Stunning.
How can you not be opposed to the hearsay business? You know how that is gonna go down…Witness#1 will testify that he heard (name censored for security) say the defendant did it, but Witness#1 will not testify that (name censored for security) was being sodomized with a cattle prod when he made the statement…
Think Shrub has to fight to eliminate any notion of speedy trials…he’s already held these guys for years. Shrub should probably be glad I’m not a Judge to rule on a motion to dismiss brought on that ground. I’d give a fair hearing, but the Government better have a good argument against such a motion…
Ok. Legitimate complaint. Bad on Bush.
Good job guys. Just goes to show even a bling dog finds a bone once in a while.
Ok. Legitimate complaint. Bad on Bush.
Good job guys. Just goes to show even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.
What is it, Bling Dog? Has Mr. T fallen down the well?
As to duffer wondering why this is such a big deal if it hasn’t a real chance of happening: Because no president with a decent respect for the Constitution should even dream of proposing a scheme so hideously antithetical to this country’s founding principles. What it reveals about the thinking of those running the current administration is, well, frightening – and I do not choose that word lightly.
I’d add that planning to do something terrible/stupid is, while not as bad as actually doing it, very much still worthy of condemnation.
Hmmmmmmm… I’d add to your comment my perception that anyone who fights so hard for formally codified authority to “do something terrible/stupid” may quite possibly already be engaged in such activities.
I can’t speak for everyone here, but for me the very idea that something like this would be suggested is worthy of a pit thread. This guts just about everything our justice system is based on. I find it worrisome that someone in power would think that this is how the system should operate.
This example would be a worst case scenario in the case that the law passes, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. Here goes anyways.
To use posters in this thread as an example, I call the feds to turn you (duffer) in as a terrorist because I heard Biggirl say that she heard you planned to do something (hearsay evidence normally thrown out). You wouldn’t know who turned you in because you can’t confront your accuser. Under duress (threatened with blimps), the normally stoic Scylla says that you confided in him of your nasty plans. Your defense attorney, Elucidator, can’t examine any of the evidence against you to prepare a defense and you can’t choose a better attorney because that right has also been removed. Not that it matters. Your case won’t be going to trial in the near future. Hope you weren’t too attached to your family or anything.
Again, that’s the worst case scenario based on my brief interpretation. I’m welcome to correction if I erred in any way.
I don’t think this will make it very far either if it has to go by congress. I just don’t like that this is the way the powers that be want things to go. There’s far too much room for abuse
It is worth noting that the Judge Advocate Generals of all four uniform services appeared before a Congressional committee several weeks ago, just before the Gaza Strip blew up again, and said that the standard court-martial system was perfectly capable of dealing with the prosecution of TWAT defendants and able to do it with due process protections for confrontation and representation and the usual rules for the reliability of evidence and self-incrimination.
One of these Major Generals (or what ever the Naval equivalent might be, Vice Admiral, maybe) said that the one thing we could not do, should not do, was to in essence say to these prisoners “we know your guilty. We can’t tell you why, but we have this guy, we can’t tell you who, who says these things, we can’t tell you what, that means your guilty of something, although we can’t tell you what.”
Now, these four officers might be experienced lawyers but they are still career officers who have played the political promotion game very well. You don’t get to be the Judge Advocate General of any of the armed services by rocking the boat. They don’t appear in public and pronounce the military commission scheme developed by the guy who holds their future in his hands and has been approved by the President to be inadequate and contrary to accepted principles of justice without a lot of soul searching. I can only think that all four of them, with their deputies, and staffs, decided that the integrity of the institution required that they go out on this limb.
Most telling was the testimony of at least one of the JAGs that the military commission scheme that the Supreme Court rejected had been developed and promulgated without their input, review or knowledge, by civilian political appointment types in the Department of Defense and the Office of the Vice-president. As quickly as this new scheme (same as the old scheme) came out it is pretty apparent that the uniform lawyers were cut out of the process again.
If they wanted a bit of slack on evidence rules, I could be sympathetic. If a fair case, even a superficial case, could be made that the detainee in question was captured while directly engaged in combat against US forces…ok, fair enough, rough justice, let him be detained for the duration of hostilities or until other evidence sufaces. I would prefer to have the original AK 47 submitted with his fingerprints… But since the defendant is not on trial for his life and has a reasonable prospect of release after hostilities cease…it’ll have to do.
But any futher stacking of the deck just limns the actions of people anxious to keep out the sunlight.
Either give them fair trials or line them up against a wall and murder them in cold blood. These commissions don’t even merit being called show trials since the public isn’t supposed to know about them.
I could get behind that! 
Oh, wait . . .
You weren’t talking about the Bush Admin, were you? 
Please excuse me for what could be considered a hijack, but how do you figure that the federal government is “legally compelled” to bail California out of an energy crisis?
Eh, it could work for either. 
Now excuse me while I get dressed, the SS should be at my door any minute.
What a deep thought. You really helped this thread. Trying to hit 20,000 in some time frame? I’ve usually disagreed with your politics, but since your return it seems most of your posts are padding wanks. I can respect an opposing opinion or stance, but you’re coming across as a joke.
That’s what’s stunning. And it’s, frankly, disappointing.
That depends on how the Supreme Court rules.
And considering that it includes, Salia, Alito and Roberts . . .
Reading this kind of shit sometimes makes me question if our nation is even WORTH defending anymore.*
*[sub]For the morons-that’s hyperbole. Look it up.[/sub]
Nah. Like John Mace said above, he’s just stalling for time.
Come the summer break, he’ll just “appoint” all of the detainees to the post of “Convicted War Criminal,” and say recess appointments don’t have to be confirmed by the Senate.
:rolleyes:
The man took an oath to, among other things, defend the Constitution to the best of his ability. Submitting a plan such as described in the OP’s link reveals, either that he never intended to fulfill that oath, or that the best of his ability is so inadequate that we should get rid of him and all his works, out of a sense of self-preservation.
The main theme of the Hamdan plurality decision was that the military tribunals were prohibited as they were beyond the President’s power as they were unauthorized by Congress. Justice Breyer’s concurrence summarized that holding:
This holding was extremely important as it almost fully undercut the Bush Administration’s legal theory that it had almost unlimited power in matters relating to terrorism. However, were Congress to authorize similar tribunals, the Supreme Court would be faced with the, in my opinion, more difficult question of whether those tribunals were consistent with the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.