Bush Gets Burned by Supreme Court

[RC45]

Originally Posted by dmuz I thought that holding someone in prison without trial was 'UNAMERICAN'. I guess it depends who you ask. I thnk it does not matter where it happens, whether it be on US soil or not. Years ago McCarthy went after the Communists, now THEY 'the US Govt' are going after the Terrorists.... Put simply, a plane crashes into a building and 3000 odd people die... and obviously America loses face. The American response is to kill 100 000 odd people in the ensuing bombings... so 'we can teach 'em a lesson'... OH and of course stop the Terror! And did someone say weapons of mass destruction?? I thought it was the US that had all the weapons. We should have all bought shares in some defense contractor-Bush did! You Americans will eat anything you are fed...

I wonder if this guy made this post just before the cops busted his door down and arrested him?

[Vansquish]

First off, thank you Stan for putting the time and thought into your response. Secondly, I have to say that I still do not believe that the current international situation between the US and Iraq and the US and Afghanistan can be called, "War". By definition, the president of the US cannot declare war himself, that is something that is reserved for the Congress. In this case, it may seem that the water is a bit muddier as Congress did give Bush the right to instigate, "military action" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but again, this is not and official declaration of war as described by the US Constitution.

Here's where it gets complicated. In the US the Constitution merely says that, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War..." without actually defining the form for such declarations. Therefore, it can be argued that a congressional authorization to use military force is in essence a "Declaration of War," but this hasn't ever been tested by the Judicial system here. Logically-speaking, of course we are at war, we have sent troops overseas to fight, however, semantically we are not, and unfortunately in this case that is what matters for the rules set forth in the Geneva Convention to apply.

The placement of the prison in which our "PO-PA" (Prisoners of police action -- I refuse to call this a war) at Gitmo circumvents the right to speedy trial by a jury of one's peers that is afforded to anyone, anyone on US soil, as officially, it's still Cuba.

In essence I find that the longer this drags on, the more troops we send overseas, the more time that our "detainees" stay at Gitmo, the more these "military actions" become a farce, a drain on our resources, and an excuse to attempt to control the Iraqi oil industry. Moreover, it is a way to divert the American public's attention from pressing issues here in at home, from the economy to problems with the education system, to the idiocy surrounding Bush's view on stem cell research...the list goes on and on.


As for you bmwm06, with each comment you make you lose credibility and cast yourself in a very poor light. With reference to club "G'itmo", if you actually pay attention to that idiot of a man Limbaugh, then I've got a song for you by the Austin Lounge Lizards, and it's got a line that goes, "I listen to Rush Limbaugh to help to ease my pain, he makes lots of sense to a man with half a brain."

[graywolf624]

By definition, the president of the US cannot declare war himself, that is something that is reserved for the Congress. In this case, it may seem that the water is a bit muddier as Congress did give Bush the right to instigate, "military action" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but again, this is not and official declaration of war as described by the US Constitution.

Sounds an offal lot like the definition of is. Why do I say that.. Because the president already has the right to declare almost indefinite military action without declaring war.. In 1973 the congress tried to limit that with the warpowers act, but that in itself may not be constitutional.
In other words not saying I declare war is a great way to place the blame with someone else if it back fires or take credit if it succeeds.. Hey that sounds like a certain former presidential candidate from the last election.. I think his initials were jfk.

[Mattk]

What's with this talk of the Geneva Convention? It was written several years before the First World War, in 1906, I believe. The First World War proved that the Geneva Convention was not suited to a modern war, yet people still refer to it as gospel? Get a grip.

Because the president already has the right to declare almost indefinite military action without declaring war..

It's my understanding that Congress gave him that mandate. Right?