Reply With Quote
BTW elbamba, are you cool with having a parallel system of justice that to the rest of the world looks as if it were devised to enhance the expediency of conviction?
If that is how you read it, so be it. I can tell you that had Roberts not had to recuse himself it would have been 5-4. The chances of the Court allowing some form of the act to go forward in the future is great.
BTW elbamba, are you cool with having a parallel system of justice that to the rest of the world looks as if it were devised to enhance the expediency of conviction?
It is ours. And that means people will see it differently. If people could agree on the reading and function of laws there would be no need for a justice system. 200+ years of arguing over the cons ution and subsequent laws supports this view.
Given the current political trend of the SC, I have to agree with this.
I do not care about the rest of the world. Many mock our endless appeal system of justice from other countries. They know they can abuse it. Then again, I can say this because no one really cares what I think.
Courts overruling previous decisions is nothing new.
Also, I would urge you consider this, in what way is it prudent or wise to have given extrajudicial power of such amplitude to the President?
For example, is it imaginable or foreseeable in your view that some future President might abuse this power in some way?
Or is your grant of bona fides to the President on this account plenary?
What happened to equality before the law?
Is the US President above all that now?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-17-2010 at 06:43 PM.
Not at all.
The mockery got to you, eh? Maybe it got to a few others too.
They called us afraid, too effete and civilized, to abuse our own system of justice or the bad men in it.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-17-2010 at 06:46 PM.
I guess we showed them.
And apparently will again.
Too bad. They still care about us. They used to look up to us. They might still look to us for examples. Now, we've descended to their level of self-serving expediency.
We've set our old and much admired system of criminal justice to one side without very much ado. What message does that send?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-18-2010 at 12:11 PM.
Besides the not so trivial fact that we mainstreamed torture, if only briefly.
Now we have parsed it out and have developed incipient euphemisms for it.
Harsh interrogation.Enhanced interrogation techniques.
I wonder what they'll parse rape too? enhanced search?
The normal way we treat defendants before the law.
The way we always did, until a few years ago.
'member?
I don't recall brittish, indians, rebels, and mexicans getting those.
Putting these terrorists in our criminal system treats them like regular criminals when they aren't. They are at war with us and vise versa.
But no. Instead we go Midnight Express on their asses.
What are you referring to, please? Can you be more specific ?
Were you referring to the question of access to -- Immigration court? Military courts? Federal courts? --- for certain classes of prisoners?
Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes?
If they plausibly belong to the routine course of military justice, let the routine course of military justice take them. But that isn't what we have.
What we have now is ad hoc justice on a separate track. There's a big difference. If the military must try them, at least make the process credibly fair, instead of strapping them in -- like we do now-- for a cynically expedient carnival ride that either ends in prison or indefinite detention, post verdict.
Sure. Give em a normal military trial. That'd be much better than what we do now. I might even go for that were it submitted, and criminal action against them already ruled out.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-17-2010 at 08:12 PM.
WHO? What country are you so worried about? Which country has a better system of justice? If they look to us, why do they or did they not copy us. Our system of justice was based primarily on England's system of justice.
I'm not worried about another country.I'm worried about what we're becoming.
Anglo-American legal custom is the lingua franca globally speaking, is it not?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
