

No government will make us 'Safe' from Terrorism, or terrorists. I prefer not to have to worry about terrorists, and my own government as well. It's weird, I had always thought that one of the admirable tenants of conservatism was the desire to keep government out of people's hair as much as possible, not to allow them greater and greater power.....

Lot of good stuff there. The "Enemy Combatant" business was just an attempt to make a 'C' option when only 'A' and 'B' were listed. Habeas Corpus was too inconvenient. Lets not choose that. The Geneva Convention was too inconvenient. Lets not choose that either. Lets make come up with a designation that neither applies to so we can dance around this "inconvenience".

No one is arguing that these prisoners should be given all the rights of an American citizen, but they're basically being given one shot to say "Hey! I'm being held wrongly here." I see nothing wrong with the evidence of WHY they're being held having to be presented if it's called for.

[vta]

CHAPTER 3
Penal sanctions with regard to prisoners of war

I. General provisions

Art. 45. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the detaining Power.

Any act of insubordination shall render them liable to the measures prescribed by such laws, regulations, and orders, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.

Considering that the Geneva convention is not based on the laws of the United States, it's simply arrogant to believe that our laws should transcend the laws put forth by a world body, for all countries to abide by.

[Vintage]

It's weird, I had always thought that one of the admirable tenants of conservatism was the desire to keep government out of people's hair as much as possible, not to allow them greater and greater power.....


Nope.

They are interested in power; means of keeping that power; and setting agendas that favor their policies.

Same as the Democrats.

Both parties are willing - and able - to dodge the Constitution when it benefits them.

[sacase]

This is just a reply to those that think the constitution only applies to citizens.
IANAL, but that looks like all persons have legal rights. Note the differences in the wording - citizens and persons. If the constitution stated:
Then only citizens would have legal protections granted.

US Constitution only applies to US persons. It doesn't apply to anyone else no matter how you want to spin it.

Pep
I would have thought better of you than to try and make such a simplistic arguement. If I go to another country and act as a mercenary or enemy combatant, then I would expect no rights or privledges. The third Geneva convention covers POW's. To qualify as a POW then certain things must apply.


4.1.2 Members of other militias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) and members of other volunteer corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_volunteer), including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I));
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Obviously the Taliban is not following that so the Geneva Convention does not apply. POW's can be held until the end of the war. These people we are holding are not POW's so Article 17 should not apply.


Article 17): "No physical or mental torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture), nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."


No mention of any protection for enemy combatants.

Next, enemy combatants.


If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes.

Note, there is no mention of POW status for these people. They can and should be tried by military tribunal.

[arglebargle]

So, when was the last time we actually declared War??

Oh, hmn, That would be inconveniant as well wouldn't it... Since we haven't declared war, we can hold anyone forever! Man, that Catch 22 is the best catch of all!

Perhaps you missed the part about the legally enrolled Afgani soldiers fighting for the Taliban when we invaded, who were whisked off without any of these protections.

Add the problem of these enemy combatants not even getting the regular treatment, ala:

"may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes.

Note, there is no mention of POW status for these people. They can and should be tried by military tribunal."

[zrinkill]

They can and should be tried by military tribunal.

I agree if they are captured while fighting American forces.

If captured in a raid of suspected terrorist cells ..... they should be tried by the Iraq or Afgan (depending on where they are captured) Governments as traitors and terrorists.


Thats my opinion.

[Rackat]

So, when was the last time we actually declared War??

Oh, hmn, That would be inconveniant as well wouldn't it... Since we haven't declared war, we can hold anyone forever! Man, that Catch 22 is the best catch of all!

Perhaps you missed the part about the legally enrolled Afgani soldiers fighting for the Taliban when we invaded, who were whisked off without any of these protections.

Add the problem of these enemy combatants not even getting the regular treatment, ala:

"may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes.

Note, there is no mention of POW status for these people. They can and should be tried by military tribunal."

Note: the following is from wikipedia, and as such may not be entirely accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Current status of the U.S. debate

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that AUMFs satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical precedent (see Quasi-War). Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress may not have "Declared War", they did however, authorize military action.

[arglebargle]

...
Congress may not have "Declared War", they did however, authorize military action.

Agreed on this, sorta.

It does make it easier to futz the lines, thus the reason for its popularity. Causes trouble when you have rules which say someone can be held to the end of the 'war'. That can cut both ways in the arguement, I admit...