Avatar_feed
Responses: 4
Capt Gregory Prickett
1
1
0
Well, surprising me not at all, your analysis of the history of tribunals and enemy combatants was completely wrong.

For example, you left out the part where the Supreme Court repeatedly declared that the federal law covering tribunals was unconstitutional.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
2 y
Not completely, Capt. You know better. The Supreme Court was wrong and certainly divided.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Capt Gregory Prickett
2 y
MAJ Montgomery Granger - and yet the rulings remains that the laws were unconstitutional. Rasul was a 6-3 decision; Hamdan was a 5-3 decision; and Boumediene was 5-4. You do understand that there is no further appeal after SCOTUS has ruled, don't you? That there is no one who can say that the Supremes are wrong and overturn their decision? That a divided decision is still a decision, and is still binding regardless of the vote, that a 5-4 vote is just as much law as a 9-0 vote?
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
Barry Davidson
1
1
0
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was my understanding that unlawful enemy combatants fall under the jurisdiction of the military. While Congress does have the constitutional authority to change that, the SCOTUS ruled in Dynes v. Hoover (1858) that neither it or lesser Article III courts have jurisdiction over matters of military courts martial. Justice James Moore said in his opinion, “These provisions show that Congress has the power to provide for the trial and punishment of military and naval offenses in the manner then and now practiced by civilized nations, and that the power is given without any connection between it and the third article of the Constitution defining the judicial power of the United States, indeed, that the powers are entirely independent of each other.” The decision went on further to say that it was a violation of the Separation of Powers for Article III courts to hear those cases.

Never mind. I should know by now that reason and precedent have no place in politics.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
3 y
You are my favorite person today. Indeed, your final thought is our reality. Battling fake news and ignorance seems futile, but tenacity and perseverance are what it took to create this great nation, nad that's what it's going to take to keep it great. Keep using facts that the other side ignores! Hooah!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Barry Davidson
Barry Davidson
3 y
MAJ Montgomery Granger - I have some pretty good rants in the morning before I've had enough coffee on Facebook. Since they usually include a lot of expletives I don't post them here. Something I've seen a thousand times will just tick me off, and venting through the keyboard helps sometimes.

I used to regularly contact my representatives about issues like uniform ballot access legislation. I live in MD which means I'm surrounded by Democrats. Every last one of them over the years has responded by stating that Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to pass uniform ballot access and/or election laws. Never once, in all my years, have they responded back when I quote Article I Section 4, "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." as their constitutional power.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
3 y
Can't make it up. I'll bet most of them could not pass the citizenship test.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
PO3 Phyllis Maynard
1
1
0
This reads, as if, the Trump administration should have taken time to talk to the Obama administration about the undeveloped and undefined elements of the commission, in order to have an understanding of what needed to happen to shore up and define it's mission and process.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
3 y
100%. Here's what I thought about that over a year ago: Trump needs to get Gitmo right - https://savinggraceatguantanamobay.com/2017/01/25/trump-needs-to-get-gitmo-right/
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Phyllis Maynard
PO3 Phyllis Maynard
3 y
This article spells out in plain language, enemies foreign or donestic, bringing assault against the US of A is a clear and present danger. The portion talking about the amenities that these prisoners are receiving is describing a "present danger". If one reads about Islamic religion, they will find that anytime they bring their religious beliefs into an area that was once a religious spot for another belief it signifies that Allah has conquered an infidel. In this case, it mocks the US punishment for terrorism. I agree, the harsh punishment set forth for this element of criminal should be properly placed under Geneva Convention guidelines.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
3 y
Indeed. Thank you for that. I believe in fairness, not coddling. I believe that if the United States holds someone, whether as a protected person, detainee, war criminal, it should be to the letter and spirit of the law. No more, no less. That has NOT been the case with Gitmo detainees.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close