Some finally have their wish

[rn79870]

Law is semantics and interpretation, not idyllic function and results. Some people can't get over that.

Law is neither. It is a finite interpretation of president and procedure. It is not an argument in semantics. Constitutional law is the study of the Constitution, and the interpretation of that document by SCOTUS. It is far, far deeper than a reading of a few penned words and forming an opinion thereon. It is an understanding of the history and the factors leading to its writing and its subsequent interpretation.

[rn79870]

When you post false drivel like "a congressionally declared war", yeah I'm gonna tear it down the best way I know how.

107th CONGRESS 1st Session S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorlst attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

Attest:

Secretary.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Is this what you were looking for?

[ishkabibble]

Law is ... not an argument in semantics.

10s of thousands of lawyers say hi.

[audtatious]

When you post false drivel like "a congressionally declared war", yeah I'm gonna tear it down the best way I know how. Law is semantics and interpretation, not idyllic function and results. Some people can't get over that.

What, Congress did not give the President the right to go to war? What about the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq? That's the closest to a declaration of war that we will ever see in today's Congress.

[rn79870]

10s of thousands of lawyers say hi.

Are you feeling okay Ish?

[ishkabibble]

Are you feeling okay Ish?

Yep. You?

Law is semantics and "spirit".

[audtatious]

I hope those spirits are of drowned lawyers....You know, from the good start by putting 10,000 of them at the bottom of the ocean?

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[ishkabibble]

I hope those spirits are of drowned lawyers....You know, from the good start by putting 10,000 of them at the bottom of the ocean?

I'm no fan of lawyers, either. It is little else than paid sophistry. Most lawyers I know think they are better than everyone else.

[audtatious]

That was in itself a brilliant use of semantics, everyone should see that. Congress WOULD have approved a Declaration, but Bush (and his lawyers!) didn't WANT one.

Can you imagine how much more dysfunctional Guantanamo would be if we had to follow the GC?

This ruling is marking the point at which the loophole infringes on constitutional protections since there isn't an accepted code of conduct for an all means necessary AUMF .

Modified by sensibleS13driver at 8:40 PM 6/12/2008

I didn't think terrorists were covered by the GC?

[rn79870]

Yep. You?

Law is semantics and "spirit".

Law is precedent, built upon precedent. That's why legal briefs are long and boring. Rarely is a lawyer successful with a brief full of cites to Websters. However, when he cites precedents, things change.

Spirit now that's a nebulous enough concept that you might win with that one.

[HashiriyaS14]

Giving these monsters full constitutional protection and right to due process is SMART POLITICS.

They've admitted guilt and are eligible for the death penalty, they WILL recieve it, period. Hell, at least one of them wants to die.

We can't give the appearance of a mickey mouse trial, it would be bad for international relations. This is an easy bone to throw to our detractors that neither compromises our ability to execute them nor makes anyone think that we killed them without a real trial.

It has no impact on the final result and buys us goodwill, what's the big deal?

[audtatious]

Send them back to Iraq or Afghanistan and let them handle them as they were captured "over there". Not our problem if they are interrogated with methods more horrid than water boarding.....

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[audtatious]

Then do it for all of them and let those Gov't bodies deal with any punishment. Pulling them into our already over-crowded public-based courts system is BS

[ishkabibble]

Law is precedent, built upon precedent.

What comes before precedent? Or are you some sort of legal Creationist?

[rn79870]

What comes before precedent? Or are you some sort of legal Creationist?

In reference to Constitutional law, which we're discussing, I would say it was the Constitution. Lay persons enjoy citing M/W and nit picking semantics. Legal buffs cite Black's and case law - precedents. If you review this thread you'll clearly see why arguing semantics alone fails in legal arguments.

Here's a good example. Define pornography. Now find a citation with the legal definition (per SCOTUS) of p0rn. Don't try arguing semantics in this case, as it will fail. Case closed.

[ishkabibble]

In reference to Constitutional law, which we're discussing, I would say it was the Constitution. Lay persons enjoy citing M/W and nit picking semantics. Legal buffs cite Black's and case law - precedents. If you review this thread you'll clearly see why arguing semantics alone fails in legal arguments.

Here's a good example. Define pornography. Now find a citation with the legal definition (per SCOTUS) of p0rn. Don't try arguing semantics in this case, as it will fail. Case closed.

Without any existing case law on a subject, the only things to argue are semantics and interpretation ("spirit").

[rn79870]

Since we borrowed the English common law, and that goes back to a time before 1644 (at least one case that I know of from that date). So, if we lived in the 17th. century you might have a point. Today, not so.

[ishkabibble]

Oh, there were laws which covered everything back then, eh?

[ishkabibble]

Scalia apparently believe Constitutional law is an argument in semantics:

STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?

SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.

STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–

SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

The current administration time and time again has selectively parsed or interpreted phrases in order to obtain their desired legal meaning. If that isn't semantics, what is?

[rn79870]

Bad examples. Case law is full of examples where "cruel and unusual" punishment is defined. It is defined as it applies to the constitution, not as it applies to everyday use. This is the point I'm trying to make. One poster here lost the meaning of persons and citizens by applying everyday use to the terms, when in fact, they are defined in the constitution and in constitutional cases. This is why I gave the example of pornography, to show that everyday usage of words (semantics) has little value in legal arguments. This isn't to say that simple words like "ran" and "write" aren't given everyday meanings, but, instead there are legal definitions to words which encompass principles and concepts that are long standing. Go look at a Black's Law Dictionary and you'll see what I'm talking about. When Scalia said "No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so," he was referring to legal scholars, and legal precedent, not newscasters and lay people communicating.

Often legal definitions of words differ from lay definitions, so using the lay version is a shortcut to disaster.

[ishkabibble]

Show me where the definition of semantics only applies to laypersons.

You can use the layperson or legal definition to show me.

[rn79870]

I've already covered that.

[Cold_Zero]

Giving these monsters full constitutional protection and right to due process is SMART POLITICS.

They've admitted guilt and are eligible for the death penalty, they WILL recieve it, period. Hell, at least one of them wants to die.

We can't give the appearance of a mickey mouse trial, it would be bad for international relations. This is an easy bone to throw to our detractors that neither compromises our ability to execute them nor makes anyone think that we killed them without a real trial.

It has no impact on the final result and buys us goodwill, what's the big deal?

While I dont necessarily disagree with you, I see this ruling as the start, not the end of the lawsuits for these detainees. First they want the right to be charged and hear the evidence against them in the civilian courts (Federal) system not the Military Court system. Fair enough, from what I understand a Federal Judge will hear the evidence that the US Gov. has on each detainee and make a ruling if they can be kept or must be released. No real problem there because as I stated before, when these jokers are released they will go right back to their countries of origin and either be killed out right or tried and executed. Throw a little torture in there for good measure. I think the US Government is more concerned with gathering information for these detainees than actually prosecuting them. I dont believe (looking back at the Nuremberg Trials) it takes this long to gather evidence, present a case and try someone. What I am worried about is these cases will clog up the Federal Court System. How would you feel if you were looking for your day in court, to be exonerated? Then your court date gets bumped because some Yemen detainee needs to have his day in court only to be released sent to Yemen where he is tortured and killed. Fair enough, justice must be served. And these guys will probably go through 4 district courts anyways not the 7th (in our area).. so oh well..

But this wont be the end of the lawyering and the lawsuits. Next we will see cases where they want to be tried in the Federal Courts system not by Military Tribunals. Then will come the cases that these detainees were picked up on the battlefields or in terror cases and they are not properly read their rights (Miranda Rights). Then the lawyers will bog down the courts with cases of weather or not these guys were caught with guns, what type of guns they were caught with. It will be a never-ending line of lawsuits for people who are NOT American Citizens and who were NOT picked up on American soil breaking the law.None of the people tried in the Nuremberg Trials were ever tried in the US Federal Court system. And none of the Nazi spies and saboteurs picked up in the US were ever sent through the Federal Court system. They were tried by Military Tribunals and executed.

[audtatious]

Realize too that some have been released and it's documented where they were involved later with terrorlst attacks. Of course, the counter to this is we made them mad and caused it to happen.

[Cold_Zero]

Something similar to the 'Blow Back" theory.

[Cold_Zero]

It's amazing how incense we Americans become when some foreign country imprisons an American and denies that person access to the American embassy, counsel or even a hearing to determine the legality of their imprisonment. We would scream if one of ours was held on mere suspicion without benefit of even a hearing or other rights, like the right to cross examine witnesses and right to be heard. Yet we have taken all the alleged terrorlst and locked them up for years without regard to these rights.

Typically the outrage stems from either, these countries being our allies and we have agreements with them or the fact that these people are not terrorists or spies. The whole spy thing is probably handled much differently in that there is back door dealing to get them out.If an American citizen goes to Chiapas to wage war on the Mexican government and gets picked up... I dont think the mass of America is going to be incensed or cry foul...

[szh]

Realize if their country gave a damn they would do the same thing as we do when a citizen is held for something.

In some cases (where the person's family had some money), the countries did file suit at the World Courts at the Hague. Two problems with that: (a) the US chose to ignore that Court on these cases, and (b) the wheels of justice grind slowly.

I am in favor of trying terrorists for their crimes (harsh sentences and all) but I am not in favor of us violating Habeas Corpus. It is one of the fundamental underpinnings of the US legal system (even if these folks are not US citizens) and violating it leaves a bad taste.

My bottom line: The end does not justify the means. If we ourselves do the same activity and kind of uncontrolled imprisonment that other ultra-extreme countries indulge in, then we give away our moral high-ground to condemn those activities there.

Z

[ishkabibble]

So, now the McClatchy report comes out and finds that most of the detainees were held based on flimsy or false evidence, and 2/3 were eventually released without charges.

So, what say you, Jeff? How would you like to be falsely imprisoned for years with no means to contest your detainment?