From: Rich Gauszka 

You may want to consider moving to Chile as the idea of military tribunals
obviously appeals to you.


The United States has used the term Enemy Prisoners of War EPW for a long
time but of course that was subject to the Geneva Conventions for treatment
of those prisoners - something about humane treatment that absolutely
confounds the Bushies


http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/0/94B18B8D276D22C0C1256BC80044C23D

Law or Regulations: Army Regulation 190-8 on Enemy Prisoners of War,
Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees, 1997

Gary Britt wrote:
> Yes it was.  It was an inaccurate highly biased and somewhat uninformed
> summary.
>
> We have a criminal system for criminals.
>
> We have a *separate* system for war prisoners, enemy combatants, and
> illegal enemy combatants.  These separate systems have always existed.
> They are nothing new.  The congress has declared war and made specific
> authorizations for handling these people who are at war with us.  If you
> don't think we are war, then take it up with your congressman, but until
> the democrats actually vote to declare defeat and surrender, the AUMF
> and Military Comissions Act, etc remain in full force and effect.
>
> Gary
>
> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> No my statement was not overbroad.
>>
>> Second we have a system of law. If someone is believed guilty then
>> bring them up before the system for a trial. - period.
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:466dde40$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>> How did I state this incorrectly? To quote the court
>>>>
>>> You Stated:
>>> So much for the Bushies valued belief that the military can seize
>>> civilians and imprison them indefinitely ignoring their constitution
>>> rights
>>>
>>> That statement is overbroad and incorrect as a result.  Bush can
>>> still pickup and imprison people like Hamdan and Hamadi and Padilla
>>> and Masri. This case doesn't affect those situations that have been
>>> resolved by the Supreme Court and the Military Commissions Act.
>>>
>>> After further reading, it appears that this matter is well
>>> overstated. This guy entered the USA after training in terrorist
>>> camps on SEPTEMBER 10, 2001. He is alleged to be part of the second
>>> wave of Al Qaeda attacks that Bush has so far thwarted.  Under Bush
>>> he was and is entitled to a trial before a military tribunal where he
>>> can contest his status and have an appeal.
>>>
>>> Some law professors, who otherwise do not support the President on
>>> his terrorist surveillance programs and strong article II
>>> constitutional powers are predicted that this case will be overturned
>>> either by an en banc review of the full 4th circuit or by the Supreme
>>> Court.  It appears that Bush's position is much stronger than the
>>> slanted media writings you focus on.
>>>
>>> Whether this case is upheld or reversed doesn't really matter to me,
>>> but the facts as they are coming out seem to strongly support the
>>> reasonableness of Bush's approach to this guy.  He is alleged to be
>>> not just an enemy combatant but an illegal enemy combatant (one who
>>> seeks to violate the rules of war by attacking purely civilian
>>> targets, etc.) and if Military Tribunals are good enough to try our
>>> own soldiers who commit wrongful acts they are plenty good enough to
>>> try such alleged illegal enemy combatants.
>>>
>>> Gary Britt
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5