Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Phillip79

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
11
the courts have ruled that foreigners have the same rights as citizens, as it should be.

in our courts, everyone should be treated the same.

I don't see anything in our Constitution which suggests that civil rights granted to U.S. citizens should be applied to enemy combatants attacking our troops on foreign soil.  I don't see any basis in the Constitution for granting any "rights" whatsoever to Osama bin Laden and his cronies.   

12
I'm a post-liberal neo-conservative on some issues, but on other issues I'm a modernist constructional liberterian.

I sympathize with the Libertarian party on a lot of issues, but my team-player political mentality keeps me in the GOP. 

13
I would broadly label myself a conservative, although I'm more of a "neo-conservative" on foreign policy, and liberal on some civil rights issues. 

Foreign policy (the war against terrorism) is by far the most important issue to me now.  The domestic issues that used to seem so important before 9/11 now pale by comparison.

14
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: who would OSAMA vote for in 2004?
« on: June 06, 2004, 09:46:09 AM »
Of course, it is well-known that the NY Post is a right-wing outfit and anything found on their op-ed page is highly suspect.  "terrorists for kerry"... no bias there right?

Yes, it's well-known that the NY Post is conservative.  But male private part Morris is not.  I believe his column is syndicated - I just happened to read it in the Post.  As I mentioned, he was a political advisor under the Clinton administration, and Clinton owes his 2nd term largely to Morris, in my opinion.  He's one of the brightest political minds on the scene today. 

15
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: who would OSAMA vote for in 2004?
« on: June 05, 2004, 08:15:54 PM »
Former Clinton advisor male private part Morris tackled this issue in his column today.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22386.htm


16
Are you suggesting that agreements between nations have to be revalidated by each generation?
Quote

Yes, I think it makes sense to do so.  Thomas Jefferson once suggested that the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years.  I don't think we should go that far - our Constitution has held up quite well against the test of time. 

But I don't think that a society should be automatically and permanently bound to the decisions made by past generations.  Common sense dictates that this is not fair.  If we are to have a government "of the people," it must be of the LIVING people. 

It's quite common for Congress to include sunset provisions within laws, requiring them to be renewed every so often (The Patriot Act is just one example).  I'm merely suggesting that the same thing be done with treaties.  They should be reviewed after a pre-determined amount of time, and either reaffirmed, amended, or simply allowed to expire.  Treaties are simply an agreement between two or more nations, at a given period in time. 

Would this affect our credibility?  No, not so long as we honor our treaties for a pre-determined time period - say 10-20 years or so.  After that point, it is perfectly reasonable and honorable for the next generation to review the commitments made by past generations. 

17
you could easily make the point that the iraq detainees aren't terrorists as much as they are insurgents fighting the u.s. occupation. given that there was officially a war, these detainees are officially prisoners of war
Quote from: jeffjoe link=topic=3251.msg34717#msg34717
[/quote

Actually, this point isn't clear either.  Many people have argued that the Congressional resolution authorizing military action in Iraq does not amount to a "Declaration of War."  (I happen to disagree with this, by the way.  The Constitution doesn't spell out what constitutes a Declaration of War, and if you read the Congressional resolutions, they sure sound like a Declaration of War to me). 

If we take the position that Iraq is an officially-declared war, then the Geneva convention would apply to the enemies with which we have declared war:  Namely, Saddam Hussein and all soldiers formerly under his command, but it probably does not to Al Qaeda and other "enemy combatants" who are not wearing military uniforms.  If Iraq is NOT regarded as an officially-declared war, then you have a cloudy situation.  I don't think the Geneva Convention is applicable to any and all military actions. 

18
JURIST Guest Columnist and international law scholar Jordan Paust says that recently-divulged memos from the White House and the Justice Department provide evidence of an illegal, unconstitutional and downright inept US plan to violate the Geneva Conventions on the protection of prisoners.

I've heard quite a number of legal scholars claim that the Geneva Convention is not applicable to the capture/detainment of terrorists. 

Just out of curiosity:  How many of you have actually read the GPW?  I myself have not, so I haven't formed an opinion as to this legal question.  I think a review of the GPW in general would be a worthwhile legal/political debate for our government to engage in. 

Generally, I don't regard any treaty written 50+ years ago as the foreign-policy equivalent of the Holy Bible.  A society should not be automatically bound by the decisions of past generations, without periodically reviewing and affirming those decisions.  Does the GPW need to be updated to reflect the current War against Terrorism?  I don't know.  But it's a worthy question to consider. 

19
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Kerry: We may yet find WMDs
« on: April 29, 2004, 08:11:41 AM »
Phillip - you bring up some good points, but if you see Kerry rising in the polls even a little bit - to the point where he may win on a fluke, you will see Hillary get the VP nod. She can't slip into obscurity and risk waiting until 2012.

I think the whole idea of Hillary Clinton running for president, whether in 2008 or 2012, is fun speculation but it won't happen.  She's a lot like Newt Gingrich, in that she brings a lot to the party in terms of raising money and energizing the base.  But like Gingrich, making her the official head of the party would be an electoral disaster for the Democrats.  The benefits simply don't outweigh the negatives. 

I've always thought that the first female president will be a moderate, pro-life Republican.  I don't think the country will stand for a female president who is a pro-choice, feminist, liberal Democrat.  In a Presidential election, Hillary Clinton would win the northeast, maybe California....and that's it.  She won't even be competitive in most of the traditional "battleground" states. 

Along the same topic lines, there's also a question of who the Republicans will run in 2008.  male private part Cheney is widely dismissed as a possibility.  Condoleeza Rice gets my vote.  Did you see her testimony before the 9/11 Commission?  She's a strong, incredibly smart woman.  A Rice vs. Clinton matchup probably won't happen, but it sure would be fun to watch. 

20
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Kerry: We may yet find WMDs
« on: April 29, 2004, 07:20:45 AM »
I think you might see Hillary jump - she has to remain a strong contender for 2008. If Kerry were to win, she MUST be the VP or risk fading into the shadows.

There's a couple reasons why I don't think Hillary Clinton will be the VP nominee:

1.  Kerry will lose (I admit I'm biased against him, but this is my honest assessment), and Clinton doesn't want to be associated with a sinking ship.

2.  Clinton will overshadow Kerry, and the race will be about her, for better or worse

3.  She's a polarizing figure, and nothing will help Bush raise money or turn out Republican voters more than the prospect of Hillary Clinton being a heartbeat away from the presidency

It's also interesting to note that Clinton and Kerry apparently disagree on the biggest issue in the campaign - the war in Iraq.  Clinton has been quietly supportive, for the most part, of the Iraqi war.  Kerry is apparently opposed to it, although it depends on what day you ask him, or which quotes you want to emphasize. 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7