Yet another activist judge...

[tvashtarkatena]

...allowing the Constitution to stand in the way of defending our freedom:

 

Judge rules U.S. can't hold civilian as an 'enemy combatant'

[mattp]

Yup. Another victory for the "hate America first" revolution.

[ivan]

habeaus corpus - french for "we surrender," eh?

[Seahawks]

lol like anyone plays by our rules in the world anyways. Handicaps.

[chucK]

Did you know that in the French language there are 57 words for "surrender".

[billcoe]

Did you know that in the French language there are 57 words for "surrender".

 

Googleing "french Military Victories" use to bring up a screen that said

 

 

 

How soon they all forget about Napleon Boneapart (the orginal 'bone). Nasty little yapper.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm with Seahawks here. Our rule book is holding us back from achieving our true potential. We need to chuck it and trust our government to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to, no holds barred. That's the only way we're going to kill all the terrorists in the world and win this thing. There is no better person to play judge and jury than an FBI agent. Let's stop detaining, and start executing.

 

Come to think of it, we'd waste a whole lot less time and money if we applied the same principle to all law enforcement. Real men want summary justice.

[Seahawks]

I'm with Seahawks here. Our rule book is holding us back from achieving our true potential. We need to chuck it and trust our government to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to, no holds barred. That's the only way we're going to kill all the terrorists in the world and win this thing. There is no better person to play judge and jury than an FBI agent. Let's stop detaining, and start executing.

 

Come to think of it, we'd waste a whole lot less time and money if we applied the same principle to all law enforcement. Real men want summary justice.

 

Finally a convert to the dark side. While I think its wrong, i get sick of all these countries out there that cry about us when they are 10 times worse. Shut up and fix your own country.

[tvashtarkatena]

Ah seenk, mon ami, zat zere wuz a tahm, long ago, when les Etaz Uni alzo won eets wars, no?

[gertlush]

 

The only crime this man has committed is against fashion.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm for detaining and torturing anyone sporting a mullet.

[ivan]

I'm for detaining and torturing anyone sporting a mullet.

canadia is so fawked...

[G-spotter]

Is that Ronnie Dio?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Is that Ronnie Dio?

 

Ronnie James

 

!!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

We het yourda fdddreedom. We het yourda watermelons.

 

 

We love yourda fddried cheeken, though. Extara chreespy. I got a bucket rdddight now een my BMW.

 

[JayB]

Wasn't the gist of this ruling that since Al Queda isn't a state, members of Al-Queda cannot be classified as enemy combatants, and the guy (legal resident - yes, citizen -no)needs to be tried under laws intended for US citizens, or let go?

 

I support the ruling, but it would be nice to see someone on the Left thinking seriously about trying to develop a legal structure that addresses some of the aspects of handling transnational terror suspects that don't seem to jive terribly well with rules developed to govern situations arising from either interstate conflict or civil/criminal matters pertaining to civilians. There may be cases where one or the other is a close enough fit that they'll work, but I'd still like to see some kind of international effort to craft rules for the classification, apprehension, detention, transfer, and trial of people for whom neither the Geneva Conventions nor routine domestic law provide a very useful structure for handling. I don't think extraordinary renditions and secret prisions are the answer, but neither is showing up at the door of Osama's cave with a warrant and reading him his Miranda rights.

 

There's a very good chance that Democrats will have control over both the exective and the judicial branches in a couple of years, at which time they'll have to play grown-up when it comes to these issues. Whether the tactical opportunism for the sake of domestic political advantage that has characterized both their thinking and that of their base thus far can transmute into something more constructive is an open question. I don't doubt the Democratic leadership's capacity to lead in these arenas, but my prediction is that the more fervent sectors of their base will wind up feelig embittered and betrayed when realism trumps opportunism.

[tvashtarkatena]

I hear this argument (that our current legal system is 'inadequate' to deal with the threat at hand) alot, but its proponents never explain in detail just what is lacking. WHen they try to, invariably it is a fundamental principle that defines our legal system in general (habeus corpus being the most common victim).

 

Upon historical inspection, our current legal system is well equipped to deal with the threat of international terrorism. FISA and it's follow on amendments provides an efficient way to perform surveillance. Material Witness status, extadition agreements, and a battery of new terrorism related offenses provide more than enough legal (and Constitutional) means to arrest, prosecute and punish terrorists. All the hiccups that have come about in this effort have come out of the jury rigged (no pun intended), kangaroo court that is this administration's military tribunal system. Why? Because court challenges have shown that much of this system violates a broad array of existing law, not the least of which is basic Constitutional law. It's fundamentally illegal. It should be abandoned immediately in favor of traditional law enforcement that has already passed Constitutional muster.

 

The administration has tried unsuccessfully to obfuscate the situation by classifying suspected terrorists as if they were unlawful enemy combatants; a designation meant for uniformed soldiers of a state army operating illegally (i.e., hiding weapons, out of uniform) etc, under the international laws of war. They are not 'soldiers' in any sense of the word: they are suspected members of an international criminal organization, and should be treated as such. As the so called War on Drugs has already proven, we have plenty of laws already on the books to handle this situation.

Edited June 12, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[jjd]

Let's stop detaining, and start executing.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

All we need is a way to 'package' the idea for the general public....

[JayB]

The flip side of that coin, is that no one who insists that all of the legal solutions are in place already has much to offer when it comes to specifics.

 

How do you capture the likes of Khaled Sheik Mohammad using traditional law enforcement, especially if he's wisely chosen to reside in a country in which he cannot be detained because the folks in charge of the said country either lack the means, the desire, or both? How well did the current legal structure function in the wake of the Khobar Towers bombing, the bombing of the embassies in Kenya, the attack on the USS Cole? If post-detonation forensics satisfies your definition of "adequate," then I suppose that one could make the case that the responses in all of the above cases were adequate indeed. The subpoena approach doesn't seem to have done much to induce cooperation from the Taliban, either. Was the cruise missile attack that Clinton ordered an Al-Queda within Afghanistan's borders an extra-legal maneuver that would classify as a war-crime? I'm not aware of any provision in international law that covers the legal manner in which one targets and launches cruise missiles into another country's sovereign territory. I'm glad that Clinton did so, but I'm a tad puzzled by the same folks who are insisting that the grand nebulosity called "international law," has it all covered weren't subjecting Bill to the same critique then that they've leveled at Bush since day-one. How about the bombing of Serbia? Per international law, it certainly would have been more legal to do nothing and let the slaughter continue unabated. No UN Mandate for that one either. No protests either. Strange. I'm certain that party-politics had nothing to do with the deafening chorus of silence that greeted the long-overdue use of force, despite it's "illegality."

 

Existing laws are adequate when terrorists either orchestrate or conduct their attacks withing your own borders, and/or have the courtesy to remain within the same border or those of a country that is willing to apprehend them on your behalf, provided they aren't already kicking it with the 72 virgins.

 

If the Democrats gain power, get ready to play the part of Cindy Sheehan. They'll ride the zeal to the voting booth, but don't expect them to pay much attention once they're in office.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Let's stop detaining, and start executing.

 

 

back off, fucker

 

the camera adds 10 pounds of chin

Edited June 12, 2007 by Judge Dredd

[ivan]

why didn't more of this shit come up when 007 was taking spectre agents down???

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, our current legal system handled all the situations you mentioned. Congress authorized the use of military force, and we used it. The executive branch and congress also have the constitutional authority to formulate foreign policy, which includes the use of military force and cooperating with other nations in anti-terrorism efforts. Surveillance, military attack, capture, and prosecution are all enabled under our existing legal system and its extension: our international agreements.

 

The admininstration has stumbled primarily in its illegal activities: kidnapping, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention without habeus corpus.

 

The administration has had to back away from every one of these policies on the weight of legal challenges. Domestic support for its policies has dwindled as a result. I need not mention international support, which is nonexistent at this point. Finding and dealing with suspected terrorists would have arguably been much more successful had the administration taken the higher, legal road to start with.

[JayB]

Congress also authorized the use of force in Iraq, there's still the problem of dealing with terrorists in nations that have no desire whatsoever to cooperate with us, etc. The case of the "Warrantless Wiretapping," is also a prime example opportunism trumping seriousness. This term covered the monitoring of phone calls originating outside of the US and answered by known or suspected Al-Queda members operating within the US, not to read Grandma's e-mail. This was a case where serious people should have been asking how to reconcile a sensible intelligence goal with the requirements of the Constitution, but this - to put it mildly - is not what transpired. Unless chanting "Warrantless Wiretapping." over and over again like some kind of tribal incantation without actually reflecting on either the real legal problems or reasonable solutions to the same.

 

So if the US Army had captured Osama in Afghanistan without having the action authorized by an agreement with the Taliban, would that have been kidnapping or capture? What designation should he have had, and what laws should apply. POW, US citizen? In what venue would he be tried, and under which set of laws? What if a country violates it's own laws in capturing a detainee and his rights in his own country are infringed in the process?

 

 

 

 

[gertlush]

Let's stop detaining, and start executing.

 

 

back off, fucker

 

the camera adds 10 pounds of chin

 

Nice chastity belt!