Obama has said that some of the prisoners may end up being held without trial, and Holder said in those cases there would likely be some form of periodic review of their status.How is this Constitutional?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
"Held without trial"
Fewer than a quarter of the Gitmo detainees will have trials. And the rest...?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Short answer: It is not.
djmm
Shorter answer: It's not
and... Obama's a Constitutional "law professor"?
uh-huh...
(oh brother!)
How is this different than Bush? Where is the change? Being held in a different facility doesn't seem like enough of a change to qualify.
In a war captured enemy individuals are held without trial, lawyer or habeas corpus until the war is over. That's all that's happening here. Perfectly constitutional, legal and reasonable.
Walter, you're weird. There is no war. Congress never declared one. A "war on terror" can never have an end. A lot of the guys at Gitmo were fingered as a result of bribes offered. Afghans were paid huge (for them) sums of money to turn over "terrorists." Under those circumstances, a "terrorist" often turnd out to be anyone who simply considered the least popular guy in the village. One "terrorist" was in his 80s or 90s, as I recall.
The whole thing was a sick joke. The REAL terrorists were placed on those CIA rendition flights.
Hey, something just occurred to me:
Didn't LBJ declare a War on Poverty?
By the Bush/Obama reasoning, we could imprision CEOs indefintely without trial.
Hmmm....:)
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment