http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403...cADW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl So the Surpeme Court decided not to hear the case of Jose Padilla, who was held without charges for three years. Isn't this exactly the kind of case they're supposed to make decisions on? Thoughts?
You took thr article out of context, they ruled that since there have been charges filed - they cannot hear the case. The guy has been charged, therfore a ruling is not necessary.
You are over-reacting way too much. Actually, Bush have been very active in spreading democracy to the middle east, which is a great effort. But seriously, with such audience as you, few people would dare to let you rule them. Most people would just end the era of freedom of speech if they was presidents. I am amazed that Bush got so much courage and patience. You are lucky to have him.
I'm not sure what you mean. I just tried to give a quick summary. This is the opening paragraph of the article: The Supreme Court had also already dodged a decision before he was charged in 2004: I'm not defending this guy, I'm sure he deserves to be locked up. I just think it's crucial that follow the rules set out by the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court dodged this case twice is puzzling to me. This case deals with some pretty important constitutional rights, and a supreme court hearing could shed some light on the arguments of both sides. I disagree, as did 3 of the court justices. He was held 3 years without charges. He only was just charged in January of this year. I think we need clarification on exactly how far these new government powers extend.
Previously covered: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=641597&postcount=134 Enemy combatants are not afforded rights under our Constitution.
My guess, is that they felt the case wasnt 'ripe' as of yet. After a conviction, the matter can be appealed then. But really, they are trying to dodge the legal question about indefinate detention of terror suspects. We are in a strange time. The war on terror isnt a traditional war. If this was a german soldier captured in world war 2, nobody would be complaining about his detention. If this was a Vietnamese officer that was captured and helpd during the war, nobody would complain. It sure wouldnt rise to the supreme court. But this 'war' is different. There is nobody to declare war on, no front lines, it doesnt really 'look' like a war. But we have been attacked, and we are very much at war. So its not such a simple issue.
Good reading, nice to see an argument backed up by research. I still think it could be beneficial for the court to examine this case, possibly to further define what "enemy combatant" really means. As I said, it sounds like this guy deserves to be locked up, I'm not defending him. However, I think he should have been charged and tried in a more reasonable amount of time, even if in a military tribunal.
This is typical Gtech BS that he has copied from another right wing web sites. That is the reason he has to go back to 1907 and 1942 to justify illegal actions of this administration. There are other factors that are important but he ignores it because it doesn't justify his defense of illegal actions. 1- In this case, the person is an American citizen and there is totally different type of protection according to Constitution than a foreign national. 2- The cases that he quotes are out fo date and replaced with new International laws and treaty that USA has signed. prisoner of war (DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant's privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflict. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. Also called POW or PW. Source of above definition: US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003 Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Prisoner_of_war
FindLaw.com is not a right wing website. I understand your dismay that we caught one of your buds, but the law is quite clear. There are no illegal actions, and the Supreme Court has once again validated this. In fact, the site you contend is a "right wing web site" is actually a Supreme Court ruling on this very issue, in 1942, complete with references, the argument and their ruling. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1 Incorrect. Incorrect again. He is not a prisoner of war, nor entitled to that status. The definition of a prisoner of war does not supercede a Supreme Court ruling on enemy combatant. Therefore, it is not out of date. A prisoner of war is not the same as an enemy combatant, nor does your bud fit the definition of a prisoner of war. He clearly fits the definition of enemy combatant. Incorrect again. This does not supercede an enemy combatant, nor was your bud "carrying a weapon openly during military operations." There is absolutely no comparison. But he does clearly fit the definition of enemy combatant. The Supreme Court ruling stands on it's own merits. It addresses the contention of prisoner of war and clearly makes the case of enemy combatant, which your bud fits. There is nothing outdated. In fact, you did an excellent job of showing exactly why your bud is not a prisoner of war and is instead, an enemy combatant. Good work!
The fact of the matter is we are living in a time nearly parallel to mccarthyism. The bush administration can NAME ANYONE (american citizens) they want an "enemy combatant" without any sort of proof, reason or evidence... just calling them "enemy combatant" regardless of truth is enough. They can lock this person (anyone they want) up for as long as they want, and never give them constitutional rights, right to a jury or trial... or even tell them why they are locked up. Sounds pretty similar to a dictatorship to me
Did I miss senate hearings? And in the end, McCarthy was right. It just took 40 years for it to come out. I would love to see examples of this. But I know you don't have any. I'm still trying to grasp why someone would give aid and comfort to an admitted al qaida terrorist picked up on a return flight from Pakistan. Refresh my memory...what kind of supporter is that?
Has this been proved in court of law or is it just an accusation by the government? A lot of people also accuse Bush of being responsible for 9/11 or starting the Iraq war to make money on raising price of oil, should he be arrested also without any court or trial? Anybody can make accusation, that is the reason the Constitution, court system and trials exist.
I'm glad you no longer take issue with your bud being a prisoner of war. It's clear he does not meet that definition. Sounds to me like his admission: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121456,00.html If you are looking for those making money off oil in Iraq, you need look no further than the United Nations and the 270 influential world business men, many with close ties to or a part of allied governments in the oil-for-food program and saddam's oil vouchers. I can't say I ever recall your "outrage" over that though. Hmm. See post above. Enemy combatants are not afforded protections under our (not your) Constitution. What is Canada's policy, anyway? I noted they caught one of your buds recently. That's right on home turf too, no?
In the end, McCarthy was a personification of evil who ruined innocent lives, aggrandizing his career on the grave of American liberty. My late teacher, Jeff Corey, was blackballed from working in Hollywood simply on the basis of his association with other members of the Group Theatre. Many American actors benefitted from this blackballing, as Jeff turned out to be one of the finest teachers of acting this country has produced, IMHO. But what happened to him, and to others, was criminal. This "Enemy to America" was a decorated WWII sailor, whose combat photography earned him his much deserved accolades and honor.
It is nothing unusual that Gtech supports McCarthy, he also supports the massacre of civilians. He is a brown shirt at heart, it was just his bad luck that he was born too late and in a wrong country to be able to participate in building of the third Reich but he is hoping that Bush make his dream come true.
Finally admitted to being a mccarthy fan eh? Now you just have to fess up to being a fan of burning the constitution, big government, camera's in people's homes and destroying the middle class - and everyone would know what you really believe
There is a huge difference in being a fan of anything and truth. In the end, McCarthy was right that Communists had invaded our government. Soviet spies had infiltrated the highest levels of our government. http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/10898.html Lying isn't an acceptable alternative to something you don't support. We have different ideas on the Constitution. I support it. You seem to only support it in an effort to benefit terrorists.
Gtech, the quotes below come from the very article you link to: Without going into the debate of whether the American Communist Party was the threat to National Security that it was purported to be,* it is clear that the world had two menaces - Uncle Joe and Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was a classical demagogue; he sniffed that the HUAC was a perfect vehicle to propel him to the national stage and he rode the movement for all its political worth. He ruined innocent lives. He rightfully earned the ignominy he won. *There is some evidence it was. There is also evidence that most individual communists simply sought a domestic radical platform, not out of allegiance to Stalin or Kremlin policy (in fact, from what I can glean, a genuine antipathy towards Stalin and Stalinism generally), but by definition of what it means to be a communist. And the Supreme Court, in a plethora of cases, has upheld the right to association of these selfsame communists, striking down "guilt by association" statutes and lower court rulings across many landmark decisions.
Don't you get it yet northp... gtech doesn't care about ruining innocent lives and trampling over people's rights with lies and crimes... as long as in the end it catches 1 bad guy.