Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy. - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 05:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Is it the Judiciary that sets policy?

Either Mr Gonzalez is confused or he believes that judges are ruling so as to set new policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress proposes policy, Executive enacts policy, Judiciary reviews policy for legal and constitutional merit. If the Judiciary is indeed, interpreting so as to enact new policy then they are over-stepping their bounds.

Politicians use that argument when it suits their purposes and gladly ignore the argument when judges rule in their favor. My gues is that Gonzalez is laying groundwork for future Congressional hearings.

I'd like to see the Supreme Court take fewer cases, appellate courts take fewer cases, and federal courts take fewer cases. I'd also like to see the Congress shorten it's day and it's work-week, and take longer vacations. Same with the President. The longer they all stayt out of town punching doggies the safer we are from their blundering about in the treasury. Making so many issues a federal crime usurps the state's prerogatives, IMO. It also weakens the esteem with which citizens hold the national government. The more laws that are enacted from Washington, the more pissed-off citizens will be with Washington.

Bot
Congress supposedly does not formulate policy, if we define policy as the management of plans - it passes laws that sets the parameters within which policy may operate. The Executive Branch is the one charged with "policy" under our form of government, and the Judicial Branch may form and execute policy as well in order to right wrongs.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 05:47 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,529
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Is it the Judiciary that sets policy?

Either Mr Gonzalez is confused or he believes that judges are ruling so as to set new policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress proposes policy, Executive enacts policy, Judiciary reviews policy for legal and constitutional merit. If the Judiciary is indeed, interpreting so as to enact new policy then they are over-stepping their bounds.

Politicians use that argument when it suits their purposes and gladly ignore the argument when judges rule in their favor. My gues is that Gonzalez is laying groundwork for future Congressional hearings.

I'd like to see the Supreme Court take fewer cases, appellate courts take fewer cases, and federal courts take fewer cases. I'd also like to see the Congress shorten it's day and it's work-week, and take longer vacations. Same with the President. The longer they all stayt out of town punching doggies the safer we are from their blundering about in the treasury. Making so many issues a federal crime usurps the state's prerogatives, IMO. It also weakens the esteem with which citizens hold the national government. The more laws that are enacted from Washington, the more pissed-off citizens will be with Washington.

Bot
Amen . . .
edfreeman is offline  
post #13 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:13 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitchprint
If reference to no one having 'Constitutional rights' is referring to foreign detainees, that would be correct but foreign detainees do not have constitutional rights, no matter at war or not.

Wars will continue to be fought and lost if we keep dwelling on the rights of those who intend to kill us.
Actually they have rights under the Geneva Conventions, which we, as a Government seem to try and forget.

Hopefully should any of our guys get captured now or in the future, their captors will be less forgetful.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #14 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:33 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Actually they have rights under the Geneva Conventions, which we, as a Government seem to try and forget.

Hopefully should any of our guys get captured now or in the future, their captors will be less forgetful.
Who's Government uniform were they wearing when captured, so they then could be entitled GC?
post #15 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:36 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guage
Who's Government uniform were they wearing when captured, so they then could be entitled GC?
World Court declared years ago that the "uniform" issue was not a consideration as many countries do not have money for uniforms nor are all of their fighters citizens of their countries. In fact, they used the ragtag Colonials of America as the example in their ruling.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #16 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:44 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
World Court declared years ago that the "uniform" issue was not a consideration as many countries do not have money for uniforms nor are all of their fighters citizens of their countries. In fact, they used the ragtag Colonials of America as the example in their ruling.
What?
When was the GC's inception date? the 40's?
post #17 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:53 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guage
What?
When was the GC's inception date? the 40's?
1864

The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.


Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #18 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitchprint
Where did I say that?
If I may re-quote you, with emphasis added...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitchprint
If reference to no one having 'Constitutional rights' is referring to foreign detainees, that would be correct but foreign detainees do not have constitutional rights, no matter at war or not.

Wars will continue to be fought and lost if we keep dwelling on the rights of those who intend to kill us.
You claim they do not have rights, and I challenge you to find a constitutional reference to suport your assertion. All people have rights. And if we honor that by holding fair trials, the guilty will be punished, and the innocent will walk and have respect for our justice system. That has been the vision from day one.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #19 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 06:57 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War



Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
post #20 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-18-2007, 07:06 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guage
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War



Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
You might want to read the rest of the document.

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Jews rule the world...why? Shipfaced Off-Topic 79 01-04-2007 06:13 AM
    Every rule has an exception... Marsden Off-Topic 31 01-26-2006 09:28 PM
    Hak 2's rule!!! LG500SEL W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 1 12-27-2005 09:51 AM
    Judges hang on to stolen car asianml Off-Topic 4 11-17-2005 11:44 PM
    Rule Britania !! deathrattle Off-Topic 25 05-23-2005 04:47 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome