Forums | MacLife

gas huffer wrote:

have you already forgotten prior rulings that declared they could use the US Courts in prior cases v Rummsfeld from last year?

....you mean the ones involving American citizens?

I'd like you to explain to me how Steven's did not just essentially declare that miltary tribunals and the Military Courts system fail the test of the Genva Convention [specifially the appelate mention].  That seems to me EXACTLY what he just ruled.

Try again.

Stevens may have authored the opinion, but five Justices signed their names to it.

The opinion lists the particular failings of the commissions.  It certainly does not say that a hearing under the UCMJ would be inappropriate.  That in itself allows for hearing outside of the U.S. Court system.

gas huffer wrote:

you need to re-read the part about appeals going to the Executive.  Even though I do believe the DC Circui court may take those cases, the Executive still has the final say in the Military Court system.

You do know he's sorta "in charge" of the military right?

Perhaps limited appeals to the federal system would be allowed.  Why are you so concerned by who hears the appeals?

Appeals look for plain error.  Why shouldn't they be allowed?  If men were picked up who didn't belong in Gitmo to begin with then the idea that others are still there without cause is not far-fetched.

gas huffer wrote:

Dude you just don't get it.

The legal standards in the two systems are entirely different, since you claim to be a law student you may wish to refresh yourself on what the final venue is for appeals.

"Legal standards" would be based on those used at trial.  Appeals (and I'm not even sure to what extent they'd even be allowed) would only involve procedure used at trial.

It's not as if an appeal would be based on standards other than those used under the military court.  That doesn't even make sense.

post military system it goes to the DC Circuit, and then to SCOTUS.

Like I said, it's a power grab by the courts.

...and guess who can remove jurisdiction?  The Courts can already no longer hear habeas corpus petitions from these guys, due to act of Congress.

You lot are so happy to see shrub take one on the nose you seem to be overlooking that this is essentially a victory for those who wish to hurt us.

GH, if you're going to engage in discussions with me then you need to drop the assumptions about what you think I want to see in relation to the president.  I believe this decision is correct constitutionally.  I believe in due process for everyone, not just the innocent.

Amazingly, there are others that agree with this decision--and they're not all "liberals" (or whatever it is you have me pinned as).

How is this a "victory" for those who wish us harm?  We should only be holding those that we know present an ongoing danger to troops in the field.

If they don't, they need to be returned.  If we know they're involved with al-qaeda, then we necessarily have evidence of such involvement.

Isn't it important that our actions abroad appear just?  Do you really wish for us to hold men indefinitely without any actual knowledge of guilt?

gas huffer wrote:

smurf that, that time has long since be left in the wayside and I support doing anything short of detaining US Citizens to protect both the soldiers abroad and the citizens at home.

smurf that, that time has long since be left in the wayside and I support doing anything short of detaining US Citizens to protect both the soldiers abroad and the citizens at home.

why not detain the liberals? Ann Coulter says that they're traitorous.

:: edited to fix funky quote code by KF ::

Last edited by jerwin (2006-07-07 11:46 pm)

The-Cynic wrote:

The guy has an IQ of 9! He thinks there's a terrorist working the printing presses of every major US newspaper! Don't tell me he's not dumb enough to poke himself in the eye, so don't blame the blatantly mean inactive Roberts court for being the cause of Bush's failed policy to put men behind the stand that don't fall under our jurisdiction...especially when 99% of the educated world (1% goes GOP) is pleading to get gitmo' shut down in the name of respecting humans as their own peoples, not properties.

now that is truly useless.  kudos.

quite the bastion of thought we have here.

The-Cynic wrote:

Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill Maher, Bill O' Take Myself Too Seriosly Rielly, and Pat Robertson---they're all the same. Mean, greedy, businessmen (Coulters' a man, I'm sorry, just too blatant), and they've got you in their trap where you've identified with their ideas that frankly I don't think (with the exception of Bill O'Lielly) they really give a second thought to what they write or even believe it, they're all in it for the money....and well we know Coulter doesn't know what she's writing now that we know 96% of her last book was bullsmurf and now she's guilty of plagerism, something she might dismiss as liberal lies to get her in trouble, but what we of the teaching profession greet with an F- and a slip for the principles office.

picking on Al Franken....

You ain't all that bright son.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-08 1:31 am)

gas huffer wrote:

and again I fail to see the utility of the Fed courts poking their noses in a military action which was authorised by Congress.

This was a habeas case that was brought prior to Congress limiting the ability of these men to seek such appeals.

Congress can control the federal court's jurisdiction.

I can make any damn assumption I want to, you can choose not to respond.  Frankly, it ain't much of an assumption to assume you do not support the Bush Admin's "war on terra".  Hell, I am not sure I do.

You can make whatever assumption you want but at some point I'll simply stop taking you seriously.  If you're not looking for me to take you seriously then I'm not sure why you would choose to even engage me in conversation.

I support an honest attempt to protect American citizens from terrorism.  I do not support the occupation of Iraq, and I do not support my government acting in ways that do not comport with decency or international law.  I do not care what our enemies do.  We must be better than them.

I have no idea why this forum is so hung up on that term.  I don't use it in a derogatory manner.

If you can explain to me how this decision is not a "liberal" decision as opposed to being a conservative ruling feel free to express it.  Otherwise bite the bullet and call a spade a spade, eh?

I stated that people other than "liberals" support this decision.  To be sure, people other than "liberals" are completely opposed to the war in Iraq. 

There are nine justices on the Supreme Court.  Seven of them were appointed by Republican presidents.

Yes, we can ask them for their al-Qaeda membership cards.  Damn fine point.

That doesn't make any sense.  How could we possibly 'know' someone was a member of Al-Qaeda if we have zero evidence that they're....a member of Al-Qaeda?  Is it enough for you for someone to simply guess that a given prisoner might be a member of a terrorist group?

gas huffer wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Isn't it important that our actions abroad appear just?  Do you really wish for us to hold men indefinitely without any actual knowledge of guilt?

And I imagine you don't want the government covertly monitoring communications and financial transactions actions either, eh?

That was a non-answer to the question you quoted.  Don't bother quoting my questions if you're not planning on answering them.

I do not believe the conversations of American citizens should be monitored without warrants, as required by act of Congress--the FISA law.  I should hope any American who considers their self a staunch defender of the Constitution would feel the same way.

I guess we could just put the military in the streets and wait to catch them red handed?

That you are more concerned with the appearance of "just actions" means you must also be willing to live the results of weak and reactive security force.

Living with extensive personal freedom means dealing with risk.  I'm not interesting in living in a police state.  Are you?

smurf that, that time has long since be left in the wayside and I support doing anything short of detaining US Citizens to protect both the soldiers abroad and the citizens at home.

That you would place the "rights" of these 150 unknown people over the rights of the those who lost their lives and 911, not too mention bombings in Spain, Somalia, the UK and countless other suicide attacks shows me your myopic short sightedness.

You can stop waving the bloody shirt at any time.  I want justice.  I want those who have done wrong to be punished, and those who have not to live free.  If you think accusing me of 'not caring' for the victims of terrorism is going to make me demand less than due process and justice, you're quite mistaken.

Exactly what form of "Justice" is a Jihad?  What Treaty do they belong to?  Do these people even belong to what we would call civilization?

Some of those held at Gitmo had done absolutely nothing wrong.  If they have acted against this country, they deserve proper due process or they deserve to be treated as POWs.

And why do you act as if it's only al-Qaeda - for the most part these people are hardly part of any organization other than simply being both Islamic and insane.

I act as if it's "only al-Qaeda?"  I'm quite aware that many of these men have absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda at all.

Is due process only important to you if an American citizen is involved?  Fine.  I'm not willing to allow my government to toss someone away by way of a sham trial that does not comport with the minimum standards of fairness that any civilized country should demand.

jerwin wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

jerwin wrote:

why not detain the liberals? Ann Coulter says that they're traitorous.

:: edited to fix funky quote code by KF ::

why not post something even more useless?

I wasn't aware that rhetoric was judged on the basic of its utility.

well, I am sure Ann Coulter would agree...

let me know when you "take the high road" types have assembled your crack evidence team and we can send a documentary crew over and call the shows CSI : Iraq and CSI : Afghaniland...



I doubt bratboy even knows what form of "evidence" it is that he claims he would be waiting for....

oh really...

bratboy wrote:

You lot are so happy to see shrub take one on the nose you seem to be overlooking that this is essentially a victory for those who wish to hurt us.

GH, if you're going to engage in discussions with me then you need to drop the assumptions about what you think I want to see in relation to the president.  I believe this decision is correct constitutionally.  I believe in due process for everyone, not just the innocent.

How is this a "victory" for those who wish us harm?  We should only be holding those that we know present an ongoing danger to troops in the field.

If they don't, they need to be returned.  If we know they're involved with al-qaeda, then we necessarily have evidence of such involvement.

Isn't it important that our actions abroad appear just?  Do you really wish for us to hold men indefinitely without any actual knowledge of guilt?

hrrrm?

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

hrrrm?

If the government believes someone is involved with Al-Qaeda, there will necessarily be information that led them to that result.  The conviction of that person should be based upon evidence.

We should not be able to lock someone up and throw away the key based simply upon suspicion and nothing more.

Look, in principal I get where you are coming from - but these are not simply political dissidents... and this is a freaking battlefield where human intelligence, as fallible as it may be, is about the best you can do.

"Proof" and "evidence" on a battlefield in this part of the world is not exactly an easy subject.  You come across as wanting a smoking gun - yet these people don't wear typically wear uniforms, and likely don't keep long files with the would be terrorists SSI numbers just lying around ya know?

this is TERRORISM, a GUERILLA war, not a uniform battlefield with the rules of war being followed....

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Look, in principal I get where you are coming from - but these are not simply political dissidents... and this is a freaking battlefield where human intelligence, as fallible as it may be, is about the best you can do.

"Proof" and "evidence" on a battlefield in this part of the world is not exactly an easy subject.  You come across as wanting a smoking gun - yet these people don't wear typically wear uniforms, and likely don't keep long files with the would be terrorists SSI numbers just lying around ya know?

Wanting a "smoking gun?"  How so?  I'm asking for ANY evidence at all....and for the accused right to counter that evidence. 

Perhaps I'm not as cynical because I work in the criminal justice system--but I know that the state is always at a huge advantage.  The advantage will likely be even greater before a military tribunal.  I wouldn't expect the amount of evidence needed to be cumbersome.   

this is TERRORISM, a GUERILLA war, not a uniform battlefield with the rules of war being followed....

...and as has been stated, some of these guys were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yet you will believe that without your precious standard of "evidence."  Heresay is good enough to make the Bush Admin guilty, eh?  But yet it's not enough to hold a suspected combatant/terrorist?



That you are festering over the "burden of proof" with what's at stake this point in time in simply stunning.  Like I keep saying, you just seem to be letting your political distate for Bush and the tactics his admin uses cloud your judgement.

And you also seemingly offer no viable alternative or realistic scenario to provide anything approaching a solution other than waiting around, sitting on our hands, for the "evidence" to pile up to some imaginary critical threshold in your mind.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-08 2:12 pm)

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Yet you will believe that without your precious standard of "evidence."  Heresay is good enough to make the Bush Admin guilty, eh?  But yet it's not enough to hold a suspected combatant/terrorist?

That came from the government itself, friend.  The government has taken it upon itself to release prisoners from Gitmo.

"Hearsay" isn't relevant to what you were saying and so I'm not sure why you used that word.

yes, they released them, i said as much, but you guys keep on bringing it up as if it also applies to the 150 or so in Camp Delta NOW

bratboy wrote:

That you are festering over the "burden of proof" with what's at stake this point in time in simply stunning.  Like I keep saying, you just seem to be letting your political distate for Bush and the tactics his admin uses cloud your judgement.

Yes, you keeping saying it and it continues to be unpersuasive to me. 

back at you then.

bratboy wrote:

And you also seemingly offer no viable alternative or realistic scenario to provide anything approaching a solution other than waiting around, sitting on our hands, for the "evidence" to pile up to some imaginary critical threshold in your mind.

I think a great start would be to follow the guidelines laid out by the court or Congress!

Well the empowerment of the authorization of the use of force is still an open and contentious issue - or have you somehow already defined that for everyone?

bratboy wrote:

I don't know what you're talking about, all of this "sitting on our hands" or waiting for evidence to pile up.  It's nonsensical.  Guidelines were laid out.  Now those guidelines can be followed.

CAn you show me those guidelines and how they are not being followed?  or is the another empty assertion you like to fling out? [which it is]

bratboy wrote:

Are you fine with capturing foreigners and holding them indefinitely without any proof of their guilt of anything and without treating them as POWs?

Gee, another strawman.  how surprising.  did they take the people and label them "combatants" just for to "destabilize the region" and make things worse?  Lst time i checked, it that nautre of the proof that is the issue right now, or has that somehow not registered yet?

Cannot the adminstration attempt to do things it way it sees they should be done?  It's not like they were playing nice when they got started, now were they?

you really need to get a grip.

do you understand the value of intel in this war?

bratboy wrote:

If so, fine.  I disagree.  We can end this here, because our personal, moral codes obviously are fundamental different on this issue.

you are free to do as you please, which includes not understanding what we are actually doing and also having no viable alternative or solution to back it up.

Do both me and yourself a favor and take some time to watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

and then ask yourself this simple question while watching:

"Did they acheive their objectives?"

then think about your so-called "plan of action," just what the hell you mean when you say "proof," and consider just how much "risk" you would really be living with.