Papa Mike's Blog

I do NOT believe that these scumbags should be locked up forever without ‘due process’ BUT this is NOT the answer. U.S. courts can NOT begin to judge the extent of why and how these men were arrested. They should ONLY be tried under a ‘Military Tribunal’. It has been proven that the majority of these people that were released returned to the “killing fields” to do the ONLY thing that matters to them….KILL KILL KILL……………Papa Mike

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag…. By Father Dennis Edward O’Brien, USMC

The more liberal members of the US Supreme Court did something extraordinary yesterday when they conferred Constitutional protection on people who are not covered under our Constitution. The Constitution of the US is a document that applies to citizens and those here legally. By saying that the detainees at Gitmo have the same Constitutional rights as others (especially for acts committed outside the US) the court has weakened our country. What next, will it be OK for them to be released and walk around the US keeping and bearing arms? Will they be allowed to vote? If we say that they are protected by the Constitution it has to mean the whole document, not just a part of it.

I don’t understand why this is an issue to begin with. Why don’t we call them Prisoners of War and call Gitmo a POW camp? We will release them when the war is over just as we have done in other wars. If some of them are suspected of crimes then we should put them on trial and be done with it. If all else fails, send them to another country and release them. I think there are a few places where they could go and be treated very badly.

Big Dog

The Supremes decided to give our Guantanamo guests the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Good guys: Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, bad guys: Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (source)

Since the vote was split 5:4 there must be some controversy over hugely ambiguous language in the constitution or else some one never bothered to read it. How could 9 intelligent grown ups not agree on what was written long ago in Philadelphia? It seems to me that someone is making things up. It is true that the Supreme Court judicial power shall extend to all cases between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. That phrase mentions foreign citizens, but not explicitly people waging war on the US with out the sponsorship of a foreign government. True it is also that the Constitution does not explicitly mention disputes between the US military and foreign enemy combatants. Well, I take it back perhaps there is some ambiguity there. So the Supreme Court should not consider such a case as the constitution does not say any thing about such a case, let congress make any laws it do desires and let the administration apply any rules it sees fit under those laws. But do not try to rewrite the constitution!

Who are those 5 people that have taken upon themselves to invent history: Stevens appointed by Ford is very liberal and surprisingly did not attend Harvard as the other bad guys did but did work for the government on anti-trust. Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, is a swing voter but sat on the 9th circuit so probably got his brain fried there. Souter was a surrender option by Bush 41 after Bork got borked, which should be a reminder to do a good job even if you are sick of the job. Breyer: Clinton, Harvard, San Francisco and yet another antitrust lawyer — need I say more? Ruth (buzzy) Ginsburg has a resume which must of impressed Clinton, but not me: fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, was instrumental in launching the Women¢s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU¢s General Counsel and on the National Board of Directors.

Given that we abide in the rule of law, most, and I predict, all Americans shall abide by this decision. To contest it by force of arms would be foolish. Places were rules are decided by force are really bad places to live.

 
Source: HERE

Sorry, but comments are closed. Check out another post and speak up!