quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

The Court just decided was flawed legal thinking situated the prison in Guantanamo Bay for the transparent reason of creating a "black hole" outside the reach of The Justice's ...

However the effect of the ruling was that it was NOT outside their reach. Your position points to flawed logic.

Why is it that t seems that every response isn't directly to point, but instead is a; "yeah but..."? Should I take the 'yeah' part as agreement to the point, and the 'but...' something new to consider?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

The Court just decided was flawed legal thinking situated the prison in Guantanamo Bay for the transparent reason of creating a "black hole" outside the reach of The Justice's ...

However the effect of the ruling was that it was NOT outside their reach. Your position points to flawed logic.

Why is it that t seems that every response isn't directly to point, but instead is a; "yeah but..."? Should I take the 'yeah' part as agreement to the point, and the 'but...' something new to consider?

Your kidding right ,You make my argument and assert that it proves yours ...go back and read what I said ...the White House Lawyers those paragons of legal expediency gave the White House a shakey legal opinion to support what Bush and Co. wanted to do ....The Courts opinion served to expose the flaw in the argument....as I said not rocket science so simple I can understand it yet You fail to..WHY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Now, "foreign nationals" are subject to the "laws" of the U.S.???

Not really.

US Contractors and Employees *are* subject to the "laws" of the U.S.
US Soliders *are* subject to the "laws" of the U.S.
US Sailors *are* subject to the "laws" of the U.S.
US Spies *are* subject to the "laws" of the U.S.
US Prison Guards *are* subject the the "laws" of the U.S.
US Torturers *are* subject to the "laws" of the U.S.
US Executioners *are* subject to the "laws" of the U.S.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Anyone speak the language of the video? Can you tell if Mr. Armstrong was Mirandized and processed according to US Constitutional law? After all, he was a US Citizen, in pretty much the same area where these soldiers/enemy combatants/criminals/patriots/freedom fighters (pick one) originated.

quote:

Now, this raises a legitimate area of debate regarding the wisdom of such a move. There are those who will label themselves pragmatic who see nothing terminally wrong about it. There are those who label themselves ethical who feel that it is a completely wrong decision. The only common ground between the two is that both sides believe they have the best interests of the West at heart.

It has been argued that the 'war on terror' is less a military campaign and more a war of ideas or cultures. Seems to me that we have a mirror image of such a war happening within our own culture. From what i've read about Islam there is another mirror war happening inside that culture.

quote:

We live in interesting times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Raechard, I saw we follow the accords of the Geneva Conventions and execute them as "spies."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Or were his  votes provided by members of his 'Skull & Bones' club or the infamous 'Illuminati'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

DK,
Your convoluted logic is incredible, but I guess that is what you need to rationalize your position. Good for you if it makes you happy.

They are being held in Gitmo. It should be noted that it is a military base, LEASED from Cuba, NOT US territory. Where were they captured? If the next batch are sent to a similar US base on leased land in the UK does this ruling prevail? Why doesn't that same rule apply to every house and every person currently in the same county?

quote:

Don't know if you are arguing for or against their treatment as POW's. I guess that will be determined on how comfortable you are with your position based upon the question. With that in mind, using your reference to Korea and Vietnam; these prisoners were released after the cessation of all hostilities. Agreeing with your point, I'd support doing the exact same thing in this circumstance. Care to disagree with yourself?

However, as I recall these weren't "declared wars" either were they? Either your point is irrelevant or applying it consistently as I've noted previously; Declaration (quack), funding (walk), bombs and bullets flying (fly) it's war (duck). Again, like to continue the point, or back away?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc we hold them in a location we control in perpetuity ergo they qualify that simple,and yes moving them to some other location under the control and jurisdiction of U.S. forces and they still qualify...You don't have to like it ...but after the ruling it is so

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Raechard, I saw we follow the accords of the Geneva Conventions and execute them as "spies."

But than we can't claim to have captured all of them on a battefield...what were these spies doing in a combat zone....it is amazing how far some would go tying themselves in knots just to deny some transparency to the process...if terrorist they be ,prove it and do what the law calls for depending on the specific crime, where is the problem....Bush and Co. wouldn't be holding men in appalling conditions for years under flimsy or no actual evidence...would they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

DK,
Your convoluted logic is incredible, but I guess that is what you need to rationalize your position. Good for you if it makes you happy.

They are being held in Gitmo. It should be noted that it is a military base, LEASED from Cuba, NOT US territory. Where were they captured? If the next batch are sent to a similar US base on leased land in the UK does this ruling prevail? Why doesn't that same rule apply to every house and every person currently in the same county?

Is every house and person in the UK under the direct control of the US government? But if you're being held prisoner anywhere by the US government then the US government is still bound by the US Constitution to allow Habeas Corpus. As you pointed out.

quote:

Don't know if you are arguing for or against their treatment as POW's. I guess that will be determined on how comfortable you are with your position based upon the question. With that in mind, using your reference to Korea and Vietnam; these prisoners were released after the cessation of all hostilities. Agreeing with your point, I'd support doing the exact same thing in this circumstance. Care to disagree with yourself?

However, as I recall these weren't "declared wars" either were they? Either your point is irrelevant or applying it consistently as I've noted previously; Declaration (quack), funding (walk), bombs and bullets flying (fly) it's war (duck). Again, like to continue the point, or back away?

Classify them as POWs and they get immediately released and GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. are all indicted immediately for willful violations of the Geneva Conventions. I'm fine with that although I would prefer enough forewarning to get to DC so as to watch those perp walks in person.

As to the declared wars thing aren't you reading what I wrote? Korea and Vietnam were not legally wars for the US so the US could not hold POWs. Thats why we turned prisoners over to those who could hold them as POWs. Legally the US is not at war with anyone and therefore cannot hold POWs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

We were taught in the 1960's in high school that the judicial branch was there to "keep in check" the executive and legislative branches of government, not to do their jobs for them or to dictate to The People.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Raechard, I saw we follow the accords of the Geneva Conventions and execute them as "spies."

But than we can't claim to have captured all of them on a battefield...what were these spies doing in a combat zone....it is amazing how far some would go tying themselves in knots just to deny some transparency to the process...if terrorist they be ,prove it and do what the law calls for depending on the specific crime, where is the problem....Bush and Co. wouldn't be holding men in appalling conditions for years under flimsy or no actual evidence...would they?

Slvemike, I wasn't aware that spies were "restricted" to the battlefield.
We executed German spies on U.S. soil during ww2 no?

You know, just because someone goes to law school doesn't mean they're "smart."
It just means they went to law school.
Years ago up in New Hampshire we had a lawyer who was convicted of killing his wife. I think his name was "Seth Bader" or something close to that.
Big trial, Newspapers, Press etc. "Premeditated". "Step son involved."
A few years before that people were calling him,...you guessed it, "a brilliant legal scholor!" "On his way to a possable judicial appointment."
He wasn't that smart was he? He got caught. "Fucking Brilliant!"
So who are the "brilliant legal scholors" on the Supreme court?
The "5" who voted "for" or the "4" who voted against?
They don't call them "opinions" for no reason.
I don't understand why (some) judges these days seem to think they can go "extra legal" and "legislate from the bench."
And people talk about "gray areas?"
This is why I think all employees of government need to have "job descriptions" just like in the private sector and especially the higher up they are!
We were taught in the 1960's in high school that the judicial branch was there to "keep in check" the executive and legislative branches of government, not to do their jobs for them or to dictate to The People.
How did we arrive at the point that various "interest groups" can go "judge shopping?"