I thought this forum needs a bit of actual discussion beyond the trivial question as to whether lojasmo actually was in the reserves or not , especially considering I personally believe that this case could possibly become the most important case in many years.

For those of you who have not read about, or heard about this case here is a:
Basic Summary (from Reuters):
http://today.reuters.com/business/ne...yID=nN28385881
That summary makes it sound very basic, but the importance is in the fact that this case has the opprotunity to set precedent to the amount of power. This is especially important right now with the etreme extent to which this administration has taken the powers of the executive.

The administration has taken the position that the supreme court has no jurisdiction (thats a new one) due to the DTA, Detainee Treatment Act, which leaves federal courts out of the convctions of the Guntanamo prisioners. Hamdan's attorney's position is that these tribunals are illegal due to their blatant disregard for Habius Corpus (sp) and the Geneva Covention. The government's attorney argued that these prisioners are not subject to the Geneva Convention. After listening to the whole thing (1.5hrs - actually interesting), the government's attorney was arguing in circles and the justices grilled him on it. Here is another Reuters article:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...RITY-COURT.xml

And another link, Real Audio of the entire 1.5hr oral arguements. Click on the first link
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.a...&image1=Submit

My Opionion
Besides my distrust for this current adminstration, I still believe that Mr. Katyal's (the "terrorist driver's" attorney) brings up an incredibly important point. The position that the adminstration takes puts the executive branch's judiciary powers beyond the powers of the set constitutional powers of even the Supreme Court. For those of you who do not know much about presidential summoned tribunals, the descision has to be signed off by the president, something that is in blatant disregard for the system of checks and balances set up by the constitution. Furthermore, it adresses the extremely concerning idea that these combatants are beyond the Geneva Convention. Though this adminstration may call them enemy combatants, they are POW's and should be treated as proven in the Geneva Convention. Secondly, we are charging these combatants with violations of the laws of war, and yet they are not being treated or tried as prisioners of war. Also, many of these prisioners are being charaged with "conspiricy to commit crimes of war", even though this has been widely accepted as no longer a war crime due to how vauge the discription of the crime is (it has not been tried since WWII I believe in international, or US courts).

Justice John Stevens summed it up , when he said:
"I don't think we've ever held that the president can make something a crime" when international law holds that it is not

I'll be interested to hear the views of in particular, Salty and (even more) HellaDumb. I ask you to ignore whether or not Mr Hamdan is guilty, as that is not what this hearing is about. It is about the powers of the executive branch, and whether or not we are binded by the Geneva Convention in this "new war" as the government calls it.
Cheers
-Jeff

 

Bump

 

Not really sure what to say?

The decision will be made based on the interpretation of law. I guess the real question is if going by the book is the morally right choice based on the law, is it worth jeopardizing our security?

I find it ironic that these scum are going through the proper US channels, don’t you? Just like every other piece of **** that hates the grand establishment until they find it convenient for their needs. The very institution they despise may very well save their asses so they can attack us again. Yay America!

 

My position is more based upon the lines set within the constitution. To me, the constitution and keeping presidential power in check is more important than whether these detainees get a fair hearing in an American court. Personally, I think they should, but that is not the key issue here IMHO.

Here is what I think I am trying to say trying to say, even though it might sound a little strange:
I look at it as which is going to be more important in the long run, in keeping this country based upon the values it was created upon or prosecuting a few measly "terrorists". The fact of the matter is, these terrorists - though a risk to American lives - are in all probability never going to destroy this country. They simply do not have the power. This has been proven in both wars, which the casualties they inflicted on us were simply due to mostly unstoppable guerilla warfare tactics. Even 911 was a type of guerilla warfare. They simply do not have the military prowess, nor the military strategy, to ever complete their goal of destroying the US or the west. I think of them (though cruel sounding) as a sort of deadly pest. They might kill off a relatively small amount of Americans, but in the long run they will probably be exterminated and it will be just a memory.

The real risk to the country however is destruction from within. Looking at empires past, such as the Roman republic, it is clear that the real roots of their eventual destruction were not the outside forces, but those from within. Right now especially, with the lines between church and state becoming more blurred, as well as the extreme amounts of power this administration has exercised, I think we are at risk for making a wrong turn down a dark alley that will eventually lead to our demise. In cases like this, putting congress and the executive back into their proper roles is key. This is more important IMO, than what happens to a few terrorists (well, supposed).

Beyond that, I think it is also our duty based upon the values this country was founded upon, to give these detainees a chance at a fair trial. It is probably true that most of them are guilty of what they are accused of, but due to what we say we stand for they deserve a fair trial. This will also draw away international pressure that has been pushing for Guantanamo's closure.
-Jeff

 

If there's any shred of evidence at all in a case like that, it'll be enough to keep them i'm sure.

And if that's the case the main thing is that it forces the government to tell people what it's been doing this entire time. Let's face it, i'm sure a lot of fairly illegal stuff has been going on with prisoners in regard to detainment. **** I’m not entirely against given the circumstances and type of prisoner…

So in the end you'll have the peanut gallery on the left reiterating what we've done with a loud speaker every chance they get and then asking the question as to why they're still in detainment. Then the people on the right will have some half-asses answer like, "well, because they're terrorists and we can!" Meanwhile those with a law degree or those thoroughly versed in this type of law will be the only ones capable of understanding. The end *sigh*

I can hear the loudspeakers now... "we're the real terrorists!"

 

True, but that is likely to happen in a military tribunal too.