| This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there! |
| A step towards justice; Geneva Convention not so "quaint" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 30 2006, 03:02 PM (448 Views) | |
| Bill | Jun 30 2006, 03:02 PM Post #1 |
|
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the military tribunals set up to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are illegal. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1675163.htm |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| maccascruff | Jun 30 2006, 03:53 PM Post #2 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
And I agree with the US Supreme Court. The people at Guantanomo should be charged and tried or released, IMO. Some have been released back to their countries, so why were they there in the first place. I am sure there are some real bad guys in Gunatanomo, but charge them, try them and punish them accordingly. |
![]() |
|
| Sandra | Jun 30 2006, 04:02 PM Post #3 |
|
I was pleased to hear of the outcome US Supreme Court ruling. I hope that justice will be seen to be done. Any innmates where there is enough evidence to bring charges should be brought to trial and sentenced accordingly. Any people who are not going to face trial should be released as soon as posssible. |
| <a href='http://eapr-1/@0@Sandra@1@Edinburgh%2C%20Scotland@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jun 30 2006, 06:35 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
So much for Bush's "conservative/activist" judges, huh?
|
|
|
| beatlechick | Jul 1 2006, 12:09 AM Post #5 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
See, you can't always pay for justice. I think, like Linda, that all should be tried and punished instead of just sitting there. This was a travesty and hopefully the wrong has been righted. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 1 2006, 02:09 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
My point was that Bush appointed fairer judges than the opposition gives him credit for and hopefully this is a good litmus test for them. |
|
|
| Bill | Jul 1 2006, 04:53 AM Post #7 |
|
I agree! The only remaining question is whether it was by accident or design.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 1 2006, 12:16 PM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think any president wants a court that would vote the same way he would every single time. And I also think libs have made it extraordinarily hard on all of his nominees, who, up to this point, seem to be controversy free (not just the supreme court nominees). They got more bad spin while they were nominees than they have as judges. But on the flip side, there have been many justices appointed by a sitting President whose voting history show a track record completely different than anyone expected. So as much as I'd like to say it was by design, I can't say it with much gusto.
|
|
|
| mozart8mytoe | Jul 3 2006, 08:19 AM Post #9 |
|
Only time will tell. Generally speaking, the current court votes pretty much the way their appointers would have wanted, Stevens (appointed by Ford) being the biggest disappointment to his party. Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon) was consistently conservative, as are Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (GHW Bush), and Alito (GW Bush). Clinton's appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, are mostly on the liberal side of voting. The judges you have to keep an eye on are Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (GHW Bush), and Roberts (GW Bush). |
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| mozart8mytoe | Jul 3 2006, 08:27 AM Post #10 |
|
This is the way the game has been played for a long time. Each side says the other is being unreasonable when it is their turn up to bat. Clinton had to fight to get his lower court appointments through. As for the Supreme Court, look at the problems Reagan, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Wilson, Taft, T Roosevelt.... and Washington had. Even Franklin Roosevelt had problems with his judges, and he had Congress wrapped around his little finger. |
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 4 2006, 08:58 PM Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
I know it's the nature of the game, but the dems went to unprecedented lengths this time. And the only reason I am belly-aching about it, is that the repubs will use the same tactics next time they're facing democratic nominees. |
|
|
| poster_child | Jul 4 2006, 09:11 PM Post #12 |
|
Bush didn't appoint any of the judges who formed the majority opinion. |
| |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Jul 4 2006, 09:15 PM Post #13 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
That's a good point. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 4 2006, 11:36 PM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
Notice that Justice Roberts excused himself, though. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 4 2006, 11:56 PM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
Chad sadly it is a game they play whenever the oposition is in control. Democrats do it to Republicans and Republicans do it to Democrats. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 4 2006, 11:59 PM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
Roberts had to excuse himself since it was his decision that was being appealed. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 4 2006, 11:59 PM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
It just gets so damn old, is all.
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 5 2006, 12:02 AM Post #18 |
|
Deleted User
|
Amen to that! |
|
|
| mozart8mytoe | Jul 6 2006, 10:34 AM Post #19 |
|
Extreme, maybe, but I would not say unprecedented. Look at what the Republicans did to Abe Fortas in 1968.
This, unfortunately, is true. |
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 7 2006, 03:59 PM Post #20 |
|
Deleted User
|
But if you read the Republican view point of it, they made a decent case against him. What with the inappropriate money he accepted and such. Of course I don't know all of the ins and outs of it, since I wasn't born yet.
|
|
|
| Bill | Jul 12 2006, 06:18 AM Post #21 |
|
And in further news, the Pentagon has now decided to grant prisoners their rights under the Geneva Convention. LINK Does this make Bush a flip-flopper? No, much as I like to give credit where it's due I'm not about to pat anyone on the back for doing what they should have done over 4 years ago. I'll just say better late than never. It just goes to prove what Churchill once said, You can always count on America to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Sandra | Jul 12 2006, 08:48 AM Post #22 |
|
Yes better late than never. |
| <a href='http://eapr-1/@0@Sandra@1@Edinburgh%2C%20Scotland@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| mozart8mytoe | Jul 12 2006, 09:05 AM Post #23 |
|
And if you look at the Democratic viewpoint against Alito.....Same sh*t, different millennium. For those amongst us who might not be experts on the US Supreme Court, when Associate Justice Abe Fortas (a liberal Democrat) was nominated by Lyndon Johnson (a liberal Democrat) as Chief Justice in 1968, the conservatives in the Senate successfully blocked his nomination with a filibuster until he withdrew himself from consideration. The problems conservatives had with Fortas was that he was liberal, he was a close friend of (liberal) Johnson, and, the big ticket issue in this debate, he accepted a $15,000 fee for a series of speeches he gave at a law school. This was all perfectly legal, but 1968 was an election year. If a Republican (Nixon) could win the election and the Fortas nomination was stalled long enough, said Republican could then nominate a conservative Chief Justice. Which is exactly what happened. The moral of the story: Republicans are better at filibusters than Democrats. When the Republicans tried to block a liberal nomination in anticipation of an election change, they won. When the Democrats tried to block a conservative nomination because they thought he was too conservative, the Republicans won. |
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic » |






2:17 PM Jul 11