Missileer said:
What the "ruling" was is an interpretation of the President's war powers. It can't be overturned by any other branch of the Government. You need to study your facts a little closer before you make a statement.
Perhaps you never heard of the USSC? Its that big building on the mall in Washington. In it there are these 9 people called Supreme Court judges, and these judges can overturn
any ruling including their own. Checks and Balances, remember US History 101?
Why Lookee here (todays paper)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2233062,00.html
The Supreme Court could effectively shut down Guantanamo by ruling against the special tribunals set up by Bush to try the tiny minority who have been charged, and even against the principle of indefinite detention for the rest.
Oh and thanks for the advice about checking my facts, it really helped!
MarinerRhodes
You may want to look up the accepted definition(s) of "terrorism/terrorists" and "enemy combatant" before you start saying what is and is not considered a law.
Thats the whole trouble, there is no legal definition. There is nothing in international or US law that defines a terrorist. There is just the opinion of the Bush Administration, which happens to be 'the law is whatever we decide it is' and as I pointed out to Missileer the USSC is about to decide how far the president can go on that.
In a hypothitical Iran-US, whats to stop Ahmadinejab from declaring US POWs as illegal combantants and then sends them to be tortured? He would have the same legality as Bush does. You simply cannot make the rules up as you go along. This has already happened in Vietnam to captured US airmen. They were refered to as War criminals (not POWS) by the Vietnamese who promptly through the Geneva conventions out the window.
My point is that I want somebody (preferable the government) to define extactly the difference between POW, insurgent, terrorist and queen of the butterflies. As of now there is no distiction. I am not really taking a side on the GITMO situation as of yet, what I am asking for is for information of who these people are. Thats all.
As for the small taters (I like them mashed myself), I'm not saying let them all go (unless its into a deep frier), although I suspect some are of no consequence/useless. Besides, the best intelligence comes from small taters you can 'flip'. Big taters are harder and often have to be slowly peeled in order to talk, and their intelligence is unreliable at best. I suspect thats how they nailed Zarquiwi they got enough small taters to rat him out. My guess they did the math. $25 Mil does buy you alot more virgins than the feeble 72 promised by Zarquiwi. Plus you get to actually live to enjoy them.