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: LindyBill who wrote (171861)	7/1/2006 9:00:07 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793914

"Coercion" is an interesting word to use in the context of Hamdan. What is "coercion"? Yes, I know it has a dictionary meaning. There are infinite levels of "coercion," from the "coercion" a parent exercises over a child to the demands for action backed up by the threat of force used by the military. I suspect that in Hamdan, coercion was exercised subtly, non-physically. Fine with me. The more I read the decision, the more I am convinced that Scalia was right. Eisentrager's jurisdictional point was controlling. If the DTA did not apply to oust the court of jurisdiction, Eisentrager did. The distinction Stevens made--Eisentrager does not apply because it was not a law of war case--was paper thin. Eisentrager did not reach the issue because it held that the courts could not reach it! This is fundamentally dishonest. If they wanted to overrule Eisentrager, they could have said so. That was certainly something the court could have properly done. Oh, well.

To: LindyBill who wrote (171861)	7/1/2006 12:24:05 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793914

No, I think that you agree with the administration that what's being done to the prisoners that have been sent to places like Syria and Egypt under the rendition programs, and all the rest of them in various parts of the world, isn't "torture." And you and I are never going to agree on that, so there's no point arguing about it. You want to call it "coercion," we'll agree to disagree. But they weren't coercing these men for no reason, they were coercing them to get information, right? Well, they can't use this information at a trial conducted by United States personnel. And that's that.