• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Chief Justice Roberts Dissent - SCATHING!!!!!!

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
You're fool OT. Eisentrager set precedence. Get your facts straight.

Was that ruling made on the Bush "illegal enemy combatant" term and its definition, or the long used, internationally recognized "unlawful enemy combatant" term and its definition.....

Could you cite the definitions of "Illegal" and "Unlawful"?

Do you know what the meaning if "IS", is? :lol:


It's no small wonder that your constituents changed their tune after one term. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
You're fool OT. Eisentrager set precedence. Get your facts straight.

Was that ruling made on the Bush "illegal enemy combatant" term and its definition, or the long used, internationally recognized "unlawful enemy combatant" term and its definition.....

Could you cite the definitions of "Illegal" and "Unlawful"?

Do you know what the meaning if "IS", is? :lol:


It's no small wonder that your constituents changed their tune after one term. :roll:

But he did not use unlawful-- purposely did not use the old term- and wrote a new definition for the "illegal combatant term"- rather than following the accepted "unlawful combatant term" (which has precedent set under US law and is accepted under International Law)---- which under the law changes the whole thing- and opens up a whole new can of worms for oversight and challenges.....

But this is not unusual for GW- as he searches til he finds an attorney that will give him an opinion he likes and then goes with that- no matter if everyone else says it is wrong....He did the same with proceeding to open up the Mexican truckers into the US- even after Congress passed a law forbidding him to do it or use any US funding to operate/continue the program- with his attorneys citing one word that they believe allows him to it-- even tho it goes completely against the intent of Congress which was apparent to all......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Was that ruling made on the Bush "illegal enemy combatant" term and its definition, or the long used, internationally recognized "unlawful enemy combatant" term and its definition.....

Could you cite the definitions of "Illegal" and "Unlawful"?

Do you know what the meaning if "IS", is? :lol:


It's no small wonder that your constituents changed their tune after one term. :roll:

But he did not use unlawful-- purposely did not use the old term- and wrote a new definition for the "illegal combatant term"- rather than following the accepted "unlawful combatant term" (which has precedent set under US law and is accepted under International Law)---- which under the law changes the whole thing- and opens up a whole new can of worms for oversight and challenges.....

But this is not unusual for GW- as he searches til he finds an attorney that will give him an opinion he likes and then goes with that- no matter if everyone else says it is wrong....He did the same with proceeding to open up the Mexican truckers into the US- even after Congress passed a law forbidding him to do it or use any US funding to operate/continue the program- with his attorneys citing one word that they believe allows him to it-- even tho it goes completely against the intent of Congress which was apparent to all......

Makes no difference what they were called by whom. In fact, in Johnson vs. Eisentrager........neither discription was used.

In fact SCOTUS used the term "alien enemy" in their decision. :roll:

We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.

They all have the same meaning!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Could you cite the definitions of "Illegal" and "Unlawful"?

Do you know what the meaning if "IS", is? :lol:


It's no small wonder that your constituents changed their tune after one term. :roll:

But he did not use unlawful-- purposely did not use the old term- and wrote a new definition for the "illegal combatant term"- rather than following the accepted "unlawful combatant term" (which has precedent set under US law and is accepted under International Law)---- which under the law changes the whole thing- and opens up a whole new can of worms for oversight and challenges.....

But this is not unusual for GW- as he searches til he finds an attorney that will give him an opinion he likes and then goes with that- no matter if everyone else says it is wrong....He did the same with proceeding to open up the Mexican truckers into the US- even after Congress passed a law forbidding him to do it or use any US funding to operate/continue the program- with his attorneys citing one word that they believe allows him to it-- even tho it goes completely against the intent of Congress which was apparent to all......

Makes no difference what they were called by whom. In fact, in Johnson vs. Eisentrager........neither discription was used.

In fact SCOTUS used the term "alien enemy" in their decision. :roll:

We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.

They all have the same meaning!

But Mike- not only did GW not use the old law name that the precedents has been set on-and is recognized by International Law-- he did not use the old law....He purposely, to avoid having to follow the Geneva Conventions and have tribunals, wrote a NEW law that even specifically mentions the Taliban and Al Qaida in it.....

This NEW law under a NEW terminology and wording then opens it immediately to challenges from the Courts- as there is no set precedent on the Law....

It appears the court in issuing their first rulings looked at the Unlawful Enemy combatant precedents when they determined that the detainees have the right to status hearings and military tribunals as well as the Geneva Convention- and when GW still drug his feet and it became apparent that he was violating/avoiding their earlier orders- came up with this ruling that says they not only have tribunal rights and status hearing rights - but access to federal court oversight.....

I still say none of this rule would have came about if GW had expeditiously and seriously followed their previous rulings....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
The Geneva Convention does not even use the words "unlawful enemy combatants".
:roll:

But International Law ties the Law to the Geneva Convention....

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

Even the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg got their right to hearings and a trial- and the right to be heard in an open court.....
Then most got new neckties...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
These guys weren't soldiers of any state, they're simply rogues and thugs.

Don't you know that Oldtimer and his VAST knowledge of the law, has it all figured out? After all he is a part time JUDGE having been sworn in by the supreme court and all!!!!!
He has 27 yrs of law enforcement experence including that of as the high sherriff of a county in montana that had almost 5000 citizens, that makes him an expert. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Look out here come the BLACK helicopters again!!!!
secret meeting time!!!!
Hey Oldtimer been a couple of new folks sign up for the forum, gonna accuse them of being me too??
:roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
These guys weren't soldiers of any state, they're simply rogues and thugs.

There are laws and standards of treatment to cover that too if they are committing criminal acts...

This is a question that is now being debated in England- who's courts and Parliament have came up with a ruling matching that of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Gates: Detainee abuses gave US 'black eye'
By ROBERT BURNS – 1 day ago

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that reports of detainee abuse in the early years of the Guantanamo Bay prison operation have given the United States "a black eye."

Gates was asked at a press conference about Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that gives suspected terrorists the right to go to federal court to seek their release from indefinite detention at Guantanamo.

The U.S. defense secretary spoke at the conclusion of two days of NATO meetings, unrelated to Guantanamo. He told reporters he would wait until he returned to Washington and received briefings on the court decision before commenting on what it means for the future of the detention operation in Cuba.


"I think that despite the fact that in many respects Guantanamo has become a state-of-the-art prison now, early reports of abuses and so on unquestionably were a black eye for the United States."

"I've often said, as I've told the president, and the secretary of state, we ought to close Guantanamo,"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
These guys weren't soldiers of any state, they're simply rogues and thugs.

There are laws and standards of treatment to cover that too if they are committing criminal acts...

This is a question that is now being debated in England- who's courts and Parliament have came up with a ruling matching that of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling......

I agree that George has had those guys there too long. If they haven't got any information from them by now, it's not going to happen. But, they don't have ANY rights under our Constitution. It's time to ship them back overseas on a leaking boat.
 

Latest posts

Top