Jun 11, 12:43 PM (ET)
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that the Bush administration cannot legally detain an immigrant as an enemy combatant without charge.
2007-06-12 04:03:34 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. There should be a distinct line between Military courts and the U.S. Federal Courts system.
2007-06-13 01:38:25 · answer #1 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have specific jurisdictions. So issues do fall upon the court.
Say a stressed out Marine after 4 years in Iraq comes home to find his wife in bed with a RedsStater. He vicerates the Republican in a split second. (As he is trained to do)
This is a war time issue the local courts can handle.
Go Team Bush GO
2007-06-12 11:32:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
When they are enforcing US laws, yes. The short part of an apparent article says that they ruled they can't legally detain them. So basically what they did was rule on what the law allows. They didn't overstep their bounds or try to seize any control.
2007-06-12 11:09:33 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The courts have been overstepping their boundaries concerning matters on the war against terrorism for a couple of years now.
The problem is the war is involving mercenary types from all over the world, which makes trying these individuals very difficult. Military tribunals are the solution, but the courts have blocked tribunals, and now this.
There is a solution. And believe me, soldiers talk about it. I'll leave it at that.
2007-06-12 12:04:15 · answer #4 · answered by Matt 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
that's not a military action. an immigrant is not a solider. i forgot. does the Constitution only apply to US citizens? or all who enter our country.
2007-06-14 10:52:27 · answer #5 · answered by Kevy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, our nation was founded upon the system of checks and balances, in an effort to maintain equilibrium and uphold the constitution.
I know it's not what you want to hear, but that's the truth, my dearest fellow Wisconsinite.
2007-06-12 11:13:06 · answer #6 · answered by Convictionist 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Well, when it's a totally bogus "war" to begin with, illegal in origination and started under false pretense, and when the supposed "commander-in-chief" is breaking international law left and right while abusing the Constitution, then SURE.
Ever hear of "checks and balances?"
That's kind of what that means.
(and it's not "war" anyway, toots. It's sticking our nose in a sovereign nation's business while making money hand-over-fist for the Defense Contractors like Halliburton. "war??" Pffft.)
2007-06-12 11:24:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Yes. Especially when the Patriot Act is still forced upon us.
2007-06-12 11:39:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, not only under and circumstances. Once you start, that allows every nut judge in the land to stand in the way. This group should be disbarred from any bench.
2007-06-12 11:08:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
I guess we would need to define war. Are we actually at war right now? And yes, I think that especially during times of war, our leaders need to be looked at closely..too much room for corruption, to hide behind the war. NOW is not the time to abandon democracy and our constitution,,,not when we are trying to build a constitution and democracy in someone else{s country...
2007-06-12 11:12:59 · answer #10 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋