How do you feel about

#2
#2
Fine Vol said:
terror suspects getting a trial? Bush says terrorist should not recieve a trial.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is what was said exactly. I think his objection is to terror suspects having access to rights the constitution gives us as citizens. Here in America we have a pretty high standard to prove guilt. They belong in military tribunals!
 
#3
#3
KB5252 said:
I don't believe that is what was said exactly. I think his objection is to terror suspects having access to rights the constitution gives us as citizens. Here in America we have a pretty high standard to prove guilt. They belong in military tribunals!
Click to expand...

i agree, then we should hang them
 
#4
#4
KB5252 said:
I don't believe that is what was said exactly. I think his objection is to terror suspects having access to rights the constitution gives us as citizens. Here in America we have a pretty high standard to prove guilt. They belong in military tribunals!
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
#5
#5
If you put aside national loyalty for a moment, its not that big a deal. Presumably, people in this country believe in the procedural safeguards provided to criminal defendants, not because the defendants are American citizens, but because we see the wisdom and value of having those safeguards in place to a) protect ourselves; and b) to act as a check on a powerful government.

If one believes in the system based on those values -- and not on where the defendant comes from -- then affording the detainees the same rights and safeguards makes sense. Legally, one can make a credible argument that military detainees are not entitled to the same protections based on things like jurisdiction and separation of powers. But from the perspective purely of being consistent philosophically, extending those rights to the detainess is warranted.
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
If you put aside national loyalty for a moment, its not that big a deal. Presumably, people in this country believe in the procedural safeguards provided to criminal defendants, not because the defendants are American citizens, but because we see the wisdom and value of having those safeguards in place to a) protect ourselves; and b) to act as a check on a powerful government.

If one believes in the system based on those values -- and not on where the defendant comes from -- then affording the detainees the same rights and safeguards makes sense. Legally, one can make a credible argument that military detainees are not entitled to the same protections based on things like jurisdiction and separation of powers. But from the perspective purely of being consistent philosophically, extending those rights to the detainess is warranted.
Click to expand...
Good stuff LAW I thought you would have some insight.
 
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
If you put aside national loyalty for a moment, its not that big a deal. Presumably, people in this country believe in the procedural safeguards provided to criminal defendants, not because the defendants are American citizens, but because we see the wisdom and value of having those safeguards in place to a) protect ourselves; and b) to act as a check on a powerful government.

If one believes in the system based on those values -- and not on where the defendant comes from -- then affording the detainees the same rights and safeguards makes sense. Legally, one can make a credible argument that military detainees are not entitled to the same protections based on things like jurisdiction and separation of powers. But from the perspective purely of being consistent philosophically, extending those rights to the detainess is warranted.
Click to expand...

I can see your perspective law but in the case of people who follow an ideology that is bent on destroying the west, our culture, freedoms and what have you, I find it very troubling that they will have the very laws that make us great work in their favor. I do not want innocent people locked up by any means but it has been determined that these people either have information that can help us or hurt us and I have to respect that and give the military the benefit of the doubt. What motivation would the military have for locking people up in camps when they know for certain they pose no risk or threat?
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
If you put aside national loyalty for a moment, its not that big a deal. Presumably, people in this country believe in the procedural safeguards provided to criminal defendants, not because the defendants are American citizens, but because we see the wisdom and value of having those safeguards in place to a) protect ourselves; and b) to act as a check on a powerful government.

If one believes in the system based on those values -- and not on where the defendant comes from -- then affording the detainees the same rights and safeguards makes sense. Legally, one can make a credible argument that military detainees are not entitled to the same protections based on things like jurisdiction and separation of powers. But from the perspective purely of being consistent philosophically, extending those rights to the detainess is warranted.
Click to expand...
Then you're sure to get spend your next few posts grousing about the volumes of liberal legislation that have been handed down over the past couple centuries that had nothing to do with the philosophy of the folks that wrote the rules.

In fact, I'm positive that in your profession, you spend much of your time debating very specific technicalities rather than broad sweeping philosophy or generalities.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, just your hypocrisy in making the point.
 
#10
#10
KB5252 said:
I can see your perspective law but in the case of people who follow an ideology that is bent on destroying the west, our culture, freedoms and what have you, I find it very troubling that they will have the very laws that make us great work in their favor. I do not want innocent people locked up by any means but it has been determined that these people either have information that can help us or hurt us and I have to respect that and give the military the benefit of the doubt. What motivation would the military have for locking people up in camps when they know for certain they pose no risk or threat?
Click to expand...


That's what is so tough about giving them the very procedure the guilty ones would seek to destroy. But the willingness to do that is also a big part of what makes our nation great.

Look at it this way. When a person commits a significant crime, one could argue that person has forfeited their rights under the law to be protected by a statute that is part of the system they breached in committing the crime. A great society (no pun intended) can maintain allegiance to the system even for those who are on trial precisely because they broke it.

Similarly, it says a lot for our country when a person suspected of being a terrorist and who would like to see that system destroyed is afforded the rights under it. I think a healthy portion of the detainees are guilty, just as are a healthy portion of criminal defendants in every day court. But if you satart picking and choosing who gets the benefit of the system based on who you think ahead of time deserves it, then we are in trouble over the long haul.


BigPapaVol said:
Then you're sure to get spend your next few posts grousing about the volumes of liberal legislation that have been handed down over the past couple centuries that had nothing to do with the philosophy of the folks that wrote the rules.

In fact, I'm positive that in your profession, you spend much of your time debating very specific technicalities rather than broad sweeping philosophy or generalities.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, just your hypocrisy in making the point.
Click to expand...


Those are two different thoughts.

As to "liberal legislation," even as someone who defends law enforcement in civil suits I take the view that the Constitution has some bedrock principles about the relationship between the state and the individual, and between branches of government, and between the states and the federal government. Those are principles that don't change.

But, in the every day application of those principles to our lives, the Constitution to me does have to be interpreted with an eye towards the realities of our lives. That is to say, while I don't think the principles change, I do think how they manifest themsevles in our daily lives does change. It has to. Things like interstate commerce aren't what they were 250 years ago.

In fact, I was reading a statute the other day, tangentially involved in a case, that discusses coming across robbers on the "highways" when you are on horseback. I just booked a flight to be on the other side of the continent in 5 hours. Now, the fundamental legal relationship between me and California, given that I am a citizen of Florida, shouldn't change. but the fact that I get there and back in a half a day does make a difference as to how to deal woith airport security, for example, rather than robbers when I am riding my trusty steed from here to Atlanta in a week.

As to your second point, you would be quite surprised. Yes, I point to a lot of legal rules for technical purposes and gain strategic advantage thereby. But a good part of my job is to defend and maintain basic legal principles, such as sovereign immunity for state and local agencies.

A typical scenario -- in fact one which is very much a part of my work literally today -- is defending the notion that the judiciary cannot tell a sheriff how perform executive function. Real life examples this very day include asking the judiciary to refrain from telling the sheriff how or when to move inmates around in a jail during a hurricane, or how to perform investigations into child abuse claims.

At its core, those cases deal with the question of how much discretion the executive has to have -- without looking over its shoulder for fear of lawsuits -- to just get the day-to-day business of government done. So while I may be moving to dismiss a case because someone blew a deadline based in local rules of civil procedure, I'm also constantly urging the court system to stay out of the way of people hired and/or appointed to actually manage the day to day affairs of the state.

There's nothing inconsistent about it.
 
#12
#12
so we're now back to the Clinton-era philosophy of dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

the next time some of these thugs are rounded up, military forensic experts are going to have to scour the battlefield for hair fragments, odd stains on cave walls, etc.
 
#13
#13
OrangeEmpire said:
A .22 shell cost less than a penny.......
Click to expand...


If they are on the battlefield and are legitimate targets, they get shot. No question. But when they get arrested or snatched up out of a province by one of our eltie squads and are taken to Gitmo for questioning, then that changes things, IMO.

Look, I concede the whole thing is very much debatable. Had the decision gone the other way, I wouldn't complain about it. Highly unlikely I'd ever be affected by it. But, I do see some merit to the decision that was handed down. That's all.
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
so we're now back to the Clinton-era philosophy of dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

the next time some of these thugs are rounded up, military forensic experts are going to have to scour the battlefield for hair fragments, odd stains on cave walls, etc.
Click to expand...


You are throwing around a lot of terms there. First, when it comes to terror suspects away from the battlefield, both Bush and Clinton treat it the same way -- which is to seize. We know where a lot of training camps are, and we bide our time and go in and snatch up the leadership when it makes sense. Bush doesn't bomb a house in Pakistan because a terrorist is in it any more than Clinton sent in a cruise missle to the Sudan to take out an Al-Qaeda guy.

Bush has a battlefield and the U.S. military engages in the tactics called for. But a terrorist we find in Athens or Syria or India is not shot at. Don't delude yourself.
 
#15
#15
how many members of the Taliban has the US apprehended from a souvenir stand on the Acropolis?
 
#16
#16
It is me or does any not see that when these people are let free they will go back and fight our boys in the field..................

It is just me?
 
#17
#17
OrangeEmpire said:
It is me or does any not see that when these people are let free they will go back and fight our boys in the field..................

It is just me?
Click to expand...


Its just you. There are a few hundred detaiees at Gitmo, at most. If a handful of them manage to gain release over the coming years, I think you can assume that they will be watched quite vigorously when sent home.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Its just you. There are a few hundred detaiees at Gitmo, at most. If a handful of them manage to gain release over the coming years, I think you can assume that they will be watched quite vigorously when sent home.
Click to expand...

What about the detainees on the prison ships and in eastern europe?

You are foolish enough to believe there are only a couple of hundred?
 
#19
#19
Here is another consequence to this decision. Situation...... the military comes across a group of men with weapons who look suspicious. They have fired no shots but fit the bill of enemy combatant. Will the military still try to detain these men knowing they will likely see a courtroom and be set free? Or will they kill these men simply because they have weapons and fit the bill?
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Its just you. There are a few hundred detaiees at Gitmo, at most. If a handful of them manage to gain release over the coming years, I think you can assume that they will be watched quite vigorously when sent home.
Click to expand...

no, it's not just OE, 30 detainees that were released have returned to the battlefield to kill again. Read Scalia's dissenting opinion.
 
#21
#21
KB5252 said:
Here is another consequence to this decision. Situation...... the military comes across a group of men with weapons who look suspicious. They have fired no shots but fit the bill of enemy combatant. Will the military still try to detain these men knowing they will likely see a courtroom and be set free? Or will they kill these men simply because they have weapons and fit the bill?
Click to expand...

The tried and true way is one in the head and two in the chest.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
Its just you. There are a few hundred detaiees at Gitmo, at most. If a handful of them manage to gain release over the coming years, I think you can assume that they will be watched quite vigorously when sent home.
Click to expand...

In may of these countries it will be next to impossible to keep tabs on who is where.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top