No, he can not. Thank goodness Congress probably still has enough decent people in it to vote this down if it ever even reaches committee.
Still, the very fact that it has been proposed shows an almost unbelievable disdain for Constitutional principles, by the office of a man sworn to uphold them, all the while claiming he needs to function as a “unary executive”.
Let’s say you’re a trapeze artist, and your partner is adamant that the act needs to perform without a net. Meantime, you repeatedly find yourself plummeting due to the fact that your bar, the one your partner was supposed to swing to you, simply isn’t there, not even close. You’re partner’s sitting on the opposite platform, having a smoke and thinking about netless performances. Fortunately, you are never badly injured because of the net.
Would anyone blame you if, however vocally you wish, you choose to question the motives of your partner, whether they are sufficiently qualified and dedicated to even be in their position, and whether we should rethink their suggestions about getting rid of the net?
Does this surprise you, coming from duffer? The boy supports Bush beyond all rational thought. duffer has never demonstrated the slightest ability to argue any issue on its merits; the extent of his participation in any political thread has always been to passionately argue that anyone who disagrees with him is a “Bush-basher”. This is because he simply lacks the capacity to understand and discuss the actual issues in question; the only tool in his political toolbox is the ad hominem. Perhaps you were hoping for a grudging admission of the obvious - that the military lawyers are right and Bush’s actions are unconscionable? A leopard can’t change its spots; the day duffer begins making actual contributions to political discussions - hell, the day he actually understands any political issue - is the day the College of Cardinals names me to be the next pontiff.
Why did you apologize? Nothing you said was unfair. I’m hardly a rabid Bush-hater, or at least I rarely waste my time in discussions about him here. I was the first to cheer when Reeder left us. But duffer’s attempt to recast the essential rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States as a partisan political issue is simply contemptible; it’s the gasping of someone incapable of defending Bush’s actions but unable to admit that the rest of us were right about the guy. There’s no way of defending Bush’s actions. And duffer rightly casts his intelligence and his fundamental morality into doubt when he attempts to distract from what Bush is trying to do here by pretending it’s a matter where legitimate partisan disagreement can exist.
The UCMJ is a creation of Congress, BrainGlutton. Congress can modify its own legislation, which Bush is asking them to do.
The Geneva Convention application is a bit more unclear, but I do not recall the Court decalring that the Gitmo prisoners are entitled to POW status specifically. Did they?
I realize this is off the main topic, but how does that count as a finessing of a Constitutional guarantee?
There was a nontrivial Case of Rebellion right about then. ISTM that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a situation where its suspension was explicitly authorized by the Constitution. I’d hardly call that a finessing of a Constitutional guarantee.
Perhaps I was less than clear. In my scenario, the declarant would not be the defendant, it would be a third party “witness” who would not take the stand, and thus would not be subject to cross examination. The person on the stand would likely be a military member, or an intelligence agent of some type, and that person would testify about an out of court statement made by someone other than the Defendant, perhaps under severe duress. Some of these cases may seek the death penalty. I can’t accept the admission of hearsay evidence in the scenario I described as a hypothetical.
I agree with you that the other concerns you raised are serious, but in my view, the hearsay issue is equally so.
Not getting what you’re trying to say. I assume you mean Federal Rule of Evidence 807, which provides as follows:
*Rule 807. Residual Exception
A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant. *
In my hypothetical, the hearsay has not circumstantial guarantees of trustiworthiness…in fact, there is every reason to doubt the veracity of the statement. Also don’t see the statement meeting prong “C” as outlined above. Think the Government also has issues about meeting the notice requirements in 807. If I was the Judge, I don’t see admitting the evidence I described under this rule.
I’d rather argue the issues than engage in ad hominem attacks. He didn’t attack me (directly) first, so it was uncalled for. I will state that anyone who still supports Bush is a fucking moron, though. If duffer wants to be part of that group, I’m not stopping him.
Oddly enough, in view of Hamdan, ex parte Valladingham focused on this: While it was legal to “finesse” – it was the prerogative of Congress, not the President, to do so. And Lincoln’s unilateral action was therefore improper (though moot, since the case was decided after the war was over).
I’ve seen plenty of not-too-dissimilar garbage admitted under the residual hearsay exception. I agree that what you describe is the textbook answer; all I can tell you is if you’ve ever practiced criminal defense, especially as a PD, you will have seen a lot of very stinky fish get called clean enough to have “…equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.”
For this reason, I just can’t get too wrapped up around it.
Also please consider that hearsay is admissible in a variety of other contexts – to establish probable cause for searches, for example.
Bottom line is - it already happens far too much to get up in arms over this portion of the proposal, especially when the proposal offers much more chilling and grave items to weigh it down.
I just want to point out that a blind dog would have no trouble finding a bone, and a blind pig would probably be be better at finding a truffle than one that can see. They use their noses, you see, not their eyes. Please try again.
Yeah, I’ve done some criminal defense. Enough to see bullshit get admitted over my vociferous objection. The point I’m trying to make is that evidence was allowed with a hearsay rule in place, at least on paper. What Bush is proposing would eliminate the hearsay rule altogether, and the result would be that evidence that would never even be considered as possibly admissable by a zealous prosecutor may be routinely admitted in these “trials”. At least now, the prosecutor has to make an argument about it, and the defense has a reasonable ground on which to object. With no rule existing, this administration may as well set up a whipping post outside the “courtroom”, and let the “judges” announce a recess while they flog some nameless witness hard enough to invent more “evidence”.
Do you really think any congressman/senator who has any interest in staying in office and/or avoiding a lynch mob will support it? Let’s not get into a discussion about due process, rules of evidence and all that. And, even if it passed Congress, tthe Supremes could possibly call it unconstitutional and throw it out, depending on the Bill of Rights, precedent, and all that other legal type stuff. Or, the Democrats could stall it and stonewall it, take a majority in November, and then kill the bill completely.
Pretty much. Funny that those who are usually the first to profess their patriotism and love of this country are the ones who don’t seem to have much respect for what this country actually stands for.
What good is “America”, really, if we lose those freedoms? Bush is taking a shit on the Constitution, and all they can worry about is that some moron is burning a flag.
Um, I was asking if Bush was in any way capable of making this law without any intervention.
Unlike Guin I thought you were old enough to understand how stuff like this works.
I’ve stated before that I have problems with this administration. I’m just not so full of viceral hatred to let it carry me over the edge in every thread. It must be some sort of defect.