HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Where in This Bill ... » Reply #7
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Response to The Doctor. (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 06:29 PM

7. re: your second observation

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.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
The Doctor. Dec 2011 OP
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #1
silverweb Dec 2011 #2
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #4
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #3
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #5
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #6
LineLineLineReply re: your second observation
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #7
qazplm Dec 2011 #9
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #13
Mojorabbit Dec 2011 #14
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #16
qazplm Dec 2011 #8
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #15
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #17
zipplewrath Dec 2011 #10
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #18
zipplewrath Dec 2011 #21
On the Road Dec 2011 #19
zipplewrath Dec 2011 #20
patrice Dec 2011 #11
great white snark Dec 2011 #12
Please login to view edit histories.