I am discounting the DOJ link because it was written by someone paid to support administration policies. I'm looking for an article in a journal or case law. I realize that Guantanamo is something different legally but morally it really isn't - it's another instance of presidential arrogance and disregard for the constitution and rest of the country.
Re your Guantanamo comments -- the Padilla case is still unresolved five years later last I looked, but moot now as the man has essentially lost his mind at this point, at least according to his lawyer. I find the idea that we are keeping them there for their own good to be something only this administration would dream up. The Chinese Muslims perhaps, but what about third countries? What about the US for those five at least as they have essentially been found innocent. I find it hard to imagine anyone there still representing a threat to the US, but if they do we need to get them adjudicated somehow and perhaps expelled to countries where they can be prosecuted for a crime. The rest of those poor slobs, the chauffeurs and the people who were standing on the wrong street corner or who pissed someone off, need to be released forthwith. If you can't make a case in five years you aren't gonna. my .02 Dana On 2/9/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See Sam's earlier post for the DOJ link, which clearly states that the idea > is controversial, but is legally consistent with the President's > Constitutional authority as chief of the Executive branch. > > This idea doesn't apply at all to Guantanamo. The legal argument about > Guantanamo is what manner of due process the U.S. must afford foreign > citizens (the question of U.S. citizens having been answered in the Padilla > case) who were captured fighting against U.S. troops but not under the > colors of another country's armed forces. (As and aside, we know that some > people were wrongly swept up and stuck in Gitmo; wrongful imprisonment is a > problem in any system and not unique to Gitmo). There is no clear answer, > and the Pentagon and the White House have taken the stance that they are > unlawful combatants and not prisoners of war, which gives these people very > few legal rights. I'm not sure why they took that stance as a matter of law, > because as a practical matter they seem to have treated those people on par > with the Geneva Convention. > > The bigger question now is what we do with the people who remain at Gitmo. > We can't let them go. We can't return most of them to their countries of > origin because they would be tortured or executed. So what do we do with > them? Alaskan labor camp, maybe? I have no idea. > > On 2/9/07, Dana wrote: > > > > by the way... I am no longer at work now... did you you have any > > actual evidence for this? Legal opinion by someone not employed by the > > president would do fine. On Guantanamo especially. > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > On 2/9/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The President can't nullfiy a law, but he does have the power to not > > > > anforce laws he feels are unconstitutional. what you call abuse of > > > > that power is perfectly legal. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --------------- > > > > Robert Munn > > > > www.funkymojo.com > > > > > > > -- > --------------- > Robert Munn > www.funkymojo.com > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227647 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
