Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on June 29, 2006, 09:53:46 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html
So much for the Bush court :rolleyes:
-
About time.....
-
Yeager, rpm started another thread on this already bro. Just an FYI.
-
thought rpms thread was on how the sc is in bushes pocket? that is not the case here
-
In this case, I do have to agree with the Supreme Court, which has basically said that existing US law doesn't allow the kind of tribunals that the President wants to set up put the gitmo detainees on trial. The seperation of powers argument is basically that the executive branch isn't implicitly empowered to detain, put on trial, and then punish these guys all on it's own.
Historical precedent aside (like Abraham Lincoln suspending habeus corpus) , they are interpreting current law correctly.
Now, what can be done:
1. Congress could pass a law authorizing the creation of special tribunals to try gitmo detainees. I think that might address the seperation of powers issue.
2. The can be declared POWs - in which case we can discuss the geneva convention, whether they are covered by it at all being non-uniformed combatants, and whether as POWs they can just be held until the war is declared over. If we demand the unconditional surrender of Bin Laden & AQ to end the war, it effectively becomes a life sentence.
3. They can be transferred to the civilian court system for trial - (IMHO a terrible idea).
I was definitely against the government being able to hold Jose Padilla (an american citizen) at gitmo without charging him. The courts past ruling on him addressed that concern, and I think today's ruling shows that the court is watching and seeking to strike a balance between individual rights and the government's power during time of war.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
I agree with 1 and 2 as being the best way to handle that issue EagleDNY.
-
#1, to me, is the clear answer.
Congress needs to state that these people are not fighting under the direction or at the behest of any nation state. They cannot be afforded the same rights as a US citizen, and not even the same rights as defined by an enemy combatant in a nation-state conflict. They are international terrorists whose country of birth origin is meaningless, and therefore need special handling.
They can be disappeared, tortured, or basically held without charge indefinately. However, these rules cannot apply to a US citizen, even one suspected of harboring and assisting others of that classification.
-
SC wants a civil trial for these terrorist? Fine...In limbo lets throw them in general pop. and let some of our hardened criminals give back to society and do their part in the war on terror...
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/
The kangaroo courts in Guantanamo Bay were ruled unlawful.
President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
This won't close Guantanamo for sure, but it's a start. I hope it closes soon. It's a shame what fear can do to our countries moral's and laws. At least the supreme court is sideing with the constitution here.
Oops .. missed other post ... and can't delete.
-
Oh missed seeing this ... made my own post :) oops
-
I don't Gitmo closing until they have dealt with the very dangerous folks that are being detained there. The SCOTUS ruling says nothing about whether the detainees there are being held legitimately, all it says is that the President can't convene military tribunals to put them on trial for their actions unless the law is changed or they are given POW status.
For all the hue and cry about Gitmo, realize that many countries would have just put the terrorists up against the wall and shot them instead of taking them prisoner at all. I hear people calling for Gitmo to close, but I don't hear those same people come up with any answers about what to do with the terrorists taken prisoner. If you close Gitmo, what do you do with fighters taken on the battlefield in Afghanistan? Release them? Let them go back to planting car bombs in Kabul?
If there is no Gitmo to put prisoners in, what do you do when you catch an AQ terrorist? Put him up against the wall?
There is a legitimate need for a prison camp when you are fighting a war folks. I'm a lot less worried about 'world opinion' than I am about what those guys will do when they get out.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
I see the ruling saying basically they do not have a constitutional issue with this situation, just a lack of a clear cut law to provide for it. In other words. it's not that the situation is illegal, they just need to firm up law to provide for the situation they ended up backing into here.
-
impossible, the dictator boosh controls the super court , congress, voting machines, oil companies, and we no longer have a constitution, so how could this happen? must be a typo, recheck sources.
:noid
-
we transfer them out
the plane has engine trouble
the pilot jumps - the only one with a chute
problem solved
oh yeah, don't take anymore alive
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we transfer them out
the plane has engine trouble
the pilot jumps - the only one with a chute
problem solved
oh yeah, don't take anymore alive
Lets make sure we use an expendable aircraft, we don't want to loose too many $ on this operation here. Perhaps an airbus??? :p
For the sarcasm impaired the above was sarcasm. :rolleyes:
-
I hear ice cracking. 'Tis true nothing much may come to right wrongs and punish wrong-doers.
executive prerogative was scrutinized. good thing. i'm for it.
hap
the ruling: http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/jun/scotus/scotus_hamdan.pdf