General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

7. re: your second observation

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 06:29 PM

Dec 2011

If there is an existing standard requiring judicial review of a military determination/acusation that someone within the USA is AQ-friendly then that would kick in on its own. If such guarantee exists the bill does not challenge it.

But I get weirded out when people say the bill itself guarantees judicial review.

It doesn't. The bill is agnostic on that.

Now, we know today that a lot of our POWs in Gitmo were actually not taliban. They were not captured in America, though.

Still, I doubt we had any German POWs in WWII who were not actual memebers of the German military or spies for Germany.

When the nature of a war means that you will be rounding people up at random as POWs then human rights demand judicial review to determine that they are actually combatants (!) but our law doesn't seem to account for that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Where in This Bill does it Grant Authority to Indefinitely Detain US Citizens?" [View all] The Doctor. Dec 2011 OP

k&r for answers...nt wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #1

K&R silverweb Dec 2011 #2

I'd like to say that the admittedly Libertarian Jonathan Turley is entirely objective, The Doctor. Dec 2011 #4

It does, but it is fair to debate how meaningful that is cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #3

Hey, thanks. Not sure of a couple things though: The Doctor. Dec 2011 #5

I believe that is a military or executive determination but I'm always subject to factual correction cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #6

re: your second observation cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #7

if it doesn't explicitly exclude judicial review qazplm Dec 2011 #9

I should have said judicial process or oversight. My bad. cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #13

I wonder about who does the deciding Mojorabbit Dec 2011 #14

Congress would have to declare war on environmentalism first cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #16

usually when a law qazplm Dec 2011 #8

Ahhhh... see what you said there? cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #15

Whipping out the tinfoil fedora for a mo'... The Doctor. Dec 2011 #17

It codifies judicial decisions zipplewrath Dec 2011 #10

That's a novel piece of theory. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #18

It's fairly straight forward zipplewrath Dec 2011 #21

But "Further Appeals to Higher Courts" On the Road Dec 2011 #19

It would be about the intent of congress zipplewrath Dec 2011 #20

K&R patrice Dec 2011 #11

K&R great white snark Dec 2011 #12