scary times...or does your govt think you are an unlawful combatant

thegeldingthegelding
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
[quote] U.S. officials claimed that the courts have no role in the matter, that the president has the absolute right to decide who was an unlawful combatant with no court review permitted. <hr></blockquote>



sure hope i never cross old GW and get him to throw me in jail without the possibility of getting a lawyer (or even a court date)....



of course the guy probably is a slime ball...g



<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/12/hamdi.ruling/index.html"; target="_blank">story</a>





can we do the same to the Enron and Arthur Anderson CEO's and board members??

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    It seems to me that since these guys were fighting against the US army that they are enemy combatants and should be treated as such. If is is normal to deny "enemy combatants" taken during war lawyers then these people should be treated no different even if they are from the Unites States.



    And no, I wouldn't mind seeing the same thing done to Enron and Arthur Anderson CEO's and board members



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 5
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    but they are not treating them as prisoners of war...POW status would give them more rights and protections....as enemy combatants they basically get no rights what-so-ever....oh well, i hated the Taliban long before 9/11 so i guess i really don't care...just wonder what we would think if the US govt didn't like Ireland and went over, knocked out the govt arrested anyone who had the nerve to fight back and then jailed them with no rights or recourse....g
  • Reply 3 of 5
    thoth2thoth2 Posts: 277member
    The scary thing about this for me, is not so much that there is such a thing as an "unlawful combatant", but that the DOJ and the rest of the Executive is continually trying to cut out the courts as a check against the aggrandizement of executive power.

    Unfettered discretion is the first (and last) step to tyranny.

    You should see the crap the DOJ is trying to pull with aliens.

    Thoth
  • Reply 4 of 5
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    I wonder how George would have treated his grandfather Prescott.
  • Reply 5 of 5
    samantha joanne ollendalesamantha joanne ollendale Posts: 468member
    [quote]The scary thing about this for me, is not so much that there is such a thing as an "unlawful combatant", but that the DOJ and the rest of the Executive is continually trying to cut out the courts as a check against the aggrandizement of executive power.

    Unfettered discretion is the first (and last) step to tyranny. You should see the crap the DOJ is trying to pull with aliens.

    Thoth<hr></blockquote>



    That is the standard M.O. of "banana republics with tinpot dictators". The hearings are kept secret, and the authorities keep moving the goalposts to their convenience in order to bring to "court" those they disapprove of to "succesfully" prosecute cases. Secret military tribunals are "kangaroo trials"; because of the secrecy, any old variety of "justice" will suffice and guilty "verdicts" will be decided before the charade of the court procedure; to save taxpayer $$, they might as well just put them summarily in front of a firing squad: at least that method is honest and straightforward, with far more credibility than that "secret military tribunal" crap. What's next? Baseball and football stadiums for public executions?

Sign In or Register to comment.