Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:29:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2892 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial.
|
But they are entitled to certain protections that, by design, are denied to this
latest batch. For example, prisoners of war are to be released at the war’s
end, but Dubya has pretty clearly stated that the War on Terror will never be
over. So when might these prisoners, in theory, be released?
| |
| |
If these people have committed crimes, let them stand trial and be
sentenced. If they have not committed crimes, then release them. It’s
really that simple, and artificial, self-serving designators like “enemy
combatant,” designed to subvert the intent of the Geneva convention, are no
excuse.
|
This term wasn’t invented or coined by President Bush, so don’t blame him or
Gonzo.
|
If you mean “enemy combatant” as a synonym for “prisoner of war,” then you’re
correct of course. But in this new context it definitely was put forth by Bush
et al as a way to do an end run around the Geneva convention.
| |
| |
I’m addressing the entire policy of indefinite incarceration without trial,
so specific examples aren’t really needed (though there are many). What are
you asking, exactly?
|
Is your rant against the classification of “enemy combatant” and its legal
status? Or are you focusing on the case of Padilla?
|
I’m ranting against the deliberately nebulous and beyond-the-law status of
“enemy combatant,” of which Padilla is only one example.
| |
| |
That’s a gross overstatement, and even if true, it’s still no excuse. The
various branches do not exceed their Constitutionally-granted powers,
and they certainly don’t claim blanket authority to do it. Bush, in
horrifying contrast, has done so repeatedly and with no justification beyond
an obedient Republican Congress.
|
I think that is a matter of opinion, not law. Otherwise, the dems would have
impeached President Bush long ago.
|
It’s also a matter of practicality. An impeachment process initiated today
would likely take 18 months or more to complete (with all of the investigations,
etc.), so what’s the point? Me, I’d like to see a formal motion of censure, but
who knows if that’ll happen?
Instead, I think that Dems will work to counteract some of Dubya’s more dubious
policies, effectively undoing some of his mess without having to worry about
some pundit claiming that they’re “getting back at Repubs” for the Clinton
impeachment.
| |
| |
| |
How do you solve a problem like Sharia? How do you catch a thug and pin it
down?
|
First of all, I initially read that as Shania, to which I say “What the
heck is the problem?!?” Then I read it again.
|
Agreed. Your initial cognitive assessments don’t impress me much, Dave!
|
Nice!
| |
This is the crux of the issue IMO-- how does a free society effectively
protect itself against those who have access to WMDs and are bent on its
destruction.
|
One good way is for the target nation not to invade a sovereign nation in an act
of preemptive war. By all accounts, Bush’s Iraq fiasco has made the region and
situation far less stable. If those same huge resources had been devoted to
improvements in intelligence gathering (for example), I suspect that we’d be a
lot better off.
| |
| |
If they’re guilty, then punish them. If they’re not guilty, then release
them. But it is imperative that their cases be heard, otherwise the
Constitution is moot. (Or mute, if you work in my office, of course.)
|
Most of these are bad guys captured on a battlefield. Logistically we can’t
put them all on trial.
|
If they’re prisoners of war, then they’re entitled to those protections. If
they’re not prisoners of war, then they must be tried, regardless of the
logistical problems.
| |
And I’m guessing that that practice is against the
Geneva Convention, in order to protect the combatants against summary
execution. And it protects our captive soldiers as well.
|
That’s why Bushco’s novel interpretations of “torture” are so troubling, by the
way.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Excellent question. I don't know. But I do know that if they are released, they will attack us again. (...) No, I think it was in response to a new category of enemy who isn't represented by a nation-state. They don't deserve a trial by jury. (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial. (...) This term wasn't invented or coined by President Bush, so don't blame him or Gonzo. (...) Is your rant against the classification of "enemy combatant" and its legal status? Or are you (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
