Forums | MacLife

iBubba wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

bratboy wrote:

You have no idea who has opposed what here, and when.  You make an awful lot of assumptions regarding the opinions of others for someone who has posted so little on this board.


Once again, the Court found the terms of the treaty to be properly at issue because they were incorporated by the UCMJ.  We already have a thread on that issue.

no, it still bull and if you had any common sense you could see it clearly.

Anyone with a good sense of history understands the the Geneva Conventions were primarily using language to prevent a blatantly unfair trial... ie, the old "kangaroo courts."

I find it hard to swallow that our military courts would be unfair, what this is is a plain attempt and undercutting Exectuive power by playing with the wording of the treaty [a FOREIGN DOCUMENT] and making up its "original intent" to suit political ends.  The courts see's itself as a corrective to an admittedly abusive Exectuive, and in doing so makes itself an even bigger problem imho.

I see it as undercutting our Constitution, plain and simple.

Here is where you get to use your common sense, were the Nuremburg Trials done by a "standing court" a'la Stevens differentiation?

Instead, its an attempt to apply nearly the same rights American Citizens have to these combatants.

that's bullsmurf.

ALLEGED combatants. Some of these folks were admittedly just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They ain't all combatants (let alone "terrists") thusly deserving of a fair NONMILITARY trial IF they ever get charged. ALSO - since we were talking about roles of the branches let's be quite smurfing clear the Executive Branch does NOT get to "interpret" neither the Constitution, nor Law. THAT is the role of the Judicial.

It is my sincere hope Bush continues to circumvent the law and Constitution... impeachment (at the very least) is sure to follow.

Checks and smurf balances, huffs. Checks and smurf balances.

i believe that the number has gone from 400+ to those the military still view as having a combatant status.   aroung 150 iirc.  the charges wil determine the status, not you or some heresay

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-06 4:48 pm)

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

no, it still bull and if you had any common sense you could see it clearly.

Anyone with a good sense of history understands the the Geneva Conventions were primarily using language to prevent a blatantly unfair trial... ie, the old "kangaroo courts."

I find it hard to swallow that our military courts would be unfair, what this is is a plain attempt and undercutting Exectuive power by playing with the wording of the treaty [a FOREIGN DOCUMENT] and making up its "original intent" to suit political ends.  The courts see's itself as a corrective to an admittedly abusive Exectuive, and in doing so makes itself an even bigger problem imho.

I see it as undercutting our Constitution, plain and simple.

The Court takes nothing upon itself.  It ruled that the President has acted contrary to the will of Congress. 

You may well hold the opinion that the war-time President can damned well do whatever he pleases, but that view does not prevail on the Court (with the possible exception of Justice Thomas).

The problems is NOT that the President has defied a "foreign document."  The problem is that the President has acted contrary to the will of Congress in regards to the those bare minimum requirements of the Geneva Conventions that have been incorporated into our military law via the UCMJ.

you mean in this ONE CASE based upon politically charged reasoning?  i suppose so....

and no, he cannot do as he damn well pleases, nor have i argued for that, so stop with the strawman.

bratboy wrote:

Here is where you get to use your common sense, were the Nuremburg Trials done by a "standing court" a'la Stevens differentiation?

Instead, its an attempt to apply nearly the same rights American Citizens have to these combatants.

that's bullsmurf.

My personal opinion is that the either need to be properly tried or they need to be treated as POWs.  We know little about these men.  Some have ended up there accidently.  Others had little to zero involvement with fighting.

A "trial" without counsel utilizing secret evidence is no "trial" at all.  The administration's position is not shocking––they fought to deny an American citizen the same rights.  Even on the case involving detainment I believe the Court allowed too much leeway....as I would have sided with Scalia and Stevens in that instance.

what trial using secret evidence?  they have yet to hold the tribunals, this will define there nature based upon what charges are brought.

this is all about jurisdiction at this point, and they might as well create a special IMT for this case.  hopefully, with some changes relative to the nature of the crimes and parties involved.

i fail to see how how our DOJ courts are equipped for these cases?

gas huffer wrote:

The point that alarms me is the basis for this ruling is an INTERNATIONAL TREATY.  And we are not fighting a sovereighn recognized singnatory in terms of the detainees or the "combantants," with the possible exception of Ba'athists and Taliban members...  The basis for the ruling out the military courts is due to the nature of its institutional structure extending from the wording of a freaking Treaty?

Frankly, this is an issue our legal system should not be handling at all, if that's the case.

Perhaps you should consider the plain meaning of this:

Article Six wrote:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Thank you jerwin. I mentioned that earlier, didn't post that, and was ignored.

:: farts ::

OK, are we all clear now?

gas huffer wrote:

Oh yes, it's  clear allright.

People who are afraid to challenge the terrorists with the proper application of force prefer to use the Geneva Convention in place of the US Constiution when it suits their interests.

Quite clear indeed, I'd say...

I suppose the terrorists who didn't sign the Geneva Convention, detest all democratic states and secular governments, and are smart enough to not leave much behind in the way of "evidence" behind will really appreciate this type of thinking.

I particularly like the second sentence.

My boy, they aren't using either one in regards to the detainees. That's the irony of this.

It seems to be a moot point, since this administration doesn't seem to be putting much emphasis anymore on bringing to justice one Osama Bin Ladin, who claimed responsibility for 9/11.

I have a simple solution that will appeal to you. We nuke all muslim nations, turn them to glass deserts.

We use Richard Lionhearts method. "Kill them all. God will know his own."

This [and this place in would seem] is an example of typical small minded thinking of the "other side" in this country - not only does not UBL matter - but keeping him in place allows us to chip out his support from under him be keeping the organizational structure fairly intact.

And it just may have occured to a few of you that witch hunt for UBL alone might go a long ways to turing the governments whoare aiding us away.

Now then, I don't feel that way about Zawahiri, but the fact of the matter is with UBL alive Zawahiri is more liekly to be found, imho.  UBL is a puppet.

I do like how you guys are more bothered by the treatment of the 150 "high quality individuals" in Camp Delta than you seem to be about the lives of thousands of American, French, German, English, Somali, Saudi, Iraqi citiznes who have fallen at the hands of extremists.

How much will you sacrifice to enjoy your feeling of supieriority?

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-07 3:44 pm)

gas huffer wrote:

How much will you sacrifice to enjoy your feeling of supieriority?

Certainly not my spell check.

gas huffer wrote:

This [and this place in would seem] is an example of typical small minded thinking of the "other side" in this country - not only does not UBL matter - but keeping him in place allows us to chip out his support from under him be keeping the organizational structure fairly intact.

The "other side?"  I think you'll find this position defended by some conservatives and libertarians on this board, as well as liberals.

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

How much will you sacrifice to enjoy your feeling of supieriority?

Certainly not my spell check.

Curse this "witch hunt" for the man RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.

gas huffer wrote:

Yes I do, but since it's your claim why dont' you tell me where the men will be tried according to the ruling.

From wikipedia:

It explicitly did not decide whether the President possessed the Constitutional power to convene military commissions like the one created to try Hamdan. Even if he possessed such power, those tribunals would either have to be sanctioned by the "laws of war," as codified by Congress in Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or authorized by statute. As to the statutory authorization, there is nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) "even hinting" at expanding the President's war powers beyond those enumerated in Art. 15. Instead, the AUMF, the UCMJ, and the DTA "at most acknowledge" the President's authority to convene military commissions only where justified by the exigencies of war, but still operating within the laws of war.

As to the laws of war, to the majority these necessarily include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, each of which require more protections than the military commission provides. The UCMJ, Art. 36 (b), which requires that rules applied in courts-martial and military commissions be "uniform insofar as practicable." Stevens found several substantial deviations, including:

1. The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;

2. Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and

3. Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch (with an exception not here relevant).

These deviations made the commissions violate the UCMJ.

It did not say that Military Commissions could not be used.  It said only that these particular commissions could not be used.