Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

One thing I do, though, is Scalia hearing argument on the Enemy Combatant Detention case this week just after he has publicly stated his decision on the case in advance of it being heard. As a jurist on the land's highest court, that's true obscenity.

With this I agree. It is important that we can all pretend that each of the justices hasn't already decided 99% of the cases before they actually reach the court.

I actually have no problem with the idea that the people at Guantanamo have no right to jury trials or whatever. They are essentially POWs and such a right has never attached.

However, as near as I can tell, we are no longer engaged in a war with Afghanistan which means it is time for all of those people to be returned home and let the government of Afghanistan decide what to do with people who fought on that side of the war.

Since we are no longer at war, they are no longer the equivalent of POWs, which means we now need a good reason for imprisonment and need to prove it.


And GC, of course he doesn't approve of it. If he did it wouldn't be an insult.

[SacTown Chronic]

Yeah, GC, to the rest of the country it's an insult. On the LoT it's just bragging about your Friday night.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, they are in a legal limbo, at the whim of - - - are we still insisting that we are a democratic republic? Or is a nation which imprisons POWs after a war is over, detaining them indefinitely while specifically denying they have any rights under federal law, international law or the Geneva Conventions .... tell me again what form of government that is?

[SacTown Chronic]

It's a CHRISTIAN government, baby!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I actually have no problem with the idea that the people at Guantanamo have no right to jury trials or whatever. They are essentially POWs and such a right has never attached.

Sort of. The problem as I see it is that the government's trying to play it both ways. "These are POWs, so we have a right to try them in tribunals." Okay fine, but at the same time they're saying, "These are ununiformed 'enemy combatants' and therefore we are under no obligation to grant them even the most basic rights afforded POWs."

Either they're POWs or they aren't.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Yeah, GC, to the rest of the country it's an insult. On the LoT it's just bragging about your Friday night.

Or last night.



I've said too much.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yes, they are in a legal limbo, at the whim of - - - are we still insisting that we are a democratic republic?

The doing of bad things is in no way contradictory with being a democratic republic so I have no problem keeping the label.

GD, I don't disagree that the government is trying have its cake and eat it to. I was only sharing how I view the people at Guantanamo. And by that perspective they should either have all been released a couple years ago regardless of how complicit they were with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Or, when the war was essentially over, they should have been converted from combatants to criminals and given due process. And since most of their criminal acts would have been in Afghanistan, they should be returned to Afghanistan for that due process.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

It's a CHRISTIAN government, baby!

Heheh, that reminds me of something I just heard (hmmm, maybe another tangent coming on?)

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Hey, if I'm angry about it, it fits in this thread. Right?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

I think that's a great quote.

[JWBear]

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

That is perfect! I love it!