What's the Problem?
Ooh superman where are you now
When everything's gone wrong somehow
--Land of Confusion, Genesis
The Very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws,
and not of men"
--John Adams
_________
Ranger Question of the Day:
If Manuel Noriega is a POW, then why wasn't Saddam Hussein?
__________
When everything's gone wrong somehow
--Land of Confusion, Genesis
The Very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws,
and not of men"
--John Adams
_________
Ranger Question of the Day:
If Manuel Noriega is a POW, then why wasn't Saddam Hussein?
__________
Ranger is tired of the American legal system acting as though its precepts are formed on the fly.
We must return to basics, which means honoring our history of jurisprudence. These days, it is as though the judicial system has suddenly hung a shingle outside of a storefront and is creating rules "bottom up," ab ovo.
We must return to basics, which means honoring our history of jurisprudence. These days, it is as though the judicial system has suddenly hung a shingle outside of a storefront and is creating rules "bottom up," ab ovo.
The current Noriega flap is the most recent example of feigned confusion over detentions and designations.
"The U.S. government is satisfied that France will treat former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega as a prisoner of war if he is extradited to face French money laundering charges, federal prosecutors said Thursday (US Says France Will Treat Noriega As POW)."
POWs are not extradited. When was the last time a POW laundered money?
The State Department says Noriega will have "the same benefits he has enjoyed during his confinement in the United States." His "confinement" was a jail cell, albeit one with some nifty appointments.
If the U.S. was not in a state of belligerency with Panama, then there was no legality in his confinement as a POW. How can France recognize his POW status when there is no state of belligerency between France and Panama?
What is he -- a criminal or a POW? He can't be both. POWs are not criminals.
This began with phony imperialistic invasions of Grenada and Panama, is is presently expressed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is our next folly to be? America needs to return to the basics of legality, and a fully-functioning tripartite government.
No soft partitions, thanks.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:38 PM
4 Comments:
i have been telling folks for a long time that the whole idea of the president being unilaterally able to commit troops to combat is wrong, wrong, wrong. if it is worth american blood the american people need to know, through the congressional process resulting in a declaration of war. "police actions", and all the other euphemisms they trot out when they don't want to say they've sent our sons and daughters to war are deadly shams.
because the "commander in chief" has deciderated that he alone, has the power to invade and commit troops to battle congress is eviscerated of its proper role in the process.
it should be simple if one reads the constitution and the companion federalist papers. they knew war was a sometimes neccessary last step in a long process of debate and negotiation. they also knew that it was something that should never be entered into lightly.
panama, grenada were phony photo-ops.
and you're right, noriega can be either a POW or a common criminal. he can't be both. if he's a POW why has he been held long after the conflict's end? if he's a POW he cannot, must not, be extradited.
The only other option is to call Noriega a "war criminal," a designation which would be incorrect, as he is the victim of a war criminal, someone who invaded his country without a casus belli.
Ranger does not have problems with the President committing troops to combat on a short notice, if in fact there were an act of aggression vs. the U.S.
In the case of Grenada and Panama, and an oyster fart does not count as aggression.
Well actually you *can* be both a POW and a criminal. It's just that one has no bearing on the other. And, as you point out, obviously you cannot be a POW without a W and you cannot be a criminal without a crime.
mike,
Yes, of course that's what I meant to say. I wrote that to see if anybody was alert out there (lol).
That was my point, that you can only be incarcerated if you've been convicted of a crime, and you can only be detained as a POW until the end of belligerency.
In the present state of affairs, the U.S. seems to be in the business of confusing the terms, to effect maximum detention time.
Post a Comment
<< Home