A Question Left Unanswered In This Habeas Corpus Debate

Our Constitution doesn't apply to war captives.

Geneva does not protect spies and saboteurs, nor ununiformed individuals attacking uniformed soldiers. They can be shot on site, and, in view of the recent SCOTUS decision, shooting them on site would be preferable to giving them a second shot in court, then be released to take another shot at our men on the battlefield.

==the word I wanted was "hung", past tense and past participle of "hang". ==

Then, you wanted the wrong word.

The past tense of "hang" is "hanged." A person is not hung by a hanged jury.

You use the word as its use was corrupted.

      "Lee C. - Incorrect - Any individual caught without the
      uniform of the opposing country can be shot on site!!"
      spock | Jun 19, 2008 11:56:38 AM

Irrelevant (even if it were true); the persons in question were, in fact, not "shot on sight"; that option has been forfeited by the selection of different option and by the passage of time.  They were taken to Gitmo instead.  Battlefield rules do not apply there, because Gitmo is a prison not a battlefield.

      "[O]ur Constitution does not cover non citizens or
      residents of the Continental US (Hawaii and Alaska too)"
      spock | Jun 19, 2008 11:56:38 AM

You say that as if it were true.  It is not.  Nor will you make it true by frequent repetition.

      "[I]f you put them under Enemy Combatents which the
      fall [sic], then no treaty covers them!!"

Again, not true.  If they are not soldiers, then they are civilians (not soldiers = civilians), and they're covered by other sections of the Geneva Conventions.  The Bush Administration's attempt to fabricate a discrete third category, not covered by the Geneva Conventions, whipped up out of whole cloth was a complete fraud.  The Supreme Court confirmed that in the LAST case the Bush Administration lost.  (The Administration is 0 for 3 now.)

      "And, by the way, the word you want is 'hanged.'"
      Mr. Incredible | Jun 19, 2008 12:04:59 PM

Nope, the word I wanted was "hung", past tense and past participle of "hang".  Check Merriam-Webster Online; it's a perfectly acceptable word.  I get to decide what word I want; you don't.

Spock has the correct view of the Electoral College.

==Uniformed soldiers (POWs) may not be tried and hung (they get the better deal); spies and saboteurs must be tried before they can be hung, but neither can be held forever without trial.==

Geneva specifically denies spies and saboteurs the Right to treatment given to uniformed soldiers cuz they are not uniformed, and they take that chance, also cuz they are not fighting for a nation state.

And, by the way, the word you want is "hanged."

DAVID NH - The electoral college was created to give States equal say, not because of reporting issues!!
It was so smaller states would not be bullied by larger states, see the Federal Government was suppose to be small and only take care of 4 things.

The only way to change the Constitution is by Amendments, it is not living!!

Lee C. - Incorrect - Any individual caught without the uniform of the opposing country can be shot on site!! No Trial necessary.

To say a trial is necessary is foolish because our Constitution does not cover non citizens or residents of the Continental US (Hawaii and Alaska too)
Are not the libs by pushing our Constitution on other countries do the same as they accuse Pres. Bush.

Oh by the way the Congress and President can suspend Habeus Corpus on the Prisoner anyhow!!

This has never been done in the history of the US, and actually pass Supreme courts have refused to grant it!!

Trials do not have to be held until after the War is over anyhow! If you put them under POW's then they can be held until the end of the war, if you put them under Enemy Combatents which the fall, then no treaty covers them!!

The Supreme court has over stepped its bounds!!

Think of something which is interesting, our military can kill the enemy without courts approval, the President can Nuke them without Court approval (or in Congress in that matter) but we can not question them? How logical is that?

Oh by the way in the 80's the Supreme court ruled that until a prisoner steps onto the Continental US they do not need their Miranda Rights read!! (Noriega v US)

I also find it interesting that the same people who think the court stepping in here where it is obviously wrong, condemned the court for stepping in in 2000 where that was a domestic issue!!

I guess the libs only think things are right when they agree with it!!

The Founding fathers were actually against the Supreme Court, and they purposely limited their powers to interpreting the US Constitution only. They are suppose to be the weakest branch of Government.

Did we not fight a revolution to get rid of Taxation without Representation!! Well who does the Courts represent, they are not elected!!

Same goes for California, they way over stepped their authority, they only had the right to say something was Constitutional or not, they do not have the authority to make law!!

Beware what you wish for, for things you agree with if brought upon you wrongly will destroy you!!

The funny thing here the President can just move the prisoners to another place!!

In America's infancy, our founding Fathers wrote documents, which basically created rules and laws that American's live by.
I currently wonder if we as a society, have the need to alter some of these. They needed an electoral college due to lack of rapid reporting.
They never demanded a maximum age for candidates as most died long before they started to lose their faculties.

But we have advanced both in our ability to report our elections State by State - very quickly, and our medical break throughs, thus allowing longer life.

Any input?

      "They are spies and saboteurs, and Geneva doesn't
      protect them anyway."
      Mr. Incredible | Jun 19, 2008 9:12:44 AM

Ah, but it does.  Uniformed soldiers (POWs) may not be tried and hung (they get the better deal); spies and saboteurs must be tried before they can be hung, but neither can be held forever without trial.

Hope... of course you are correct. The War (II) was over, and the situation is different now.

The 93 precedent allowed the actual bomb maker to be released after his first FBI interview. He subsequently fled to Baghdad and has not been heard from since the start of this war. Presumably he is still at large.

To me that is unsatisfactory.
Osama and the terrorists define this as a war and we should also.

My number 1 question for Obama right now:
Why in the world would you appoint Patti Solis-Doyle to be the Chief of Staff to the VP nominee? You're trying to build party unity yet you went out of your way to very crudely signal that you are not going to pick Clinton as VP and to stick it to her and her supporters. Why would you be so petty and vengeful? Is this what we can expect more of if you should become president- for you to talk unity, but act spitefully?

The Nuremberg trials was a landmark event. However, it was held only after we had completely vanquished our foe. Total victory had been achieved - the state of war had ceased. So, again comparing apples to oranges to compare Nuremberg or even the 1993 WTC trial to the present.

Time would be better spent reviewing the inaccuracies of Obama's review of the Nuremberg precedent he cited so readily. Strange that a Harvard lawyer plays so fast and loose with the facts.

Stranger still that he is not held accountable for his historical re-write.

The 2006 congressional legislation the Supreme Court addressed went far far beyond the Habeas Corpus allowed at Nuremberg.

Churchill's position was the "summarily shoot them"

==just because in someone's mind they are on the battlefield...does not mean they are on the battlefield...==

It means just that. They have been sabotaging equipment and plotting against their captors. THEY believe that they are still fighting, and our men there must act as though they are, in defense. BITMO is just another front of the battlefield.

and Mr. Incredible

just because in someone's mind they are on the battlefield...does not mean they are on the battlefield...

and thus where your argument comes from.

If it is in your mind it is so.

You and Mr. Cheney.

==I would like someone to ask Obama, if he thinks that Osama is innocent. If not why will he let the courts determine his guilt, and if he is innocent until proven guilty, why are we trying to kill him. You can't have it both ways.==

EXCELLENT point!!!

==It speaks (overwhelmingly) to the judgement that this administration basis their decision on who is a terrorist and who can be held.==

We're not talking about Mandela, rather those held now at GITMO.

I would like someone to ask Obama, if he thinks that Osama is innocent. If not why will he let the courts determine his guilt, and if he is innocent until proven guilty, why are we trying to kill him. You can't have it both ways.

Is OBL a victim?

Will we now apply anti-discrimination laws in his favor??

Are we now seeing, here, OBL sympathizers?