Reply With Quote
It isn't.How is the idea that we are evil discredited simply by moving the detainees to Illinois?
The evil isn't discredited in any way. Per contra the evil is taken for granted, then repatriated to the USA from Gitmo.
Nah.
It isn't.How is the idea that we are evil discredited simply by moving the detainees to Illinois?
The evil isn't discredited in any way. Per contra the evil is taken for granted, then repatriated to the USA from Gitmo.
This action doesn't alleviate evil, it compounds it.
Precisely my point. What we do with them is a completely separate issue from where we do it. So if it doesn't matter where we keep them, why not just leave them there and save that $230 million for something better? Like building some roads, or funding another couple of months for unemployment benefits for however many workers that would cover. Or better yet, just don't spend it!
Alas, the political need for Obama to keep his promise probably trumps any tough-minded fiscal bargains to be had.
Obama's setting an even worse example than Gitmo, by bringing it home.
What Obama's predecessor did in our name in third-world holes, and for which candidate Obama criticized him scathingly, Obama will soon be doing here, on American soil.
Yes. Hey, if it's good for terrerererests, then why not those evil drug dealers?
No, opening that facility in Illinois will bring over thousands of jobs for that city. That city is hard hit on employment and this is what that city could most definantly use to tackle this problem. I know a few people that live there and they dont seem to object to this idea. it may cost $230 million, but if that is what itll take for them to get jobs and feed their families then so be it.
Hard to conceive the two LE bureaucracies not bleeding through to some degree. With us being at war in a narco-state and so forth.
Everybody loves pork.
This country is a farce, wrapped inside a satire, and stuck inside a steaming pile of . I'm out.
Where are you moving to?
I believe that there is room to debate the cons utionality of military tribunals.
Article 3 Section 2 states:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
This clearly give the Congress the authority to try the cases anywhere they so chose, it could be the middle of the ocean or the moon if we go by this language alone.
Of course the Fifth amendment states:
"No person shall be held to answer for...crime...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
This could be read to give the government the authority to hold the detainee for as long as there is a war or public danger. Certainly we could both agree that a potential terrorist attack by any individual suspected of being a terrorist would rise to the level of a public danger to the USA.
The next question begs, who is actually en led to the protection and rights under the cons uion. This is spelled out in the 14th amendment which states that an American citizen is:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
IMHO, we have used military tribunals in this country since before we were a nation under Washington and I see no reason to stop now. As much as I would love to buy into the notion that we are the examples of freedom and peace, I say, if a terrorist is going to piss on my cons ution and make a mockery of my legal system, screw off.
There is no protection under the cons ution for non-citizens, much less people who would kill you or me without a second thought. Are we going to detain some innocent people, perhaps, life is unfair, if there is a perfect system that gets it right 100% of the time, I have not seen it yet.
Having said that, I understand that this is only if we are looking at the cons ution itself, not including subsequent laws or judicial rulings.
Where the courts are open, access to them is unimpeded and they are functioning normally, what do we need military commissions for?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-04-2010 at 03:49 AM.
Did the founding fathers or Lincoln try enemy soldiers in civilian courts?
Particularly since the occasion for them obviously fits routinely used definitions of terrorism in the criminal law?
We're not talking about soldiers here.
That merely addresses the venue where the TRIAL needs to happen. It doesn't give liberty to Congress to stipulate what justice system will be utilized in said trial. Actually, the Cons ution is pretty clear about Judicial powers.
Nice. You skipped the part: ..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"...
You forgot to spell where it says only American Citizens are en led to the protection and rights under the cons ution... As WH pointed out earlier, you won't really find a judge that sides with you on that...
The only people pissing on the cons ution is the same people that think it's a goddamn piece of paper. People like you that takes a on decades of jurisprudence to implement a 'novel' interpretation that goes against everything this country stands for.
Yeps, that's basically it.
Then spell it out for me because when I read the cons ution it is not so clear. Especially when a crime does not take place in a particular state or territory of the USA.
If Jurisdiction or venue is appropriate in another court then it should be carried out in the other Court. There is nothing in the cons ution that states that enemy combatants have the right to be given american rights and privileges and access to civilian courts. Please show me where it gives these rights in the cons ution.
No need to include it. Isn't it obvious that the 5th amendment is providing an exception during a time of war or public emergency when one might be deprived of life liberty and property without due process.
Millitary tribunals have been used in every war this country has ever fought in. Like I said, Washington even used them before the cons ution. Lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Madison, McKinley, and so on.
Well it certainly says who is protected correct? It doesn't say that only Americans are protected, but it also doesn't say that you cant have military tribunals so it must be allowed by your logic.
Law is changed all the time. The cons ution grants congress the power to clarify what it leaves out. What decades of jurisprudence am I taking a " " on?
Should Ghalani (sp) get his trial thrown out for failure to give him a speedy trial? His attorney has filed a motion stating as much. Who is really making the cons ution?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
