Article

2005-07-16 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Abu-Mushab al-Dumbo 2005-07-16 09:03|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So they'll no longer be held without trial. I guess the left will be happy now, eh?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-16 14:02|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-16 14:02|| Front Page Top

#2 So the last eight months of Gitom news was all due to a judge?
Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line had this to say about the judge in his article "What all the fuss is about":
The decision in the Hamdan helps show why activists on both sides of the political spectrum fight so hard over judicial nominations. A district court judge appointed by President Clinton bent over backwards to find that trial by a military tribunal isn't good enough for Osama bin Laden's driver and his fellow al Qaeda members who were captured fighting against us in Afghanistan. In doing so, the district judge held that the 1949 Geneva Convention confers individual rights enforceable in federal court, but did not even mention a Supreme Court case, relied on by the government, holding that the comparable 1929 Geneva Convention is not judicially enforceable. The district judge also concluded, as he had to for technical reasons in order to bestow gold-plated process on the al Qaeda man, that when Hamdan was captured we were not engaged in a conflict with al Qaeda that is distinct from our conflict with the Taliban. Huh? And the district judge obliterated the distinction between court martials and military commissions, even though the Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly does not treat the two interchangeably. That's how eager the district court was to make sure that bin Laden's driver gets, at a minimum, the same military trial that a U.S. soldier accused of misconduct (but not of taking the field of battle for the enemy) receives. More at link

Posted by GK 2005-07-16 14:18|| 2005-07-16 14:18|| Front Page Top

#3 a Clinton appointee, eh?

/surprise

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-07-16 15:01|| 2005-07-16 15:01|| Front Page Top

22:05 Bobby
21:46 Bobby
21:44 Bobby
21:44 Bobby
21:30 Bobby
18:03 Bobby
18:01 Bobby
15:15 Bobby
15:13 Bobby
14:38 Bobby
10:29 Bobby
09:20 Bobby
09:01 Abu-Mushab al-Dumbo
08:12 Bobby
19:26 Educated
17:45 Murat
17:44 Murat
17:34 Murat
17:49 Educated
17:27 Murat
23:49 Frank G
23:45 Frank G
23:43 Seafarious
23:43 Tom Dooley