The Ferengi.

That is one deeply disturbing statement for a member of Congress to make.

It is called the Supreme Court of the United States for a reason and it is in a separate branch of our government for a purpose.

Representative McKeon, does the following jog your memory?

"I, Howard Phillip McKeon, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

You will be saying these words in January. Perhaps you need to study them for a bit to make sure you understand these words.... all of them.

COngress would do what he suggests by passing laws that would make it more clear. Or they could simply declare war on AQ and her allies. That would certainly be novel, but they would instantly become POWs to be held without trial until hostilities cease.

This does nothing to sidestep the SCOTUS. If the law they passed didn't pass muster, it would be struck down.

It's not like he's saying they should ignore the SCOTUS, just do what it is in their power to do, then the ball goes into the SCOTUS court.

Well wait a minute Platapus, making sure that no court will question their legal authority could be just another way of saying that they want to pass laws which will stand Constitutional muster.

Isn't that what the Legislative branch is supposed to be doing?

Edit: What Tater said too.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think we should push them through the justice system. Far far FAR from it. I just think that strategically, were going about it the wrong way.

I hope your interpretation is correct. :up:

Well if I'm not then the SJC shoots it down and we're back to square one. Our republic is strong enough to withstand it either way.

Ah Rule of Acquisition 34...

I agree I think in such cases they should be tried as traitors and shot...

I guess a sad fact in any war a percentage of innocent people will suffer so the majority can move on. However, often it's more racism or ideals of the powerful doing as they please over the weak.

In the end we know one thing for sure, Corporations are making billions off these two wars. We fought and won WW2 in 4 years and now we can't defeat two third world nations...,,,something fishy.

Blackwater Corp now Xe is not far from where I live, they made over 150 million in profit alone off Iraq. Not many complain, since they're the only ones hiring around here. You ought to see some of the houses the CEO's have built in the mountains here, I'm talking fortresses. I worked on one. Strange, the CEO's keep more bodyguards than the President. Some of em are nuts, preparing for the second coming to fight the antichrist...

Ahmed Ghailani was found not guilty of each of the over 280 counts against him — save one — in the first civilian trial of a Gitmo detainee conducted by the Obama administration.

The Kenya/Tanzania bombings.

WTG team Obama!

The guy had already confessed, and would have been dead by now with a military tribunal. That and other evidence thrown out of court. Guilty as hell, never should have been in civil court.

Castout since you know I consider you a friend I won't come back with a kneejerk response.

Just what should my country do to protect itself from terrorism ?

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I do think there should be hearings to determine whether or not there is ample evidence that each individual is indeed a terrorist fighter or collaborator, and each case should be revisted, say, biannually.

Please say who your responding to and explain what you mean.

Your thoughts are important. :salute:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but terrorists don't dress in uniforms
Doesn't that mean they are not protected by laws of war?
can't we just execute them on the spot?

The GC has since been reinterpreted. Back in the day it was a reciprocal agreement between Great Powers and their client states. The language still sows this as it enumerates how combatants, POWs and non-combatrants should be treated, but then goes on to define who is a POW worthy of proper treatment. If anyone was, then no need to mention badges of rank, uniforms, etc.

This was at a time where any police force on Earth would have routinely "tuned up" perps to interrogate them. Even in the US, with Constitutional protections, a large number of perps must have "fallen" in their cells and hit the toilet (that's where the black eye came from, really!).

Nowadays, summary execution isn't likely to happen, unlike, say WW2, where it was still common—on the Axis side because they were, well, evil, and on the Allied side because it was widely understood that people that violated the rules abrogated any agreement to reciprocal good behavior.

Bottom line is that the US cannot, and will not summarily execute them. This is a step forward, frankly. That said, there is every reason that ANY trial should be military tribunal because of civilian evidentiary rules. Once you head to civilian court you get in trouble for not Mirandizing these pieces of s***. Dunno what the Administration was thinking. Obama has ordered drone strikes, and other attacks on high-value targets. He has killed people with no due process, yet wants those we bothered to grab up alive (sometimes at a cost in American lives that would not have been incurred with a JDAM) to be tried in such a way that LOSING is a large possibility.

Insanity.

The left should dig military tribunals, they worked for the next most left President, FDR, just fine (course he threw people in camps for the wrong last name, too).