Check out some similar questions!

inthebox · Jun 14, 2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

The failure to invest in 'green' tech (wind, solar, geothermal...) or even pretend to support them, while continuing to provide subsidies to oil and coal.

I notice your lack of nuclear energy...

President Bush's Crawford ranch uses geothermal... I wonder if Gore's mansion in Nashville does? Or what his electric bill runs... :)

As to the right's lack of will to invest in green, see below

Cape Wind Energy Project- Kennedy faces fight on Cape Wind - The Boston Globe

tomder55 · Jun 15, 2008, 03:13 AM

Just wanted to add that Obama again displayed that he doesn't have a clue. In this case he helps make my point.

He said :

"that principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are. I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday."

Forgetting that what Obama is really talking about is the priniple of "having a day in court" and not habeas... Nuremberg did not give the prisoners access to US courts .It gave them a tribunal trial... much like the plan that the law SCOTUS struck down would've done. Would this court have ruled Nuremberg unconstitutional? I think so. I would also point out that the Nuremberg trials were held after the war was won. It wasn't performed in the middle of the war. We did not release detainees in the middle of the war to fight and kill our soldiers again.

inthebox · Jun 16, 2008, 02:34 PM

Afghan Prison Break - WSJ.com

The point of keeping enemy combatants at a remote location like Guantanamo is that it offers some assurance that they will not return to the battlefield to KILL MORE Americans – something many have done when given the chance. Yet last week's Boumediene decision makes it all but certain that Gitmo will soon be shutting (or should we say opening) its doors.. .

As for security, the Kandahar prison break is not the Taliban's first, and it won't be its last. To the extent that the Supreme Court has made secure detentions more difficult, it has made the task of our troops MORE DANGEROUS.

BABRAM · Jun 16, 2008, 06:56 PM

What I understood is that Obama was implying that the word "trial" stands for a reason and that we shouldn't lower standards to that of witch trials. Now some have made a point about the tribunal aspect at Nuremberg, which is factually correct. However, although it was tribunal "trial," which basically meant going through the motions to produce punishment upon the guilty (and rightly so), that the principles of habeas corpus applied at Nuremberg, should at least apply to detainees at Gitmo.

tomder55 · Jun 17, 2008, 02:20 AM

Bobby

And that is being met if the liberal ACLU and SCOTUS judges would stop blocking it. The MCA was done exactly the way it should work... Congress with the input of the Executive making a national security decision. SCOTUS the one branch that has no role in it has 3 times blocked the means to expiditiously move the process along at the same time they complain that it's taking too long.

As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent :

"The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date."

tomder55 · Jun 17, 2008, 08:13 AM

Now some have made a point about the tribunal aspect at Nuremberg, which is factually correct. However, although it was tribunal "trial," which basically meant going through the motions to produce punishment upon the guilty (and rightly so), that the principles of habeas corpus applied at Nuremberg, should at least apply to detainees at Gitmo.

Bobby just wanted to add that the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at Nuremberg was Justice Robert H. Jackson . You may also know him as the judge who's precedencial decision was just scrapped by this SCOTUS decision . And what decision was it ? Well he denied Habaes rights to a Nazi prisoner because there had been "no instance where a court has issued habeas corpus to an alien enemy who...has never been within its territorial jurisdiction."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

This is also as a matter of coinidence one of the Justices I frequently quote when arguing that the Constitution is not a suicide pact .
"If the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

BABRAM · Jun 17, 2008, 10:21 AM

To be quite frankly with you Tom, my personal view and opinion of how civilian criminal trials, tribunals trials, what the ACLU or any decisions based upon our government security via Congress or our current Republican administration, are far enough apart that my defence or support of either candidate, Obama or McCain, would be waste of time and irrelevant. But in short, I personally think investigating to the degree to which an enemy carries out orders, being rightfully or wrongfully accused via trial, is key. I don't see the need of a tribunal trial as much as just an inevitable punishment phase, but an investigation. And I can't see where permitting habeas corpus to it's full extent would impede a decent prosecution team, but rather it helps in exposing the fuller truths about the individual involvements which also provides us insights on others.

excon · Jun 17, 2008, 10:46 AM

Hello again:

In my usual understated way, I must reveal an earthshaking truth that appears to be hidden from you. I don't know why it's hidden. Maybe it's because you refuse to look.

Yes, I'm telling you that the Emperor has no clothes.

If the government takes away the right to challenge ones confinement from ONE GROUP. What's to stop the government from declaring YOU to be a member of that group and locking you up forever?

Even though the designation would be wrong, and you are a full fledged American citizen WITH your habeas corpus rights (theoretically) in tact, and you could prove it too, if you could get in front of a judge... But, you can't get in front of one, can you?? That right doesn't belong to people in YOUR group.

So, talk all you will about THESE people who don't have habeas corpus rights, while I sit back in wonderment, knowing that NONE of us has habeas corpus rights.

excon

tomder55 · Jun 17, 2008, 10:54 AM

Bobby
Give you one quick objection . Discovery is a b*tch. Much of what they are held on is intel that we would not rather share. Therefore more often than not they end up being released rather than the government giving up important intel .

Just remember the case of civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart who was the lawyer for the blind Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman .Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She passed on information to terrorists and acted as a go between contact for the terrorist.

tomder55 · Jun 17, 2008, 10:57 AM

Ex ;if I was on the battle field in Afghanistan perhaps I'd have some splainin to do . David Hicks argued he was doing charity in the AQ camps . Do you believe him ?

excon · Jun 17, 2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She passed on information to terrorists and acted as a go between contact for the terrorist.

Hello again:

Well, that clinches it. NONE of 'em should have lawyers.

excon

tomder55 · Jun 17, 2008, 11:21 AM

Ex What about the rest ? Do you think sensitive and important intel should be given during the discovery phase ? KSM told his interrogators that he would not talk until he had his NY lawyers present . Well when he got a little wet he changed his tune and provided excellent information that has been very useful against AQ.