Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

Jules,
You really don't get it. Twice, the president and Congress agreed on measures to handle the enemy combatants (Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act). Why? Because the Courts said they needed to do so. Now, the SCOTUS just usurped the good faith effort of two branches and extended rights never conceived of for enemy combatants onto foreigners.

The two branches devised a version of habeas corpus rights for the foreigners. However, since it didn't meet their approval, they overturned the joint work of two branches. Their job is to interpret the law, not make new law. If they found them inadequate, say so. Don't invent new laws that were never voted on by elected officials or studied by policy experts (dealing with war and those taken as enemy combatants).

And if you can see past Bush's term, you will see that this ruling will effect POWs.

This ruling over-reached.

You have Bush on the brain and can't see that, as much as this "damages" Bush (YIPPEE!) - it damaged the US. Whenever this is discussed, I hear "Bush this" and "Bush that" instead of fosucing on what the Court just did.

It was a bad ruling.

Thank Science he setup an anti-smears site online.

I heard some people speculating (regarding his birth certificate) that he "was probably American", but thought there was something he didn't want to explain on it. One theory was his real name was "Barry" or something like that and he had simply chosen a "terror" name.

Nc saints - this has nothing to do with glee over "damaging bush" and everything to do with recognizing fundamental human rights.

Yet, he's mentioned numerous times in a "It's his fault" manner.

Look, as I said, this Court over-reached. They could've said the joint branches reached unsatisfactory results. Instruct them to do it again. Use the democratic process to determine what's to be done. We have a Democratic Congress, right?

Instead, they just sidestepped the process and created new law that never faced voting, or admininstration review or anything.

That makes it bad law on the most fundamental level.

That's all aside from giving al Qaeda, et. al. more rights than any POW in the history of US warfare.

The Bush administration disagrees strongly with the high court's decision that the foreigners held under indefinite detention at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba have the right to seek release in civilian court. President Bush said Thursday he would abide by the decision, but also said his administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation.

Maybe if they're a little smarter this time and get it right they won't have to worry about the court "over-reaching."

I will say one more time - the court had no choice. The USA is an example to the rest of the world, like it or not. We can't just trample on human rights.

The court got it right.

Look, as I said, this Court over-reached.

And the Court ruled that it was Bush who overreached. Horizontal checks and balances. There was no "sidestepping" involved here.

"The Court had no choice."

B/S.

The Court could have said, "Congree, Prez, make a new law. It's not our job to make laws."

They didn't. They created new law with no oversight.

You want to talk about checks and balances?

Where's the Court's "check" or balance for this action?

And the Court ruled that it was Bush who overreached. Horizontal checks and balances. There was no "sidestepping" involved here.

Two branches reached agreements, not just "Bush."

Got it?

Not...just...Bush...

Where's the Court's "check" or balance for this action?

Here is the way the separation of powers is established:

The Supreme Court may check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional. The power is balanced by the fact that members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. Those appointments have to be approved by Congress.


So how did the Court sidestep the process? This is why they are there!

Because, Zak, the Court didn't just declare a law unconstitutional.

It made a new law.

Can you find the part of the Constitution that says the Court can make new laws?

The Supreme Court may check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional. The power is balanced by the fact that members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. Those appointments have to be approved by Congress.

That's hardly a "check" since they're appointed for life.

My question is how can either branch check (or both) the Court's action.

They had no choice, as Dino said. Bush/Congress failed to provide a substitute for the detainees' habeas corpus.

"The reason, the Court explained, was that the habeas itself requires an opportunity for a prisoner to see the allegations against him, to respond to those allegations with the assistance of counsel, and to a determination by an independent judge. The CSRT, by contrast, relied primarily on secret accusations denied prisoners the assistance of counsel and an opportunity to submit evidence showing their innocence, and lacked neutrality. Any court review limited to such a sham hearing, the Supreme Court said, was tantamount to no review at all."


The Court obviously feels it is guarding against tyranny by preventing the military or whoever to arrest just anyone and not provide them with a fair hearing. This way the system is vaccinated against mistakes and hopefully no innocent people will be falsely imprisoned with no justification.

That's hardly a "check" since they're appointed for life.

Like it or not, that's the check. You asked what the check is, and that's the answer.

NCSF,

Not just Bush, Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Frum, Douglas Feith, etc.

The real question to me,and concern is whether our civil courts can really handle this?

At what level are they able to be tried? Are they going to make a special civil system for this, or allow some judge with an agenda to make a circus of it for his own ego. If I'm sitting in Gitmo, I'm looking to hold my case in some of the extreme left federal judge courts, who you know would rather leave a mark by taking a slap at Bush, then do the right thing.

Safe to say that both sides of this debate feel pretty strongly that they are right. Here are a couple of editorials - one on each side.

approve of ruling

disapprove of ruling

Jules,
Add the 535 or so members of 2006 Congress to that mix.

Ask yourself this question:

What rights do POWs have that the enemy combatants didn't have since 2006?

If you really can't provide an answer without scouring the internet, consider why you are "outraged at GitMo" in the first place/yesterday. Since 2006, were enemy combatants treated like POWs, just not given the title? Given some of the rights but not all? What rights did they have? Should you be able to answer those questions before being outraged or not outraged over GitMo? Answer the question honestly, even if you don't want to post your response here. Then decide if it's best to defer the justification for your position to someone you've never met.



Also:
The Court had no choice? Fellas, they just created a new law. They could've just as easily created a new law that said, "Enemy combatants are now POWs," since they're creating stuff as they go along.

They didn't.

"Had no choice."

C'mon.

Dino,
I think a stronger argument can be made then what the guy from the National Review made. Heck, I think I made a stronger argument. That guy practically rambled at the end. Who edited that?

NC, I edited it. j/k.

POW's can't be tortured, that's one major difference off the top of my head.

I am fine with different rules being applied to the two.

A POW is obviously on the other side.

An enemy combatant? Well, let's make sure they are in fact an enemy since they're not uniformed. Just because Bosnian intelligence captures three guys and hands them over to Gitmo doesn't mean shit to me. I'd rather know for certain, "try 'em and fry 'em", as Jules says.

If they're guilty, then what is there to be scared of? If they're innocent, let 'em be.

POW's can't be tortured, that's one major difference off the top of my head.

Torture isn't allowed on anyone. If torture happened, regardless (2006 changes) of the time, the person would be prosecuted.

SZR,
Every combatant received a formal review with an appeal process to determine if they were a combatant.

Review by who?

Find out who and how and what happens after.

Fellas,
I'm gone for the weekend. Goin' camping.

When I return, trout for everyone!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207