A Supreme Court Hamdan Guide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Pindar-san,

What would be your stance on the following scenarios:

Question 1.
Another nation did not recognise the USA and had captured US citizens. They put them in prison, but did not charge them with any crime. When a trial did come the prisoners were not allowed either a trial by jury or to be present while all evidence against them was put before the court.

Question 2.
Using the above scenario would you deem it okay as long as the rule of law was followed as established by that nation.

Question 3.
Using the above scenarios. Would you still see it as okay if the law was changed after the capture of those prisoners.

---

Hello,

Is this a scenario of a Pindar Presidency where the land is then marked by fluffy clouds, fuzzy bunnies and merriment abounds? And yet (queue ominous music) in some far locale darkness and oppression remains: perhaps due to a plague of Leftism? Whether evil doer nation X recognizes the U.S. or not is not my concern. What I would need to know to more properly answer would be why were U.S. citizens captured? Is this because they were fighting in a war zone? If so, then the consequences of their actions are upon them. For example, if there were a Johnny Walker Lindh taken by his opponents: so be it, such is the life of the mercenary.

Regarding questions 2 & 3: law is fluid and subject to the polity that is its source. Some nations are more lawful, others not. To quote Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to" One should avoid lands whose legality they question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Again, incorrect. Afghanistan was and remains a sovereign nation, regardless of whether the US decides to extend diplomatic relations to it or not.

---

Not so, If a state is not recognized by another state then said state has no legal standing. This impacts any notion of sovereignty which is tied to authority. So goes the law.

You didn't respond to how the Taliban were the legally constituted militia, so I will assume we can dismiss that idea.

Quote:

---

A request: Please don't sidetrack this thread by making your usual argument that only democracies are sovereign nations again. It is a radical position shared only by very few and will completely strangle the thread. The writers and signatories of the Geneva Conventions do not share your position, and I think we can have a good discussion on this issue without that red herring thrown into the mix. I'll obviate the need for such sterile excursions by removing the word 'sovereign' from my claim that 'Afghanistan was a sovereign nation'. I think we can all agree that 'Afghanistan was a nation'.

---

Actually my position is only governments that are amenable to the people are legitimate. Something that is illegitimate has no authority. This would impact any claimed sovereignty. We could put it this way if you like: only popular sovereignty is sovereign. Now if you claim a Taliban regime is sovereign, which I then dismantle for the absurdity it is, that is not a red herring, but a standard element of rational discourse. You have used red herring incorrectly. Further, whether others share my view is irrelevant to the veracity of the view. To assume a contrary majority opinion is somehow determinative because of its contrariness or majority is to commit a fallacy: argumentum ad populum, to then apply it to the Geneva Conventions signatories is to commit: argumentum ad verecundiam. The proper course for defending the claimed legitimacy, sovereignty etc. of autocrats or Islamo-fascist groups would be to show the error of my argument. This of course, you would fail to do, which would then leave a simple opposition of passion: such is the fate of so many Leftists, alas.

Afghanistan was a nation, but the Taliban were not the lawful government of that nation: they were an Islamo-fascist insurgency.

Quote:

---

And yes, Afghanistan was and remains a party to the Geneva Conventions.

---

Afghanistan was, but not the Taliban.

Quote:

---

The Taliban clearly fall under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention as 'members of the armed forces of a Party to the Conflict...

---

Did the Taliban have uniforms distinguishing them as combatants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Define balance.

---

Ahh, that's your word, not mine. I assume you mean and meant balance as a product of function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Yes, precisely for the fact that they are unelected.

---

Why does unelected status warrant equal standing with an elected branch of government?

Quote:

---

As to the Geneva Convention ... I cannot tell you what to do, but call upon the moral obligations inherent in a free world. You claim moral high ground. What ground is that when you do not even allow the basic inalienable human rights to those taken prisoner in a war without international consent.

---

What inalienable right are you referring to?

A "moral high ground" argument would not require international consent. It would require moral high ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Why does unelected status warrant equal standing with an elected branch of government?

---

I tried my best to explain in my post. In essence, they are above politics, and have the authority to curb the excess of the elected branches, should they act against the constitution or morality (yes, my country's laws allow that category, it's a failsafe in the event of an altered or even abolished consitution). Simply, they are meant to prevent a totalitarian regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

What inalienable right are you referring to?
A "moral high ground" argument would not require international consent. It would require moral high ground.

---

The right to a fair trial, to live, the usual stuff one can find accessable to any person, by the fact of their birth. Please note the use of fair trial, it is the basis of our modern, western society.

I agree that 'moral high ground' does not require international consent, it would, however, require the agreement of other nations that a certain action was immoral, and that a move is justified. Please note, however, that I am not talking of invasions or anything else, the arguement is about the status of prisoners. The moral high ground I refer to is the one of the War on Terror, with which I, essentially, agree, but it is my belief that the US went about it the wrong way.

Ugh ... it seems that my brain is not properly working anymore, I'm unable to make a properly coherent post ... I'm off to bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Ahh, that's your word, not mine. I assume you mean and meant balance as a product of function.

---

I asked because you seemed to implicitely equal balance with stability. Function or stability do not necessarily imply balance. Some things require imbalance to function.

Quote:

---

Regarding questions 2 & 3: law is fluid and subject to the polity that is its source. Some nations are more lawful, others not. To quote Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to" One should avoid lands whose legality they question.

---

Hmm, I don't really want to interfere with that part of the discussion, but you sound like what some people here call a "moral relativist".

Hi Pindar,

The reason I asked was because your stance interests me. For the first question your answer summed up in this nugget:

Quote:

---

Is this because they were fighting in a war zone? If so, then the consequences of their actions are upon them.

---

That at least hints that you see the law applies to both equally, 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'. Tough but fair.

Questions 2 & 3. Given the topic of 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pape

Using the above scenarios. Would you still see it as okay if the law was changed after the capture of those prisoners.

---

Your answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

One should avoid lands whose legality they question.

---

What is your backpackers guide to avoiding countries if the law changes and is backdated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not so, If a state is not recognized by another state then said state has no legal standing. This impacts any notion of sovereignty which is tied to authority. So goes the law.

Actually my position is only governments that are amenable to the people are legitimate. Something that is illegitimate has no authority. This would impact any claimed sovereignty. We could put it this way if you like: only popular sovereignty is sovereign. Now if you claim a Taliban regime is sovereign, which I then dismantle for the absurdity it is, that is not a red herring, but a standard element of rational discourse. You have used red herring incorrectly. Further, whether others share my view is irrelevant to the veracity of the view. To assume a contrary majority opinion is somehow determinative because of its contrariness or majority is to commit a fallacy: argumentum ad populum, to then apply it to the Geneva Conventions signatories is to commit: argumentum ad verecundiam. The proper course for defending the claimed legitimacy, sovereignty etc. of autocrats or Islamo-fascist groups would be to show the error of my argument. This of course, you would fail to do, which would then leave a simple opposition of passion: such is the fate of so many Leftists, alas.

---

I knew you couldn't refrain from that one (although I though you would at least have refrained from making demeaning remarks towards leftists after taking such a beating in that ridiculous thread you posted about emotionalism and leftists; alas, I guess you never did learn your lesson). I'm not going to go down that old road again, diverting the thread while you engage in your usual, deliberately-obtuse, cross-examiner shtick, asking dozens of questions but refraining from simply outlining your own position and saving us all hours upon hours. It is the summer and I don't have the time either for the tedium or for the abuse. You would make our discussion much more edifying if you could restrain your anger at the left and avoid sidetracking the thread through this inflammatory puerility.

Quote:

---

Did the Taliban have uniforms distinguishing them as combatants?

---

Yes. But they are to be afforded the protections I outlined above even if they didn't.

Quote:

---

You didn't respond to how the Taliban were the legally constituted militia, so I will assume we can dismiss that idea.

---

Nor did you respond when I pointed out that articles 27 and 37 of the Geneva Conventions apply even to 'unlawful' combatants. Nor did you respond to my point about international humanitarian law applying as well.

Perhaps you could also respond to this one: does common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees or not?

You might also like to explain why Taliban have not been treated as POWs until such time as their status is determined-- for the Geneva Conventions require that they be treated as POWs until this happens. As I'm sure you are aware, Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention states:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

You might also like to explain whether the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the Protection of Civilian Persons applies to the Taleban or not, and where exactly the Geneva Conventions discuss this category of 'unlawful combatants' about which you have spoken.

Ready to take the stand?

The status of any Afganstan citizen should be one of POW regardless of wether they were members of the Taliban militias or from a spontanous (SP) uprising of the people of Afganstan. The requirement of an identifiable uniform is waved if their is an organized command structure (The Taliban Militia) and/or the citizens are reacting to an invasion of their homes.

The United States has an onus by the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions to treat those individuals as POW's until such a time that their status is proven to be that of a criminal element on the battlefield. Now this does not prevent the United States from holding them where we deem fit to hold the Prisoners - just that they must be accorded the POW status until proven otherwise.

Now citizens of other nations captured by collation forces in Afganstan can be deemed unlawful combatants.

So the short answer is that they are a POW until proven a criminal. So until such time they should be afforded all the rights (and responsibilities) of a Prisoner of War.

What status was the Nuremburg court, military or civilian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So the short answer is that they are a POW until proven a criminal. So until such time they should be afforded all the rights (and responsibilities) of a Prisoner of War.

---

The short answer is those that are Afganstan citizens are consider POW's, until charged with criminal activity. The rights of a POW does not mean that the capturing nation can not remove them from the theater of operations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So the short answer is that they are a POW until proven a criminal. So until such time they should be afforded all the rights (and responsibilities) of a Prisoner of War.

What status was the Nuremburg court, military or civilian?

---

The Nuremburg trials after WWII were military tribunals. There were actually two distinct sets of trials. The first was the International Military Tribunal, which had judges and prosecutors from each of the main allied countries - U.S., France, USSR and the UK. The judges and prosecutors were a mix of military officers and civilian experts (professors, lawyers and diplomats for the most part). These trials included the prosecutions of members of the SS, the SA, the General Staff and the Gestapo and more.

There was also a series of 12 trials afterwards conducted by the U.S. alone, although under authority of the rules of the Allied Control Council, which allowed single Allied countries to conduct trials within their zone of control. The growing divisions between the former Allies made more trials such as the first big one impossible. These trials, spread out over three years from 1946-1949, were a military tribunal was well; although again, mixed military and civilian personnel. The trials included the "Doctor's Trial" of those suspected of medical experimentation, such as Karl Brandt, Hitler's physician and others, and the "Judge's Trial" of German jurists and lawyers. The tried many of the industrial giants as well, such as at the Krupp Trial and the IG Farben trial. They also tried members of the infamous Einsatzgruppen of the SD and others.

Considering the discussion at hand, I think it's important to note that not everyone tried at Nuremburg was in the military, or even a "combatant" as such. They tried judges, executives of various companies and more who weren't, at any time during the war, in uniform or in the military.


Alberto Gonzales 2002 memorandum for the president is disturbing because it attempts to define prisoners captured in Afghanistan as not being protected by the Geneva Conventions. The memorandum states things like Afghanistan is a failed state, that the Taliban was not a government, that by making this determination there would be no need to determine POW status on a case by case basis (just lump everyone they find together and not have to worry about it), and perhaps even worse the statements that this approach would eliminate any danger of U.S. personnel being tried for war crimes under the 1996 War Crimes Act since they couldn't be committing war crimes if they weren't using the Geneva Conventions in the first place. Appalling isn't it?

There were more memos, some just as appalling. Findlaw has them here:
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/doc...turememos.html

In a rather unexpected reversal, it looks like the Bush administration has finally realized it was wrong and is now admitting that ALL detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions:

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush.

The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration’s earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus subject to the Geneva protections.

Word of the Bush administration’s new stance came as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings Tuesday on the Guantanamo issue — which is testing unity among Republicans on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers trying to decide in an election season how military detainees should be tried and what their rights should be.

Snow insisted that all U.S. detainees have been treated humanely. Still, he said, “We want to get it right.”

“It’s not really a reversal of policy,” Snow asserted, calling the Supreme Court decision “complex.”

'Consistent with national security'
He said efforts to spell out more clearly the rights of detainees does not change the president’s determination to work with Congress to enable the administration to proceed with the military tribunals, or commissions. The goal is “to find a way to properly do this in a way consistent with national security,” Snow said.

Snow said that the instruction manuals used by the Department of Defense already comply with the humane-treatment provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. They are currently being updated to reflect legislation passed by Congress and sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to more expressly rule out torture.

“The administration intends to work with Congress,” Snow said.

“We want to fulfill the mandates of justice, making sure we find a way properly to try people who have been plucked off the battlefields who are not combatants in the traditional sense,” he said.

“The Supreme Court pretty much said it’s over to you guys (the administration and Congress) to figure out how to do this. And that is where this is headed. And we look forward to working with Congress on this.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13813974/

---

Care to comment, Pindar?

Care to comment, Pindar?
That is not the issue :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Sorry for the dely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Why does unelected status warrant equal standing with an elected branch of government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

I tried my best to explain in my post. In essence, they are above politics, and have the authority to curb the excess of the elected branches, should they act against the constitution or morality (yes, my country's laws allow that category, it's a failsafe in the event of an altered or even abolished consitution). Simply, they are meant to prevent a totalitarian regime.

---

---

Your view is the Judiciary is above politics so they should be equal in power to duly elected branches? Even assuming an above politics posture is possible, I don't see how this idea justifies empowerment let alone equal power with a branch of government based on popular sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's a silly question.

---

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." St. John 1:5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I asked because you seemed to implicitely equal balance with stability. Function or stability do not necessarily imply balance. Some things require imbalance to function.

---

I asked about this statement: "Balance and control between the branches requires that one is not more powerful than others." I don't understand your verbiage: why "requires"? Historically, this doesn't seem the case. Functionally this doesn't seem the case either.

Quote:

---

Hmm, I don't really want to interfere with that part of the discussion, but you sound like what some people here call a "moral relativist".

---

Sounds like somebody is conflating law with morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

What is your backpackers guide to avoiding countries if the law changes and is backdated?

---

The U.S. State Department regularly lists travel advisories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I knew you couldn't refrain from that one (although I though you would at least have refrained from making demeaning remarks towards leftists after taking such a beating in that ridiculous thread you posted about emotionalism and leftists; alas, I guess you never did learn your lesson). I'm not going to go down that old road again, diverting the thread while you engage in your usual, deliberately-obtuse, cross-examiner shtick, asking dozens of questions but refraining from simply outlining your own position and saving us all hours upon hours. It is the summer and I don't have the time either for the tedium or for the abuse. You would make our discussion much more edifying if you could restrain your anger at the left and avoid sidetracking the thread through this inflammatory puerility.

---

I think my position is quite clear. I noted it in the post. Here it is again: "my position is only governments that are amenable to the people are legitimate." This impacts any claimed sovereignty which I explained. If you wish to challenge that view do so. The above offers no challenge. I can only assume this is due to either inability or agreement. So, unless you put something forward we can dispense with the idea of legitimatcy or sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Did the Taliban have uniforms distinguishing them as combatants?

Quote:

---

Yes.

---

---

Interesting, can you provide an example? Recall the criteria for a uniform is stipulated in the Convention (clear insignia visual from a distance). If this doesn't exist then they fail to meet one of the necessary criteria for POW status.

Quote:

---

Nor did you respond when I pointed out that articles 27 and 37 of the Geneva Conventions apply even to 'unlawful' combatants. Nor did you respond to my point about international humanitarian law applying as well.

---

I didn't respond to Articles 27 or 37 because they didn't really apply. If you read either you will note both are stipulations for prisoner of war status. If the detainee's aren't recognized as POW's then neither apply. Even so, I don't know that either of these were denied.

Now, regarding my question: how are the Taliban a legally constituted militia? Do you have an answer or can we dismiss this idea?

Quote:

---

Perhaps you could also respond to this one: does common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees or not?

---

This is what the SCOTUS Ruling referred to. This was part of the Stevens Opinion.

Quote:

---

You might also like to explain why Taliban have not been treated as POWs until such time as their status is determined

---

All sent to Gitmo. were previously sifted through field commissions. This is what determined their status. Recall, some 6000 were originally captured. From that, the initial odd 600 were sent to Gitmo.

Quote:

---

You might also like to explain whether the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the Protection of Civilian Persons applies to the Taleban or not, and where exactly the Geneva Conventions discuss this category of 'unlawful combatants' about which you have spoken.

---

Taliban were not civilians. They were armed combatants. The Geneva Conventions the U.S. is a signatory to do not discuss this. That is why I mentioned insurgencies, guerillas etc fall through the cracks. This is what Protocol I, introduced in 1977, meant to address. The U.S. refused to sign it because it refused to give terrorists POW status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

In a rather unexpected reversal, it looks like the Bush administration has finally realized it was wrong and is now admitting that ALL detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions:

Care to comment, Pindar?

---

Actually, the Administration is compiling with the SCOTUS Ruling regarding Article III. The Stevens Opinion referred to Article III explicitly. I mentioned this in the initial post of the thread. That is part of the point of the thread. This is one of the reasons I noted the ruling is a bad decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Interesting, can you provide an example? Recall the criteria for a uniform is stipulated in the Convention (clear insignia visual from a distance). If this doesn't exist then they fail to meet one of the necessary criteria for POW status.

---

I believe Redleg's post made this argument irrelevant, even if you could prove that the Taliban had no uniform. He notes the circumstances under which a uniform is not necessary. Perhaps you should reply to that?

Quote:

---

I didn't respond to Articles 27 or 37 because they didn't really apply. If you read either you will note both are stipulations for prisoner of war status. If the detainee's aren't recognized as POW's then neither apply. Even so, I don't know that either of these were denied.

---

Ah, the wonderful old lawyer-speak. Explain how you are using 'really' please-- do you mean you're wrong, but won't admit it outright? And whether you know that the detainees rights were denied or not is rather immaterial.

Quote:

---

Now, regarding my question: how are the Taliban a legally constituted militia? Do you have an answer or can we dismiss this idea?

---

Again, I refer you to Redleg's post. They qualify for protected status if they have a command structure/are a spontaneous uprising against a foreign invasion. Can we now dismiss your ideas?

Quote:

---

This is what the SCOTUS Ruling referred to. This was part of the Stevens Opinion.

---

And this is why you are now officially wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I believe Redleg's post made this argument irrelevant, even if you could prove that the Taliban had no uniform. He notes the circumstances under which a uniform is not necessary. Perhaps you should reply to that?

---

Are you conceding to Redleg to make you case for you? Under the GC a uniform is a set condition for being able to claim prisoner of war status. Its absence dismantles the claim.

You claimed Taliban had uniforms: where is the proof of the pudding?

Quote:

---

Ah, the wonderful old lawyer-speak. Explain how you are using 'really' please-- do you mean you're wrong, but won't admit it outright? And whether you know that the detainees rights were denied or not is rather immaterial.

---

There is nothing technical in what I posted. Even so, 'really' is an adverb. In this sentence: " I didn't respond to Articles 27 or 37 because they didn't really apply." it modifies apply. This means I recognize there was an attempt to engage the topic, but it failed in applicability. The reasons for that failure are both Articles 27 and 37 are POW specific. Thus, if a person isn't a POW then anything from either Article doesn't apply. Since you choose to focus on grammar rather than content I assume this point isn't in contention.

Quote:

---

Again, I refer you to Redleg's post. They qualify for protected status if they have a command structure/are a spontaneous uprising against a foreign invasion. Can we now dismiss your ideas?

---

The kowtowing to Redleg is impressive. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply: a spontaneous uprising against a foreign invasion doesn't constitute the criteria for a legally constituted militia which was your claim. Moreover, the Taliban were controlling vast swaths of Afghanistan from 1996. This is chronologically problematic for a spontaneous uprising against an invader argument.

Again, where is the substance to the claim the Taliban are a legally constituted militia?

Quote:

---

And this is why you are now officially wrong.

---

Wrong about what, that it's a bad decision? If so, how is one officially wrong about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Hey now, I followed that up with quite a bit more text. Don't be a poor sport. :inquisitive:

---

There was more to your post, but the first sentence invalidated all that followed. I don't think you understood the point I was addressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Now you're just being evasive. :juggle2:

---

No, I don't think you understood the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Now you're just being evasive. :juggle2:

---

Pindar? Evasive? Surely not? Oh the horror.

:wink: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Pindar? Evasive? Surely not? Oh the horror.

:wink: :laugh4:

---

This post is invalidated by the fact you have previously quoted Noam Chomsky in a political context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This post is invalidated by the fact you have previously quoted Noam Chomsky in a political context.

---

My sense of self-worth is now destroyed. I hope you can live with yourself.

:wink:

Ah, more of Pindar's evasive, 'depends on what the meaning of is is' routine, with the added benefit that this time he is in his element (the question being one of international law), so he can dodge and weave for hours on end. More fun for us all.

Anyway, the central point which you continually fail to address is that the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions. If you wish to deny this, then you'd have to deny that a massive host of nations--including Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Hungary, Russia, etc. etc.--are signatories to the Conventions, since their governments have changed since their nations signed as well (as Aenlic pointed out in another thread). This would mean that very few countries at all are bound by the Geneva Conventions. And that is pretty ridiculous.

Moreover, even if we accepted your argument on this point, when the Taliban, with their organized command structure, rose up against a foreign invasion (by the US and its allies), those fighting were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Those imprisoned, wounded or otherwise hors de combat are always entitled to the same protections. Pretty much everyone has now admitted this--even the Bush administration--but if you want someone to keep explaining to you what you already know in excruciating detail, I, for one, am done playing along.

I respect that you disagree with the SCOTUS decision, Pindar, and you make some very good points. I disagree with some of SCOTUS's rulings as well (eminent domain, anyone?). I just wish that you, as an expert in this field, would give the other side full due rather than being evasive and obfuscatory, explain the story with a bit more objectivity and not try to browbeat or belittle your opponents--especially when their position keeps winning in the courts.

Enjoy the argument, all, I am out to enjoy the summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I asked about this statement: "Balance and control between the branches requires that one is not more powerful than others." I don't understand your verbiage: why "requires"? Historically, this doesn't seem the case. Functionally this doesn't seem the case either.

---

There still seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the word "balance". When standing on one foot you need balance in order not to fall down, but that does not mean stability and balance are always connected. Balance requires equalness because of conceptual aspects. If two entities are unequal in power, there is no balance between them. Even if they form a stable system.
Now this may seem entirely semantical, because balance - such defined - is not necessarily something to be desired (as I said, some systems need imbalance to function). But I think there is reason to believe - without having rigorous proof - that balance between the powers that govern a nation is a desirable thing.

Quote:

---

Sounds like somebody is conflating law with morality.

---

Possibly, however, one should contemplate the option that the person in question is you. This is assumption of course, but I think that when Pape confronted you with a fictional scenario and asked you whether you find it okay, he was not investigating a jurisdical question. It was an ethical question. Should your answer be devoid of an ethical statement, then it was in fact not an answer. I tried to follow the Principle of Charity by not taking this interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well if you're so positive, maybe you should reply to the post as a whole in order to prove your case, instead of just making evasive remarks.

---

"If (I'm) so positive" that I don't think you understood the point? Hmmm.

Your post seems important to you. OK, What is the thrust of this question: "Why does unelected status warrant equal standing with an elected branch of government?" The comparison is between two distinct branches of Government with the question raised why an unelected branch should have parity with an elected branch. The root question revolves around the wherewithal that allows a branch of government to claim any authority at all. A branch that is immediately amenable to the people can claim its authority insofar as it is amenable to the people. An unelected branch cannot make this claim. Thus, the question: what is the basis of its claim? Now, regarding your "whole post" the series of three questions: "Why does one man get to play life or death with laws? (Presidential Veto), Why do I have to pay a Property Tax, as though somehow I owe the State for my property? (Property Taxes, obviously), Why do we allow unelected men to control the life and death of millions during a war? (JCS)*" Do not relate to the focus.

*I don't know what JCS is supposed to mean.