November 08, 2004


Justice? What here?

Seems that there's a judge who believes that our criminal justice system is made for well, justice. He's ruled that the "military tribunals" that the Crawford Cowboy blathered on and on about are not compliant with the Geneva Conventions, that slight technicality that has thus far kept the Chickenhawk Commandos from summarily gut-shooting "detainees" captured in battle that they don't like and then leaving them to die.

The special trials established to determine the guilt or innocence of prisoners at the U.S. military prison in Cuba are unlawful and cannot continue in their current form, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

In a setback for the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge James Robertson found that detainees at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and therefore entitled to the protections of international and military law -- which the government has declined to grant them.
...
Human rights advocates, foreign governments and the detainees' attorneys have contended that the rules governing military commissions are unfairly stacked against the defendants. But Robertson's ruling is the first by a federal judge to assert that the commissions, which took nearly two years to get underway, are invalid.

Of course, from Mordor-on-the-Potomac comes word that the judge is all hosed up, and that of course they can do-what-ever-the-hell-they-want.
The Bush administration denounced the ruling as wrongly giving special rights to terrorists and announced that it will ask a higher court for an emergency stay and reversal of Robertson's decision. Military officers at Guantanamo immediately halted commission proceedings in light of the ruling.

"We vigorously disagree. . . . The judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war," said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo. "The Constitution entrusts to the president the responsibility to safeguard the nation's security. The Department of Justice will continue to defend the president's ability and authority under the Constitution to fulfill that duty."

I guess someone forgot to tell the dickheads at "Justice" that the Constitution created a tri-partite system of governance just to avoid ever having a Preznit-who-would-be King. But, given the spew and malapropisms coming from the 1600 Crew, I'm guessing that no one there has examined their copy of the Constitution in well over four years.

Just remember that my friends...if they determine you are a "terrorist" (by some means they don't have to disclose) a fair and speedy trial is a "special right".

posted by Jo Fish on 11.08.04 at 10:38 PM





Comments:

The Constitution only protects citizens of the United States not detainees or POW's. Maybe you need to read it obviously you don't understand it Jo Fish. Luckily you can still be a moron and receive its protection. Seems to me a famous Democrat named FDR rounded up thousands of Japanese who were living peacefully and put them into camps to keep an eye on them. Lots of those were actual citizens not terrorist scumbags. Maybe you can adopt some of these terrorists if you think they are not dangerous or a threat. Maybe you can register them as Democrats in preperation for the next election.

posted by: Pete on 11.09.04 at 09:17 AM [permalink]



jesus approves of torture for muslims.

posted by: on 11.10.04 at 05:26 PM [permalink]



Uh, Pete?

I hate to break it to you, but treaties signed by the U.S. (Such as the Geneva Convention) are part of the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

posted by: Pete's Brain on 11.10.04 at 11:54 PM [permalink]



In the meantime, Pete appears to have mislaid his own copy of the Constitution, which has lots of "no person shall be deprived of ..." phrases in it, but the word "citizen" is not mentioned a single time in the entire Bill of Rights -- it is strictly a list of actions which government is prohibited from doing, period.

But then, I forgot, Abu Gonzales wrote that memo that says that the Constition is "quaint" and "obsolete", so that's not operative anymore...

- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

posted by: Badtux on 11.12.04 at 03:16 AM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?



















usdemvet -at- hotmail.com
or
usndemvet -at- usdemvet.com (coming soon)






All the original material © 2002-2003 Jo Fish
steal what you want, all I ask is an attribution of some sort
Thanks