[Cardinal]

The moment the ethics and morals of a country begin to reflect those espoused in the '24' television series, then you have a serious problem and have begun a descent on the 'slippery slope' that ends up at a point where there is little distinction between you and those with whom you're in conflict ...

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Cardo, on one level I think you and leeG are absolutely correct. It is the ability to protect individual liberties which makes the Constitution so precious and the envy of republics everywhere, including the independence of a judiciary appointed for life, beholden to no political party or view. The problem is we are not dealing with the issue of suspension of liberties to those protected by the Constitution. Instead we are dealing with the extension of a right to enemy combatants (as adjudicated by a military tribunal already approved by the Supreme Court) who are not even on U.S. soil. And habeus rights have never been legally or constitutionally applicable to enemy combatants.

In effect, the court is dictating policy in the conduct of a war, which is exactly not the purpose of the judiciary; the Supreme Court interprets law, it does not make law or policy. Which, of course, is why the 2 branches of our government who make law and policy (the presidency and Congress) are elected. In my opinion, this decision does not interpret a statute or provision of the constitution to ensure a fundamental right or prevent the deprivation of constitutional liberty. Instead, it arrogantly says to the the world the court is above the other branches of government, even to the point of controlling policy in fighting a war.

The President and Congress are elected to make policy and laws and, if they screw up, we get to vote them out and replace them with others, as just may happen in a few months. Shawn asked rhetorically what rights have been given up by the average law abiding citizen and answered his own question by saying none. Respectfully, I fear he is wrong. US citizens had an essential right weakened- the right to determine the course of our country by controlling policy through a representative government.

You know, we throw around a lot of quotes and sound bites on issues like this to express vague ideas of right and wrong, but this decision really has me fired up.

Old Crow, I understand your concerns from a legal precedent and jurisdictional perspective . Regrettably, this Supreme Court decision is probably a result of the negative momentum associated with 'Gitmo' since its flawed inception and operation. I think that many folks in the US don't realise just how badly the image of the US has been tarnished by the presence and operation of a system that is diametrically opposed to the democratic and libertarian values espoused by your great Nation .

[Old Crow]

The moment the ethics and morals of a country begin to reflect those espoused in the '24' television series, then you have a serious problem and have begun a descent on the 'slippery slope' that ends up at a point where there is little distinction between you and those with whom you're in conflict ...

Respectfully, I do not think this discussion is about such a slippery slope at all. We are having a reasoned discussion about a centuries-old dilemma for US citizens- strict constructionist judges versus activist judges. Indeed, it is the very fact we can have such a discussion, which may cause some to reexamine how and why they choose whom they will vote for (and the types of judges they may appoint), that makes this country so strong, despite its flaws.

This is not about torture, living conditions, morals or ethics. It is about whether the Supreme Court erred in deciding to apply that sacred instrument of fundamental due process for American citizens- the writ of habeus corpus- to combatants captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. While some may deride the current administration's use of the term "enemy combatant," the fact remains it is a term accepted and used by the Supreme Court in earlier cases to decide, among other things, that the Congress and President need merely set up military tribunals to verify status as an enemy combatant.

Mustangdriver has hit the nail squarely on the head: it is extraordinary, to say the least, that the Supreme Court has woven an analysis that justifies the conclusion that battlefield decisions, even when later verified by a constitutionally mandated military tribunal, can still be later rescinded by a civil district court judge. It is not too much of a reach to imagine the court one day requiring soldiers to read some modified type of Miranda rights to combatants captured on the battlefield so they do not say something incriminating that might be used against them later in US District Court.

[Old Crow]

Old Crow, I understand your concerns from a legal precedent and jurisdictional perspective . Regrettably, this Supreme Court decision is probably a result of the negative momentum associated with 'Gitmo' since its flawed inception and operation. I think that many folks in the US don't realise just how badly the image of the US has been tarnished by the presence and operation of a system that is diametrically opposed to the democratic and libertarian values espoused by your great Nation .

Cardo, I read this after my last post. I appreciate your sentiments and perspective. I just do not agree with the propriety of the extent of negative criticism of Gitmo, though I certainly understand it is a lightning rod for dissent. However, the issue in this decision would be wrong, in my opinion, even if there were no Gitmo.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Mustangdriver has hit the nail squarely on the head: it is extraordinary, to say the least, that the Supreme Court has woven an analysis that justifies the conclusion that battlefield decisions, even when later verified by a constitutionally mandated military tribunal, can still be later rescinded by a civil district court judge. It is not too much of a reach to imagine the court one day requiring soldiers to read some modified type of Miranda rights to combatants captured on the battlefield so they do not say something incriminating that might be used against them later in US District Court.

Not too long ago we would have laughed at a statement like that and dismissed it out of hand.

Not anymore, beware because this the way things are going, even more so in the UK.

If I had a pound given to me everytime I have heard a fellow Englishman say "its time we had a bill of rights like the USA" I would be a rich man.

Treasure that bill of rights and fight to keep it pure.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

The moment the ethics and morals of a country begin to reflect those espoused in the '24' television series, then you have a serious problem and have begun a descent on the 'slippery slope' that ends up at a point where there is little distinction between you and those with whom you're in conflict ...

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Respectfully, I do not think this discussion is about such a slippery slope at all. We are having a reasoned discussion about a centuries-old dilemma for US citizens- strict constructionist judges versus activist judges.

I agree Old Crow, my 'slippery slope' reference vis a vis 'Gitmo' was more rhetorical in nature and wasn't directly related to the merits of this 'legal' oriented discussion, which I find both interesting and informative.

Understandably, when any court, especially the US Supreme Court, takes a decision that is contrary to past precedent, it will merit open and honest discussion. I doubt that any reasonable individual (beyond the fringe radicals) believes or would expect that battlefield operations be run in the same manner as those relating to local law enforcement - I suspect that 'Gitmo' has become a legal 'lightning rod' because it is contentious and has muddied the waters between International (military/war) Law and that relating to domestic law enforcement ...

[SkyBuffalo]

The main problem with Gitmo is that the military screams 'enemy combatant' at anyone it wants to and sends them to Cuba to sit and rot. There are no trials, no investigations, llittle or no ATTEMPT AT ALL BY THE U.S. MILITARY TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE ENEMY COMBATANTS! Maybe the Supreme Court shouldn't have gotten involved, but if the U.S. Military wants say that someone is an enemy combatant, then they better doggone have a trial to prove it and give the facts. They shouldn't just pick someone up, throw them in prison and just leave them there and say "He's there because we said so and we don't have to prove nothin' to nobody!" If they say that, you know what that makes Gitmo? A stalag, a concentration camp, a gulag - you're there for life, no chance of redemption, no proof you did anything. You wanna live in a country that does that just because it can? I'd rather see the military own up to one of the ideals of the founding fathers of this country - JUSTICE - not just for the citizens, for for ALL. If the military is going to have a prison, then they should have military trials to prove there is a reason for the prison. Maybe they have proof that all their prisoners are enemy combatants, but they still have to present it in a military trial. Just do it and get the trials overwith, whether the prisoner is guilty or not. Otherwise, it stinks of injustice - the same thing the U.S. rebukes other countries for doing time and time again. We say our values and ideals are one thing, then we do the opposite. Sorry about my rant, but this subject just grinds my gears.

[derhamburgerjung]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

The main problem with Gitmo is that the military screams 'enemy combatant' at anyone it wants to and sends them to Cuba to sit and rot. There are no trials, no investigations, llittle or no ATTEMPT AT ALL BY THE U.S. MILITARY TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE ENEMY COMBATANTS! Maybe the Supreme Court shouldn't have gotten involved, but if the U.S. Military wants say that someone is an enemy combatant, then they better doggone have a trial to prove it and give the facts. They shouldn't just pick someone up, throw them in prison and just leave them there and say "He's there because we said so and we don't have to prove nothin' to nobody!" If they say that, you know what that makes Gitmo? A stalag, a concentration camp, a gulag - you're there for life, no chance of redemption, no proof you did anything. You wanna live in a country that does that just because it can? I'd rather see the military own up to one of the ideals of the founding fathers of this country - JUSTICE - not just for the citizens, for for ALL. If the military is going to have a prison, then they should have military trials to prove there is a reason for the prison. Maybe they have proof that all their prisoners are enemy combatants, but they still have to present it in a military trial. Just do it and get the trials overwith, whether the prisoner is guilty or not. Otherwise, it stinks of injustice - the same thing the U.S. rebukes other countries for doing time and time again. We say our values and ideals are one thing, then we do the opposite. Sorry about my rant, but this subject just grinds my gears.

SkyBuffalo, I fully agree to what you wrote.
Have you seen > Taxi to the dark side < ? That is one scary documentation. You can find it on liveleak.

[parsig9]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

The main problem with Gitmo is that the military screams 'enemy combatant' at anyone it wants to and sends them to Cuba to sit and rot. There are no trials, no investigations, llittle or no ATTEMPT AT ALL BY THE U.S. MILITARY TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE ENEMY COMBATANTS! Maybe the Supreme Court shouldn't have gotten involved, but if the U.S. Military wants say that someone is an enemy combatant, then they better doggone have a trial to prove it and give the facts. They shouldn't just pick someone up, throw them in prison and just leave them there and say "He's there because we said so and we don't have to prove nothin' to nobody!" If they say that, you know what that makes Gitmo? A stalag, a concentration camp, a gulag - you're there for life, no chance of redemption, no proof you did anything. You wanna live in a country that does that just because it can? I'd rather see the military own up to one of the ideals of the founding fathers of this country - JUSTICE - not just for the citizens, for for ALL. If the military is going to have a prison, then they should have military trials to prove there is a reason for the prison. Maybe they have proof that all their prisoners are enemy combatants, but they still have to present it in a military trial. Just do it and get the trials overwith, whether the prisoner is guilty or not. Otherwise, it stinks of injustice - the same thing the U.S. rebukes other countries for doing time and time again. We say our values and ideals are one thing, then we do the opposite. Sorry about my rant, but this subject just grinds my gears.

I mostly agree SkyBuffalo. I wish they'd just call them POWs. Now there is a term I think I understand. We are certainly at war. Let me see...
tanks (check), fighter planes (check), lots of young men fighting and dying for each other (check). Ok see, it's a war. So in a war the enemy soldiers that are captured and imprisoned are POWs. POWs don't get lawyers, Miranda, and hearings. They get interrogated, sit in jail, and dig tunnels. When the war is over they go home if they're lucky.

Not here though because these men are not soldiers in the traditional sense, if that matters...
And, this war, seemingly, has no end or treaty signing aboard a ship with lots of keep-sake pens.

I'm torn. It does smell to high Hell but screw these for shooting and bombing us.

[mustangdriver]

Originally Posted by parsig9

I mostly agree SkyBuffalo. I wish they'd just call them POWs. Now there is a term I think I understand. We are certainly at war. Let me see...
tanks (check), fighter planes (check), lots of young men fighting and dying for each other (check). Ok see, it's a war. So in a war the enemy soldiers that are captured and improsoned are POWs. POWs don't get lawyers, Miranda, and hearings. They get interrogated, sit in jail, and dig tunnels. When the war is over they go home if they're lucky.

Not here though because these men are not soldiers in the traditional sense, if that matters...
And, this war, seemingly, has no end or treaty signing aboard a ship with lots of keep-sake pens.

I'm torn. It does smell to high Hell but screw these for shooting and bombing us.

I agree, but hey I am just an infidel.