the suppreme court hands bush another defeat....Follow

by passing a ruleing that says the indefinate detention of prisoners without due process is ILLEGAL.....

while this issue was presented in a case for immigrants who could not be deported because thier country wouldnt have them back........................

its far reaching implications clearly tell this addministraition that they will not support ANY bill that allows for the indefinate detention of ANYONE without due process.

this slaps the addministraition in the face as they try to push a bill that will allow them to detain indefinatly "enemy combatants" at their discreation.
-----------------------------------------------------------

this addministraition does not want to call Iraq a war because if they did, then every one in detention would fall under the protection of the geneva convention, a treatie this addministraition has broken on a consistant basis with the handeling of the prisoners of this situation.

and because it is NOT a war, they have no legal grounds for detaining ANYONE without spacific charges, or due process.

their delima:

cant call it a war, because then they couldnt use "coercive" measures to "interogate" them.

cant NOT call it a war, because then they would have to let the people go or prosecute them in a timely manner.

their answer:

pass a bill allowing for the indefinate detnetion of "enemy combatants", a term they made up, so they can have their cake and eat it too.

the supreme court just handed them a notice their bill will not stand up to a legal challenge WHEN, not if, but WHEN it gets to the supreme court.

their fear:

if this law doesnt fly, then the "enemy combatants" have to be declared "prisoners of war", making this addministraitions treatment of them a WAR CRIME.

their safety net:

give the top lawyer job to someone who can argue that the president has the authority to "sidestep" the law, and use "torture" in teh present and future.....

enter the new AG gonzales.............

they broke the law, so they are making new ones to say it is O-TAY. and the supreme court is saying "WANA BET?"........

Spellcheck is your friend.

As are paragraphs.

Whats that Asper, try to maintain default for at least half a second so i can read your posts.

Please do.

I thought you said 3.00 poster not 2.5 poster, damn cant you do anything right?

Napoleon once invaded the Middle East (via Egypt) and wound up after a battle with thousands of prisoner combatants. There were too many prisoners to guard, feed or travel with the army. So Napoleon had them all lined up in a bay and killed. Bullets were scarce so they were bayonetted.

I think that sounds like a good way to get rid of this problem. Can anyone tell me if the M4 (or whatever the US Army currently issues) has bayonet mounts?

I personally am all for the disallowing of indefinite detention of prisoners. People often seem to forget that POW/MIA works from both sides of the pond. Most of those prisoners have families and loved ones that they would like to see one day. I would rather us take the moral high ground with it.

Especially since the substantive cause for the invasion of Iraq was a farce (the WMD thing). Now the only grounds we had for invading was the maltreatment of its population. It would be *** backwards for us to claim we are trying to make life better for those people and then turn around and never allow the prisoners we took to return home to their families - especially when one of the reasons we invaded was because people would be imprisoned for life with no trial. If we didn't return the prisoners, we would be just as bad as the guy we went in to replace.

Most of your line soldiers use the M-16 and yes it has a bayonett mount.

There are fewer M-4's to go around and are usually reserved for your recon/SNCO/Officer types. The M-4 has a bayonett mount also. The M-4 really is just a modified M-16. Different stock and shorter barrel. It is a bit easier maneuver though if I were in a bayonett fight I think I would rather have the M-16 since it is a bit longer and the stock is better for the classic butt stoke move.

At least that's how it is in the Marine's.

I believe you, but I don't remember him petitioning congress for a declaration of war. When did he?

Without that, it's just a "conflict." Like Vietnam.

Edited, Thu Jan 13 17:39:34 2005 by scubamage

Nope. That's just one more misperception foisted upon a largely ignorant populace by our wonderfully Liberal Media.

Here's a copy of the resolution passed jointly by Congress.

Note the following:



Let's analyze this, shall we? Section 8(a)(1) says this:



So, they're saying that you can't just use the armed forces by provision of law *unless* such provision specifically authorizes it. In this case, and in the Joint Resolution above, Congress is saying that the resolution *does* consitute specific authorization under the War Powers Resolution.

Section 5(b), says the following:



It's interesting that they don't narrow it down a bit, but you can see what they're getting at. Congress is saying that this represents specific authorization. 5(b) lists off a set of conditions underwhich Congress can hobble a Presidents ability to just use military force *unless* Congress has specifically authorized it. Thus, this counts as specific authorization and the president is removed from such hobbling.


You can argue that Congress "didn't declare war", but that's just a semantic issue. Congress did. In every real way. They just don't use the word "war", and instead us "authorization of the military under X/Y/Z of the War Powers Act". It's still declaring war folks.

Don't believe me? Ok. How about this. Did we "declare war" on Iraq during the Gulf War? I've never heard anyone try to claim that that was not a "War" in every meaning of the term. Let's see what that resolution has to say:





Hey! Lookit that! It's the exact same wording. If the "Gulf War" was a war, then the Iraq war was one too...


The point is that the talking heads on TV know that the average Joe can be made to think that "authorizing force" isn't the same as "war". And they're right. Unless that force is specifically authorized under a specific set of sections of the War Powers Resolution. When that force is authorized in that manner, then it is in ever legal way "war".

Bush declared war on Iraq. Plain and simple. All the rules and requirements of war count. Um... And it's not like the GC rules don't apply just because you didn't declare war anyway. Once again, people are getting caught up in semantics. Just because we all them "Prisoners of War" does not mean that the status is reserved only when the parties have formally declared war. The GC applied during Vietnam, but no official war was ever declared.


We're just seeing a whole set of bizaare innuendo used instead of fact. Kinda discouraging IMO.