Indefinite Military Detention Coming to a Town Near You

[jimmy olsen]

So, anyone have a serious comment on this?

[Valmy]

So, anyone have a serious comment on this?

Well what do you want us to say Tim?  This has been going on for a decade...and to be fair is not exactly outside precedents from the ACW, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

[jimmy olsen]

So, anyone have a serious comment on this?

Well what do you want us to say Tim?  This has been going on for a decade...and to be fair is not exactly outside precedents from the ACW, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

Is there a domestic insurrection raging against half the nation? Was the military acting on domestic soil as law enforcement in those latter conflicts?

[The Minsky Moment]

So, anyone have a serious comment on this?

Military custody for AQ guys is not that big a deal, provided that the basic guidelines set down by the Supreme Court are followed.

As for indefinite detention - its hard to tell from what you have posted how exactly this is being done.  If it is through outright suspension of the Writ, it may be constitutional (depending on how one defines "Invasion"), albeit a crappy idea.  If through simple enactment without suspension, the courts may have something to say on the matter.

[The Brain]

We gave up on America when they started to publically champion the systematic use of torture. What were they thinking?

[The Minsky Moment]

We gave up on America when they started to publically champion the systematic use of torture. What were they thinking?

Better to do it systematically than ad hoc.

[grumbler]

Well what do you want us to say Tim?  This has been going on for a decade...and to be fair is not exactly outside precedents from the ACW, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

The precedent in the ACW was that this kind of thing couldn't be done, and the precedents for the World Wars and Cold War followed those of the ACW.  What is being proposed here is far, far outside those precedents - though what is proposed here is just a political stunt, and going nowhere.

To be fair to you, what is being proposed here does have the precedent of conforming to what the Shrubbery believed the law and Constitution to say, but the since USSC told them to STFU, it may not be of much comfort to you.

[Ideologue]

So, anyone have a serious comment on this?

Well what do you want us to say Tim?  This has been going on for a decade...and to be fair is not exactly outside precedents from the ACW, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

Is there a domestic insurrection raging against half the nation?

Not yet.

[Valmy]

Well what do you want us to say Tim?  This has been going on for a decade...and to be fair is not exactly outside precedents from the ACW, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

The precedent in the ACW was that this kind of thing couldn't be done, and the precedents for the World Wars and Cold War followed those of the ACW.  What is being proposed here is far, far outside those precedents - though what is proposed here is just a political stunt, and going nowhere.

To be fair to you, what is being proposed here does have the precedent of conforming to what the Shrubbery believed the law and Constitution to say, but the since USSC told them to STFU, it may not be of much comfort to you.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.  But if the USSC is going to shut this thing down then good for them.

[dps]

Well what do you want us to say Tim?  This has been going on for a decade...and to be fair is not exactly outside precedents from the ACW, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

The precedent in the ACW was that this kind of thing couldn't be done, and the precedents for the World Wars and Cold War followed those of the ACW.  What is being proposed here is far, far outside those precedents - though what is proposed here is just a political stunt, and going nowhere.

To be fair to you, what is being proposed here does have the precedent of conforming to what the Shrubbery believed the law and Constitution to say, but the since USSC told them to STFU, it may not be of much comfort to you.

I'd guess that there were over 100,000 Japanese-Americans who would agree with Valmy that this is not exactly outside precedent.

[Ideologue]

Korematsu is still good law afaik.

[The Minsky Moment]

Korematsu is still good law afaik.

Technically this is true - it has never been overruled by the Court.  But the discussion of the case in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld doesn't suggest the present Court carries a very positive view of the outcome.

[dps]

Korematsu is still good law afaik.

Technically this is true - it has never been overruled by the Court.  But the discussion of the case in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld doesn't suggest the present Court carries a very positive view of the outcome.

Yeah, it's still technically valid law I suppose, but I wouldn't call it "good" law.  IMO it ranks as one of the worst decisions the Court has ever handed down.  I tend to agree with Justice Murphy's dissent (or at least the excerpts of it that I've read).