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: Ilaine who wrote (121829)	6/23/2005 8:37:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793896

Change of subject. Here's a question for someone with your legal background. Should I read Kennedy's opinion to suggest that the Connecticut legislature could change their laws on eminent domain to stop this condemnation, the one the SC decided today? Edit: I just caught out of the corner of my eye a woman on TV from the Institute for Justice saying that the states will be updating their eminent domain laws as a result of this.

To: Ilaine who wrote (121829)	7/8/2005 8:45:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

in part because these people, as we both acknowledge, are neither fish nor fowl, neither persons who have violated United States law, nor persons who are covered by any particular Geneva Convention. POW status wasn't created by the Geneva convention. You don't need a prisoner of war treaty to take prisoners of war, or have them covered by that status. The treaty just deals with how you treat them. "Illegal combatant" was and is a term for people who don't get the protections accorded to "lawful" POW's under the treaty. Before that term came in to existence there where other laws and treaties covering spies and pirates and such. They had no international treaty protection. They could just get shot. Nevertheless, they are being held by US employees and agents, and as such, are entitled to due process and habeas corpus review. <.i> I don't see a good legal or constitutional reason why this is so. You hold prisoners taken in war. You don't try them. Can you imagine trying to collect evidence and run trials for all the German prisoners taken in WWII. Its just wouldn't have been possible, and even with the lower number today I don't think "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" combined with a full court room hearings and full legal appeal works. I'm not sure the "presumption of innocence" applies, when they are not being charged with crimes. Being an enemy combatant isn't a crime. Tim