Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (35104)	1/14/2004 9:41:39 PM
From: No Mo Mo	Respond to of 89467

It seems like it would buy them more time to offer to pay more money to enlistees. This admin. obviously cares nothing about debt. Perhaps more importantly, they out-source a huge (and growing) part of fighting armed services now. They support the core fighters with support services (with everything from cooking, delivering fuel, engineering, IT support, etc.) courtesy of KBR/Halliburton type companies. They don't get drafted. They get paid.

To: lurqer who wrote (35104)	1/14/2004 9:42:38 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Clark Proposes Anti-Terror Role for NATO guardian.co.uk

To: lurqer who wrote (35104)	1/14/2004 9:47:17 PM
From: No Mo Mo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Further: Just train your "Elite" forces and out-source everything. You have a core corps of very highly trained, highly indoctrinated killers supported by highly paid (mercenary) logistical/service support organizations. That squares with everything I've read about how Rumsfeld has been trying to ram down the Pentagon's throat ever since he stepped up.

To: lurqer who wrote (35104)	1/14/2004 10:42:15 PM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

"If there is no right to civilian review, the government is free to conduct sham trials and condemn to death those who do nothing more than pray to Allah" from Military lawyers criticize tribunal -- Five U.S. military lawyers assigned to defend prisoners captured in Afghanistan in a newly created military tribunal filed a sharply worded "friend of the court" brief with the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, arguing against the tribunal's legitimacy, the detention of the prisoners without hearings, and the Bush administration's attempt to have the judicial branched "usurped." The director of the National Institute of Military Justice, an organization that tracks and analyses military justice issues, called the brief a "watershed" event for the American military's legal community. "I don't know of any case in which uniformed defense counsel have participated in friend of the court brief in a civilian court other than the court of appeals for U.S. military justice," said Eugene Fidell. The 30-page brief pulls no punches in its criticism of the legal issues surrounding the more than 600 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, ostensibly outside the reach of civilian courts. "If there is no right to civilian review, the government is free to conduct sham trials and condemn to death those who do nothing more than pray to Allah," the brief states. If the Bush administration's treatment of the prisoners is not challenged by the Supreme Court "the government is free to label virtually any person on the globe an enemy alien and deprive recourse to the civilian court." The Supreme Court agreed to hear the "habeas corpus" case, Al Odah v U.S., in November. The case is expected to be argued this month. Habeas corpus cases address whether the government has a legal right to detain a person. The Al Odah case is expected to determine whether the Guantanamo prisoners may be held without a hearing in a U.S. civilian court. The Bush administration has argued that the special nature of the war on terrorism and the fact that the prisoners are held not on sovereign U.S. territory means it does not have to observe the requirements of the U.S. Constitution or the customs of international law. The lawyers argue grave consequences if the administration lawyers are not reigned in. "The (U.S.) Constitution cannot be contorted into this senseless position without doing grave damage to the rule of law," the legal team wrote. "Concerns that the executive has usurped the function of the judiciary are at the highest when the executive seeks to deny access to a right as fundamental as habeas corpus. "This right is part of our constitutional bulwark against tyranny," the brief states, quoting the Federalist Papers. The brief notes that only once before did a sovereign attempt to do what the Bush administration and Pentagon is doing with the Guantanamo prisoners. That was in 1660, when a military commander attempted to move prisoners to an island off England to escape the reach of the courts. That maneuver was used against him in impeachment hearings, and actually became the basis for the writ of habeas corpus in England and ultimately the United States. "It's a powerful brief," said Fidell. "I think uniformed lawyers are going to be applauding this whether or not they agree with it, because it demonstrates the skill and energy of these lawyers ... and their independence." He does not believe the lawyers will suffer any professional consequences for filing the paper criticizing their superiors in the chain of command. None of the detainees has been formally charged, none have had habeas corpus hearings, and none have had access to lawyers. Six have been identified as candidates to face the military tribunal proceeding, created specifically to try prisoners caught in the "global war on terror." Two of the prisoners have been assigned legal counsel. The military lawyers say there is no direct precedent in the case because the government "has never before consciously created a trial process, courtroom and other accoutrements of judicial process outside the battlefield and housed them all in an area calculated to divest civilian jurisdiction." upi.com lurqer