Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!  
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1999 posts, RR: 23
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1602 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Supreme Court just ruled that GWB overstepped his authority in holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. Finally, we see the principles of justice at work. Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy. Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law. Otherwise, the ideals we espouse are simply meaningless if we don't live up to them ourselves.

edited for spelling

[Edited 2006-06-29 16:43:02]


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
The Supreme Court just ruled that GWB overstepped his authority in holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. Finally, we see the principals of justice at work. Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy. Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law. Otherwise, the ideals we espouse are simply meaningless if we don't live up to them ourselves.

You mean the "principles" of justice, right?  biggrin 

I haven't read the decision yet, but according to the press reports, it sounds like the Court reached the correct result.

"The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional act," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority. The tribunals, he said, "must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law."

"In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive (Bush) is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Stevens said


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

Finally the Supreme Court got one right. Hopefully a wake up call for the President that he needs to follow the law, and not issue executive orders to justify his actions.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1580 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law.

Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Finally the Supreme Court got one right.

meaning you agree with them?

I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

[Edited 2006-06-29 16:56:30]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

Finally some sanity. Yes, there would have been advantages to military tribunals, but with this ruling with a significant 5-3 vote of the justices and authored by Justice Stevens,(Roberts, CJ, didn't participate as he was involved in the Court of Appeals decision the subject to this case) a clear message was made - don't trample on the consitiution Mr. President. It tells the world we do have a system of checks and balances to correct serious wrongs that develop in our system of government, that we respect the rule of law and international treaties (such as the Geneva Conventions). It means they have to be tried in the regular federal court system with all it's protections for the Defendant's, including access to proper lawyers, access to appeals, access to accussory information.
Of course, how long it will take and in what form regular Federal courts will be set up to conduct these trials will be interesting. I am quite sure the Bush Administration, will drag it's feet for years if possible and probably go after those with the best cases against them to set a pattern and to make it look good. Some may be released as the cases against them have weak evidence per Court rules and Federal Laws on Evidence.I am also quite sure that access to the information to be used to proscute these detainees will be extremely difficult for the defendant's to access.
Still, it is a good day in America, one we can all be proud of.


User currently offlineNateDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Hopefully a wake up call for the President that he needs to follow the law, and not issue executive orders to justify his actions.

Does it not trouble you that the Supreme Court refused to follow the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which was passed last year and stripped ALL courts of jurisdiction from hearing habeas petitions from Guantanimo? This case should have never been decided.

This court is out of control.



Set Love Free
User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Because we're supposed to be respecting the rule of law. We don't discard it when it becomes inconvenient. That's the thrust of the ruling.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20496 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1548 times:

If we're going to hold detainees on American-controlled soil, they must either be classified as a POW or given a trial. The SCOTUS has done the right thing.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that.

What about those who were rounded up and never charged? Simply held for a few years then returned to their country of citizenship and not charged there, either? If they're guilty of something, either make them a POW or give them a speedy trial.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

I know I have.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 5):
This court is out of control.

DId you think it was in control when it stopped the Recount in 2000?

Guess your feeling as to whether a court is out of control depends on which side of ths issue you are standing on...

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMaury From United States of America, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

Goodness no! If courts rule opposite of Our Way, we rant and speechify about how "activist judges" are not following our clearly-defined guidance, reminisce fondly about the days when the Constitution was interpreted just as it was written in the Bible, and then pass laws that make our wacky agenda-items legal. Oh wait, no, that's more how the neo-con Modern Day Republican thing works...sorry! So easily confused. Guess we'll all just have to learn to live with this whole "liberty" thing.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that.

True enough.
That's assuming that they are indeed terrorists.
Remember its trial first, verdict later. Not the other way around.
Your outburst against the baddies is justified, but our search for terrorists has turned out to be a random catch. Along with the tuna, we've caught all those dolphins, and no one should torture a dolphin.


User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 5):
This court is out of control.

The only thing that's out of control is the anti-civil liberties GOP. What used to make this country great is now hanging by a thread on the steps of the Supreme Court. This GOP currently sounds a lot like the EARLY stages of the Nazi party to my ears. No joke.


The GOP are just one more appointment away from
turning America into the land of ultimate hypocrisy.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1518 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us.

We need a constitutional ammendment that the protections under the bill of rights etc. only apply to US citizens. Granted we would also need a foreigners bill of rights so we don't look like total assholes, but it could be 'lowered' to international standards.


User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1513 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Then you become no better than that which you seek to stop.

If America abandons the priciples upon which it was founded it will do nothing but give fodder to those who seek to destroy it.

It is in these times that America (and countries that share like-minded principles) must not give in to the base emotions that Al Queda, their ilk and their actions evoke and must, instead, rise above that and hold fast to those priciples which they cherish most.



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 5):
Does it not trouble you that the Supreme Court refused to follow the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which was passed last year and stripped ALL courts of jurisdiction from hearing habeas petitions from Guantanimo? This case should have never been decided.

That isn't what the Court did. They properly interpreted the DTA and rejected the government's argument based on the DTA.

The government argued that the DTA stripped the courts of the ability to hear cases like Hamdan's. The SC rejected their argument using the "ordinary prinicples of statutory construction."

During the drafting process of the DTA, Congress considered and rejected proposals which would have indeed supported the government's motion to dismiss in this case. Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
If they're guilty of something, either make them a POW

Just to clarify one thing: Prisoners of War are NOT criminals, and the only thing they can be guilty of is fighting for their own country (regardless of wether that fight is seen as right or wrong). The Geneva Convention was created with that whole purpose in mind.

Wether the people held are actual POWs, criminals or neither is another discussion.

BTW AeroWesty, this is not an attack on you (I agree with the content of your post).

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.

Would that even be constitutional?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20496 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
Just to clarify one thing: Prisoners of War are NOT criminals

A good and technically correct correction. My intent was to separate the detainees into either POW or eligible for trial. Good catch!



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.

Would that even be constitutional?

Good question. In the immigration arena, in 1996 Congress passed legislation as part of an overhaul of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that limited the courts to hear certain kinds of appeals of the decisions of immigration judges, and it has withstood challenge at the SC. Don't know if it would have worked in this context.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 10):
Along with the tuna, we've caught all those dolphins, and no one should torture a dolphin.

My question is how do you know? What about the ones we caught in the fields of Afghanistan fighting against us? I've got issues with the conference of US citizens rights to foreign nationals trying to kill us.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 13):
Then you become no better than that which you seek to stop.

Then what about the German soldiers executed after a military tribunal found them guilty of murder in POW camps during WWII? Both here and in Canada? Was that making us no better than them?

The need for secrecy will prevent us from being able to make an open legal case against many terrorists when we're trying to clean them off the face of the world while chasing their leaders and sponsors. We cannot make public the mechanisms or intents of our intelligence operations without making them worthless.

If the problem is that we've brought them to US controlled soil then perhaps we really don't need to bring them back here where they can use our legal protections and system to get released so they can jump right back into the battle. It's already happened, and it'll happen again if we can't prosecute them for violating US law overseas when they weren't subject to US law.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy.


Unfortunately that's exactly what it is.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Finally the Supreme Court got one right. Hopefully a wake up call for the President that he needs to follow the law, and not issue executive orders to justify his actions.

Then he does not enjoy the same privileges in assigning military tribunals that former Presidents like FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, and Washington had.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
It means they have to be tried in the regular federal court system with all it's protections for the Defendant's, including access to proper lawyers, access to appeals, access to accussory information.



Quoting Ctbarnes (Reply 6):
Because we're supposed to be respecting the rule of law. We don't discard it when it becomes inconvenient. That's the thrust of the ruling.

You two did not read the ruling then. It does not change how they are being held in gitmo. According the to court the only thing the Administration did not do, that it can still do, is go back to Congress and get authorization to hold the military tribunals. Think he'll have any trouble? What idiot from the DNC is going to stand up and throw their job away defending terrorists?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

 checkmark 


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20496 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
if we can't prosecute them for violating US law overseas when they weren't subject to US law.

Could you expand your thoughts on this one?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 19):
Unfortunately that's exactly what it is.

So let me get this straight. The five supreme court justices who voted for this were aiding and abetting the enemy. Doesn't that make them traitors?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

I haven't looked at the opinion and have only had mild exposure to some of the talking heads on the news about it. From what I hear, it may be open to Congress to de-legalize the Geneva Convention, in whole or in part, as pertains to treatment of the kind of (nonuniformed) combatant at Guantanamo Bay. If this is so, it is said that an appropriate revision of federal law would comply with the Supreme Court decision and at the same time permit trial of the detainees at that facility by military tribunals by removing any bar of illegality based on the Geneva Convention. (The Convention, as I understand it, may not be self-executing.)

If, by statutory law as thus revised, the Geneva Convention no longer applies to those at Guantanamo Bay, it is said, then the Supreme Court's requirement that the Executive Branch must not violate statutory law by holding military trials of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners would stand respected, and yet no violation of law, as revised, could then be found.

(Query, however, as to whether this would be unconstitutional as ex post facto law, or even on the basis of the principle behind the bar against bills of attainder.)

[Edited 2006-06-29 22:14:39]

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1395 times:

Okay... so now we can't give them trials.. and by extension possibly find them not guilty and be set free.

Well, guess we just get to keep them indefinately then.

hmm... Kinda not really a bad thing after all..


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1386 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 22):
nonuniformed

That is something that has always bugged me about the Geneva Convention, the reference to "nonuniformed" - it always sounded to me as aiding the better equipped troops against the ones with the less resources.

And what exactly does that mean? Does it mean they have to belong to a "regular army"? Who exactly defines if an army is regular or irregular? If they were all wearing jeans and a matching t-shirt, would that make them uniformed?

These might sound as stupid questions but I am actually serious about them - I would appreciate it if someone with a deeper knowledge of the Geneva Convention could help me here.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
25 Cfalk : Well, giving these guys the opportunity to walk out is out of the question. I say that Bush needs to ask for an official declaration of war (retroacti
26 Tbar220 : So you're saying we would be at war for 20-30 years? Is that what we as the United States should strive to be doing? What about taking care of our ow
27 L-188 : And all that is needed is a simple congressional fix.
28 Ozglobal : Interested in the facts? i) Only a handful of the 300-400 'detainees' held for the last 3 or 4 years at Guantanemo Bay have ever been charged with an
29 GuitrThree : THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left. THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left. THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left. Just wait. If you didn't see it the first time... THIS
30 Gilligan : You changed the quote. Other than that yes it is aid a comfort for it tells the terrorists that you can attack us as viciously as you wish with wanto
31 AerospaceFan : It would appear that at lesat one other commentator I've seen on the news (I've forgotten who, exactly), agrees with that position, as I mentioned in
32 Post contains links Gilligan : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/..._go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials Justice Stephen Breyer, in a side opinion, said that Bush could fix some of
33 Tbar220 : Answer my question. If they are "aiding and comforting" the enemy, doesn't that make them traitors?
34 AerospaceFan : Great citations, Gilligan. Thank you for providing them. In principle, I disagree somewhat with the opinion that the President must consult with Congr
35 Pbottenb : Source please - and I mean incontravertble facts, not hyperbole... Not true....and take whatever model you want war is hell - General Tecumseh Sherma
36 QANTAS077 : Just get on with putting these people to trial, i think the rest of the civilized world is sick to death with this bullshit, if your not going to try
37 Gilligan : By one definition no. treason 2 entries found for treason. To select an entry, click on it. treasonhigh treason Main Entry: trea·son Pronunciation:
38 Post contains images Jacobin777 : And how many have been found innocent? If we try your ideas, we become just as bad as those who are truly guilty.....our forefathers built our societ
39 NAV20 : I suspect that that view is held by quite a few people in the USA. And, IMO, it couldn't be a more short-sighted or dangerous philosophy. TedTAce, al
40 Post contains links ANCFlyer : My comments first - before reading the thread . . . So, the Supreme Court decides that Military Tribunals are a no go. Where does that leave these fol
41 Cfalk : We will be at war for at least that long. A few years ago here, I predicted 50 years. I still stand by that.
42 Post contains links NAV20 : The Court's findings contradict both your points, ANCFlyer. The proposed military tribunals would have defied both the Uniform Code of Military Justic
43 AeroWesty : There've already been rulings that Federal Courts have jurisdiction over Gitmo detainees. We brought them here. We put them on soil controlled by the
44 ANCFlyer : Persons not in the US Military are NOT subject to the UCMJ. I already said I disagree with the Courts findings. I do not see where Article 3 applies:
45 Post contains images AeroWesty : Congress does it. Just like the law that says if you were caught in bed with a 14-year-old in Thailand, you could be prosecuted under U.S. law. There
46 Post contains links NAV20 : I'd like to take the opportunity of this thread to express my thanks to, and admiration for, Major Michael Mori, United States Marine Corps, who has b
47 Post contains images Leskova : Somehow the whole concept of "military justice" is quite strange in my eyes - either an act is against the law, or it is not. Personally, I think the
48 Post contains images NAV20 : Don't see what we're arguing about, then, ANCFlyer. As to whether they are covered by Artlces 3/4, I'm afraid that I have to quote Article 5 to you:-
49 Post contains images ANCFlyer : No Argument - but great conversation . . . Yup, and said tribunal can't occur - the SCotUS won't let it now. Should have happened a while back though
50 Post contains links QANTAS077 : i've gone through the releases from 2003-2006 and i've lost count of the amount of US soldiers who've been sent home in a bodybag, here is just an exa
51 Post contains links NAV20 : 2,529 killed, 18,356 wounded, just in Iraq, as of yesterday, Qantas077. http://icasualties.org/oif/ Both figures are likely to be under-estimates as t
52 L-188 : Actually I remember heard of a study during the 1st gulf war that said that during the Desert Shield lead up the US Miltary had a lower loss rate the
53 AndesSMF : I like to find out how many of these terrorists or insurgents have died in battle. After all, you are counting only those that survived. Listen, some
54 Post contains images Scbriml : And that's your idea of justice? Setting a great example for the World. Absolutely right! How can America claim the moral high-ground on human rights
55 AndesSMF : So, if this was a 'real' war, we capture enemies and send them to a POW camp, keep them there till the end of the conflict, and then just let most of
56 Post contains links AerospaceFan : One of the leaders of the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate was heard to strongly criticize the Supreme Court's decision yesterday on Neil Cavuto's pr
57 Scbriml : But as you acknowledge, it isn't a real war. The administration refuses to categorise them as POWs. They've basically been captured/arrested in Iraq
58 SATX : It's the right that's no longer representing the core American values that once made this nation great. What remains of our formerly moderate Supreme
59 Scbriml : For those of us foreigners who don't follow these things that closely, which of those judges were appointed by GWB? I know Alito for sure, but how man
60 AeroWesty : Roberts and Alito, and Roberts didn't vote on this issue.
61 SATX : Bush 43 appointed Alito and Roberts. Fascist Scalia and blindly loyal Thomas are from Regan and Bush 41, respectively.
62 SATX : Actually he did, only prior to becoming an SC justice. His vote was for the administration and against civil liberties and equal justice, just as you
63 AeroWesty : Yes, of course, that's why he was excluded from this vote. Stevens, Souter and Kennedy didn't vote according to your analysis of how they should have
64 Halls120 : How appallingly typical. Start criticizing something you haven't even read.
65 AerospaceFan : Agreed. I thought that, for a public figure in such a powerful leadership position, his stance on this issue was simply awful.
66 SATX : Who excluded him? I thought he simply abstained. If he had chosen to participate I don't think anyone could have prevented it. Thank goodness for 'st
67 AerospaceFan : I am still quite pleased with the Chief Justice and Justice Alito in their respective rulings. I am the most unhappy with Justices Ginsburg and Souter
68 AeroWesty : ::sigh:: I really wish people would read something other than MAD comics before participating.
69 Post contains images SATX : This is actually a serious topic. In the past Supreme Court Justices have been known to refuse to recuse themselves even when their personal particip
70 AeroWesty : It is, so let's think about it seriously. What is the Supreme Court? It's a court of appeals. The idea of an appeal court is to be heard before a new
71 SATX : Unless I'm mistaken, this decision was actually up to Roberts himself. If he had decided to participate, is there any rule that would have prevented
72 AeroWesty : Yes, the proper term is recused. Let's go over this one more time. You're using an example where a judge may have had a personal interest with one of
73 Post contains links SATX : Actually, it turns out that it is a federal law after all. However, I'm not sure who would ever hold the justices accountable since I feel that some
74 AeroWesty : FFS, just leave it alone. You have your answer, you've had your answer, and all you want to do is stir crap up with this.
75 SATX : 1. No, I didn't have my answer until I started looking for it. 2. You're free to stop responding any time you want. 3. Have a nice day.
76 Halls120 : Care to provide any examples? Or are you just going to smear all judges in general?[Edited 2006-07-01 01:03:15]
77 ANCFlyer : This is the modus operandi for Mr. SATX - any authority figure is automatically as asswipe: judges, cops, school crossing guards . . . they accompany
78 Post contains links SATX : Why would I wish to smear all judges? On the USSC, only Thomas and Scalia have managed to convince me they're abusing their power. I do have a strong
79 SATX : The few times I've been in front of a judge I've always found them to be generally fair and understanding, even though I live deep in the heart of a
80 Post contains images Halls120 : That's what happens when you lose elections. You don't get to make the rules. Just like during the 40 or so years when the democrats controlled Congr
81 AeroWesty : How is this evidence that Scalia had heard all the arguments for and against, or had previously ruled on this issue? The case regards combatants brou
82 SATX : Obviously I didn't live through those decades of democratic control, but I don't like seeing any one side getting too much power. When one side has a
83 AeroWesty : They asked his opinion on something. He gave it. They didn't ask him about the merits of the case after it had been argued. Nice editorial, but my PO
84 AirCop : Just to be fair, it should be noted that during the 40 years the democrats controlled the congress, we had Republican presidents for the majority of
85 Gilligan : The same could be said about the Democratic party. Each side has their zealots. Democrats don't get that. When they were in charge they never ever br
86 LTBEWR : For the Gitmo prisoners there are several possibilities of disposition, all with their problems: - Many will be released as not a real risk to the USA
87 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Even 1950s American in no way compared to the Nazi party . . . therefore, your statement remains . Just gibberish . . .
88 SATX : For somebody who always cries about their words being taken out of context you sure look like one heck of a hypocrite with this post. Obviously I was
89 NAV20 : LTBEWR, I have close links with the USA, including many relatives who live there, and literally love the place and its people. But you couldn't be mo
90 Darrenthe747 : We aren't at war. The president reminded us of that on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st, 2003. So your analogy doesn't work.
91 Halls120 : Time to brush up on your civics. When the House and Senate are controlled by one political party, the fact that the president is a member of the oppo
92 LTBEWR : You bring up a number of valid points that I agree with. Our political leaders stirred up and maniulipate the public and the Democrats and are trying
93 Post contains images NAV20 : Cheers, LTBEWR, we're in total agreement! I know - I was in NYC soon after 9/11, and my friends there live on East 29th. Street, they had a grandstand
94 Post contains links QANTAS077 : Hicks was seized at a taxi stand in Afghanistan in November 2001 by the Northern Alliance and sold to the Americans for $US1000. Two years later he wa
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror posted Sun Apr 23 2006 18:10:40 by AerospaceFan
Britain Will Not Support US Military Against Iraq posted Sun Jan 12 2003 23:16:01 by Scotty
America's Military Still Protects Europe! posted Sun Dec 17 2006 17:10:10 by OU812
Rising Military Dissent posted Sat Dec 16 2006 17:01:59 by Tbar220
Opec May Cut Supplies Against Further Price Drop posted Thu Dec 14 2006 16:16:26 by MIAMIx707
US Scientists Protest Against Bush Government posted Thu Dec 14 2006 13:16:51 by Oldeuropean
Success Against Terrorists In Cairo posted Tue Dec 5 2006 15:31:06 by ME AVN FAN
Fijis Under A Coup Again, Military Forces Takeover posted Tue Dec 5 2006 07:42:36 by 777ER
What Branch Of The Military Are You? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 23:09:19 by Gkirk
Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible posted Sun Nov 19 2006 23:12:33 by Dtwclipper