Bush disagrees with Guantanamo ruling

reply to post by N1cotine


Well stated!

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Grafilthy
"United States Constitution

Adopted September 17, 1787
Article VI Clause II

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Why did you cite this Article? How does this arctile show that foreign enemies are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens? I don't see it.

How many times must I repeat myself?
The Geneva Conventions do NOT protect terrorists! Dang!

Did you look in to the rest? Maybe your flag was in the way.

"On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice)."
Keep standing on principle....right or wrong. You go to the Karl Rove School of Ethics???

reply to post by N1cotine


Thank you for the common sense you have brought to this thread.

Indeed the spirit of the Declaration of Independence is that ALL MEN are created equal and endowed with INALIENABLE RIGHTS by their creator.


Even though, as you mention, the US Constitution does not explicitly say "ALL MEN, and OH YEAH ENEMIES TOO", doesn't mean you can really over look the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. George W Bush's statement runs *directly* contrary to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and thus, makes HIM the enemy.







[edit on 13-6-2008 by Quazga]

reply to post by WhatTheory


These detainees are still going to be tried under a military court, not a civilian court (except perhaps those that are US citizens).

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.

By a 5-4 vote that brought strongly worded and remorseful dissents from the court's conservative justices, the majority held that an alternative procedure designed by the administration and Congress was inadequate to ensure that the detainees, some of whom have been imprisoned for six years without a hearing, receive their day in court.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Link to story...

Looks like I have the SUPREME COURT on my side on this one WhatT.
I just wish I could understand where you get these views?