From: "Gary Britt" 

That they are enemy combatants to be dealt with by the Military.  They
aren't even entitled to a military tribunal, but for the Supreme Court's
unconstitutional meddling and ignoring of the last 150 years of precedent.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:442ae7fd{at}w3....
> As far as I'm concerned Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift is a credit to his
> uniform. What's the policy matter above Swifts's pay grade? That the
people
> held are to all be found guilty so not to embarrass the Bushies?
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:442adf0b{at}w3....
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:442abb2b{at}w3....
> >> No Gary - Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift's a military layer assigned to
> > DEFEND
> >> Hamden. What would you have him do roll over and play dead like a good
> >> neocon?
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603290179mar29,1,2440889.st
ory?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
> >
> > A defense of Hamdan doesn't require questioning the venue for a review
nor
> > does it require grandstanding at the court over policy matters that are
> > 100
> > levels above his pay grade.  Nor does it require bullshit posturing
about
> > applicability of a bill of rights to prisoners of war and enemy
> > combatants.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually a swing vote on the court, worried
that
> > "if
> >> the president can do this . . . he can set up commissions in Toledo . .
.
> >> and pick up an alien and not have any trial at all except before that
> >> special commission
> >
> > And the problem with this would be what?  If an alien german operative
> > were
> > found in Toledo during world war II would Justice Kennedy find a problem
> > with incarceration and military tribunals then?  I don't think so, and
> > this
> > is no different.  In my view the Supreme Court is without constitutional
> > authority to tell the President SQUAT on his exercise of commander in
> > chief
> > functions to defend this country at a time of war.  Let justice Kennedy
> > and
> > the other liberals on the court show up at a military base and try to
free
> > these enemy combatants and Bush should follow Lincoln's example and put
> > them
> > in a military prison the way Lincoln put a federal district judge in
> > prison
> > for trying to interfere where he has no constitutional authority.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:442ab662{at}w3....
> >> > The Bill of Rights IS IRRELEVANT when it comes to enemy combatants
> >> > captured
> >> > on the battlefield.   As justice Scalia pointed out to some pointy
> > headed
> >> > EU
> >> > trash in Switzerland recently, Germans brought not to a
base OUTSIDE
> >> > the
> >> > USA
> >> > but directly to prison camps INSIDE the USA did NOT have rights to
any
> >> > kind
> >> > of trial or hearing in USA courts.  It would be
"crazy" to assert
> >> > otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > If these few military lawyers brainwashed by the liberal
educations
> >> > they
> >> > received (and who likely became military lawyers because they
couldn't
> > cut
> >> > it in the real world) don't like the military acting like the
military,
> >> > they
> >> > should get the hell out of the military and go to work
for scraps for
> > some
> >> > public interest legal group or the ACLU.
> >> >
> >> > The Bill of Rights applies to citizens and in a fairly limited
context
> > to
> >> > non-citizens present in the country.  It does NOT apply
and has NEVER
> >> > applied to prisoners of war and enemy combatants.
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> > "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
> >> > news:442a8c21$1{at}w3....
> >> >> "If you believe that these are full and fair
trials, you believe
that
> > the
> >> >> Bill of Rights is irrelevant," Hamdan's
Pentagon-appointed defense
> >> > attorney,
> >> >> Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, declared on the front
steps of the
> >> >> marble-columned courthouse.
> >> >>
> >> >>
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14208166.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> "The commission is operating in totally
uncharted waters; it's
> >> >> charging
> > a
> >> >> violation in a stateless, territorial-less conflict,
something which
> > the
> >> >> full laws of war have never applied," replied
Katyal, a Georgetown
> >> >> University Law Center professor who was a clerk for
Justice Stephen
> >> >> Breyer
> >> > a
> >> >> decade ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> Uniformed American military officers were scattered
throughout the
> >> > gallery,
> >> >> among them lawyers from all four services - Marines,
Air Force, Army
> > and
> >> >> Navy - who in effect mutinied against their
commander in chief by
> >> >> alleging
> >> >> that Bush's commissions strip foreign captives of fundamental
rights.
> >> >>
> >> >> "If you believe that these are full and fair
trials, you believe
that
> > the
> >> >> Bill of Rights is irrelevant," Hamdan's
Pentagon-appointed defense
> >> > attorney,
> >> >> Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, declared on the front
steps of the
> >> >> marble-columned courthouse.
> >> >>
> >> >> Retired military officers, civil liberties lawyers,
former diplomats
> > and
> >> >> international law experts all filed briefs on behalf of the
> >> >> 36-year-old
> >> >> Yemeni with a fourth-grade education, arguing that the Bush
> >> >> administration
> >> >> went too far by creating a commission outside an
explicit framework
> >> >> set
> >> > out
> >> >> by Congress and ignoring many of the protections of
U.S. military
> >> >> justice,
> >> >> which has a provision for tribunals.
> >> >>
> >> >> The justices seemed especially intrigued with the
nature of the
crime
> >> >> alleged, conspiring with al-Qaida. At least four
justices asked
> > questions
> >> >> related to the charge.
> >> >>
> >> >> Katyal called the conspiracy charge so broad and
unfocused that "a
> > little
> >> >> old lady in Switzerland who donates money to
al-Qaida, and that
turns
> > out
> >> > to
> >> >> be a front for terrorist acts ... might be swept up
within this
broad
> >> >> definition. That's why international law has so
rejected the concept
> >> >> of
> >> >> conspiracy."
> >> >>
> >> >> Clement argued that the court shouldn't even be
considering the case
> >> > because
> >> >> Bush had signed a law Dec. 30 that effectively
stripped Guantanamo
> >> > captives
> >> >> of pre-commission habeas corpus challenge.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some justices focused on whether Congress intentionally or
> > inadvertently
> >> >> suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus for captives in
Cuba; Clement
> > argued
> >> >> that Congress' intent was irrelevant, an argument
that seemed to
find
> >> > favor
> >> >> from Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Clement once clerked.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hamdan claims through his lawyers that he never
joined al-Qaida,
> >> >> wasn't
> > a
> >> >> warrior and was merely a civilian driver who earned
$200 a month
> > driving
> >> >> a
> >> >> pickup from bin Laden's private farm. His lawyer said Afghan
> >> >> militiamen
> >> >> captured him along the Afghan border in 2001, after
he evacuated his
> >> >> pregnant wife and 2-year-old daughter to Pakistan,
and turned him
over
> > to
> >> >
> >> >> U.S. troops who sent him to Guantanamo.
> >> >>
> >> >> Breyer asked what would stop the president from
"picking up an
alien"
> > and
> >> >> holding the same type of trial in Toledo, Ohio.
> >> >>
> >> >> Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether Hamdan
wasn't "uniquely
> >> >> vulnerable," and therefore not entitled to
certain prisoner-of-war
> >> >> considerations under the Geneva Conventions.
> >> >>
> >> >> "I don't think he's protected by the Geneva
Conventions, but that's
> >> > largely
> >> >> because he chose not to comply with the basic laws
of war," Clement
> > said.
> >> >> "Nobody has a claim here that they were part of
the uniformed
al-Qaida
> >> >> division that complied with all of the laws of war
such that they
are
> >> >> entitled to POW status."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

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