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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (71772)	7/9/2006 12:20:19 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Military tribunals are one of the lesser Bush war crimes IMHO. His PRIMARY war crime was launching a war of aggression against Iraq under a barrage of lies IMHO.

To: Rarebird who wrote (71772)	7/9/2006 12:42:37 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

That's may be one of the most idiotic opinions or analysis of the The US Supreme Court's minimum majority decision concerning the Presidents proposals in dealing with terrorists. you should read no further as what follows will upset you if you have any reading comprehension ability. If you would like some reality... LOL... It really just a ruling on a technicality of execution of the law. A technicality held by a minimum majority of the court. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed. Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. However, what Hamdan also means is that, if the administration wishes to pursue military-commission trials, the procedures--including evidentiary rules--to be followed by those bodies will have to be revised so as to conform to the procedures applicable in ordinary courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)--or additional legislation must be obtained from Congress. This is because the Supreme Court based its ruling on language Congress included in UCMJ Article 36(b), which requires rules and regulations made for both military commissions and courts-martial to "be uniform insofar as practicable." As an alternative, the administration could also try the detainees in courts-martial. Of course, military commissions were initially established because the rules applicable in courts-martial are not consistent with either the practical realities of the war on terror, or the fundamentally illegitimate status, under the laws and customs of war, of captured al Qaeda members. That being the case, the administration has two options. First, the president could make a determination pursuant to the UCMJ that it would be impracticable to apply courts-martial rules in the context of military commissions in this conflict. Although the court was skeptical of whether using these rules really is impracticable here, it also noted that the president had not made such a determination, and that insufficient justification had been presented in the Hamdan case to support such a finding. The clear implication is that, if the president does act, and there is sufficient justification articulated, then departures from courts-martial rules are permissible. opinionjournal.com