From: "Gary Britt" 

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.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