Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
No Evidence Necessary?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: [QB] Back to the point at hand. The present administration is not laying claim to international law in this case as far as I can see. In fact, they want nothing to do with international law or international opinion regarding the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay. The present administration has maneuvered the prisioners to such a place where neither international law nor American standards of justice have anything to do with their fates which are apparently to be adjudicated by military tribunal. The oposition has danced around the subject, but denying due process to the prisioners will be wholly on the heads of the present administration and not on some ghost of past international proceedings. It is intellectually dishonest for the oposition to lay claim to the Nuremburg trials or on international law in general as some sort of binding precedent in defense of present administration policy regading the potential trails for the above reasons. Further, it is hypocritical make the claim due to the fact that the present administration has seen fit not to call the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay "prisioners of war" and have maneuvered them as far away from international scrutiny as they can. Moreover, [QUOTE]Because people have been silent on the subject for 50 years.[/QUOTE]is dishonest in light of the fact that there has been no evidence of due process violations presented. Not one scintilla. Nor are Nuremburg trials wholly analogous in the first place. The fact of the matter is that the present administration has placed the prisioners in a legal limbo where they can get the resuts they want more easily. All doen regardless of the fact that that places the proceedings outside the bounds of accepted legal standards. Regarding Omega's silly post: [QUOTE]Hey, aren't y'all the ones always yelling about how court rulings ARE law, regardless of any superceeding law?[/QUOTE]Apparently, like Mr. Bush, you not here to nuance. Or to actually think for that matter. All previous discussion regarding the primacy of court rulings that I've been involved in have revolved around the Supreme Court of the United States which the Constitution set as the controling court in decisions regarding the scope and limitations United States law. We've never talked about international law to my memory. Moreover, the rulings of any lower court are subject to review by higher courts and can not therefore be seen as wholly controling or the final word in any given matter. I don't know the standing of precedent in international law, but I should think that the Nuremburg trial court was not a controling court on scope or limitation of international law. Rather it was criminal courts impowered to decide the guilt or innocence of prisoners of war under guidelines previoulsly set and by its charter. And, as pointed out above, the present administration has move the proceedings out of the bounds of the international arena, therefore, there is no "superceeding" international law in this case. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3