Setback for Bush

"Tyranny" A hyperbolic phrase used to demonize and nothing more.

 

That is pure Kennedy. That is his thing to try and make American law subject to international law. I know this because I remember watching a news report about this about a year or two ago when Kennedy cited international law to justify his ruling letting minors off the hook for murder from the death penalty. He and Scalia have actually had public debates about this issue at different universities throughout the nation (Scalia arguing against it). No president and no Congress has passed any law making our laws subject to international law.

Joseph Botwinick

 

A few points here:

1. I find this interesting thinking for a "liberterian" who wants to lessen the role of American government, but has no problem strengthening the role of international government. Apparently, you have much more faith in the UN and other peace loving countries like Iran than I do.

2. If I understand correct, if some of these detainees were sent back to their home countries, they would probably understand what real torture is and the international community would be howling their self righteous heads off about our rendition program.

3. Also, if I understand correct, many of the countries these detainees are from have refused to take them back.

It seems, Ken, that you are either ignorant of the facts or that you want us to lose the war. What do you think we should do with these terrorists?

Joseph Botwinick

 

That is a really stupid statement. Even at our worst, we haven't come even close to making it to Al Quaeda's level.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Nope. This is a case where a bunch of unelected, unaccountable supreme masters of the universe just made up their own law and created (actually, it would be more accurate to say they extended) their own tyranny. If you want to talk about tyranny, go look at the Kelo decision. They can't win in the court of public opinion, so the liberals just claim to be more enlightened than America and its laws and make up their own laws or go to Europe for their laws. Again. who is gonna hold the Supreme Court responsible for their tyranny?

Joseph Botwinick

 

<Shrug> It's your constitution, not mine.

 

1. It's a word, not a phrase.
2. Perfectly accurate word to use to describe detention without trial outwith the Geneva Convention and the Rule of Law.

 

Actually, with the Supreme Masters of the Universe in charge and unaccountable, it is slowly becoming your Constitution. They are doing with no resistence what the entire British Army couldn't do in the American Revolution.

Joseph Botwinick

 

So your solution for the preservation of liberty in those United States is...?

 

I think we should either elect our Supreme Court or do away with it. It is a stupid, worthless European idea anyway. We don't need them. We have enough balance of powers with the legistlative and executive branches.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Preservation of liberty in the United States has nothing to do with it, that is a red herring. These detainees are not citizens of the United States, they are enemy combatants and should be treated as such - the enemy. They should not be entitled to the same Constitutional protection as US citizens. In fact, this whole situation would never have happened in WW2. This whole ridiculous notion that they must be granted all rights as US citizens is one of the several planks that will lead to the loss of the so-called war on terrorism and the downfall of the United States. Treating these detainees in accord with the Geneva Convention is no argument. We treat them better than we are supposed to under the Geneva Convention. There is nothing in the Geneva Convention that specifies we need to follow religious demands, religious dietary laws, etc., yet these muslims have been granted the qurans, holy prayer rugs, muslim chaplains, and special dietary meal preparation in accordance to their religion for daily meals and "special holidays and feasts" as dictated to by their religion - none of which are covered by the Geneva Convention. Plus, the International Red Cross has a permanent facility close by and can visit any time they please.

http://www.gitmocookbook.com/

 

Talk abou stupid ideas, this one takes the cake.

 

We wouldn't have to worry about the republic...

 

Ah, elected judges! Justice by indirect lynch mob. Been tried. In France. In the 1790s.

Doesn't work.

And it doesn't stop the legislature passing draconian laws which threaten liberty - something has to.

 

I think Joseph is right. They should be elected, not appointed and guaranteed a life-time job. The way it was set up was all right in the early days of our country, but let's face it, it was the SCOTUS which elected Bush some say.

 

Quick, LE's been got at by Al Gore and Michael Moore!:tongue3:

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You're a hoot, Matt! :laugh:

 

Cheers! We may not agree but we do have a laugh.:smilewinkgrin:

 

LE! I expect such foolishness from Joseph, but not from you!

You really think that the Supreme Court should be elected? Good thing our Founding Fathers did not think so.

Can you imagine the campaigning and the rhetoric we would have to deal with each time a Supreme Court Justice was running for office. We have enough of this with the President and with Congress; leave the Supreme Court the way the Constitution designates!

 

Since Congress has not declared war these folks cannot be treated as prisoners of war. Prisoners of war cannot be tried(except for war crimes) and must be repatriated once hostilities have ended.

Therefore, they must be treated as unlawful combatants. An unlawful combatant can be charged and tried by a military tribunal.

The Congress and the Bush administration needs to get its act together regarding unlawful combatants(citizen and non-citizen alike) and charge these people and give them their day in court before a military tribunal, or else let them go.

The alternative is for Congress to issue a declaration of war so that these people can be legally held as prisoners of war.