Hamden Analysis
Perhaps the best and most sophisticated comes from Ronald Cass over at Real Clear Politics.
Professor Cass picks up on the under-mentioned outrage of the Court assuming jurisdiction over the case even in the face of a clear congressional prohibition, and -- where I've focused below on the misinterpretation of Article 3 -- he notes that the Justices used and applied it in an absolutely unprecedented and pernicious way.
It's a must-read.
Professor Cass picks up on the under-mentioned outrage of the Court assuming jurisdiction over the case even in the face of a clear congressional prohibition, and -- where I've focused below on the misinterpretation of Article 3 -- he notes that the Justices used and applied it in an absolutely unprecedented and pernicious way.
It's a must-read.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:23 AM
4 Comments:
And why was Hamdan necessary? Weren't the military tribunals working to protect the innocent?
"The US government routinely failed to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay access to witnesses who might have helped them prove their assertions of innocence, saying it could not locate the vast majority of the witnesses the terror suspects requested at special military hearings.
"But within a three-day span, a Globe reporter was able to locate three of those witnesses in the case of one detainee. The Globe found two of them in Afghanistan, and located a third in Washington, D.C., where he is teaching at the National Defense University."
You can read the full article here, and a similar article can be found here.
Nonetheless, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, so George should ignore them. And twisted, is 3 a vast majority?
Marshall Art asks, "And twisted, is 3 a vast majority?"
What in the world are you talking about, MA?
twisty,
you quote mentioned a vast majority of witnesses not located and refuted it with three the Globe found. How does 3 prove that the vast majority couldn't be found? Does 3 constitute a vast majority? Or did the Globe merely scrape up three? Why only three? Could they not find more? How do you know they didn't seek more and could only find three? Does this spell it out for you? Do you enjoy jumping on insignificant points and pretending they don't make sense? Stop YOUR pretending. It's plain your only concern is the removal of Bush. What he does doesn't matter. What your moonbat brothers can use to accomplish it is all you care about. If farting out loud at a press conference would do it, you'd oust him for that.
Post a Comment
<< Home