…described the decision by the Supreme Court to allow Guantánamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in US courts as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”.
The Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.
He criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. His remarks represented a hardening of his position from his more moderate initial response to the ruling on Thursday, signalling a strategic decision by the McCain campaign to make it an election issue.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban hailed the decision.
Fred Thompson gets my nod for quote of the day,
In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”
Or How to Lose Wars, For Democrats.
The solution seems obvious…just stop taking terrorists or suspected terrorists prisoner.
NO PRISONERS!
The USA and Canada both need a couple more 9 – 11s to reawaken the left to the real threat that remains.
My guess is the there will not be one until the terrorists can be sure to do a horrific amount of damage and cripple the West’s economy to a drastic degree.
Meanwhile they are doing a good job of shutting us down through our own courts.
Our stupid side (Left) is working hand in hand with these monsters to destroy ourselves. It is beyond reason. I am glad I am old.
What is it about people who get appointed to the Supreme Court of any court where they lose their common sense. It as if they feel they are so enlightened that they are above the common man and only they can make the correct decisions. Imagine the stupidity of this ruling….in WW2 we would have to let all German, Japenses, Itailins prisoners haved the right to challenge their detention in Federal Court. Lawyers must be smiling…
One thing about Combat Arms soldiers . . . they are very practical.
If the Supreme Court will allow enemy combatants to be released so they can kill again, there will be no prisoners. Send all the body bags back to Talibanistan on weekly “repatriation convoys”
Time to start waging war on the Taliban. Bomb the crap out of their homelands.
It brought the North Vietnamese to the peace negotiating table. It will work on the Jihadis as well.
I seems to me that there must be people getting something out of this continuing PERVERSION of the courts in the USA. This is what I’m left with following this decision.
Since it is self evident to even the smallest brain that the full panoply of rights enjoyed by US citizens cannot -reasonably- be expected to extend to foreign prisoners of war, there has to be something important driving these -unreasonable- decisions.
Money is the only thing these CLOWNS would think was important enough to destroy the rule of law for.
Unfortunately, they are wrong. Because money depends on the existence of the rule of law, not the other way around.
Phantom,
Those idiots could be doing what they are doing in their decisions for something as simple as social acceptance by their Leftist peers. Even judges need to feel loved.
I’m going to a birthday party this afternoon for a well-loved grand-daughter. I likely won’t be around when all the chickens from foolish decisions like this come home to roost, but I’m pretty sure she will be.
So, John V, old we may be, but we still need to do something about the leftist fifth column in our midst.
>
What democrats?
This is just the Bush era, ending with a whimper.
Watch for Code Pink to have bake sales for their defense fund.
The jihadi thugs in detention don’t even fit the Geneva Convention’s criteria of an identifiable uniformed military of an identifiable country who is a signatory. They are damn lucky that they weren’t summarily shot on the spot which was legally within the rights of our military. This is a very bad court decision. It’s shocking in its naivete.
So, let’s just turn these captured jihadi creeps over to the Iraqis and Afghanis whose tender mercies aren’t going to be very pretty from now on. Their only value to us is the intelligence and there has to be a way to salvage that while keeping them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“The USA and Canada both need a couple more 9 – 11s to reawaken the left to the real threat that remains.”
Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than a few atrocities to wake up these people. Maybe when an armed jihadist enters their house and starts to kill them, they’ll realise that not everyone can be reasoned with.
I think all of them, except Khdar, should be sent back to their place of birth, and keep all the lawyers in the USA from getting rich of this ruling. Maybe those returning home will discover that 3 meals a day, prayer times, decent roof over their heads and many other privileges they get are much better than the cave they return to.
No more prisoners, no more detainees, no more life of riley for these killers might make them change their ways. Let them all meet their 72 virgins, even if many of them are recycled ones.
The govt should quit paying any legal fees for lawyers defending these killers. Bet that would change their minds about defending them, or set a basic fee of 100.00 per client.
We should also have a basic fee in Canada for lawyers who can’t make a living other than defending deserters, phony refugees etc/
The US should follow the Geneva conventions – and execute ununiformed enemy combantants by firing squad.
I hear via the grapevine that the left is quietly organizing their own religion, something along the lines of the Sikhs. All males will adopt a common patrinomic like “Singh”. I understand the leading choice is “Chamberlain”. Jack Layton will become Jack Bin Chamberlain Layton, the “Bin” signifying the NDP tribe. Stephanie will become Stephane Izzy Chamberlain Dion, the “Izzy” signifying the Liberal tribe. Rumour has it that Stephanie is pushing Vichy, France, as the location in which to install the many-handed Goracle obelisk and shrine.
So what else is new? We all know the DemocRats pay more allegiance to Turtle Bay and the den of dictators than they do to their own compatriots.
Open borders!……
At this point in time I hope AQ sets off a massive nuclear explosion in a major city. It will take nothing less than this to root out the civilizational decay of the left and to squash the perverted death cult of Islam like a bug once and for all.
Oh yeah, the women will simply be referred to as “Chambermaids”
This was a nice albatross to hang on the necks of soldiers – I hope that all these terrorist friendly judges will go ‘visit’ the prisons someday – without the protection of the soldiers they so dispise.
I think a key problem is that our current rules and laws of warfare, which include the Geneva Convention, don’t refer to terrorists except to make them illegal participants or ‘unlawful combatants’ in warfare.
That is, according to the Geneva Convention, it is a violation of the laws of war to engage in warfare/combat without wearing a uniform and also, carrying hidden weapons; that is, without clearly identifying yourself and your role, as a soldier.
What is working through the courts, over the past few years, is an attempt to define ‘terrorist’ in such a way that states are protected against their actions. The only current method seems to be either a frontier cowboy tactic (shoot them) or a tedious, nail-splitting series of challenges based on anything from the geographic space of Guantanamo to the ‘intent’ of the terrorist. These strategies aren’t enough to protect civilians against terrorists..and a lot more needs to be done.
Our stupid side (Left) is working hand in hand with these monsters to destroy ourselves. It is beyond reason. I am glad I am old.
Posted by: John V at June 14, 2008 12:19 PM
I’m getting older, and I’m not so glad. My kids are about to start their own journey, and I’d really like to see them have the freedoms I had.
How about us older guys have our own jihad? What do we have to lose? Will the HRCs lock us up or fine us? If we refuse to comply they can’t damage us very much. Grey power could take on a whole new meaning. It’s one sure way to define the baby boomers as more than spoiled, priviledged generation.
All the talk about demographics fails to recognize the economic power and education the boomers possess. It’s time to spend some of that capital to help our offspring. Don’t forget, the baby boom was a product of victory, we don’t understand defeat.
dmorris: “Maybe when an armed jihadist enters their house and starts to kill them, they’ll realise that not everyone can be reasoned with.”
Oh, if it were only so! We have evidence daily that an armed madman can enter anyone’s house (even his own) and kill as many as he wishes, and still survive at the hands of the insane defense lawyers and democratically elected Democratic judges. He most likely won’t even serve a true life-time (till death us do part) sentence, but be released sicker than ever.
So, what would give them the wake-up call? In this wishy-washy tattle-gray world, I honestly can’t think of one thing.
But pray McCain is elected and God grants him long life a la Churchill.
Kate states and underlines
“In Afghanistan, the Taliban hailed the decision.”
I cant see where those words are am I blind?
It looks like you are trying to tie Obama’s stance with the taliban that is pretty weak.
I am sure there are a vast majority of those bastards I would like to string up myself but when you read how some of them were accused and now detained without trial it does concern me. We are supposed to be the good guys.
Not all of these people were captured on the batlefield some where accused by others who collected a reward.
I guess it is up to each individual to think how many guilty that we lock make it ok when you lock up one innocent person, is it 1-1, 1-5, or 1-100?
It is extremely informative to read the actual decision itself, and particularly, the view of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, both of whom dissented from the Court’s Opinion.
Essentially, both of them said that, as far as rights, the DTA or Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 already provides, in their view, more than adequate rights. And both of them consider that the decision “is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants’ (Roberts).
Roberts asks ‘Who has won’? And answers – not the detainees, for the Court’s analysis ‘leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation”. And not Congress, whose attempt to ‘balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty interests”..has been brushed aside. And not the American people.
Scalia, for whom I have the greatest respect, is more blunt. “For the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military foces in the course of an ongoing war”.
He then goes on to show that habeas corpus has not and should not run in favour of aliens abroad, and the Court has no right to interefere in military matters. He writes extensively of the legal errors in the Court’s opinion. And also, outlines the pragmatic reality.
That America is at war with radical islamists. He outlines the history, he outlines what has happened to released detainees (they’ve gone back to war). He outlines how difficult it is to assess who is and who is not an enemy when evidence collection is so difficult.
He concludes that this decision will cause the loss of more American lives. Essentially he is saying that the Court, the judiciary, has moved into an activist role and is interfering with the legislative branch (Congress and the Executive) which have limited the role that civilian courts have in dealing with these alien prisoners.
He criticizes, strongly, this manipulation by the ‘Third Branch’ of government (the judiciary) and says: “What drives today’s decision…is an inflated notion of judicial supremacy’; that it violates the separation of powers.
“It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law..and most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court”…and he concludes that ‘The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today”.
Essentially, he is saying that in this war, the enemy are not identifiable under the Geneva descriptions, and yet they are, in their actions, clearly enemy combattants, working within a common ideology against the Nation, rather than civilians working within personal, individual agendas.
Therefore, they have no right to civilian courts and must be tried within the military courts (as are legal combatants or genuine military).
As always, Scalia is superb. We’ll see what happens.
The war on terorism has just become a much more target rich environment … and those thugs who do escape with their lives, will quickly be turned over to local police and military. The number of prisnors taken by coalition forces, especiall American, will drop to nil.
As detestable as the Rino party is with corruption as well a loss of Ideological leanings. They have no platform but big Government. The anti-thesis of conservative polities. At least at one time they where against this colossus. I actually feel sorry for our American cousins this round. Who to vote for? Hold your nose?
All in all though would you rather have a military man in charge no matter how shady in some spots, than a guy who thinks everybody is there friend or reasonable. Wants to play footsies with Iran. I know my vote.
This vote by the Courts is an ugly one. Do any of these folks even read their own Constitutions or do they think they are the free arbiters of what is legal or no, & hang the Constitution, its only an outline you can pencil out if it does not fit currant social fads, or political activist ideals state approved of course. Their mad with the idea of personal infallibility. Its the same here. You can see American citizenship going the way of Canadian. The Aliens end up more defended than those born at home. Look at the Lebanese example in Canada. No one goes to a Canadian embassy for help. There only patronage appointments, not real diplomats. Besides the Canadian Government thinks if you leave the bosom of the State you deserve what you get. At one time being Canadian or American citizen had meaning with protection. Now if even criminals from another Nation gets the same civil liberties, why have any citizenship at all?
Why don’t they just turn the Supreme Court over to the prisoners!! Better yet, let the Taliban run the show!!!
Why don’t they just turn the Supreme Court over to the prisoners!! Better yet, let the Taliban run the show!!!
so, will they claom refugee status upon landing on US soil? Many of them face certain death if they are returned to their mother country.
Or perhaps sending them straight back would work, or how about releasing them at guantanamo to try and hack it on Cuba.
…
JM’s comments will put him in good stead with the cons and why isn’t Fred a VP option – he and JM are very close apparently. It may serve JM well if we can get a few of these Gitmo psycos to the stand prior to Nov as their conduct would put the fear and backbone in a few of those who have forgotten what’s been going on since 9/11.
…
Roght of centre seems to be a poster child for the clueless left:
“It looks like you are trying to tie Obama’s stance with the taliban that is pretty weak.”
Jesus, man were you paying attention post 9/11? Who provided shelter for OBL? what sect of islam is nearly as radical as the fanatical Wahibi’s? Where were almost all of the gitmo guys captured?
From The National Review Online:
Supreme Disgrace
Thursday’s Guantánamo Bay decision was a power grab.
By Peter Wehner
I have now read through the Supreme Court’s decision, as well as the dissents, in Boumediene v. Bush, in which the Court held that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in U.S. courts. In doing so, the Court, in Chief Justice Roberts’s words, “strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”
It’s worth considering what needed to be done in order to achieve this outcome.
The Court decided that for the first time in American history, non-American enemy combatants detained abroad, in the course of an ongoing war, had a constitutional right to habeas corpus (a proceeding used to review the legality of a prisoner’s confinement in criminal cases).
In order to confer habeas-corpus rights on unlawful enemy combatants, the Court — in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy — had to break from precedent, including the 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which the Court ruled that non-citizen enemies had no access to U.S. courts in wartime and that when captured and imprisoned abroad, they had no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a U.S. court.
The Court’s majority opinion includes a section in which Kennedy attempts to fundamentally reinterpret Eisentrager. The problem for the majority is that Eisentrager conclusively establishes the opposite of what the majority opinion held. In Justice Scalia’s words:
Eisentrager thus held — held beyond any doubt — that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign…. [The majority opinion] is a sheer rewriting of the case.… By blatantly distorting Eisentrager, the Court avoids the difficulty of explaining why it should be overruled.
More broadly, and relevant to the Kennedy opinion, English common law has never held that the writ of habeas corpus extended beyond the sovereign territory of the Crown.
Among the practical effects of this ruling is that, according to Scalia
The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today… It sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
What Boumediene v. Bush is really all about, as Justice Roberts wrote, is control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants. That is another way of saying this case was about power — and Thursday’s decision was a power grab.
And so it has come to this: The United States Supreme Court now routinely invents constitutional rights to support whatever social, political, and legal goals it deems desirable. It is so much easier to legislate from the bench than it is through the branches of government that were created by our Founders to do just that.
But if one is going to invent Constitutional rights out of thin air, it’s worth asking: What moral universe do Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stephens, and Souter inhabit when they are willing to manufacture constitutional rights for unlawful enemy combatants who want to slit the throats and watch innocent Americans bleed and die while at the same time uphold manufactured constitutional rights that allow people to abort innocent unborn children?
What the Court decided Thursday was an intellectual, jurisprudential, and moral disgrace, and if John McCain is wise he’ll make this decision a focal point of the presidential race.
— Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
lookout here: What a mess. No surprise: teachers in public school systems have no rights, while the bully kids and their parents are courted by administration. See what we’re spawning . . .
The Supreme Court of the USA—Canada’s is even worse—is a hot bed, it seems, of liberalism. Thank God, literally, for the four Justices—ALL observant Roman Catholics—who dissented in this heinous decision.
However, Western countries are dimming the lights for observant Christians. How long before judges like the four dissenters, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia will have to renounce their faith—like Stephen Boissoin—before they’re allowed to take office?
Thank God for these four good, CHRISTIAN men, but still not enough to reverse this obscenity. But, think about what’s going to happen when they’re all gone—either barred or removed. (I’d really appreciate hearing from the libertarians here, who skirt this crucial issue time and time again.)
Gord
I am not saying the taliban isn’t guilty I mentioned I would string up all up if I had my way.
I am concerned with the chance that there are probably innocent men that are locked up as well and I am not comfortable with that.
I would never free the guys I caught on the battlefield their guilt is obvious. But what about the guy that they had a tip on (a reward based lead) and now he doesnt get a trial.
Gord can you honselty tell me you know where all of these gitmo prisnors were captured? Are you comfortable with an innocent person imprisoned so you feel safer?
Dont come back to me with your “left wing loonie” crap I want the taliban and their kind wiped off the planet too. I also support their torture.
RoC:
Almost all were captured in AFstan. I presume that those who were innocent were vetted and never were transferred to Gitmo. Those held in Gitmo are guilty to one degree or another almost certainly. OBL and the Taliban are the enemy and in the field of battle should be killed or captured. The gitmo guys are the baddest of the bad who were worth transitting to Gitmo rather than being left in a cell in afstan.
In CDA and elsewhere there are those who are CONVICTED and imprisoned who are actually not-guilty – no net is without it by-catch. And I am comfortable with that, but at the same time I expect a reasonable amount of vigilance in trying to avoid such mistakes.
I would think it reasonable to assume that due to the heavy public focus on these Gitmo detainees, that they have been vetted for guilt to a much higher standard than they would if they were detained for being suspected of doing something criminal in the US.
The shieking of those who think that the gitmo residents are being maltreated or wrongfully accused are blind to the above – usually due to their left-wing leanings.
Well said, Gord Tulk.
I get what you are saying Gord but if it is an absolute slam dunk in your mind that they are guilty then give them that trial. There should be no harm in that.
Judge says “Soldier can you point out the guy who was shooting at you”
Soldier says “that guy right there”
Judge says”guilty case closed….next” of course they are not all that simple.
We are built on a belief of freedom, justice and equal rights to ignore it for our own safety is treason or cowardice. We cant just ignore our principals and then honour them when it is safe to do so.
Your complete faith is due to your right wing belief system and you should be embarrassed of not living up to the values of your society.
Scalia is right in his condemnation of the decision. But if someone, not on the field of combat, is fingered as a taliban, then they should get habeus corpus. In a way this is like the hrcs.
lookout :
Just read my post. I am a small L libertarian. Excellent summation by the way of the court decision.
R o C, watch Band of Brothers. War is not like living in a free, democratic society.
Unless you haven’t noticed, we don’t even have one here in Canada anymore. E.g., If you’re so concerned about due process–a good thing to be concerned about–what’s your opinion about what’s happenING to the Rev. Stephen Boissoin? Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. I guess you’re altogether disgusted at how he’s being treated. Please let us know.
Until I saw Band of Brothers, a very fine HBO production, I had no idea of the utter chaos of war. To insist on peacetime standards–and, BTW, the dirty trick terrorists are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention–in a war being fought against barbarians of the vilest kind, is madness.
Please open your eyes and mind.
*
“right of centre says… if it is an absolute slam dunk in your mind
that they are guilty then give them that trial. There should be no
harm in that.”
i bet the family of nicole brown simpson would have something to say
about that…
*
“I get what you are saying Gord but if it is an absolute slam dunk in your mind that they are guilty then give them that trial.”
Do you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about? What is this “guilty” bullshit? These are enemies taken on the battlefield bearing arms against us or our allies. They are, with a small number of exceptions, actually not criminals charged with crimes to be found guilty or not guilty of.
You don’t give POWs a trial: you detain them until the end of hostilities and then release them, unless they are also charged with crimes (which can be tried by a properly convened court-martial under military law, not by a civilian court). The Court granted MORE rights to the Gitmo detainees than would be afforded to the uniformed military personnel of a lawful belligerent state, and indeed more than are granted to America’s own military personnel under the UCMJ, neither of whom have access to habeas review in the civilian courts.
If someone is held WITHOUT criminal charges, and a civilian US District Court under this insane decision issues a writ of habeas corpus, they’re not going to then get a trial: they’re simply going to be released and repatriated. Released to kill more of our troops and most likely to kill innocent civilians as well.
“…if someone, not on the field of combat, is fingered as a taliban, then they should get habeus [sic] corpus.”
Where and under what circumstances? Do you believe the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the US district courts extends to everywhere in the universe, even though those courts are statutory creations of Congress and the statutes generally defining their jurisdiction don’t extend it beyond the districts in which they sit? When has a court of the Anglo-American common-law world ever before said that the Great Writ somehow runs beyond the borders of a country whose courts would issue it? Again, with all due respect, do you actually understand what habeas corpus even is, i.e., that it is a CIVIL writ having nothing to do with guilt or innocence of a crime but with challenging the legality of one’s imprisonment?
The policy of detaining anyone indefinitely without charge and without review is troubling. It is not a policy worthy of a democratic nation, regardless of the circumstances of the person being held. Surely if the authorities believe there are legitimate reasons for holding someone, it is not unreasonable to ask them to provide some justification for that decision. If they can, undoubtedly most citizens would agree detention is in the national interest. If they cannot justify the decision, the detention is arbitrary. Western countries are supposed to be nations of laws, not personal whims. Erosion of due process is not in anyone’s long term interests.
“The policy of detaining anyone indefinitely without charge and without review is troubling.”
That’s why we weren’t doing that. Without charge, in most cases, yes: unless you think all the POW’s in all the wars in history actually should either have been charged with a crime or released?
But not without review: the status of each person held at Gitmo has been subject to extensive review, and those initial administrative/military determinations have been expressly subject (by statute) to appeal to the civilian US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and from there to the US Supreme Court. All of that was in place before this decision, by carefully agreed deliberations between the executive branch and Congress. The Court said that wasn’t sufficient, and essentially that NOTHING could sufficient, which is completely insane.
Closet liberal? You’re out and galavanting . . . Clueless too. Smarten up.
P.S. “Closet liberal”, from an earlier post of mine to another Pollyanna, like you:
“Unless you haven’t noticed, we don’t even have one [a democracy with due process] here in Canada anymore. E.g., If you’re so concerned about due process–a good thing to be concerned about–what’s your opinion about what’s happenING to the Rev. Stephen Boissoin? Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. I guess you’re altogether disgusted at how he’s being treated. Please let us know.”
‘Haven’t heard from the other Pollyanna yet. I look forward to hearing from you.
Close Guantanamo!
Bring the boys, to the US where they can live in a community near YOU!
Relax once the US provides them with, free housing, health insurance, and a fat monthly welfare check they will be sure to settle peacefully with their 4 wives, 15 children and an American maid. Those crazy conservatives just don’t get it, everyone just wants what we all have, they simply need that leg up in life………………..
“Again, with all due respect, do you actually understand what habeas corpus even is, i.e., that it is a CIVIL writ having nothing to do with guilt or innocence of a crime but with challenging the legality of one’s imprisonment?”
you should reread what you said, DaveJ.
My point is is that you have to make a distinction between civilians and combatants.
I’m not satisfied that each person held at Gitmo has received this so-called extensive review and due process under military law. I’m referring to Omar Khdar, who has been lumped in with a bad bunch, despite having been taken to war by his father when he was barely into his teens and captured at the age of 15. He has no business being there. He should have been recognized as a child soldier and been repatriated years ago. At the very least, like every single western prisoner at Gitmo.
reg dunlop, THAT’S why the Geneva Convention stipulates that combatants must wear identifiable UNIFORMS and identity badges, which the Taliban do not do.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Shake your head.
P.S. I’m adding you to the two Pollyannas, who’ve, so far, refused my challenge: “Unless you haven’t noticed, we don’t even have one [a democracy with due process] here in Canada anymore. E.g., If you’re so concerned about due process–a good thing to be concerned about–what’s your opinion about what’s happenING to the Rev. Stephen Boissoin? Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. I guess you’re altogether disgusted at how he’s being treated. Please let us know.”
Three to go. I’m waiting for your responses.
Terry, another Pollyanna, it seems.
So, I direct my–as yet unanswered–question to you too: “Unless you haven’t noticed, we don’t even have one [a democracy with due process] here in Canada anymore. E.g., If you’re so concerned about due process–a good thing to be concerned about–what’s your opinion about what’s happenING to the Rev. Stephen Boissoin? Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. I guess you’re altogether disgusted at how he’s being treated. Please let us know.”
Four to go . . .
“My point is is that you have to make a distinction between civilians and combatants.”
The law has historically generally treated uniformed lawful combatants far LESS severely than it has “civilians” engaged in hostile action. Soldiers captured under arms were merely detained as POWs until the end of hostilities. Civilian spies and saboteurs, by contrast, were generally subject to summary execution.
Were the German saboteurs executed by military commission in Ex Parte Quirin civilians or combatants? They were on US soil: were they entitled to habeas corpus?
“I’m not satisfied that each person held at Gitmo has received this so-called extensive review and due process under military law.”
So, does your personal distaste for something define what the law actually is? Congratulations: you, too, are apparently qualified to be a US Supreme Court justice. Please tell me how Boumedienne (this case) differs from Eisentrager, despite the majority going to such lengths of convolution to distinguish Eisentrager rather than having the honesty of their convictions to outright overrule it. Please explain how the writ of a US District Court whose jurisdiction is defined by statute to cover only its district can run to a base in Cuba.
the hrcs swill bigly. We can agree on that, lookout.
Because the geneva convention says that ununiformed combatants are unofficial doesn’t mean civilians are fair game for war crimes, when they were pointed out by bounty hunters.
Lookout, I’m having a hard time following your logic. How come just because I think Omar Khdar is mistreated I become a Pollyanna in your eyes? This really going to surprise you, but I happen to think what happened to Stephen Boissoin really stinks. I also donate cash money to Ezra Levant’s fight against the Alberta HRC.
So give your head a little shake. There are other people out there with a whole lot of different views and we don’t have to agree with you on everything.
Erosion of due process is not in anyone’s long term interests.
Really? Well, one of the greatest statesmen in history, a ferocious defender of liberty and righteous annihilator of those that would attack it, proposed that the Nazis above a certain rank and with SS affiliation be summarily shot dead on site, he thought the Nuremberg trials were a waste of time, that statesman would be Churchill. And, really the trials made Roosevelt, a whimpy New Deal socialist, feel good, that’s about all. He’s the guy that gave away half of Europe to Stalin creating many more deaths.
There is no due process on the battlefield beyond capture and identification. These people aren’t civilians, a distinction that only a fool would miss. They made their choice, refusing the due process of a ballot box or civilized non-violent behavior. It’s really bizarre logic to think that every little scum-of-the-earth jihadi deserves his day in civilian court.