[Rhodes22-list] political : marines in iraq...big al delete

[Herb Parsons]

Steven Alm wrote:
> There are so many things wrong with that WSJ article, I hardly know where to
> start.  Let's see:
>
> "The writ of habeas corpus, a bulwark of domestic liberty, has been extended
> to foreign nationals whose only connection to the U.S. is their capture by
> our military."
>
> Their only connection is that they're in our custody.  How are we going to
> treat them?  In accordance with our values or not?  Any person, citizen or
> not, on US soil is afforded ALL the rights of any other US citizen.  The
> fact that the detainees are not on US soil is too subversive for me and I
> smell a rat.  The military is trying to find a loophole and circumvent
> American-style justice.  The Supremes are saying "No."
>
>   

Are POW's in "our custody"? Is it your assertion that the writ of habeas 
corpus be extended to POWs? BTW, this isn't a case of the military 
trying to "find a loophole", this loophole was "found", and USED, with 
the SC's blessing, years ago.

> "The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court places many roadblocks
> in the path of a conviction for a crime, and for the loss of liberty, or
> even life, that may follow."
>
> Roadblocks?  Since when is getting a fair trial a roadblock?
>   
We don't try enemy combatants during time of war.
> "Our motto remains: Let 100 guilty men go free before one innocent man is
> convicted."
>
> No.  Our motto is "innocent until proven guilty."
>   
Umm.... we have LOTS of motto's. Do a little research, that one has been 
around a long time, and it's NEVER applied in times of war to "the other 
side". Some times, as in the case of FDR and the Japanese Americans, it 
didn't even apply to THIS side.
> "In fighting an enemy, there is no reason for the judicial branch to "check"
> the political branches."
>
> So is it better to let the military/admin go unchecked?  What a great idea!
>
>   
That's where "your side" just doesn't get it. The military has NEVER 
gone "unchecked". You folks just don't happen to like their checks and 
balances. And no, they're not perfect, but then, the civilian checks and 
balances aren't either.
> "The judiciary is not competent to make judgments about who is or is not an
> enemy combatant or, more generally, a threat to the U.S."
>
> The court is not making that judgement.  They're just saying it needs to
> adhere to reasonable standards when/if the prisoners are tried.
>
>   
Guess we all have different definitions of "reasonable". "Your side" is 
about to get a reality lesson on "reasonable".
> "The imposition of the civilian criminal justice model on decisions
> regarding potentially hostile aliens raises a host of questions which the
> Court does not even attempt to answer in Boumediene."
>
> Such as--what?  Don't detainees have a right to a fair trial?
>
>   
Uh, Steve, he listed a lot of them. But yeah, the detainees don't have a 
right to a fair trial, while the war is still going on. Do you have 
precedent where we try the enemy during war time?
> "Must military personnel take notes in the field regarding the location,
> dress, and comportment of captives for later use in the "trials" mandated by
> the Supreme Court?"
>
> Of course.  Evidence is evidence.  Or should the detainees be subjected to
> mere hearsay?  "Um...I think he's an enemy so don't ask me for any details."
>
>   
That's the silliness that this is going to bring. I don't want soldiers 
have to take notes on evidence. Actually, I don't even care about a 
trial. When the fighting's over, send 'em back home.
> "Can a detainee file a writ for habeas corpus immediately upon arriving at a
> U.S. military base like Guantanamo Bay?"
>
> Why not?  Any other low-life crack dealer in the US is afforded that right.
>
>   
He's said "why not". You've just decided it's all bunk before you began 
reading.
> "In fact, judgments regarding the detention or trial of enemies require
> training, experience, access to and understanding of intelligence."
>
> Agreed.  Who has this training, experience and understanding?  The guy that
> caught him and just thinks he's an enemy?  Doesn't he deserve council?  This
> is America!  Try the sons of bitches and let's see!  The military's
> closed-door approach stinks.  It's fascist.  It's secretive and it's Nazi.
> What are we afraid of?  The truth?
>
>   
That's just it, THIS is America, that ISN'T. Why the name-calling 
though? NOT trying combatants has nothing more to do with Facism or 
Naziism than your tripe has to do with communism. I


> "They cannot be reduced to a particular standard of proof in a courtroom
> setting. "
>
> Oh my god.  Did he really say that?  Do we need no proof?
>   
Particular standard, hard to read the details when you're foaming at the 
mouth though, huh?
> "God help us if the judiciary makes such a mistake and releases the next
> Mohammad Atta into our midst."
>
> That's the whole point of a fair trial.  To prove it one way or the other if
> this guy's a criminal.  Sure, mistakes are sometimes made and trials are
> sometimes tainted.  Criminals sometimes get released on technicalities.
> This is no reason to throw out our judicial system and lock guys up and
> throw away the key unless they're found to be enemies in a legitimate court
> trial.
>
>   
No Slim, that is NOT the purpose of a trial, at least not in our 
country, and that's the whole issue here, and you miss the point. In our 
civilian system, a trial absolutely does NOT "prove it one way or 
another". There is no burden on the accused to prove anything. Many 
criminals are set free because the system could not prove they were 
guilty, within the scope of "the rules" (keep in mind, those rules 
include things like mirandizing them, having a search warrant, etc). 
They are designed to err on the side of the accused. War is not the 
same. That's the whole point of this article, and you, not surprisingly, 
missed it.
> Have we learned nothing from the past?  Did we really need to detain every
> single Japanese-American in the camps during WWII?  What nonsense.
>   
There is no comparison to this and the rounding up of the 
Japanese-Americans. We didn't round these people up on American soil. We 
(or others)  captured them up in the theater of war. They're not 
xxxxx-Americans. BTW, you need to check your history books, we didn't 
detain "every single Japanese-American in the camps during WWII"; but 
then, I suspect a little hyperbole is necessary to support arguments 
like this.
> This whole Gitmo thing is completely unamerican.  I'd bet that some of the
> detainees are in fact guilty of being enemies but we can't, in good
> conscience cattle-call them all to their graves without a shred of proof or
> trial.  The Supremes got it right.
>
>   
Again, more hyperbole. None of these folks are being executed. None WERE 
to be executed without a trail. Of course, why bother introducing facts 
into the equation? You're on a rant, and that's what this decision is about.