|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 27, 2008 13:04:22 GMT -8
The travesty is that it was a 5-4 decision.
Does anyone doubt the importance of this election?
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jun 27, 2008 18:59:48 GMT -8
The travesty is that it was a 5-4 decision. Does anyone doubt the importance of this election? This court has truley been unbelievable, even when they make the right call. They were wrong on GITMO, they were very damn wrong on punishment for child rapists, just what the hell constitutes a fitting punishment for such a hidieous crime? And they were very close to being wrong again on an hugley simple issue. The DC wennies are already crying about how much crime will increase with the ban out the window. The galling thing is that many of the pundits here are perfectly aware that DC's gun ban did little good since the crime in the city remained relatively high on a national level, but they cling to the ban and say, it was "something" at least that kept "some" order. The mayor and others here are already talking about plenty of "restrictive" measures they'll seek to make owning a handgun in the district almost as much of a pain as the ban itself.  I swear these idiots will never learn. |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Jun 29, 2008 6:05:35 GMT -8
The court was right on GITMO. Respecting the rule of law is the foundation of liberty.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognized by the United States, reads:
There is nothing in there that supports holding persons indefinitely without trial. Had the administration not skirted around the legal issues in the first place, perhaps the US could have retained some of its international credibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jun 29, 2008 16:47:06 GMT -8
The court was right on GITMO. Respecting the rule of law is the foundation of liberty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognized by the United States, reads: There is nothing in there that supports holding persons indefinitely without trial. Had the administration not skirted around the legal issues in the first place, perhaps the US could have retained some of its international credibility. Umm okay, this declaration was first written in 1948. I'm not so sure they had terrorists rights in mind when they wrote it. Alright, first off, article 10. If we are going to use this in the case of the GITMO detainee's can't they claim that they should be tried by a neutral power in Europe or elsewhere? That isn't gonna happen. Second, if we are to follow the declaration to the letter, does that imply that we MUST enact a universal healthcare program as per article 25 Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
In this case we had a trial setting put up for the detainees to hear their cases and review the evidence against them. The difference now is that some bum judge stateside will probably allow these terrorists to review the CLASSIFIED evidence against them which, i dunno, just may take away from certain intelligence collection procedures we have in place. www.un.org/Overview/rights.html |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Jun 29, 2008 17:10:45 GMT -8
Because natural rights are universal and absolute, they remain true regardless of which time they were described. The Declaration recognized rights, it did not create them. The Declaration could have been made in 2500 BC -- that would not detract from them whatsoever. Would you argue that the Ten Commandments are less relevant today because Moses did not know about the US Bill of Rights? Will you suggest that natural rights are not universal or absolute? Probably not.
Not necessarily. A supporter of the mixed system we have (which I am not) can easily suggest that our law already fulfills Article 25. It is unlawful for a medical establishment to deny a person healthcare in the event of an emergency. But if you feel bad about allowing your fellow Christians and countrymen going without sufficient medical care, universal health might not be such a bad idea. That's another conversation.
Anyway, international law (Article 5 of the Geneva Convention) provides that suspected illegal combatants undergo a trial to determine their status. If that status is determined to be in fact illegal, the detaining power has the jurisdiction to punish them. If we've captured them in compromising activities, then it shouldn't be very difficult to provide the evidence in a court. If not, then they remain innocent and should be let go. That's law 101. The military tribunals were established in response to a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that asserted detainees had a right to challenge their status. The Supreme Court has been doing its job.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jun 30, 2008 5:46:55 GMT -8
Because natural rights are universal and absolute, they remain true regardless of which time they were described. The Declaration recognized rights, it did not create them. The Declaration could have been made in 2500 BC -- that would not detract from them whatsoever. Would you argue that the Ten Commandments are less relevant today because Moses did not know about the US Bill of Rights? Will you suggest that natural rights are not universal or absolute? Probably not.
Noted.
My point was that these circumstance are a bit different. We are dealing with a large group of individuals who were picked up either on a battlefield, or in a raid in another country and handed over to us. In some of their cases, the evidence which lead to their capture dealt with sensitive collection assests such as HUMINT. By giving all at GITMO the right to challlenge in US courts we are allowing them to view exactly who these sources were. Some of these assets may still be collecting for us and this declaration will put them in danger, as well as dissuade any new comers from handing information to the US. I support a person's right to challenge their detention, but it seems that in this case the military tribunal in GITMO should have sufficed since their cases and the evidence against them would all be reviewed.
This decision will make it more difficult for Soldiers out in the field, but hey, Ginsberg isn't the one that's going to be on the receiving end of a bullet, so she can afford to have "higher morals" I guess.
The military tribunals were established in response to a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that asserted detainees had a right to challenge their status. The Supreme Court has been doing its job
No, their giving terrorists rights they never had before and IMO are not entittled to. Let their cases be up for review, but it is increadibly irresponsible to allow them access to information needed to effectively fight the war on terrorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Aug 19, 2008 16:58:41 GMT -8
The travesty is that it was a 5-4 decision. Does anyone doubt the importance of this election? This court has truley been unbelievable, even when they make the right call. They were wrong on GITMO, they were very damn wrong on punishment for child rapists, just what the hell constitutes a fitting punishment for such a hidieous crime? And they were very close to being wrong again on an hugley simple issue. The DC wennies are already crying about how much crime will increase with the ban out the window. The galling thing is that many of the pundits here are perfectly aware that DC's gun ban did little good since the crime in the city remained relatively high on a national level, but they cling to the ban and say, it was "something" at least that kept "some" order. The mayor and others here are already talking about plenty of "restrictive" measures they'll seek to make owning a handgun in the district almost as much of a pain as the ban itself. I swear these idiots will never learn. You are right, they don't learn. They just keep playing by their own rules. Most handguns including semi-auto's are still illegal in the District. Plaintiff in D.C. Gun Ban Case Registers RevolverWASHINGTON — The man whose lawsuit overturned Washington's handgun ban has successfully registered his revolver, ending a more than 30-year wait to keep the weapon in his home. Dick Heller walked out of D.C. police headquarters Monday, clutching a yellow firearms registration certificate stamped "approved." He gave the thumbs-up sign, grinned and said, "Victory!" Heller was among the first people to seek a gun permit under new rules adopted after the Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Heller was the plaintiff in that case. He won approval to keep a .22-caliber revolver at home after coming to police headquarters in July to be fingerprinted and take a firearms proficiency test. Police approved the weapon after completing a background check. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405561,00.html Heller initially attempted to register his semi-auto (a Glock I believe) but was told it is still illegal. It took him months to get the revolver registered and then only after "ballistic fingerprinting," a long waiting period and hefty registration fees. This one is going back to court. Congress also has a bill in front of it that would shitcan the District's restrictions if it passes and, according to the NRA, San Fran Nan has "promised" a vote on this question in the House. We all know what HER promises are worth. |
|
