INCOMMUNICADO AT GUANTANAMO: WHAT NEXT?
OK, Kiddies. The Supremes have said just tossing folks into Gitmo skips a couple of important constitution principles. I think we all get that.
Here's where it gets interesting. Does that automatically mean the U.S. District Courts have jurisdiction over these detainees and their rights/obligations? I don't read the opinion to prohibit the Government from creating a special terrorism court, so long as the right to counsel, the right to specific charges and the right to participate in their own defense is afforded to this special category of defendant.
In other words, the correct decision of the Supreme Court asked more questions than it answered........Stay tuned.
posted by UMRBlog @ 07:39
10 comments
10 Comments:
Easy fix:
Terrorist or whatever not in uniform on the battle ground gets one in the head. No need to transport or convey any rights. Let God read them their rights.
And then there's no difference between us and them.
TYFCB
Excuse me. Did you miss the word uniform?
How'd that work out for Rusty Calley?
That was an entirely different situation and you know it. Lets not mix apples and oranges. I'm talking about people on the battle field with a weapon in hand and not in uniform who are engaging our troops. Or do you still want our troops to read them their rights?
Try to pay attention. The Guantanamo issue is about people who have already been taken prisoner. You're saying, I guess, that they should be shot as soon as they're captured. And that would be OK because they are not in a military uniform.
Now some way you've twisted the original post into "troops reading...rights."
Soldiers always have the right the defend themselves from deadly force, no matter who is administering it. Stay on topic and breathe into a brown paper bag to calm yourself down.
TYFCB
Never mind! Talking to liberals about the security of this country is like planting grass seed on asphalt, just a waste of time.
So you're for shooting prisoners in the head and that's that. You've probably never seen any combat and you damn sure have never been out after dark.
TYFCB
It's typical "conservative speak" to try and give a simple solution to complex problems. If a suspect won't talk, torture him until he says what we want to hear. Shoot them and let God sort them out.
This sounds nice unless it's you or your family member caught in the crosshairs of nuts too simple minded to think beyond their own limited scope. Then of course, they want their "rights."
UMR, I don't know what your area of expertise is, but what I've been reading from some on the right is that the SCOTUS knew what outcome they wanted, they just had to figure out a way to finagle it.
You hint at this with your comment about the can of worms SCOTUS is opening, but what is your opinion?
Should SCOTUS just make stuff up, even if it's "the right thing to do", at least in some political circles?
I guess I'm wanting to know what your "judicial temperament" is. :-D
Post a Comment
<< Home