The Glade 4.0

It has been since the Revolutionary War.



A) Who cares whether it jives with some political philosophy?
B) It was never a problem. Prisoners taken in arms but who are not criminals have been a well understood concept since the middle ages and possibly before. The oinly thing that's gotten more complicated is the fact that some of these guys want to switch between combatant and criminal depending on what's best for them at the moment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It does. We're not in the buisness of trying to avoid logical fallacy as a matter of policy; we're trying to do what's best for the company. Stare Decises isn't really appeal to tradition anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Should statements... not stare decisis...

I also find it ironic that you lean on adherance precedent to make half of your argument, then simply dismiss it's establishment as irrelevant when making the other half.

As to:




Um... the free world cares... It is the idea behind the establishment of our legal system... innocent until proven guilty, jury of your peers, and all that...

It's the basis for the rules we are told that we live by, and the basis for our laws.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Best for the company is upholding the rule of law. By disrespecting the rule of law one disrepects every law to come by showing that laws are not something even those who make them feel bound by.

And yes it totally is an appeal to tradition.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

Well, I guess we have to throw out the Constitution. We can't have an appeal to authority dictating how we administrate the rule of law.

_________________

Except that I'm not. "American liberalism" or whatever you call it is not precedent or stare decisis. Precedent is a specifi decision on a legal question that has been argued. The political philosophies of vrious citizens are not a form of precedent.



That isn't the question you asked. You asked how it fits with "liberalism" (presumably the classical variety).

In any case, nothing about our legal system is in any way threatened by any of this. National defense activities are not matters for the criminal courts.



No, it isn't. There are 2 basis for our laws; the Constitution and Common Law, with the Constitution taking precedence. Common Law is used mainly in everyday dealings that the Constitution doesn't address at all, or on which it lacks detail. The only thing that matters in their regard is what they actually say and how they have been applied by duly constituted organs. The political views of individuals, even those involved in writing the Constitution, are not the basis for anything except as a source of information for those selected to do the interpreting.

Political ideas about "liberalism" are simply ideas about how the law ought to be applied and what laws ought to be made. They are not in any way legally binding, precedent, or sources of authority.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Presumably you meant country,

First of all, rule of law is not threatened at all here, so that issue is moot.

Second, since it isn't threatened, the latter part is not a problem. Even if it were, people alredy disrespect the law regularly, both on the making it side and the regular old criminal side. It will always be this way; there are a lot of selfish people out there. We are nowhere near the level where it is untenable.



No it isn't. An appeal to tradition is claiming that an argument is correct because that's tradition. Precedent is saying "the moral or logical correctness of one position or the other is not able to be determined well enough to see one position as objectively superior. We are therefore going to pick the position we think is superior, and apply that method to all future similar cases until we have a significant good reason to think a different position is superior."

Precedent is about deciding what to do as a practical matter, not about making things fit into nice, neat philosophical boxes. It is not a claim thatthe precedent is clearly logically correct; it's saying "We can't resolve that issue so we're going to pick one and move on."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It sickens me that anyone thinks it's ok to hold these people after they've been acquitted.

I agree. If they are acquitted, they go free. Prosecution better have their game face on.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

How good of a game face do they need to have to overcome the utter lack of admissable evidence against these men, the inability to find a non-biased venue, and the precedent in criminal law?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Precedent is not a logical appeal DE. It is "this has been held before to be this way" and thus is an argument to uphold the previous decree simply because it was a previous decree. This is an attempt to make judicial application uniform but it only serves to cement bad rulings.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Who are you citing as the authority?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Exept that you are. First of all, I spoke of historical, evolutionary liberalism, in any of it's many forms. The concepts of classical liberalism which led directly to the creation of our country, an indisputible fact; through modern American liberalism, which while I find to be mostly ill-concieved and logically inconsistant, still clings to several base tenents of the origional thought which are it's only saving grace.



As stated above, I don't think you took my meaning.

Regardless, you are relying on precedent, while I state precedent is being created. You aren't arguing the same discussion.

[/quote]

You haven't read enough High Court decisions, my friend. Basis for law, and law older than our own law is common place when metering out intentions of Constitutional law. Our law is rife with liberalism, and understanding of that is fundamental to the understanding of our legal system.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

It is a disputable fact. The concepts of classical liberalism may have had a hand in the creation of our country but they did not "lead directly to it". In any case, this still doesn't matter because political dogma is not a form of precedent.



I'm starting to think you didn't take it either.



Yes I am. I've pointed out that no precedent is being created because the precedent already exists. You're arguing that precedent is being created on the mistaken assumption that because a person is in the custody of the U.S. they necessarily have rights as a criminal defendant. That is not, nor has it ever been, the case.



Since I just got done pointing out that "law older than our law" (common law) is a basis for our law, its rather silly of you to then point out the same fact as if you were telling me something I didn't know, or that I "haven't read enough High Court decisions". I haven't red enough, or I haven't read the ones you prefer, or read in them what you'd prefer I find there?

In any case, it doesn't matter what our law is "rife with". Political dogma is not precedent, nor is it binding. Only specific past jurisprudence is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I know it is late in the thread but this strikes me as a win / win for Obamma. If there is a conviction Justice wins, if not, more ammo in his never ending train of blame bush.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

No need. The administration has basically admitted that this is merely a show trial. They have also repeatedly said that they don't have to release them if they are acquitted. So... I hope they sicken you.