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: sylvester80 who wrote (190496)	6/30/2006 9:33:19 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You'd have more credibility if you stuck to truths. The supes did not say "this administration are a bunch of criminal lying fascists". Not even once, in 75 pages.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (190496)	6/30/2006 9:57:17 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Even the Supreme court agrees that this administration are a bunch of criminal lying fascists. What more do you want? If you're referring to the "Gitmo" decision saying that military tribunals can not be established to try detainees there, I'm going to have to read the decision: apnews.myway.com Personally speaking, and off the top of my head, as illegal combatants, these detainees should qualify to be tried by military tribunal as "spies and saboteurs". This view is also held by theauthors of the Manual of Military Law Part III an official publication in1958 of the United Kingdom War Office at paragraph 96 page 34 where it isstated "Members of the armed forces caught in civilian clothing whileacting as saboteurs in enemy territory are in a position analogous to that of spies." zenpundit.blogspot.com fpc.state.gov It's hard to understand, IMO, how the SC could ignore this fundamental law of war and the right of the military to try "spies and saboteurs" related to their operations outside of US borders (even if they are directly targeting the US homeland). But there is little doubt that this ruling is a blow to the Bush administration since the decision cannot be appealed. However, I believe there's a process for presenting new arguments and evidence and presenting it up the legal "chain" again. Hawk