Only this administration could call THIS a victory.

[JakeStarkey]

Dont bother them with facts.

Yes, it's legal, as long as (1) the Supreme Court retains the doctrine of judicial review, and (2) no one thinks ratifying a treaty supplants the Constitution. Yes, authorization of force is constitutional. However, constitutional does not exempt any American, including the President or RGS or daveman, of personal and culpable responsibility for war crimes.

We prosecute those who have committed war crimes. Note I'm talking about real war crimes, not the definition you on the left use.

By the by, daveman, when did you start trusting the CFR?

Why would I not? They're right in the article I linked.

Anybody who disagrees with you is to your left, daveman, so I am not worried abourt a wannabee conservative like you. The next you attack a publication to the "left" I will remind you of that. A war crime is a war crime, daveman, and your internet opinion does not supplant the defintiion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

When in our history, have captured prisoners during World War I, World War II, or even the Civil War; have ever been given a civilian trial? Can anyone site such a case? The attack on Pearl Harbor generated no such response, as to bring those responsible to a trial. However, our nation has decided to take a whole new direction when dealing with a terrorist group thats ties itself to a single religious ideology, who plots constant attacks against our country.

Article V under the Amendments to the Constitution reads: No person shall be held to answer for a capital punishment, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.

Instead, this administration has chosen to make a mockery of our military, in order to pacify and please the world. As if the old "flower power image" of a loving people to the nations of the world, is somehow more valuable than the protection of its citizens from further aggressive attacks. In the end, such efforts have not prevented the Fort Hood people of the world, from desiring to make their terrorist message heard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva. Then the admin was pushed by international condemnation and, more importantly, by the Supreme Court to recognize that even criminals have certain rights under the law. If Bush and his ilk had recognized them under Geneva the bad guys could have weeded out, tribunaled, and long been worm meat by now. The Obama admin has to try to put it all to right.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva. Then the admin was pushed by international condemnation and, more importantly, by the Supreme Court to recognize that even criminals have certain rights under the law. If Bush and his ilk had recognized them under Geneva the bad guys could have weeded out, tribunaled, and long been worm meat by now. The Obama admin has to try to put it all to right.

Let me see if I can break this down for you, and teach you something, as it is very clear you are missing a "key" point here. First of all, the opinions of another nation over how the United States should govern itself are (to put it bluntly) irrelevant. The ONLY source our country, and its Supreme Court justices, needs to follow is our own Constitution. To look elsewhere to form an opinion on how our nation should govern, is to have no respect for the document that has established this great country nor the founders that died to give birth the idea of "individual freedom".

Second... unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of understanding with many liberals between what classifies someone as a "criminal" and what classifies them as an enemy combatant. Now a criminal (like a serial killer for example) is someone who chooses to take their aggression out against an individual or a particular group of individuals. An enemy combatant however, is determined to use their aggression in an organized coordinated effort against an entire NATION. Again, I site Pearl Harbor, the most horrific attack on American soil for its time. As a result of the tragic loss of all those sailors; there were no subpoenas issued, no individual (miranda) rights given, and no civilian courts ever used for those japanese who were captured during that war. Now 9-11, an equally traumatic time in our nations history, saw commercial airliners being used as a weapon against the World Trade Center AND the Pentagon in the form of an organized attack. This was not a single incident mean to harm an individual or group, but an organized calculated assault (which included a military federal building) with a sole purpose of sending a message to an entire nation!! This form of aggression on September 11, 2001 is no different than the intended strike on Pearl Harbor.
Now if you can find a time in our nation's history (World War II, World War I, the Civil War, or even the Revolutionary War) in which captured prisoners during a time of war were given a civilian trial, then I will retract my statement and agree with you. Until then, I will be here awaiting your historical facts on the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva. Then the admin was pushed by international condemnation and, more importantly, by the Supreme Court to recognize that even criminals have certain rights under the law. If Bush and his ilk had recognized them under Geneva the bad guys could have weeded out, tribunaled, and long been worm meat by now. The Obama admin has to try to put it all to right.

Let me see if I can break this down for you, and teach you something, as it is very clear you are missing a "key" point here. First of all, the opinions of another nation over how the United States should govern itself are (to put it bluntly) irrelevant. The ONLY source our country, and its Supreme Court justices, needs to follow is our own Constitution. <snip: the rest does not apply> .

Thanks for revealing how your pompous ignorance lost you the day. Any treaty we sign becomes part of American law, did you not know that? The point is that some argue that we as a sovereign nation can ignore the parts of Geneva we do not like. However, the rest of the Geneva signatories do not have to abide by our interpretation, and can arrest, try, convict, and punish American military personnel considered to be war criminals under Geneva.

Doesn't matter if you don't like it or if you disagree, the rest of the world can hold our folks for violations of Geneva and act accordingly when they get hold of our people whom they believe have crossed the line. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, the administration can try a POW wherever the administration decides to try the accused. If that's in civilian court, so be it. It is certainly constitutionally legal, and such a trial negates the appearance of violating Geneva prohibitions.

Why do you think so many senior people in Bush's administration and responsible for making decisions about this issue and the war in general don't travel to Europe or Canada. Many of them will never leave the U.S. for fear of arrest.

Rightfully so. If you disagree, then take it up with the souls of the executed Germans, Italians, and Japanese after WWII for ignoring Geneva.

Use your head, son.

 

[daveman]

Dont bother them with facts.

It's funny -- they all screech "International law!!!" when it supports their position, but ignore the bits that authorize us to do what they do.

It's funny -- you all screech "Constitution!!!!!" when it comes to Obamacare, but ignore the bits that have to do with foreign policy.

Not really, but thanks for your input.

 

[daveman]

No foreign treaty has greater authority than our own Constitution, and doesn't automatically make something constitutional.

Let me guess: You're one of those people who wanted to have Bush tried at the Hague under "international law", aren't you?

Wrong.

Uh huh.

 

[daveman]

Anybody who disagrees with you is to your left, daveman...

No, only people who are to the left of me. You know, like you, you Obama cheerleader.

so I am not worried abourt a wannabee conservative like you.

That's rich, coming from someone who never misses a chance to spout DNC talking points.

The next you attack a publication to the "left" I will remind you of that.

You'll remind me that you're wrong? I have no doubt you will.

A war crime is a war crime, daveman, and your internet opinion does not supplant the defintiion.

Which one...the real one, or the one you leftists have distorted to mean "anything we don't like"?

 

[daveman]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva.

Because, since they're illegal combatants, they don't qualify for GC protections.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let me guess: You're one of those people who wanted to have Bush tried at the Hague under "international law", aren't you?

Wrong.

Uh huh.

Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? In the words of Mike Tyson, I doubt it seriously.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva.

Because, since they're illegal combatants, they don't qualify for GC protections.

And where does the Constitution specify who is or is not an illegal combatant, and who does the Constitution vest with the authority to make that determination? No where, and nobody are the correct answers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

<snip>.

Which one...the real one, or the one you leftists have distorted to mean "anything we don't like"?[/QUOTE] The ones under the law that you don't like. The ones that protected your butt on active duty. Those. Moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva.

Because, since they're illegal combatants, they don't qualify for GC protections.

Nope, minority opinion on your part. (1) Non-uniformed guerrillas have gained recognition in the last several decades. (2) The U.S. does not have under international law the right to choose and pick what the Convention deems or does not deem correct. (3) It is #2 where the U.S. crossed line into no-man's land. That is why our former Bush folks who ran the war don't travel abroad to European countries where they may be arrested for war crimes.

 

[daveman]

Wrong.

Uh huh.

Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? In the words of Mike Tyson, I doubt it seriously.

Just the impression I get.

 

[daveman]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva.

Because, since they're illegal combatants, they don't qualify for GC protections.

And where does the Constitution specify who is or is not an illegal combatant, and who does the Constitution vest with the authority to make that determination? No where, and nobody are the correct answers.

I'm not talking about the Constitution; I'm talking about the Geneva Conventions, which contain strict guidelines of who is to be afforded POW status and the protection attached to that status. Terrorists don't fall under those guidelines.

 

[daveman]

<snip>

Why did you remove the part where I pointed out that you're a leftist cheerleader, Jake? Do you really think anyone hasn't noticed by now?

Which one...the real one, or the one you leftists have distorted to mean "anything we don't like"?

The ones under the law that you don't like. The ones that protected your butt on active duty. Those. Moron.

Who says I don't like it? I'm well aware of the protections I'm afforded as a legal combatant. I'm also aware that no matter how much handwringing and understanding root causes you do, our enemies aren't likely to afford me those protections.

You can't negotiate with them, Jake. They want you dead.

 

[daveman]

Red herring, Shakles. Read and learn. The point is that the POWs were denied protection under Geneva.

Because, since they're illegal combatants, they don't qualify for GC protections.

Nope, minority opinion on your part. (1) Non-uniformed guerrillas have gained recognition in the last several decades.

Source your claims, boy. I know you want me to take your word for it just because you say so, but it ain't happenin'.

(2) The U.S. does not have under international law the right to choose and pick what the Convention deems or does not deem correct. (3) It is #2 where the U.S. crossed line into no-man's land. That is why our former Bush folks who ran the war don't travel abroad to European countries where they may be arrested for war crimes.

Poor Jake. No BUSHCHENEYROVE perp walk. No Hague. No war crimes trial. Your 24 business hours are up.

Your Fitzmas tree is dead. You really should throw it out on the curb.

 

[ConHog]

Rules are a bit different in a DECLARED war.

what difference does it make if it's declared or not?

In my opinion US troops should not be used for combat on foreign soild with an official declaration of war.
I suspect the founding fathers felt the same way.

You suspect wrong. Our founding fathers were fine with and in fact used miltary action short of war. That is why the POTUS has constitutional authority to send troops into combat for up to 90 days without Congressional approval.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Uh huh.

Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? In the words of Mike Tyson, I doubt it seriously.

Just the impression I get.

So why would I lie? I'm not running for office. I have never called for Bush's prosecution by a foreign entity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because, since they're illegal combatants, they don't qualify for GC protections.

And where does the Constitution specify who is or is not an illegal combatant, and who does the Constitution vest with the authority to make that determination? No where, and nobody are the correct answers.

I'm not talking about the Constitution; I'm talking about the Geneva Conventions, which contain strict guidelines of who is to be afforded POW status and the protection attached to that status. Terrorists don't fall under those guidelines.

One has to talk about the Constitution if they're talking about the U.S. government. Since it is the U.S. government affixing the title "enemy combatant" to people we need to look at the Constitution for where they get this authority. Since the Constitution does not give them the authority to deem anyone an enemy combatant we have to conclude that they do not have the authority to deem anyone an enemy combatant.