[SeelaypeKet]

Ok, so the first trial of a Guantanamo terrorist begins, and it's already a screw-job.

Judge Bars Testimony of Key Prosecution Witness in Guantanamo Trial - WNYC

Our arrogant social worker CiC pushes to give enemy combatants their day in court, and discovers the hardway that civilian courts cannot except information obtained through aggressive interrogation techniques.

This is why you never, EVER allow foriegn enemies to have American Rights.

This sets the stage to free every last Guantanimo animal back into the wild and back onto the battlefield.

Or worse yet, into your neighborhood.

Good job there, Bam Bam!!

[VioletttaJosetta]

This sets the stage to free every last Guantanimo animal back into the wild and back onto the battlefield.

Or worse yet, into your neighborhood.

Except that the administration has not taken the position that it will release prisoners it cannot convict. It intends to hold them indefinitely just as the last administration did.

[Czrzftmz]

I'm quite glad the Judge has decided to uphold the constitution.

Furthermore the Judge has allowed the trial to be postponed, meaning its not like they're going to release the guy.

[unmalryAlalry]

Ok, so the first trial of a Guantanamo terrorist begins, and it's already a screw-job.

Judge Bars Testimony of Key Prosecution Witness in Guantanamo Trial - WNYC

Our arrogant social worker CiC pushes to give enemy combatants their day in court, and discovers the hardway that civilian courts cannot except information obtained through aggressive interrogation techniques.

This is why you never, EVER allow foriegn enemies to have American Rights.

This sets the stage to free every last Guantanimo animal back into the wild and back onto the battlefield.

Or worse yet, into your neighborhood.

Good job there, Bam Bam!!

I don't know so much that they "found out the hard way". I'm more of the opinion that this was the plan right from the get go.

This administration has chosen to look at terrorism as a criminal matter rather than as a hostile act by a foreign enemy.

[DINAKuncher]

I'm quite glad the Judge has decided to uphold the constitution.

Furthermore the Judge has allowed the trial to be postponed, meaning its not like they're going to release the guy.

Well, he's partially upheld the Constitution. I'm not sure that anywhere inthere is indefinite detention without conviction.

[ATTILAGLIC]

Well, he's partially upheld the Constitution. I'm not sure that anywhere inthere is indefinite detention without conviction.

That's covered by Article 2, Section 2.

[Coededgeme]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Hmm. Can you show me? Honest question.

[drlifeech]

Hmm. Can you show me? Honest question.

Sure: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ..."

This places decisions about the conduct of war in the hands of the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch. Conduct of war necessarily includes identifying the enemy and endeavoring to render the enemy hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. This entails killing the enemy, wounding the enemy and/or capturing and holding the enemy prisoner.

Observe that the judge correctly noted that the military may properly detain the man as "something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end even if he were found not guilty in this case." This is an opinion the judge and I share with the best and brightest of the Bush and Obama administrations.

[miel]

Sure: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ..."

This places decisions about the conduct of war in the hands of the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch. Conduct of war necessarily includes identifying the enemy and endeavoring to render the enemy hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. This entails killing the enemy, wounding the enemy and/or capturing and holding the enemy prisoner.

Observe that the judge correctly noted that the military may properly detain the man as "something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end even if he were found not guilty in this case." This is an opinion the judge and I share with the best and brightest of the Bush and Obama administrations.

OK, are we taking this in the context of strict construction?

If so, who are we at war with? AQ and the Taliban are nebulous entities at best.

[barsikjal]

OK, are we taking this in the context of strict construction?

I guess, although I don't believe any sort of "construction" rule needs to be applied. It's unmistakably clear -- the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Thus, the decisions about how the military carries out its war-making function are his, not the Judiciary's. The conduct of armed hostilities including the identification, capture and detention of enemy combatants are military functions.

If so, who are we at war with? AQ and the Taliban are nebulous entities at best. I gather your question may be based on the false premise that the country must be in a declared state of war for the Commander-in-Chief power to apply. If so, this is simply incorrect; you'll see that no such proviso is attached to that grant of power.

But to answer your question ... No more so than any other enemy. They often disguise themselves as civilians and conduct sneak attacks (mostly in violation of the laws of war, by the way), which may make identifying and taking them out of the fight more challenging. But this does not change the fact that this role is reserved to the President as Commander in Chief (and his designees, of course), not the Judiciary.

[Switiespils]

I guess, although I don't believe any sort of "construction" rule needs to be applied. It's unmistakably clear -- the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Thus, the decisions about how the military carries out its war-making function are his, not the Judiciary's. The conduct of armed hostilities including the identification, capture and detention of enemy combatants are military functions.



I gather your question may be based on the false premise that the country must be in a declared state of war for the Commander-in-Chief power to apply. If so, this is simply incorrect; you'll see that no such proviso is attached to that grant of power.

But to answer your question ... No more so than any other enemy. They often disguise themselves as civilians and conduct sneak attacks (mostly in violation of the laws of war, by the way), which may make identifying and taking them out of the fight more challenging. But this does not change the fact that this role is reserved to the President as Commander in Chief (and his designees, of course), not the Judiciary.

Well, I'm trying to put myself back into the mindset of the late 1700s. I have a hard time believing that they would have supported the endless detention of these men - it was exactly the sort of thing that the British would have done, and they were still pretty sensitive to that. So, It seems to me that there isn't an intent in there to allow for unending detention of civilians.

[PPActionnGuys]

Well, I'm trying to put myself back into the mindset of the late 1700s. I have a hard time believing that they would have supported the endless detention of these men - it was exactly the sort of thing that the British would have done, and they were still pretty sensitive to that. So, It seems to me that there isn't an intent in there to allow for unending detention of civilians.

Who said anything about civilians?

Many of the men you are speaking about were involved in conducting a war in which enemy prisoners were taken and held indefinitely under the leadership of their Commander in Chief, George Washington. It most certainly was their intent that future Commanders in Chief would prosecute armed hostilities in a similar fashion, which is why they designated the President to assume that responsibility and not the Legislature or the Judiciary.

[JeorgeNoxeref]

Who said anything about civilians?

Many of the men you are speaking about were involved in conducting a war in which enemy prisoners were taken and held indefinitely under the leadership of their Commander in Chief, George Washington. It most certainly was their intent that future Commanders in Chief would prosecute armed hostilities in a similar fashion, which is why they designated the President to assume that responsibility and not the Legislature or the Judiciary.

But not all of these men were picked up in the battlefield. They're not all "unlawful comatants." They're just people we don't like.

[Obsententicab]

But not all of these men were picked up in the battlefield. They're not all "unlawful comatants." They're just people we don't like.

There's no requirement that they be "unlawful" nor that they be on a "battlefield" -- nowhere in the Constitution are such provisos appended to the Commander in Chief power. The British soldiers who fought the Americans in the Revolutionary War were not unlawful combatants, but that didn't stop your heroes from attacking, killing and capturing and holding them prisoner when they could ... even when they weren't on a "battlefield." Again, identification and engagement of the enemy are military functions under the purview of the Commander in Chief.

Your opinion that "[t]hey're just people we don't like" is just your own and irrelevant. You're not in a position to make that call, and it's neither your right nor responsibility; nor is it that of our fine countrymen in black robes. Again, that function is assigned by our Constitution to the President, which Judge Kaplan, in his wisdom, upheld.

[bapimporb]

There's no requirement that they be "unlawful" nor that they be on a "battlefield" -- nowhere in the Constitution are such provisos appended to the Commander in Chief power. The British soldiers who fought the Americans in the Revolutionary War were not unlawful combatants, but that didn't stop your heroes from attacking, killing and capturing and holding them prisoner when they could ... even when they weren't on a "battlefield." Again, identification and engagement of the enemy are military functions under the purview of the Commander in Chief.

Your opinion that "[t]hey're just people we don't like" is just your own and irrelevant. You're not in a position to make that call, and it's neither your right nor responsibility; nor is it that of our fine countrymen in black robes. Again, that function is assigned by our Constitution to the President, which Judge Kaplan, in his wisdom, upheld.

My heroes?

Fine.

We're done.

[diegogo]

My heroes?

Fine.

We're done.

What? I didn't mean any offense. They're my heroes too.

[laperuzdfhami]

What? I didn't mean any offense. They're my heroes too.

Sorry, my misunderstanding. For some reason I had a neural short circuit and thought you were doing a technique used by other forumgoers and assigning hero worship of the redcoats to me.

Apologies.

I'm still not seeing how the power is given to the POTUS to say, without any kind of review, "hey, military - go pick up people in other countries and hold them indefinitely." If they don't have to be fighting - i.e. not combatants, then why is it a military matter?

[Timoxari]

Except that the administration has not taken the position that it will release prisoners it cannot convict. It intends to hold them indefinitely just as the last administration did.

Is there no end to this mans ability to waste money!!!!!

What the hell is the freak'n point then!! "Hi, we're going to bring you to trial just for the hell of it, and if we loose, we will keep you anyways?!?!?"



Can someone stop the marry-go-round please!!!

[Malinguenem]

I'm quite glad the Judge has decided to uphold the constitution.

Um, he's not an American.

Furthermore the Judge has allowed the trial to be postponed, meaning its not like they're going to release the guy.

At least until the next time Eric Holder screws something up.

[NicolasOL]

Sorry, my misunderstanding. For some reason I had a neural short circuit and thought you were doing a technique used by other forumgoers and assigning hero worship of the redcoats to me.

Apologies.

Ah, no worries -- overuse of pronouns.

I was referring to the Founding Fathers who held captured British soldiers without trial. They understood that taking and holding prisoners was a part of war and that such prisoners would be under military control and, ultimately, under the control of the Commander in Chief. No way did they envision a "convict or release" policy for enemy combatants. Indeed, the idea would be ludicrous -- It was not a crime for a British citizen to be a British soldier and engaged in war with the Americans! Any criminal prosecution for this would have been laughable and today would be viewed as a violation of the laws of war in itself.

I'm still not seeing how the power is given to the POTUS to say, without any kind of review, "hey, military - go pick up people in other countries and hold them indefinitely." If they don't have to be fighting - i.e. not combatants, then why is it a military matter? Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is because the military goes in and gets them, and they are under the command of the President (Article 2, Section 2). Enemy combatants don't have to be in the act of fighting to be subject to attack by our forces, of course. You don't think our heroes attacked redcoats who were sitting in their fort minding their own business? Or out for a Sunday stroll? Imagine a scene like this: YouTube - The Patriot British are ambushed

(By the way, if you take away the power of the military to capture enemy fighters and hold them prisoner you'll get more of the summary executions you see at the conclusion of that ambush.)

It is an odd thing, indeed, to suggest that a soldier may attack and kill an enemy soldier, but he must get permission from a civilian judge to do the more humane thing -- hold him as a prisoner. Yet you wish to imagine that the Constitution contains a clause requiring just that. Nowhere does the Constitution allow judicial review of war-making decisions, and -- I'm sorry -- but it is non-sensical to believe that its drafters intended it for the reasons we've already discussed.

Again, I am in good company in holding this opinion as more than 200 years of history suggests and the best and brightest of the Bush and Obama administrations will attest.