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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (125118)	2/26/2004 1:55:36 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<We are at war with "illegal combatants". This term was invented, to deliberately blur the distinctions between criminals and soldiers. An "illegal combatant" is a demon with all the worst features of enemy soldiers and criminals, and therefore it's OK to afford them none of the rights of either.> Well said.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (125118)	2/26/2004 2:00:20 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Citizen's rights to habeus corpus, and trial by jury, are going the way of Congress's power to declare war. The Padilla case (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19832150 and replies) shows that the President now has the power to take American citizens on American soil, and make them Disappear. No arrest, no charges, no trial. They just Go Away, at the whim of the President. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised at the ultimate result of the Padilla case. I doubt very seriously that the Supreme Court will deny an American citizen the full extent of his Constitutional rights. I would completely agree with the Court if it ruled in Padilla's favor. If I am correct in this prediction, you will see the checks and balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers in full regalia, a fact that eviscerates some of your arguments. As far as declarations of war are concerned, the legalities are a bit obscure to me, but I think Congress has enacted laws that authorize the Iraq and Afghanistan incursions. Even if it had not, the Supreme Court could declare a war illegal. Congress could shut off financing, too. Either branch could shut down things if it wished to do so. Checks and balances work, have worked, and continue to work. The Orwellian scenario you presume is simply imaginary.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (125118)	2/26/2004 2:21:24 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Since the beginning of the Republic, it has been the prerogative of the President, as commander in chief, to use military force on his own discretion, as Jefferson did with the Barbary pirates, for example. In fact, there has never been a clear delineation of where such discretion ends. However, most presidents seek some kind of Congressional approval if the operation will take a long time or use up a lot of resources, as Bush himself did. Remember, he sought and received authorization. The declaration of war is rarely used, in order to preserve flexibility in the executive. We do not have actual control over Israel, nor do we command them in their tactical operations in the Territories. That is just errant nonsense. We have the choice of helping Israel survive against implacable foes, or allowing a new Holocaust to occur. It is that stark. The term "illegal combatants" is very straightforward, actually. It refers to those whose situation is not regulated under international law, specifically, the Geneva Convention. The rest is too silly to take up.........