From: "Rich Gauszka" 

And you don't think it took courage for them to show up in the audience?
Many times the brave oppose current public sentiment.


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:442afde7{at}w3....
> I'm attacking the group of idiots showing up at the Supreme Court audience
> and some of the statements they have made that show ignorance of the law
> and
> their positions.  Like I said, most of these would be losers who couldn't
> cut it in real life and joined the JAG because it was the only lawyer job
> they could get and NOT because they shared the same feelings as the brave
> soldiers who volunteer to actually put themselves in harms way.
>
> Gary
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:442aefd4{at}w3....
>> 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