From: "Gary Britt" 

They had the courage of their stupid and not so well founded ideas.  Many a
liberal has the courage to protest OTHER people fighting.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:442afec3{at}w3....
> 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.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