[lit-ideas] Re: 3 SUICIDES AT GUANTANAMO
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:44:10 -0700
Eric Yost wrote:
Robert: Roosevelt, who clearly wanted them dead, insisted on trial by a
military tribunal.
Eric: And why did FDR clearly want them dead? Because we were at war.
Just as we are at war today.
This is a strange response. 'Because we were at war,' also explains food
and gasoline rationing, the internment of Japanese from the Pacific
Coast states, and paper drives by Boy Scouts. It isn't clear just why
Roosevelt 'wanted them dead' so strongly that he was willing to by-pass
laws that were already in place which would have allowed him to have
them tried and either imprisoned or executed. As I said, his own
attorney general thought he had no case for capital punishment. You seem
to think that Roosevelt was a hero of some sort for having done this.
Robert: As things stand now, one who is designated an enemy combatant,
can be tried only by a 'special tribunal,' in which various rules of
evidence are suspended, and there is no right of habeus corpus.
Eric: The correct term is "unlawful enemy combatant," which I omitted in
my first post and corrected in my second. An "enemy combatant" per se is
subject to Geneva Convention rules.
Thanks. I was, as you obviously know, going on your first use. What you
don't respond to is my having pointed out the oddity of your saying that
'we could bring them here, try them, and execute those convicted of
being "enemy combatants." ' You still seem to think that being an
'(unlawful) enemy combatant' is itself a capital offense. It isn't. It's
a classification, just as 'prisoner of war' is a classification: as far
as I know, FDR didn't use the expression 'unlawful enemy combatant.'
What he did was to create a military tribunal to try these guys. Bush
uses this classification to try those so classified in special
proceedings in which 'unlawful enemy combatants' lose most of the rights
they would have in an ordinary court, or in an ordinary court martial.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Eric Yost wrote:
Robert: Roosevelt, who clearly wanted them dead, insisted on trial by a
military tribunal.
Eric: And why did FDR clearly want them dead? Because we were at war.
Just as we are at war today.
This is a strange response. 'Because we were at war,' also explains food
and gasoline rationing, the internment of Japanese from the Pacific
Coast states, and paper drives by Boy Scouts. It isn't clear just why
Roosevelt 'wanted them dead' so strongly that he was willing to by-pass
laws that were already in place which would have allowed him to have
them tried and either imprisoned or executed. As I said, his own
attorney general thought he had no case for capital punishment. You seem
to think that Roosevelt was a hero of some sort for having done this.
Robert: As things stand now, one who is designated an enemy combatant,
can be tried only by a 'special tribunal,' in which various rules of
evidence are suspended, and there is no right of habeus corpus.
Eric: The correct term is "unlawful enemy combatant," which I omitted in
my first post and corrected in my second. An "enemy combatant" per se is
subject to Geneva Convention rules.
Thanks. I was, as you obviously know, going on your first use. What you
don't respond to is my having pointed out the oddity of your saying that
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
