http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...un05,1,7316292.story?coll=la-headlines-nation Even assuming all these suspects are guilty as charged, I am outraged that the administration has not been competent enough to avoid these sorts of problems.
"Did you read him his Miranda rights as he was blowing up soldiers with his RPG?" If the legal system is this broken, we ought just not take any prisoners, then.
There's a wide gap between a bending-over-backwards-to-give-suspects-rights legal system and one that has the fundamentals down pat. ETA: A second case was dismissed for similar reasons, this one against a guy who allegedly was Osama's chauffeur and bodyguard.
As I understand it, the U.S. set up this judicial system to try "unlawful enemy combatants." But it never bothered to establish what an "unlawful enemy combatant" was or whether these particular people were "unlawful enemy combatants."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant They're spies and the like. That's a hangable offense. Next.
Even spies have a right to a trial. For various reasons, the Bush administration didn't want the Guantanamo people having a trial within the U.S. system of justice. So they created their own military system of trials. But even within the military system, the administration isn't doing the job correctly. How hard is it to prove that these defendants are in fact unlawful enemy combatants if they are in fact unlawful enemy combatants?
Was pretty easy for FDR to do it. But then, he locked up over 100,000 Americans without due process or legal recourse as well.
I think we need a goodwins law for Japanese interment camps and FDR. Any thread about Guantanamo is bound to see such nonsensical statements. Oh look, FDR did worse, so it's okay.
Yeah, bringing up FDR's actions in context of military tribunals is just whacky. You know, considering he's one of the two Presidents that have ever used them. And no, I wasn't saying it was OK, I was saying that he didn't face the same legal challenges that Bush did - Bush's military tribunals are based on FDR's, but his were never challenged, and of course he ignored habeas corpus on a massive scale that was upheld by the supreme court. An amazing precedent, locking up nearly 100,000 US citizens (and another 40,000 individuals) without recourse to the legal system, and it was upheld in the highest court in the land. Different times, different standards.
But there you go again! That the excesses by Bush may be less significant than the excesses by FDR has no baring on the matter before us. Is what Bush is doing wrong, in the context of our current legal system? Or is it okay? What FDR did is irrelevant to that question.
We'll find out. This was a very easy decision by the court, and very clearly the right decision. If the defendants are found to be alien unlawful enemy combatants then there will be tougher issues to face, but it's rare that a case this easy makes it to any court, even a military tribunal. This wasn't a court battle at all. There is only one side to the legal argument, and another side arguing that the rule of law does not apply.
Oh. You know our legal system uses PRECEDENT, don't you? What the courts allow or don't allow, their interpretation of the law and how it goes forward, DOES have a direct bearing on current law. The fact that FDR's military tribunals were upheld in Ex Parte Quirin means that there is a legal precedent to the concept of military tribunal. What's interesting is the fact that evidentally legal thought on this has shifted so significantly over the last 60 years. If you are talking morality, that's a different thing entirely. Personally I don't think it's reasonable to use civil justice for people taking on the battlefield or sent over from other governments on terrorism charges because we completely lack the capability of putting together a case as in a standard civil case. Certainly the rules of evidence for an enemy combatant in the Sudan shouldn't be the same as that for a guy picked up in Manhattan. However, the person in question should have the capability to challenge their status, which I understand the courts ordered previously. And we weren't talking about Guantanamo and the detention of prisoners at all there until you brought it up. Perhaps we should have a Godwin's law concerning military justice and Gitmo. Oh, and interestingly enough, there were 38 Native Americans who were tried and executed by military tribunals as enemy combatants during the Dakota Wars under Lincoln (in addition to the civil war related military tribunals).
Can you try to be more condescending? Of course I know that, but the precedent doesn't apply here, since the ruling covers procedural issues, not the overall concept. Again, precedent for the concept does not equate with proper implementation in the present. No real argument with you here. As long as the accused have some rights governing access to evidence, appeal, and so forth, a parallel justice system is fine. I believe the issue at hand is the inadequate access to such things provided so far. Guantanamo is a natural short hand for discussions of enemy combatants. Don't be dense. Again, I ask for the relevance. Nobody is arguing that such tribunals cannot be legal. Just that the implementation needs to be handled in a legal fashion. That's the point the court is making.
The correct title should read "Bush Admin." This was a victory for the rule of law, and thus the U.S.
This after you stated that bringing up FDR's actions in the context of civil liberties should be a variant of Godwin's law, so stupid that you should immeditately be declared the loser of the argument? Don't like being condescended to? Neither does anyone else. A different thing then stating what FDR did has no relevance here - it's extremely relevant, because the law still is being interpreted that way. You are right that this was a judgement on procedural issues, stating that these two men weren't judged properly as illegal enemy combatants. Though the fact the judgements were made by military judges shows that they aren't being covered by civil law - they are being judged instead to have POW status. But the precedent is still valid, these men just didn't meet it. Concur. And the history and context of military tribunals is appropriate to discussions of military tribunals. Such as FDR. Don't be dense yourself. Actually, lots of people have argued that tribunals are unethical and should be illegal. But I see that isn't your argument, so I withdraw the statement.
Anc's put his finger right on the problem. I think it's telling that we have an administration whose idea of government is so far from the Constitution that they constantly have to fight everything in the courts (like the obscenity thing).
It's a given that on sensitive issues a government will have to fight everything in the courts. What's telling is that the government's batting average in these court fights seems to be akin to that of a Special Olympian who somehow found himself in the majors in actual game situations.
