Report comment to moderator

Don’t we have bin Laden on tape taking credit for 9/11? Sounds like a confession to me. I’m not worried . . .

Wouldn’t it just be wiser for the Democrats who control Congress right now to get on the stick and pass new legislation and/or fix the problems . . . This is one of the reasons so many people are sick of them.

I’d like to see bin Laden forgotten in a supermax prison, which would require a trial.

You either have due process or you don’t . . .

We are a nation of laws, we operate under the rule of law, and you are saying you would repudiate the very thing this country stands for, the very thing on which it was founded.

You don’t realize it, NJ LAWYER, but you’ve started a war. The Republicans and Al Qaeda are fighting over which of them gets to kill all the lawyers first.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

As we all know, Democrats are cowards. After years of irresponsible passivity, Congress partly ratified Bush’s detention policy and sought to overrule contrary Supreme Court decisions in two laws that Republicans rammed through with little deliberation in late 2005 and October 2006.

Congress has taken shelter in the Republican propaganda expressed by JOEL MARK: US enemies in wartime have never been coddled so much Justice Roberts even repeated this casuistry. The fact is, NJ LAWYER, no prisoners in any other war have been held as long as our prisoners in this one. Coddling! Furthermore, the detention of non-combatants has never been as error-prone as it is in the war on terror, with even the secretary of the Army claiming that a third are innocent.

Since JOEL MARK isn’t speaking for himself, can anybody explain how Joel can claim we’re “coddling” people whom we are holding potentially for life without a fair opportunity to assert their innocence and mistaken identity?

Report comment to moderator

You ought to be saying to your legislature that it ought to pass new legislation. Kiyoshi is correct that Congress itself created this mess. I am at a loss to understand why so many here are so upset with this decision when there is a remedy available.

Why don’t you ask why the Congress passed a law that didn’t pass constitutional muster?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

If Congress had instituted a statutory scheme that provided a substantive equivalent, then that would be sufficient. Instead, Congress enacted a scheme that they knew would not pass muster.

This entire mess at Guantanamo is a mess that Congress has created. The current system permits our military to use evidence procured by torture, and provides no basis for the accused even to know whether such evidence is used against him.

They do not have a “right” to habeas. But they do have a right to a functional equivalent thereof, including the right for their cases to be adjudicated by an impartial fact-finder.

Is it any wonder that the officers in charge of running the current system keep quitting? Even seasoned military prosecutors have decried the fact that the current system makes a mockery of the US and its military.

And yet the assortment of evangelicals who make up WorldMag’s talkbackers see few problems with it.

Report comment to moderator

This is true. I’ve seen that happen with “lesser” terrorists. Gagged, shackled to a table, removed. No judge would tolerate that.

I’ve never thought of due process as a “gift” but that’s a good way of describing it. Nor have I heard of the concept of “excessive” due process, and I’m having trouble relating to it. You either have due process or you don’t, and the Supremes last week said you don’t under the rules outlined in the MCA.

I understand the emotions involved where Osama is concerned. But it is at those moments when you step up to the plate, so to speak, and prove you are better than the scum you who has done you wrong. We are a nation of laws, we operate under the rule of law, and you are saying you would repudiate the very thing this country stands for, the very thing on which it was founded.

It’s not how we operate. We go through the “motions,” through the “procedures” to show that we have the evidence. We prove our case. Maybe because I’ve worked with judges, but I can’t imagine the federal judge who would “let him off.” The only suggestion I can make would be that you should give the Spencer Tracy movie about the Nuremberg Trials a looksee. There really is no difference between the Nazis and the jihadists when you think about it. Had we taken Hitler into custody, he would have been put on trial as we did those we did catch.

I understand the concerns with the majority opinion from last week, and this can be remedied by Congress. (Indeed, suggestions have been made to create a terrorist court, as the Congress has the power to create inferior courts.) We often tell our non-Christian friends here that they should not cherry-pick the Bible and pull out a few verses. I submit to you that you can’t do that to the Constitution either. For lack of a better phrase, we are just better than they are, so I don’t understand why you want to become them. What you are suggesting is what they would do to you — a kangaroo court.

And I know you are angry with me right now, but watch that movie.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator