The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: DixieBelle on June 23, 2008, 06:08:45 PM
-
First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?
The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.
Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.
Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.
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.
Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.
It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.
That's the second page. Read the first page at - http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/boumediene-a-supremely-problematic-court-decision/
-
as politicized as federal judges are, the results of the individual cases could vary dramatically. this decision creates more problems, and creates a crisis, where previously there were just a bunch of whacked out crazy people that wanted to kill us being detained. the cure in this case is infinitely worse than the disease.
-
I think that in the larger picture, these so-called "enemy combatants" ( Tangos) will be shot on sight and hurt our intel. After all, killing them where they stand will prove to be an easier and much more prudent measure. The bad thing is that we can't use dead Tangos to gather intel. At least I THINK that's what I'd do.
-
I think that in the larger picture, these so-called "enemy combatants" ( Tangos) will be shot on sight and hurt our intel. After all, killing them where they stand will prove to be an easier and much more prudent measure. The bad thing is that we can't use dead Tangos to gather intel. At least I THINK that's what I'd do.
I agree. BUT. Enemy combatants who are captured will be kept in the field, interrogated, given a quick tribunal, and executed while still over there.
Official reports will say nothing about intel, or captures, just that all were killed in the operation. Musta been that air support, wiped em all out. Too bad.