Only this administration could call THIS a victory.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

That wasn't until 1973, and just because Thomas Jefferson violated the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution somehow means something other than what it says. The plain language of the Constitution, and not historical precedent, should define what is or is not constitutional. If we go by historical precedent then the federal government is not limited in any capacity and can constitutionally do whatever it wants.

 

[daveman]

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.

*shrug* Okay.

 

[daveman]

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.

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is an argument you make all the time, daveman! What a comment.

 

[Yurt]

What law says terrorists are entitled to civilian trials?

The Constitution only sets up one system of judiciary for trying criminals. It doesn't establish a separate system for those who commit politically motivated crimes.

are you're claiming military tribunals are unconstitutional?

 

[Yurt]

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.

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

the us constitution does not forbid anythingn in the GC...your logic is flawed

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What law says terrorists are entitled to civilian trials?

The Constitution only sets up one system of judiciary for trying criminals. It doesn't establish a separate system for those who commit politically motivated crimes.

are you're claiming military tribunals are unconstitutional?

No.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

the us constitution does not forbid anythingn in the GC...your logic is flawed

The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to denote anybody an enemy combatant and detain that person indefinitely without a trial.

 

[Yurt]

The Constitution only sets up one system of judiciary for trying criminals. It doesn't establish a separate system for those who commit politically motivated crimes.

are you're claiming military tribunals are unconstitutional?

No.

then why do state there is only one way to try criminals under the us constitution....we have military tribunals and we have the ucmj....yet according to you...no one can be tried under either military tribunals or the ucmj as we only have "one" system of trying criminals

 

[Yurt]

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

the us constitution does not forbid anythingn in the GC...your logic is flawed

The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to denote anybody an enemy combatant and detain that person indefinitely without a trial.

the USC authorizes treaties, and if said treaty authorizes said treatment and that treatment does not conflict with the USC, then you are wrong....

as it stands, the GC is the law of the land when it comes to treatment of war criminals etc.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

are you're claiming military tribunals are unconstitutional?

No.

then why do state there is only one way to try criminals under the us constitution....we have military tribunals and we have the ucmj....yet according to you...no one can be tried under either military tribunals or the ucmj as we only have "one" system of trying criminals

I'm calling the "enemy combatant" designation unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to simply declare a person an enemy combatant and put them before a military tribunal or detain them indefinitely. Not to mention we haven't officially declared war on anybody, so until that happens I would certainly say the use of a military tribunal is unconstitutional. Just not in general.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the us constitution does not forbid anythingn in the GC...your logic is flawed

The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to denote anybody an enemy combatant and detain that person indefinitely without a trial.

the USC authorizes treaties, and if said treaty authorizes said treatment and that treatment does not conflict with the USC, then you are wrong....

as it stands, the GC is the law of the land when it comes to treatment of war criminals etc.....

The "treatment" does conflict with the Constitution, however. As I said before, the Geneva Conventions cannot give a power to the U.S. government not already explicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[daveman]

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.

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

The Constitution doesn't mention nuclear weapons. So the Left shouldn't be howling about START then, should they?

 

[daveman]

That is an argument you make all the time, daveman! What a comment.

I only make it because it's accurate. As usual, you leftists screech about international law, but ignore the ones you find inconvenient.

 

[ConHog]

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.

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

you clearly do not understand the COTUS. IT gives the Senate absolute authority to approve treaties, those treaties are in noway required to conform to our COTUS. We do it all the time.

 

[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. <snip: the rest does not apply> .

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

Constitutional law and international law are two separate articles. You never served in any military branch, have you? The only trials that involve the Geneva Convention is the use of a WORLD court, for those leaders or military who violate it's laws. The Geneva Convention Act is STRICTLY with regard to the treatment of enemy prisioners of war, and for war crimes nothing more. The Geneva Convention has absolutely nothing [zero] to do with a country desiring to administer civilian trials to enemy combatants!! Eric Holder is pushing for terrorists to be given miranda rights, which has nothing to do with Geneva, and is only used with regard to looking to the laws of our United States CONSTITUTION. Constitutional laws that have to do solely with those people who commit a crime within the boundaries of the United States. Terrorists are not classified as "civilians", that's the point, they are combatants requiring a military trial. You have been very unsuccessful to show through "facts", how a terrorist is guaranteed the same rights as a criminal. I haven't seen anything in our nation's history to support your case of these rights, and your lack of any factual information on that issue only further proves that fact.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

The Constitution doesn't mention nuclear weapons. So the Left shouldn't be howling about START then, should they?

Only when the Right stops howling about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution says the GC are the law of the land.

So it looks like you really don't have an argument besides "I don't like it!"

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

you clearly do not understand the COTUS. IT gives the Senate absolute authority to approve treaties, those treaties are in noway required to conform to our COTUS. We do it all the time.

The idea of the Constitution is that the individual State governments gave authority to the federal government in the Constitution. The U.S. government does not get any authority from foreign nations just because of a treaty. I think it's you that doesn't understand the Constitution.

 

[ConHog]

The Geneva Conventions cannot give the U.S. government a power that the U.S. Constitution does not grant.

you clearly do not understand the COTUS. IT gives the Senate absolute authority to approve treaties, those treaties are in noway required to conform to our COTUS. We do it all the time.

The idea of the Constitution is that the individual State governments gave authority to the federal government in the Constitution. The U.S. government does not get any authority from foreign nations just because of a treaty. I think it's you that doesn't understand the Constitution.

What are you babbling about? The COTUS doesn't , and indeed can't , give ANYONE rights. This is a simple concept that you and others just don't seem to get. All the COTUS does is dictate what rights the gov't can't take from you as an American citizen.

There are many situations that of course aren't mentioned in the COTUS at all, and the founding fathers never meant it to be all inclusive that is why they included an Amendment process and a SCOTUS to help sort things out.

You can cry all you want, but the fact is that there are mechanisms in place that legally allow the government to designate certain people at enemies and treat them thusly. That's not to say that our government doesn't at times act wrongly and go overboard; but that is another argument entirely.