“…Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm…”
So was all of that story just designed to swipe at Obama? I note that last little swipe at the end of it. I had interest and understanding until that part. I agree with it but, the credability took a nosedive when I read that. Why do they have to turn reports into mudslinging? It is hard to side with.
no, the story was an explanation of democrat party positions…
if you think it is mudslinging to point out that democrats and their standard bearer want to give terrorists more rights than a taxpaying citizen, there is a problem… is it racist too?
I don’t know much about the subject, but to me it seemed unfair to suspend habeas corpus because we’re in a “time of war.”
We might as well have suspended habeas corpus for the War on Drugs, and then not allowed anybody the right to a fair trial who was caught dealing. To me, they seem similar.
How they have more rights than a tax paying citizen?
I also find the accusation of ‘legislating from the bench’ to stem from a misunderstanding of how the law works. Over the past century, there has been a lot of debate about what the law is and how it works, and the role of judges in the framework of our legal system and the system of English common law. Legal Realism is a fairly mainstream position, and one that Barack Obama, who was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, is certainly aware of. So, he know the law in this case, and he knows that any judgment requires interpretation of the law. Those accusing of legislating from the bench are just upset because it wasn’t interpreted the way that they would have interpreted it.
I don’t think it’s such a stretch, or a violation of the spirit of the law, to miss the part in the constitution that qualifies the statement “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . .” to only apply to US taxpayers. Nor do I find the argument that the people we’re fighting against will break the rules to be justification that we, too, should set our own morals aside.
No, but US run detainment centers are subject to our jurisdiction. Habeas corpus has often applied to foreign citizens. It has more to do with who’s holding than who’s being held.
Being former military, I say “aye”. The Geneva Conventions were conceived by a committee of idiots, supported by morons and affirmed by mindless slaves of the liberal agenda.
“Rules of War” … only for those who have never taken part in combat.
I say make the Middle East nuclear glass, put a Wal-Mart and a McD’s on it with a really spacious parking lot. Instant world improvement.
Except you’ll find it even more difficult to dig through the piles of cheeseburger wrappers and empty milkshake cups, not to mention the rock that has absorbed all the fallout, to get to the oil which one of (not the only, but one of) the motives behind this war.