Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The Supreme Court ruling on BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH basically nullifies legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush in October 2006 for Guantánamo detainees. There were 11 Democratic Senators and about 32 Democratic members of the House who voted in favor of the legislation. The legislation gave detainees access to be heard through modification to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Take note, you may not hear this from the experts, but that all this has accomplished is that in the future captured military terrorist combatants will not be housed in a manner where they will gain access to American courts, they will be turned over to our allies. They will be subject to treatment and the laws of those countries. If Democrats want to create new legislation that will give unreasonable rights to captured military combatants we may end up attempting to execute a war in an impossible set of circumstances.
I agree with Scalia's dissenting opinion, this is not good for America.
|
ace....we were told that the executive needed the authority to determine, without evidentiary hearings, who the "bad people" are, because we woiuld be in too much danger if we allowed the designated bad people, the same rights every citizen and non-citizen in any US jurisdiction, are afforded.
But now that it has been determined that the executive cannot wield such authority, constitutionally, are you saying that "our security" was not the driving reason for transferring that authority to the executive?
...and now, you're saying..."we'll show you!!"...If the president cannot have that authority, US LEO and military will transfer that determination to another sovereign entity, after they disregard the law and instructed SOP, when they detain someone....is that your warning to us, ace?
ace....I don't understand what you are talking about. Who is to determine this "special" class of "detainees" who do not have the same rights as anyone else taken into custody by sworn American LEO or military? The president, and certainly no LEO or member of the military have that authority, according to the Constitution. Only a presumably impartial judge can make such a determination....isn't any other arrangement or advocacy, anti-constitutional, i.e, UN-American?
Other than those unalienable rights....the right to have a timely hearing of the charges and to present a defense, before an impartial judge, being one of them....what would be the reason to Fight....fight for what, ace....what are you advocating fighting your "war on terror", for, since it is not to preserve unalienable rights....what is it that you are advocating the preservation of....an executive with dictatorial power...the power of arbitrary and unjudicated imprisonment? Is that even an American, or an Anglo-Saxon concept, ace?