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 (121809)	6/23/2005 7:37:59 PM
From: MichaelSkyy	Respond to of 793905

...why we should use a criminal justice model rather than a war model for the enemy we capture it should be you. Thats all that lawyer training/experience talking..IMO All the rational due process, Miranda rights, amendment rights, etc we have just don't apply to the 'Gitmo' folks.. Both of you are "bright and articulate",(IMO) and your "Beating a Dead Horse" on this issue... Mike

To: Lane3 who wrote (121809)	6/23/2005 7:41:51 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793905

What model to use? Criminal isn't really inapposite, and Geneva Convention isn't really inapposite, but pretending like these guys get nothing isn't going to work, either. I keep mentioning Nuremberg because that was sort of put together from scratch. The defendants were not charged with violating German law, and there wasn't a well-establised body of international law to draw on. I am not really not using a full-fledged US criminal model, actually. If you can stand to read the Hamdi case, you'll see they talk about Quirin, but also other POW cases. The fact that Hamdi was a US citizen was important but not the only issue. At any rate, one of the things you get if you can stand to read Hamdi is that O'Connor says that, even though the President has wide latitude during war, Hamdi made a sufficient showing that he might be detained for the rest of his life, which meant that there had to be a determination, via evidentiary hearing, before a neutral third party, that he really was an enemy combatant. I don't read citizenship as being the threshold for that ruling. And the three other opinions, Souter (concurring), Scalia (dissenting), and Thomas (dissenting), came at it three different ways. Scalia's opinion was far more favorable to Hamdi than O'Connor's, while Thomas's was far less favorable. And these are nine of the our top judges, with hot-and-cold-running law clerks, with the benefit of lengthy briefs, amicus briefs, and oral argument, and internal debate among themselves. If they can't reach a consensus, please don't expect me to come up with a single, coherent, one-size-fits-all explanation. That's why I say "case-by-case." You can't predict how a case will come down until it's gone through the process. All I can predict is that there will eventually be cases, not to mention hearings, and lots of debate.