From Cuba to Illinois for US prisoners?

Alright I will post it again:




But it is also plain that Congress long ago agreed to the president's power to convene military commissions (under U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 821). In addition, the president has inherent constitutional power as commander-in-chief to convene such tribunals, an argument acknowledged by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone in a 1942 opinion. (Stone, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, declined to set aside the military trial and execution of German saboteurs who had entered the U.S. to destroy war plants.) The president is also authorized by statute to write rules of procedure and proof for military commissions, and to decide whether or not it is "practicable" to adopt the ordinary rules of common law and evidence.



http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3297.htm

 

Your "evidence" is useless. It's not even remotely about the same legal question.

A judge would laugh you out of court if you tried to use your "evidence" as precedent for this case.

The reverends case is on target and pertinent to the current question.

 

...........................

 

I'm willing to go as far as the Constitution does...which obviously, you have decided to ditch in favor of "one-world" views.

Fortunately, my view preserves the idea of our national sovereignty...yours does not.

In a nice way, I'm trying to say, you're full of it, alatide.

 

Interesting, why did you not quote the post with the case law I presented since that post is most relevant.

1. You have presented no such case law

2. The case law I presented was in relation to an act of terrorism

3. The case law you listed thus far has no context in relationship to what we are talking about.

4. You have presented no case law that makes a differentiation between terrorism and acts of war. They are in fact one and the same asis presented in the case law I posted.

 

Did you even read the case law I provided? And you need to go read post 14. And why did you not quote the pot with the case law

 

What are you talking about? I have done nothing but respond to your questions. But you need to go back and look at your own posts 5 & 40. And you need to address my post with the case law

 

So you are still on the board at 12:56 viewing the index baptistboard.com but have failed to respond to me who is curious as to your implication. You need to resolve this.

 

You are a liberal whether you want to admit it or not. Supporting Obama's health care is very extreme and very liberal. Liberals do not like the way this country was founded. You all want to change the very foundations hence Obama care. I never called you and idiot, and you consistently repeat the DNC and media matters talking points. In the previous post where I provided one single word "idiots" if I had wanted to refer to you I would have quoted you.I was referring to the op not you. Which was made clear by the use of the plural on the word idiot. I am interested to know why you wait until this far out into the thread to bring it up. And you need to respond to my post where I provided relevant case law contrary to what you have done.