From: "Rich Gauszka" 

So why are you attacking the military lawyer that was assigned to defend Hamden?


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:442aed50{at}w3....
> 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.
story?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