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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51964)	6/28/2004 10:17:10 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

But if we do nothing at all it will still get worse because that's the trend and we're doing nothing to stop it. We have to understand and admit what the problem is. The trend is to PC it and pretend it makes no difference. Hence the move to let everybody get "married." What we are doing by these actions is accelerating the decline. I think the "children" approach is the best one to use to get the amendment passed. The religious approach is a failure. Dobson has a lot online. Here is a URL to an excellent article by him. I don't buy all of it, but a lot is worthwhile. family.org

To: Lane3 who wrote (51964)	6/28/2004 11:58:23 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793597

Inquiring minds want to know? Eugene Volokh tells you. What exactly does the Guantanamo Detainees case mean?In Rasul v. Bush today, the Court held that the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to have their detention reviewed, presumably by civilian courts, even though they're not U.S. citizens, and they're being held outside the U.S. Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 case involving a similar petition brought by detained Nazi soldiers, seemed to hold the contrary -- but the Court distinguished Johnson on four grounds: "[The Guantanamo detainees] are not nationals of countries at war with the United States." (In Eisentrager, the Court concluded that peace had not been officially declared.) "[T]hey deny that they have engaged in or plotted acts of aggression against the United States." "[T]hey have never been afforded to any tribunal [even a military one, as in Eisentrager], much less charged with and convicted of wrongdoing." "[T]hey have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control." A big part of the Court's decision focused on the fourth item -- but as Justice Scalia argues, the government's "exlusive jurisdiction and control" over Guantanamo isn't really that different from the government's exclusive jurisdiction and control over occupied Germany. Guantanamo has been controlled by the U.S. longer than German bases were (I suspect that today Germany has more legal authority over U.S. bases in Germany -- certainly it has more de facto authority, since if the Germans wanted to kick us out, we'd surely go, whereas we're not leaving Guantanamo even though Castro does want us out). But it's hard to see why that should make a difference. But even if the fourth item is a possible ground for distinguishing Rasul from Eisentrager, the Court doesn't (unless I've missed something) explain whether exclusive jurisdiction and control is necessary for habeas, sufficient for habeas, or particularly important for habeas. What if the detainees had been kept in Afghanistan instead, or at a military base in no-longer-occupied Germany? I don't see how one can figure out from the Court's opinion whether they would then be entitled to petition the civilian courts for hearings. And the government does want to know this, since it wants to know where they should be kept. volokh.com