Stupid court blocks war tribunals

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Jun 29, 2006.

  1. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    562
    LOL, talking about a horrible ruling.
    The Genevia convention applies to countries and not renegade people from
    various countries that kill anyone for any reason.
    They wouldn't give you any rights, matter of fact these killers would
    cut your head off for no reason and we might as well bend over.
    We deserve what we get for stupidity.
    This country is headed for a tremendous fall from within, then it will
    be really easy for our enemies to take over.
    It will make Global warming look like a cartoon in the distance.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201530,00.html

    I say lets do what some people want, lets close Gitmo and assist them
    in killing us!:shock: :dis:

    In other news its now a controversy to fly an American flag in an American classroom.
    And people wonder how the Roman Empire fell, we are becoming an example of that now days.
     
  2. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Take it easy. All this ruling says is Bush can't call these folks as "enemy combatants" and then try them like prisoners of war. All it is saying is that we need to define the term "enemy combatants" and acknowledge what rights they have. International law isn't a cafeteria. The President can't pick and choose whatever suits him. We need to be very careful as the first trials will set legal precedent. The court is trying to ensure the precedent is valid.


    Please do not make me again show how the Republic of the United States is nothing like the Empire of Rome.
     
  3. TigerWins

    TigerWins Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    157
    You can't have it both ways, SD. Many of us complain that liberal courts don't interpret laws, they change laws.

    The Supreme Court came to the conclusion, and rightfully so, that we don't have any laws on the books that will allow us to have these military commissions. I don't want the Supreme Court changing or creating laws like so many other courts are doing these days. Simply interpret existing laws.

    Justice Breyer said it correctly:

    Congress needs to address this issue...
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Save it for a new thread sometime on a slow wednesday. I'll take you on--there are many similarities. :wink:
     
  5. TigerFan23

    TigerFan23 USMC Tiger

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    213
    You know, I'd like to see that!
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Well, Bush has made the case from day one that these are enemy prisoners of war. If so, then they must be treated by the Geneva Convention, which means treating them the way that we expect our prisoners to be treated, allowing Red Cross access, and holding them until the war is over.

    But Bush has also made the case that they are terrorists, therefore criminals, which means there are established US legal proceedings to try and sentence them, like Moussawi was. Or they can be considered foreign national criminals and deported to their country to deal with--Bush has already done this with some.

    Or perhaps they could be considered war criminals, which means that there are international courts to try them, unless we renege on international treaties.

    The Supreme Court is saying that Bush can't invent new categories of prisoner or new "tribunals" without Congress changing some laws. The prisoners must fit into one of the existing ones.
     
  7. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    562
    I got a bit excited earlier, I'm ok now.

    But I will point out that FDR, a democrat had military tribunals for Nazi's
    who belonged to a country but Bush can't even though the enemy doesn't
    belong to any country.
    This doesn't make sense?

    Interesting read here, In Favor and against....
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701789.stm

    Btw, I still say it is a terrible ruling, what I mean another terrible decision
    based on law, Genevia convention that does not apply in this case.
    Not the results, the way they came to their decision.

    Congress still hasn't declared war on an enemy.
    I'm confused, are we at war with someone or are we not.
    Congress is part of the problem, democrat or republican.
    I am very outraged when it comes to Congress, they take on soft issues
    while skipping the difficult ones, they are worthless.
    It is their jobs to also to watch over the president which they quit doing
    about 15 years ago.
     
  8. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    I agree with you on the point that the Geneva Convention does not apply to this ruling because this has nothing to do with how they are being treated. This is about how some will be tried in courts, or military tribunals.

    I read a column after this from the Washington Post that is scary. Their point was that this was a rebuke of the Bush Administration and it shows that our system of justice still applies to ALL people. Wait......our system of justice applies to ALL American citizens.........if these people were at war against our country, they should be tried in military courts in the US....not France, not some international court......our courts. When a foreign national and a member of the group Al Qaida, who has declared war on us is captured, they should be tried in front of US war tribunals.

    They do not have the rights granted to Americans by the US Constitution. They have the rights granted to war prisoners by the Geneva Convention and we are following those rules. But the Geneva Convention rules do NOT say they must be tried at the Hague or some District court in the US so they can make a mockery of our criminal justice system.
     
  9. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Firstly, that isn't what this case is about. This is about their being no platform that enemy combatants can be tried from. The ruling says such a platform needs to exist.

    Secondly, rights of due process are granted to all humans by the Constitution, not just American citizens. The court has ruled on this many times.
     
  10. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    I understand what the Constitution says. Where did I say they should not be subject to due process? Answer........

    It does not grant "all humans" as you say, the right to due process in a US court of law. No one is saying they should be killed without a trial. It's where they will be tried that is the question. Bush wants war tribunals. The Constitution does not grant "all humans" the right to due process through the US Federal court system.

    If you ask me, the courts just added new intent under the 14th Amendment to mean "all humans" have a right to due process and to make a public mockery of the US Court Systems. IMO and 3 SC dissenters, the US IS granting them due process through military courts.
     

Share This Page