From: "Rich Gauszka" 

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