From: "Robert G Lewis" 

That sounds , er better/

Not sure its accurate but better

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:442afe81{at}w3....
> OK, let me rephrase.  Their aren't entitled to any habeas corpus relief in
> federal courts but for the unconstitutional meddling of the Supreme Court
> that ignored 150 years of clear precedent, and they had already been given
> a
> military tribunal in Afghanistan for the most part, but new tribunals were
> ordered NOT because they were entitled to them but because of the supreme
> courts unconstitutional actions.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:442af0b5$1{at}w3....
>> Their status IS to be determined by a 'competent' authority, according to
>> the Conventions that we signed.
>>
>>
>> "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