Reply With Quote
did we torture all detainees?
Otherwise, Bush wouldn't have released them, right?
did we torture all detainees?
We denied them habeas corpus, that's for sure. lol
If we could focus all this venom and vitriol info fighting Islamic terrorist (instead of Bush admin boogeymen), the war on terror could be won handily.
Bad talking SpursTalk posters are making us lose the war on terror. Incisive, Darrin.
that's rich. THat's why we have millitary tribunals.
Dissent, is something else.
Name calling, and losing one's temper is making us lose the war on sanity.
I'm serving, are you? lol
Do you know exactly what habeas corpus is?
the right to be brought to a judge to challenge detainment.
To deny habeas to the defendant, to give secret evidence and testimony against him, and to present confessions obtained by torture? To manufacture convictions? Agree 100%. That is how the military commissions were supposed to work, but the system was incompatible with sunshine and ultimately unpalatable to a (distinctly) conservative Supreme Court.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-05-2009 at 03:28 PM.
No, but I have several family members that are. For the record, I am not some torture advocate.
The military tribunals were not brought about by request of the DEFENDANT. They were brought about by the government, when they felt like it, with less than the bare necessities of what was needed for a fair trial.
does the cons ution apply to enemy combatants?
According to the Supreme Court in Hamdi and Boumedienne, yes it does.
You, Sir, seem to be a stranger to the purpose of a kangaroo court.
Fify. There's an important difference.
Yes.
Habeas corpus is VERY important.
so whats your oppinion?
About what?
in this case unlawful combatants.
and if you're so rigorous about the cons ution why don't you support financial freedom as well.
or do you cherry pick which liberty is more important?
The supremes weren't specific about it, but a good plurality of them in Hamdan pretty clearly intimated that habeas corpus should be extended to citizen and noncitizen detainees alike. The rules of detention and the limited due process allowed seem to make it nearly impossible for anyone to be released due to a habeas hearing, so I don't see the problem.
Geneva is a treaty obligation, there is a 1996 war crimes statute forbidding torture, and a Reagan era convention repudiating torture, just off the top of my head. None of these have been repealed, so in principle they're all still in effect.
My own spiritual values conduce to a similar result. Do unto others...
IMO terrorism belongs provincially to criminal procedure. The laws are on the books, a corpus of case law already exists. The courts are open, normally functioning and access to them is unhindered. Bring em back to the US and prosecute em.
If torture works so well and is legal besides, we'll have all the evidence we need, right?
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-05-2009 at 03:29 PM.
That's clear as mud. Come again? You're saying I don't support what, please?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
