Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 29 2006,17:47)

If it’s unacceptable, then I assume that you think that Bush should stop using water-boarding. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes or no.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 29 2006,17:47)

I understood what phoo was saying. Must be some liberal 6th sense - huh?

No, you just reflexively side with anyone who disagrees with me. That’s to be expected by your constant snide remarks, namecalling and ad hominems.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Yes or no.

Ha, ha.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
No, you just reflexively side with anyone who disagrees with me. That’s to be expected by your constant snide remarks, namecalling and ad hominems.

And that’s not true. Witness my comment to phoo about Clinton & the impeachment, which you actually praised me for.

The opinion leaves open the possibility of congress drafting rules that would allow military trials - and Roberts sat this one out, since he was involved on the gov’t side at the appellate level, it was 5-3, with Kennedy as the swing, all they need is to get him to agree to some rules for the military trial, and then the case goes the other way. And guess what - Frist will be introducing a bill next week that will do just that.

This is consistent with the unitary executive idea, but Kennedy doesn’t hold that theory, of course. Roberts does.

Interesting, very interesting.

Simple solution IMHO. I’d release the bastards and send a hit squad out for them and make sure nobody knew.

If this ruling came out within 1 year of 911, the general populous wouldn’t give two hoots about constitutional law period. Don’t forget what happened that day.

Now I’m not saying Bush is the messiah, but sometimes our rights and freedoms cloak harmfull intentions and I think his drastic measures are needed in such drastic times.

Except the Iraq thing, every other move he’s made has been wise.

Quote (Guest @ June 29 2006,13:39)
Except the Iraq thing, every other move he’s made has been wise.

Except for the Iraq thing he’s OK? Except for the Iraq thing. It’s a thing to you? Tony Snow says 2500 US soldiers dead are just a number. It’s the Iraq THING. How many…50,000?..100,000… innocents dead. It’s just a frickin’ THING. How many soldiers wounded? How many wounded for life? But it’s just a THING. And other than that GW is a great guy and other than that Holocaust thing Hitler is OK too?

Shame on you.

KingFish
Quote (Guest @ June 30 2006,02:37)
Simple solution IMHO. I'd release the bastards and send a hit squad out for them and make sure nobody knew.

If this ruling came out within 1 year of 911, the general populous wouldn't give two hoots about constitutional law period. Don't forget what happened that day.

Now I'm not saying Bush is the messiah, but sometimes our rights and freedoms cloak harmfull intentions and I think his drastic measures are needed in such drastic times.

Do you mean to say that rights should be ignored when it is expedient to do so? I'd like to see some principle that would allow us to distinguish between cases in which rights ought to be respected and cases in which they should be ignored.

Note that whatever the principle is, it will probably entail the theoretical rejection of rights - and I cannot think of anything more dangerous, more anti-democratic, more totalitarian, than that, Stu.

So, what's the principle, Stu?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Now I’m not saying Bush is the messiah, but sometimes our rights and freedoms cloak harmfull intentions and I think his drastic measures are needed in such drastic times.

I respect your point of view and I do understand it, but I’m of the opinion that we do not need to destory the Constitution to save it.

These terrorists are indeed bad but we need to put them & the fight against them into the correct persecptive, i.e., they do not pose the threat that say Nazi Germany, cold war Russia or militarist Japan did. Sure Al Qaeda caught us with our pants down on 9/11 but part of that was our security fawls which we’ve tigthten up now. And yes, they could be dangerous with a nuke (although it would still be VERY hard for them to get one & really use it).

I also think terrorist issue has been overblown by the government - The Myth of Al Qaeda
Quote (TomS @ June 30 2006,09:43)
So, what's the principle, Stu?

Not really principle here Tom more of a point that the wheels of legislative change turn very slowly. I'm not too worked up about this issue, I think it's an excercise in caution that is needed.

Kingfish......yes the Iraq situation is horrific. I wish I was more poetic about it. You should try decaffe there buddy.

Well, those wheels have been moving very quickly in the last few years - usually they move slowly because both parties have a hand in things. But not so in the last few years. How long did it take to get the Patriot Act written and passed? A month?

Anyway, I sure would like to see what the principle is that would allow us to say, “here is a case where we should ignore rights.” Perhaps a definition of “drastic times” would be useful?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Except for the Iraq thing he’s OK? Except for the Iraq thing. It’s a thing to you? Tony Snow says 2500 US soldiers dead are just a number. It’s the Iraq THING. How many…50,000?..100,000… innocents dead. It’s just a frickin’ THING. How many soldiers wounded? How many wounded for life? But it’s just a THING. And other than that GW is a great guy and other than that Holocaust thing Hitler is OK too?

Shame on you.

KingFish


Got a son-in-law back from “the thing” a couple of months ago. He was recon, a sniper I think, but I don’t know.

He’s a changed guy. Used to be a punk, now he’s just quiet. My daughter said he screamed a lot in his sleep, but she don’t know any more, they’ve split up now.

Never saw him for a while until last Tuesday, that’s when his brother was shipping out to go over there too. Eric was in tears and said he’d shoot Len in the leg rather than let him go over there. He never did shoot him though, so now Len is gone.

I talked to Eric for a while, he’s now stacking shelves in Fry’s supermarket. He was given a General Discharge because of uncontrolled high blood sugar so he receives no benefits.

Strange thing is though, his uncontrolled blood sugar wasn’t any problem when he was out in Iraq, only when he came home.

StuH and ksdb: Seems to me that the war out there is just an academic thing for you two. And that’s the way the government are trying to make it, so I suppose it’s not your fault. But a lot of people are going through very real shit because of it.

It sucks.

My brother in law is in the Canadian Forces and may be posted in Afghanistan soon, he came back from Bosnia not that long ago. I asked him how he felt about this move as we have lost some of our soldiers here and this is a mission that has it’s dessenters in my country. He told me, “I wasn’t drafted, this is my job.”

Over 50% of the country supports my Prime Minister’s decision to send my brother in law over there. That doesn’t lessen the impact on my family’s worry and fright does it. So regardless of who holds the moral authority on such issues the solution is simple, serve or don’t serve. It’s a choice.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Re-read your last sentence. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out why that is the case.

Sorry, I haven’t been around to keep up with the thread.

AFAICS, there’s more to keeping them in cuba than the likelyhood of other “suspected” terrorists trying to free them. Imo, keeping them in Cuba is a cop out and getting others to do the dirty work.

My point was that “suspected”, “proven”, or otherwise, is that basically David Hicks (amongst others most likely) is stuck there without recourse, the slimmest of (while sounding serious also have the side effect of sounding invented for the situation) charges, legal protection or a fair trial. How is that constitutional?

Willy.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Enemy combatants detained from battlefields in other countries do not have inherent rights granted to American citizens. They are not merely “suspects.”

No, but they have rights as determined by the the Geneva Convention in regards to the treatment of prisoners in a war situation - which apparently GWB says he declared as a “war on terrorism” and also that it was over.

So, are they POWs, or are they criminals? If they are crims, why aren’t they getting their fair trial (within a reasonable time frame)? If they are POWs and the war is over, why aren’t they being sent home?

From Amnesty International (via Wiki)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
“Democratic principles and values are essential tools in the fight against terrorism. Any successful strategy for dealing with terrorism requires terrorists to be isolated. Consequently, the preference must be to treat terrorism as criminal acts to be handled through existing systems of law enforcement and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We recommend: (1) taking effective measures to make impunity impossible either for acts of terrorism or for the abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. (2) the incorporation of human rights laws in all anti-terrorism programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies.”.

And also from Wiki
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and US constitutional standards outlawing such practices.


Willy.
Quote (Willy @ July 01 2006,09:43)
My point was that "suspected", "proven", or otherwise, is that basically David Hicks (amongst others most likely) is stuck there without recourse, the slimmest of (while sounding serious also have the side effect of sounding invented for the situation) charges, legal protection or a fair trial. How is that constitutional?

Willy.

A lot of folks think it isn't. :angry:

If you don’t know Jesus he cannot save you…

Quote (Seamus @ July 02 2006,19:08)
If you don't know Jesus he cannot save you........

You mean "know" in the Biblical sense, of course.