[peeb]

So are you going to explain how the Marc Rich pardon is evidence for corruption? Anything except speculation? Because if not, then you don't have a case of corruption, you have a case of libel.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You know, that's sort of like saying "I know you are" in the schoolyard. It makes you look stupider. Are you admitting that you waded unwisely out of your depth on an issue you knew nothing about, or still too embarrassed to admit it? Enquiring minds want to know?

And this post is not schoolyard nonsense? I find it extremely rude, and by our rules it's unacceptable to attack the person rather than the statement. Even in the Political Lounge.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, they do. I thought you were still in hiding after your smackdown yesterday - need more? The constitution distinguishes between the rights it grants to citizens, and the inalienable rights of all people, one of which is hc. Nobody can be held (even if the people holding them claim they were 'snatched off a battlefield') without having the right to challenge the basis of their detention. That's not just a constitutional right, it's a human right.

This was another very rude post. And we must remember that we must also distinguish between the laws of the United States and the International Laws of War, which further distinguish between "lawful combatants" (those who wear uniforms of some sort -even the French Resistance's scarves or berets were uniforms- and conform to specific standards of behavior) and "unlawful combatants" (those who do not wear uniforms and hide in places of worship and fire at soldiers, or hide behind civilians, or use hospitals as fire bases...). One must be on soil controlled by the United States in a civil (rather than military) manner to receive the protections of the Constitution. Under international treaties, unlawful combatants are due a significantly lower standard of treatment than lawful combatants, who earn Prisoner of War status.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Are you going to back that up with any facts? Or is this another "Iran invaded Afghanistan"?

Oh how short memory can be. Let's see...Hillary was in the Rose Law Firm and "lost" all sorts of records that should have been submitted by law because she was the wife of the president. Hillary somehow had nothing to do with the fact that certain people whom she had serious problems with were fired from the White House travel office. Hillary's campaign hired someone who's on the run from two separate countries for his illegal fundraising (and possibly money laundering) activities. Hmmm. Yep, that's corrupt.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And we must remember that we must also distinguish between the laws of the United States and the International Laws of War, which further distinguish between "lawful combatants" (those who wear uniforms of some sort -even the French Resistance's scarves or berets were uniforms- and conform to specific standards of behavior) and "unlawful combatants" (those who do not wear uniforms and hide in places of worship and fire at soldiers, or hide behind civilians, or use hospitals as fire bases...). One must be on soil controlled by the United States in a civil (rather than military) manner to receive the protections of the Constitution. Under international treaties, unlawful combatants are due a significantly lower standard of treatment than lawful combatants, who earn Prisoner of War status.

I get the impression that he (Hamdi) still meets the standard of being tried in a military court, which would grant him habeas corpus as part of the U.C.M.J., not the Constitution.

The dispute is over whether his crimes mean he can be tried by a military commission instead. The government accused him of conspiracy, and from what I understand, gave very little specifics. The SC didn't think the accusation had enough merit to disqualify him from a trial in a normal military court.

The government also claimed that the SC shouldn't get involved with the military's internal system of checks and balances. To which the SC replied "do you think we fell of the cabbage truck yesterday?"

They noted the whole point of a military commission is that it's outside the internal system of checks and balances. The SC then called the Pentagon attorneys "nimrods"

Okay, I made-up the nimrod and the cabbage stuff.

[ghporter]

No, only persons who fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice get a "military court." What combatants get is significantly different. A POW gets to cool his heels until the end of hostilities (and a little longer-repatriation is often a slow process). Unlawful combatants fall into a fairly gray area; if their unlawful acts were egregious enough (like firing from a hospital or place of worship for instance, or dressing like a civilian and firing from a crowd), then they're likely to face a "tribunal" which is fairly vaguely defined in the Hague and Geneva instruments. If you ain't in some sort of uniform, behaving like a soldier on the battlefield, then you're likely to be very unpleasantly dealt with by the people who capture you, and everything WE have done has been within the bounds of international agreements-even if it hasn't been as clean and pretty as some people here who lack any military contact might like. I draw their attention to the behavior of the Iraqi army toward the American Soldiers they captured. That was on the order of violations of international law and agreements that could get the death penalty in some instances (the rape of captured flyers in the first Gulf War, for instance, should have resulted in a number of Iraqis being executed...).

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

No, only persons who fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice get a "military court"...

We got a wire or two crossed, and I may also be confused on a few things.

First off, the SC decision was saying that what the government accused Hamdi of - conspiracy - did not qualify him for a tribunal. That's not to say there isn't anything that qualifies someone, only that what the government had accused him of doesn't make the cut.

So, I'm not sure what status that gives him. If he's a POW, the war's over and he should be let go, right?

I had imagined that the only other option to letting him go was trying him with something. I assumed there was some method by which he could be tried in in a U.S. military court, which I assumed would be conducted under the U.C.M.J.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And this post is not schoolyard nonsense! I find it extremely polite, and by our rules it's acceptable to attack the person rather than the statement.

Great - even if the post is simply a re-post of the first statement, altered to reverse the meaning? I changed your statement in the same way for you.

Simply editing what someone wrote to imply they said the exact opposite of what they did is not debate, it's not constructive, and it tends of elicit rudeness, as do CW's racial slurs and general abuse.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

But I have a feeling no amount of 'proof' will satisfy you. Anything maligning your agenda will meet with complete and unwavering skepticism and denial.

DING DING DING

We have a winnah!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
But I have a feeling no amount of 'proof' will satisfy you. Anything maligning your agenda will meet with complete and unwavering skepticism and denial.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

DING DING DING
We have a winnah!

Yes, the problem is, precisely 'no amount' of 'proof' has been offered, just speculation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, the problem is, precisely 'no amount' of 'proof' has been offered, just speculation.

Your opinion is noted.

[peeb]

Great! So is the lack of proof!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Great! So is the lack of proof!

...the prosecution rests, Your Honor.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

For example, spacefreak himself, who started this thread, defended DeLay.

I offered a recap of the facts as I knew them at the time, because nobody else seemed to be concerned with the actual facts or merits of the case.

Well, might as well keep up with what's going on with Delay. He still hasn't been convicted of anything.

Sept. 26, 2007

Court Won't Reinstate DeLay Charge
Court lets DeLay indictment dismissal stand
DA says he'll try DeLay on other charges

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Soros' has spent hundreds of millions to promote his agenda - it's been reported on federal filings. And Hillary's campaign has worked hard to try and distance her from her largest fundraiser. If nothing was wrong, there would be no need for such a PR crackdown.

[peeb]

Well, if they rest with no evidence, I presume that is why there was no prosecution!