Appeals Court Orders Enemy Combatant Free by Military

So use a court-martial instead.

 

I know what you said, the point is that is our judicial system. open trials. you don't pick and choose who you want open trials for. lol

 

first rule of message boards. when in doubt...insult. stupid

 

I think we should operate under the US Constitution. I also think that the Bush Administration has been so blatantly trampling that Constitution and the Bill of Rights that people should be outraged, with Bush and Cheney facing impeachment. From a political point of view, as a Democrat, I haven't been for actually impeaching the two, although they certainly deserve it. Addressing your comment, either we have a system of laws governing this nation, or we don't. I believe you operate under that system of laws and don't make up your own or ignore them based on an entire series of "what ifs." Anything can and has been justified using the "logic" of the Bush Administration.

Follow the Constitution and let the chips fall where they may. I have faith in our justice system. Following the logic of Bush and his crew could very well lead us down a path towards the kind of "democracy" exercised in Egypt and Pakistan, where democracy is a sham, and the ruling government does whatever it likes under the guise of "national security." That's not the America I want, and I don't think it is the America you want, either. Did you ever imagine, in your wildest dreams, that you would see the President, the Vice-President, and their administration defending the use of torture? Do you want to be held indefinitely, without counsel, because of a mistake, and have no recourse? Think about it.



D&D. Replicant Democrat.

 

talk about slippery slope

 

I think you let them go back to where you found them. After all these years, I doubt they are of much value. Send them back to Afganistan and let the gov't there decide what to do with them.

 

First off the slow comment wasn't directed towards you.

Second are you seriously saying kidnapping isn't illegal? And secret prisons have everything to do with your question.

Anyway, I'll answer your question clearly and distinctly. No, if we are following the law, I don't think that having open and fair trials would hinder our ability to find, track and detain terrorists or anybody for that matter.

 

My response was to a response to the article not the story itself...

 

That's a possibility for sure. But that would still have to be different than an 'open' trial. Would the defending counsel get a free hand to question the government on their informants with AQ, for example? Would they get to ask anything about the technology used to find and track these guys? The point is that the defense is obviously going to press these pain points whether or not the guy is actually AQ or whatever.

Your argument is 'that's the way it is.' Hardly compelling and doesn't answer my question.

Or it could lead us down the same road other perfectly functioning democratic states have gone down like England or France, who have far less protections for the individual in national security matters. I'm not saying we should be cognizant of the potential slippery slope but neither should we pretend that is the probable or necessary outcome.

 

I apologize oh ultimate judge of arugments

 

sometimes "thats the way it is" is as good of an answer as you can get

 

So you would prefer the system of France and Britain, both of which have fewer rights for the individual, to our own? Hayes, I simply can't believe you are serious. Guilty until proven innocent? That isn't our system, and damned well should never be.



D&D. Replicant Democrat.

 

I don't think it is. See the Court decisions about the FBI kidnapping the Achille Lauro terrorist, or the old Kerr-Frisbee doctrine. It is not illegal for the government to seize someone and transport them into custody, even when they are out of the country.

No, you are referencing extradordinary rendition - this guy the article talks about is not a case of that - he is being held in a Navy brig, not Turkey.

See above - if the defense is allowed to cross examine and find out about informants, technology used, and techniques - I think it is haphazard at best to claim that wouldn't compromise our efforts to stop terrorism.

Not necessarily, Deckard. But the point I'm making is that everyone repeatedly points to a Egyptian style democracy/dictatorship as the end result of these policies, when there are a lot more possibilities than that including in democracies functioning as reasonably well as our own.

 

that really isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you can't make special provisions to go around the constitution because you feel that one type of criminal is more dangerous than the other. we have a justice system.

the issue as I understand isn't even about open trials, it was about bush deeming these guys enemy combatants and therefore avoiding the justice system for citizens or foreigners here legally. changing the justice system isn't an option, it sets a bad precedent imo.

 

You can - illegals who get caught at the border don't get trials by jury, etc. They get some of the benefits of our system but not the whole shebang.

This guy wasn't a citizen.

 

before you replied I edited my post to also include people here legally.

 

And, again, you are OK with that?



D&D. Replicant Democrat.

 

Well, to be fair I don't think you've answered my question.

But to answer your question - I have strong concerns about the government being forced to reveal in an 'open' trial the people, methods and technology used to track terrorists. I am not against a check on the executive branch, maybe a special magistrate or something, but I am not really bothered by the lack of open proceedings. I do not think the current policy is optimal, but I am not persuaded by the doomsaying propagated by some.

I think you mean 'after' I replied.

 

really this boils down to your philosophy about fighting terrorists. is this a law enforcement issue or is it a military issue.

 

not to argue, but you had clicked reply but your post wasn't there even after I edited mine. so you're half right