Dred Scott Case - Shameful yes, but eventually overturned.
Unlawfully detained persons - Yet to be tried
Indians - Yet to be given appropriate reperations for breach of contract(s) by the United States
Japanese - Unlawfully detained during world war II and for numerous years proceeding.
Red Scare 1 and 2 - Not congress's most shining momenst now was it?
Right. SO what you have is a long list of screwup by government at every level and from every branch, and you expect me to genuflect before any of them?
Sorry. Not this guy.
Such offenses run rampid through the history of the United States with the Supreme court unable to do a single thing to right the wrongs. Because we as a people need things to reach such an extreme until we decide that such issues warrant a visit to the courts.
So you want them to be able to just rule by fiat? You want them to be able to make rulings without anyone having filed a case for redress of grievances? In other words, you want them to be dictators?
But how come there is no law enforcement agency directly under the supreme courts discrection? Especially when the courts deal directly with law.
Because their job is INTERPRETING the law, not ENFORCING it. That job belongs to the EXECUTIVE branch, which in turn enforces laws created by the LEGISLATIVE branch.
Congress and the President conducts themselves in ways that are judicial in nature. No balance there.
They do?
It seems to me it's the courts that are acting in legislative ways (i.e. - Mass. SC ordering the legislature to recognize "civil unions") and in executive ways (i.e. - The SC ordering the President to deal with enemy combatants during a time of war).
Lets be real here Zaph, yes justices are humans too but among the most impartial of humans relative to their time.
Bull. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not impartial. She's a raving screaming lunatic leftist ACLU activist. I'm quite certain that those on the other side of the fence will say similar but mirror-image things about Scalia or Thomas. The difference is that one side ignores what the law says or doesn't say and makes stuff up (the right to abortion, for instance), while the other looks at the Constitution and says, "It's not here, so we're shutting up". Sadly, even my guys make mistakes from time to time. Campaign finance "reform" anyone?
But taking prisoners out back and shooting them for information they may or may not have had is murder as well, if not by statute then at least by basic humanity.
You cite humanity on a battlefield. How is blowing the snot out of another human being even remotely humane? Also, I said shoot them AFTER they've been wrung out. If it is found that innocents are being knowingly taken, then you have a case. If not, and those peing processed are indeed who we think they are, then who cares? Johnny Jihad should have been shot on sight rather than flown all the way back to America to his mommy and daddy in California (Why am I not shocked that the first victim of the WOT from Marin County California was on the ENEMY side?
)
The problem is that too many people want to fight wars the way the police are required to work, without realizing that war, by definition, means that all rules are out the window and the only one left is WIN. Sure, there are things like the Geneva Convention, but that is limited in scope, and I'll remind you that it's the WINNERS who hold the trials later.
Machiavellian? Damned straight.
The people you trust to capture these people are 18 year old kids out of high school. Over "bozos" whose very job it is, is to make the judgements that our military has no place making.
Judges are not out on the battlefield making split-second decisions of life or death. We have Marines on trial for "slaughtering" "innocents", and it turns out that all the brouhaha we heard was false. We had another one accused of murder because he shot a seriously-wounded and dying terrorist in the head because his unit was still on the attack and moving, and they didn't want to risk turning their backs on him or setting off a booby trap. In other words, he was accused of murder for simply trying to ensure his fellow Marines came home alive. That, sir, is PATHETIC, especially when the critics are sitting comfortably at home rather than dodging the IED's.
Also, yes, our troops are 18 or thereabouts. You say we cannot trust them, yet we hand them a weapon and tell them to go out and kill. Which is it? Either they are trustworthy enough to be handed the weapons of war, or they aren't. Decide!
In war yes the rules are different, soldiers play judge and jury on the battlefield. but were talking about prisoners here. Do the geneva conventions hold no weight anymore? It has long since been established that that the geneva conventions apply to all prisoners not just those of a nation with a name rank and serial number.
Only because a bunch of stupid, activist judges sitting in their air-conditioned chambers sipping iced tea and going over lawsuits brought by a bunch of pacifist whiners who hate us said so, not because the TREATY says so. Al Qaeda never signed Geneva, and have shown a shocking disregard for it anyway. These people are not POW's who were captured fighting under the flag of a nation-state. They are TERRORISTS who attack from behind the cover of innocents (and often attack the innocents, too), and are therefore to be treated as sabotuers.
We did that in WWII, you know; some German sabotuers were brought over in U-boats and dropped off in civilian clothes with plans to attack strategic targets in the United States. They were captured (because, of all things, help from the Mafia), and summarily tried and executed. Period. Where were all the whiners then?
If people want to give the courts the power to rule from the bench at will AND then back it up with force, and to require us to have to read Al-Qaeda their rights, then it's no wonder we are still slogging away in both Afghanistan and Iraq and that our rights seem to be less important to our wonderful officials than the ENEMY'S.
I'll remind you that the courts only have the power to say that a law is unconstitutional. Laws are enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch. The Executive is chosen by the People. The Congress is chosen by the People. The Judiciary, OTOH, is chosen by the Executive and approved by the Senate. Therefore, ultimately, all power in this country resides with the PEOPLE.
They have two ways to express that power: The ballot box, or the BULLET box.
Sounds extreme? What would you do is Congress passed a law, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court, that stated that due to the "threat" of global warming, all families with more than two children had to put the rest to death? Remember, it passed ALL the LEGAL hurdles!
I know what I'd do, and I'd STILL be keeping my oath in doing so.
Do NOT trust ANY branch of government. The President's poll numbers are in the toilet because half this country thinks he started a useless war and the other half thinks he is entirely too lenient in enforcing the border. Congress' approval numbers have already gone through the toilet and are in the sewer for roughly the same reasons, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can silence you before an election and can take your property away if it means more taxes for THEM.
NONE can be trusted. Eternal vigilance and all that jazz...
Pride before fall etc etc. Besides, Army has WAY better Spirit videos and you know it!
