No shit.

"Damn Liberal activist judges!" -- The Right

It's a FABULOUS Day to be an AMerican isn't it. EAT IT UP BUSHITES YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Larry Mohr

1. The right to be slapped silly by a urine soaked koran
2. The right to be bitten by angry dogs
3. The right to be sent back to their country of origin and beheaded
4. The right to 3 hots and a cot but not before they're made to feel uncomfortable in an airconditioned room

Its been over 6 years since we've held them there without caring about their rights, and even before this ruling some already started getting hearings...

Two interesting notes from the article:

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

and

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Scalia rules...

Johnson v. Eisentrager

Ex parte Quirin


They say Amending the Constitution should be done with great care.

IMO, We need our military to be able to carry out their duties and the Military Judiciary to deal with issues during war with criminals within the war.

If I am arresting on the streets of NY, it won't be Military personnel making the arrest. My rights should be quite different than those arrested by Soldiers in the war zone.

Congress should deal with this specific issue via Constitutional Amendment.

Until then, don't take prisoners.

"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
~Antonin "Yes, I'm A Low Life And I Don't Care Who Knows It So Vaffanculo" Scalia

6 months left till He leaves office (give or take)... Both McCain and Obama are in favor of shutting down Gitmo, so it was going to close anyways... What this means will be interesting to see, but Bush was able to hold these douchebags as he wanted pretty much for his entire administration...

All these loons seem to forget the founders are this country tortured the English

"All these loons seem to forget the founders are this country tortured the English
Posted by timbci"

But not as badly as you torture English.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Scalia rules...
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-12 11:09 AM

..rules like it's the 1800's. He's a moron who is absolutely predictable - there isn't a single argument he makes that isn't counter-intuitive to human rights and social growth. I've watched him multiple times on C-SPAN and he's not a difficult one to debate whatsoever. He has no credentials that speak to impartiality - he even claims he has no need, nor desire to be so. Blind justice - uh, right. When it comes to Constitutional interpretation Scalia is out of synch with everything America stands for. 10% of his multitude of grandkids are gay, but even scientific acknowledgement won't sway him on gay rights. If anyone is a terrorist it's Scalia. The day he's "taken out" is a day of celebration!

Take for example how entirely backwards Scalia is when compared with "The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling."

"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."

So, where the hell are all of these "Islamic terrorists"? Are they under your bed Rob_The_A_Hole? Maybe they have learned how to "log in" and modify our energy grid, or the DOD? Since they are allegedly clever enough to know how to disengage a 757's autopilot hardware and fly unseen directly into the global superpower's "intelligence center", I wouldn't put it past terrorists to impersonate high-ranking officials.. even our own president and staff. Explains quite a few things.

Oh, and water boarding and electrocution torture - never, EVER forget those "American values".

Congress should deal with this specific issue via Constitutional Amendment.

Until then, don't take prisoners.

Posted by Petrous at 2008-06-12 12:17 PM | Reply


They did. They fixed it with an amendment. The 14th amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Then again, there is the Geneva Convention. Of course Bush has said it was just a goddamned piece of paper too, in the New America. I'm sure you agree.

I'm not for random torture for tortures sake...

but,

how is it that non-American citizens have rights under the constitution.

honest question, can anyone explain that?

Breaking News from CNN !!!


Vice President Dick Cheney rips his penis off in anger after hearing of the Supreme court ruling giving Guantanamo detainees constitutional rights !!!

Wow, some sane minds prevail after all!

We are NOT supposed to be the country that holds people indefinitely without charges no matter how the far right argues we should.

America is supposed to stand for doing the right thing, not acting like every two bit dictator in the world. If we don't, then what are we? Why should anyone respect us?

All the far righties who tremble at the word 'terrorist' and use it as an excuse for America to radically change in it's stance on justice and the rule of law never lived through the Cold War like many of us did. Having 10,000 megaton A-Bombs aimed at us and many Communist countries wanting our destruction was far more cause for concern than any two bit rag tag band of radical Arabs.

Damn, just before teh real terrorists leave office and get their turn in Guantanamo.

The usual gang of 4 defending BushCo.

Nobody give a fuck whether 'those' terrorists had to sleep in shit soaked squalor or whether they were treated like princes. That's not the point.

The point is that this country has the best set of law principles ever set down on paper. The cornerstone of those principles is the writ of habeus corpus. These idiot criminals actually thought they could do away with them.

This is what keeps our present criminal administration from taking away every individual right you have. Now, I know some of you Jesus freaks out there think that is ok because Jesus will swoop you up before your lifetime is over (just like people have believed for 3000 years).

I can't wait until the real lawsuits start;
1) Lying
2) Stealing
3) Corruption
4) Collusion
5) Malfeasance
6) Derelection of Duties

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??????

And remember we are in the age of Aries now, The age of Picses is over.

"Vice President Dick Cheney rips his penis off in anger"

So now what is on top of his neck??

They are in the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore they are protected by the US Constution.

Larry Mohr

The rights are not for honest or dishonest americans, they are for anyone tried by the american government or on american soil or under american detention (which is basically american soil - like an embassy).

I'm sure your local college offers classes on basic government that you could take.

Justice Stevens is 88.
Just one more reason not to vote for McCain.

This is what keeps our present criminal administration from taking away every individual right you have.
Posted by Lipzoidial

Yeah, remember the First Amendment when you liberal pussies want to silence Conservative talk radio and Fox news. Fucking hypocrites.

90% of those detained in Abu Gharib were later released as innocent.

The only way we determine who does and who does not merit prosecution is through due process.

Holding people for 7 years without charges or a hearing is not what democracies do - under ANY set of circumstances.

Those few who have been released at the urging of their own governments by the U.S. were completely innocent. Case in point is the German citizen who was held for years, tortured for years. He was visiting family in Afghanistan. Wrong place at the wrong time.
That was all.

Anyone who is willing to say America should act like a banana republic is a coward.

Yeah, remember the First Amendment when you liberal pussies want to silence Conservative talk radio and Fox news.

WISGOD

Oh, when was that? You're building strawmen again...

I do believe that in the future fewer enemy combatants will be captured 'alive' - yes a message has been sent to the troops.

I can hear the conversations now: "Sorry LT, but they fought to the end:) so no prisoners."

"Yeah, remember the First Amendment when you liberal pussies want to silence Conservative talk radio and Fox news. Fucking hypocrites."

You can repeat that talking poing 1,000,000 times but it still won't be true and I doubt anyone here believes it anyway. The most extreme thing ever seriously suggested by the left was the reimposition of the Fairness doctrine and the return to reasonable limits on media consolidation.
Apparently fairness threatens the right, apparently the right fears that if five major corporation couldn't own the vast majority of the media their message would face competition from other voices and thus their ideas would be defeated. Does anyone seriously think that the rise of progressive radio and the rise of MSNBC hasn't effected the future of politics today???
The left never wanted to silence the right but we do want to have the opportunity to have a voice too. The American people can decide who they believe and are doing so apparently....and they ain't buying what the right is selling any more, apparently not even the SC.

how is it that non-American citizens have rights under the constitution.

honest question, can anyone explain that?

Posted by kwrx25

I guess I can see that people legaly in the US would have rights. I can't understand how someone that is a prisoner of war or an enemy combatant could have any rights except to be treated in a humane mannor.

The enemy in this war have not signed the Geneva Convention so I don't even see how that applies.

FF for Danni

I love conservative radio. and liberal radio. I would never try to squelch either. They both are a great source of comedic material.

And I am not a liberal either. I am a liberatarian and a strict constitutionalists, which is something that doesn't fit into pee-sized brains because it doesn't stratify along the lines of race, politics or religion.

In other words, the fat lazy americans (who 87% cannot name the 3 branches of government) need someone to tell them what to think and which side to cheer for and they think that is Rush Limbaugh or NPR. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

GO READ A BOOK AND LEARN SOMETHING!!!!!!

Nobody give a fuck whether 'those' terrorists had to sleep in shit soaked squalor or whether they were treated like princes. That's not the point.
The point is that this country has the best set of law principles ever set down on paper. The cornerstone of those principles is the writ of habeus corpus. These idiot criminals actually thought they could do away with them.
This is what keeps our present criminal administration from taking away every individual right you have. Now, I know some of you Jesus freaks out there think that is ok because Jesus will swoop you up before your lifetime is over (just like people have believed for 3000 years).
I can't wait until the real lawsuits start;
1) Lying
2) Stealing
3) Corruption
4) Collusion
5) Malfeasance
6) Derelection of Duties
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??????
And remember we are in the age of Aries now, The age of Picses is over.
Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-06-12 01:49 PM

On the contrary - at minimum 90% of the Gitmo detainees are innocent. I daresay nearly 100% of the newly imprisoned at Abu Gharib were. BushCo's policies have generated terrorists out from thin air, and used our military might and bypassing a plethora of embedded rules to do so.

Jesus.. Christus would heal the wound directly - the source of this appears to be "greed" ala resource stealing. The reason for staging 9/11 was to instigate a military action that enabled war time "powers", then the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to acquire oil, drugs, land use rights, institute third-party militia as Constitutional necessity. They even attempted to split Iraq into three separately controlled territories - each forced to hire a military supplied by the United States. Pretty slick, but the contractors are "too corrupt" and have left us and the Iraqi with a lot of legal inquiries.

Lip,

a 5 to 4 decision in the Supreme court about enemy combatants captured on foreign soil are afforded our constitutional rights....yeah I'm sure thats covered in chapter one of the book used down at my local community college.

how is it that non-American citizens have rights under the constitution.

honest question, can anyone explain that?

Posted by kwrx25 at 2008-06-12 01:46 PM

I love idiots like you! You make it so easy for me.

I guess you have never heard this little phrase...here let me refresh you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

My friend does it say in there that all Americans are created equal? .. no it says All Men.

So, either we hold these Truths to be self evident or not. All men have rights. All men should be treated as Americans would be treated. It is the American dream. Why in the hell would we be trying to "spread Democracy" if that were not so?

I really think a lot of you need to go back to school and learn basic American History and Government.

The left never wanted to silence the right but we do want to have the opportunity to have a voice too.
Posted by danni

So the Left can't figure out how to produce a successful talk radio show within the private sector without Goverment intervention that tramples the First Amendment? Typical when it's a lefty cause.

We are NOT supposed to be the country that holds people indefinitely without charges no matter how the far right argues we should.

"America is supposed to stand for doing the right thing, not acting like every two bit dictator in the world. If we don't, then what are we? Why should anyone respect us?"

We are the world's only superpower and it is irrelevant if they respect us. America is perceived as being weak for showing mercy to their enemies.

"All the far righties who tremble at the word 'terrorist' and use it as an excuse for America to radically change in it's stance on justice and the rule of law never lived through the Cold War like many of us did. Having 10,000 megaton A-Bombs aimed at us and many Communist countries wanting our destruction was far more cause for concern than any two bit rag tag band of radical Arabs. "

Sorry but the difference is that we had nuclear weapons too and the USSR did not want to be destroyed. The terrorists in the ME who kill and die in the name of Islam are not afraid to kill themselves to hurt Americans. You are a fool and letting these detainees go will eventually come back and bite you in the ass

Yeah, remember the First Amendment when you liberal pussies want to silence Conservative talk radio and Fox news. Fucking hypocrites.
Posted by wisgod at 2008-06-12 01:55 PM

Examples, please.

In other words, the fat lazy americans (who 87% cannot name the 3 branches of government) need someone to tell them what to think and which side to cheer for and they think that is Rush Limbaugh or NPR. You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Posted by Lipzoidial

Hey waterhead, that's why they put a fucking on/off switch on electronics. People choose to turn it on.

The left never wanted to silence the right but we do want to have the opportunity to have a voice too.
Posted by danni

If you want a voice then get ratings so a radio station can make money.

The list of long liberal talk show hosts that failed to get good ratings is long.

Let see how Ron Kuby does on his own. He was a fairly decent host along with Curtis Sliwa.

I keep hearing how Rush and Hannity and Savage are dinosaurs but they keep kicking the competitions ass in large markets

"So the Left can't figure out how to produce a successful talk radio show within the private sector without Goverment intervention that tramples the First Amendment? Typical when it's a lefty cause."

Pretend if you want but many progressive shows are beating the conservative shows in the markets where they are on at the same time. I'm listening to Thom Hartmann right now, his show has been successful for quite a while now. But keep pretending.

The enemy in this war have not signed the Geneva Convention so I don't even see how that applies.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-06-12 02:02 PM


again too easy! perhaps you should read the Geneva Convention? Or is that too hard for you?

You do not have to sign on to the Convention to be protected by it. Again we hold these Truths to be Self-Evident.

All Men have rights.

American or not.

But as Americans we have a special responsibility to protect those rights because WE know they have them. So once they are in OUR custody they are granted the same rights and privileges granted by OUR Constitution.

As someday we hope to grant everyone as we "spread Democracy".

Don't you think? Or is our American Dream of Spreading Democracy to the rest of the World a Hollow Lie?

"I keep hearing how Rush and Hannity and Savage are dinosaurs but they keep kicking the competitions ass in large markets"

Don't tell Sen. Obama, he thinks he is kicking McSame's ass. Don't tell George Bush, he thinks most of America thinks he's a great president.
What a tool.

"I keep hearing how Rush and Hannity and Savage are dinosaurs but they keep kicking the competitions ass in large markets"

Don't tell Sen. Obama, he thinks he is kicking McSame's ass. Don't tell George Bush, he thinks most of America thinks he's a great president.
What a tool.

The enemy in this war have not signed the Geneva Convention so I don't even see how that applies.
Posted by Sniper at 2008-06-12 02:02 PM

But WE ARE SIGNATORS. That means that we hold ourselves that "quaint" standard.

Why would the left need talk radio to think for them. It's Your Righties who need the Talk Radio to be Your surogate thinkers Wisgod.

Larry Mohr

Why would the left need talk radio to think for them.
Posted by LarryMohr

I agree. Thinking isn't a requirement. Strong emotions are the backbone of your party.

Let me put this very simply for you Donner Boy

Fuck You

I asked a simple question prompting debate, and your knee jerk reaction is to call me an idiot

I love idiots like you, You make it so easy for me to smoke out the assholes who think they are SOO much better than everyone else.

nice job standing up and saying am a fucking idiot who has absolutely no ability to engage in polite discourse

let me try this again...while the right thing to do, as spelled out in our constitution is obvious. Is it necessarily the correct legal interpretation that our constitution is applied to non-citizens

I fully admit, I'm pretty ignorant in this application of the law

to cut you off, if all you can offer is an insult at this point fuck off and move on

I really think a lot of you need to go back to school and learn basic American History and Government.
Posted by donnerboy at 2008-06-12 02:06 PM

Uh, school isn't the place to learn those things. The highschool education doesn't even include using a fucking checking account, let alone learning how to apply the Constitution or understand your own basic rights. For us poor folk unable to afford a real institution JAG get a pretty good education, but that's about it. Even their conservatives (the only ones I've ever seen) impress me.

The enemy in this war have not signed the Geneva Convention so I don't even see how that applies.

Posted by Sniper




good grief.

WE SIGNED IT, so WE are supposed to live up to it.

This shit is really getting to be unbelievable. It's a wonder the red states can function at all.

I keep hearing how Rush and Hannity and Savage are dinosaurs but they keep kicking the competitions ass in large markets

Posted by timbci

Since the right wing owns all the 100,000 watt radio stations in all the large markets what would you expect?

Is that why the Republicans/Conservatives hired a non thinking POTUS wisgod??

Larry Mohr

"The left never wanted to silence the right but we do want to have the opportunity to have a voice too.
Posted by danni"

So the Left can't figure out how to produce a successful talk radio show within the private sector without Goverment intervention that tramples the First Amendment? Typical when it's a lefty cause.
Posted by wisgod at 2008-06-12 02:07 PM

The Daily Show/Colbert Report are very popular. You should check it out sometime particularly when the impeachment starts a-rollin'. They are repeated a few times each day even on basic cable, or free online not hard to catch whenever you have a moment away from "berating" those you disagree with.

Having 10,000 megaton A-Bombs aimed at us and many Communist countries wanting our destruction was far more cause for concern than any two bit rag tag band of radical Arabs.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY


yeah but none of those communist countries were crazy enough to actually attack us and vice versa...

Muslims are that crazy.

"I keep hearing how Rush and Hannity and Savage are dinosaurs but they keep kicking the competitions ass in large markets"

But the candidates they are shilling for are losing so what does that tell you????

BTW the claim that they constantly win in the ratings is bull shit. Neil Rogers here in Miami has beaten Rush Limbaugh for years and years and years.

The largest media market in the country is NY.
Please tell me what liberal talk show host beats Rush during the day, Hannity on the drive home, and Savage at night.

Hell Air America doesn't even have its own radio station in NY. They have to lease time from 1600.
It might have something to do with the fact they got caught stealing from a Boys & Gilrs Club

Is that why the Republicans/Conservatives hired a non thinking POTUS wisgod??


Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

Everyone who voted had a choice Larry. It's not our fault that your party trotted out what they did. But as AU rightly points out, Conservatives are better business men and women.

The largest media market in the country is NY.
Please tell me what liberal talk show host beats Rush during the day, Hannity on the drive home, and Savage at night.

Hell Air America doesn't even have its own radio station in NY. They have to lease time from 1600.
It might have something to do with the fact they got caught stealing from a Boys & Gilrs Club

Danni,
Tell me more about that Olbermann win...

"Muslims are that crazy."

think they would be a problem if they didn't have oil under their ground???

I notice Hugo Chavez isn't too friendly either, think that any part of the bad relationship is our fault???

"Please tell me what liberal talk show host beats Rush during the day, Hannity on the drive home, and Savage at night."

With all those listeners you'd think they could elect a Senator or a Governor. Must be a disconnect somewhere between Rush's lips and the listeners ears....or brains.

Comparing Florida to NY is a joke. I have never even heard of Neil Rogers. I am sure Rush feels threatened LOL. Rush spent more on drugs than Neil makes in a year

The FECN (Flordia Everglades Cable Network) is limited in it's offerings.

Sorry but the difference is that we had nuclear weapons too and the USSR did not want to be destroyed. The terrorists in the ME who kill and die in the name of Islam are not afraid to kill themselves to hurt Americans. You are a fool and letting these detainees go will eventually come back and bite you in the ass
Posted by timbci at 2008-06-12 02:07 PM

Golly, even the innocent ones? Proven guilty by reason of religion? Inaccurate rationale for YEARS of detainment, torture and all without legal representation, let alone just plain old investigations doesn't sound very smart. Perhaps I'm just slow on the uptake tell me again how highjackers with box cutters refitted a 757's autopilot hardware? It takes more than a couple of minutes to reinstall the software after you do so, which means they had inside help? Or, maybe there are no investigations into these issues to cover up the actual events of September 11th, 2001?

"Conservatives are better business men and women."

Huh????
We elected conservatives and the country is in the worst economic crisis since 1929 so blow that idea right out you butt.

If conservatives who have been pretty much running American business my whole life then why are GM,Ford, Chrysler so far behind the curve on autos???
Conservatives pretend they are better at business because other conservatives hire them and promote them in corporate America. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with solidarity with other conservatives. Some of the absolute dumbest people I have ever known were conservatives but they still retained jobs for which they were basicly unqualified. It is everywhere in corporate America. Conservatives in corporate America substitute ass kissing other conservatives for creativity, intelligence and ability and that's a fact jack. Where I work there is a guy in an important job who I believe has less intelligence than his desk...but boy can he pucker up...and boy is he ever conservative.

"Rush spent more on drugs than Neil makes in a year"

Actually the last time I checked Neil was making aroung $1,000,000 per year and phoning his show in from Ontario. He only works two or three days a week now, getting pretty old.

The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion playsupon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the warharder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today. The President relied on our settled precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) when he established the prison at Guantanamo Bay for enemy aliens. Citing that case, the President's Office of Legal Counsel advised him "that the great weight of legal authority indicates that a federal district court could notproperly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an alien detained at [Guantanamo Bay]." Had the law been otherwise, the military surely would not have transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention.Those other facilities might well have been worse for the detainees themselves.

He only works two or three days a week now

Posted by danni at 2008-06-12 02:38 PM | Reply


Like O'Reilly the week you claimed Olbermann won the 25-54 demo...


Repeating what you read on Huffington Post seemed like a good idea at first I bet.

In the long term, then, the Court's decision today accomplishes little, except perhaps to reduce the well-being of enemy combatants that the Court ostensibly seeks to protect. In the short term, however, the decision is devastating.

At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield. See S. Rep. No. 11090, pt. 7, p. 13 (2007) (Minority Viewsof Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn) (hereinafter Minority Report). Some have been captured or killed. See ibid.; see also Mintz, Released Detainees Rejoining the Fight, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2004, pp.A1, A12. But others have succeeded in carrying on theiratrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a detainee released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was later shot to death when used as a human shield against Pakistani commandoes. See Khan & Lancaster, Pakistanis Rescue Hostage; 2nd Dies, Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2004, p. A18. Another former detainee promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Mintz, supra. Still another murdered an Afghanjudge. See Minority Report 13. It was reported only last month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. See White, Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack, Washington Post, May 8, 2008, p. A18.

Halleluja,

But given that this is another 5-4 decision it should be clear that a McCain Presidency would push this country into Facism. I don't like either Major Party Candidate as much as three of the marginalized ones. But it is so vital that McCain not win, I will vote for Obama.

The gang of four that pander their bullshit as "Strict Constitutionalism" are selective in a self-serving way at using literal and abstract interpretations of Constitutional Language. The arrogant Scalia announced on National Television that "Torture is not Punishment" (because cruel and unusual punishment are clearly forbidden). If one follows his ridiculous opinion to its final conclusion we would have a country in which its OK to Torture innocent people, (since they haven't been convicted of any crime) but its not OK once they are convicted of a crime. Parsing words for a predetermined desired result has no place in a system of Justice in which all men are created equal.

Aliota, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas together constitute a real threat to the principals apon which this country was founded. One more like them and for all practical purposes, working people (those without capital) would morph into indentured servants or slaves.

And today it is not just the military that the Court elbows aside. A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), when the Court held (quite amazingly) that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had not stripped habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo petitioners' claims, four Members of today's five-Justice majority joined an opinion saying the following:

"Nothing prevents the President from returning toCongress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary. "Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation
with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine-- through democratic means--how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means." Id., at 636 (BREYER, J., concurring).

Turns out they were just kidding. For in response, Congress, at the President's request, quickly enacted the Military Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did not want these prisoners filing habeas petitions. It is therefore clear that Congress and the Executive--both political branches--have determined that limiting the role of civilian courts in adjudicating whether prisoners captured
abroad are properly detained is important to successin the war that some 190,000 of our men and women are now fighting. As the Solicitor General argued, "the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act . . .represent an effort by the political branches to strike an appropriate balance between the need to preserve liberty and the need to accommodate the weighty and sensitive governmental interests in ensuring that those who have in fact fought with the enemy during a war do not return to battle against the United States." Brief for Respondents 1011 (internal quotation marks omitted).

But it does not matter. The Court today decrees that no good reason to accept the judgment of the other two branches is "apparent." Ante, at 40. "The Government," it declares, "presents no credible arguments that the military mission at Guantanamo would be compromised if habeas corpus courts had jurisdiction to hear the detainees' claims." Id., at 39. What competence does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today's opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisonersin this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knowsleast about the national security concerns that the subject entails.

The way I read that being advised of legal authority is interpretation - not the actual law, Joe. They fixed it to meet their own "needs".

Pataki was a three term governor and a Republican has been elected mayor of NYC for 4 terms

So, either we hold these Truths to be self evident or not. All men have rights. All men should be treated as Americans would be treated. It is the American dream. Why in the hell would we be trying to "spread Democracy" if that were not so?

I really think a lot of you need to go back to school and learn basic American History and Government.

Posted by donnerboy

I realy think you need to go back to school and learn that US laws apply to the US, not the entire f*****g world.

Redlight-

Then click the link and advise yourself of the legal authority. You know nothing of the background upon which the court's opinion is based. So when you claim that the white house counsel "fixed the law to meet their own needs," you are saying that because that's what you want to believe. Offer precedent to the contrary and maybe someone will listen to you.

Leave it to Scalia to do more than interpret the Constitution.

He should stick to his duty and refrain from policy making from the bench.

Being at war' does not change the words in the Constitution. He should know better.

Legislating from the Bench. I thought you righties despised this? Why don't you bitch when Scalia attempts it?

Oh that's right. You are all hypocritical bastards.

Carry on..........

Actually the last time I checked Neil was making aroung $1,000,000 per year and phoning his show in from Ontario. He only works two or three days a week now, getting pretty old."

LOL I guess Florida can't produce anyone to beat Rush they have to import them and $ 1MM is pocket change in talk radio

Also, it might be a very good thing to medically examine the prisoners - they are undoubted implanted with some very nasty tools such a psychological programming. They probably give off an RFID signal to boot.

"Being at war' does not change the words in the Constitution. He should know better."

At the same time, YOU should know better than to assume that the one Scalia quote placed in the article is the foundation of his entire opinion. It isn't. He provides plenty of Constitutional and precedential basis for his opinion.

"He provides plenty of Constitutional and precedential basis for his opinion."

Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 02:54 PM | Reply |


Too bad you can't link to them or post them here. I guess you just aren't bright enough to figure out how that is done.

I've been posting portions of his opinion for the last ten minutes. I also posted a link to the entire opinion along with Roberts' and Scalia's dissents. I don't want to fill the page with thousands of lines of text filled with citations. I gues you just aren't bright enough to notice the fact that I've already linked you there.

Conservatives pretend they are better at business because other conservatives hire them and promote them in corporate America. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with solidarity with other conservatives. Some of the absolute dumbest people I have ever known were conservatives but they still retained jobs for which they were basicly unqualified. It is everywhere in corporate America. Conservatives in corporate America substitute ass kissing other conservatives for creativity, intelligence and ability and that's a fact jack. Where I work there is a guy in an important job who I believe has less intelligence than his desk...but boy can he pucker up...and boy is he ever conservative.


Wow Danni . It really is amusing that you are stupid enough to think that people get promoted based upon their political beliefs. I worked in Corporate American sinc ethe early 90's and never was once asked who I am voting for

Redlight-
Then click the link and advise yourself of the legal authority. You know nothing of the background upon which the court's opinion is based. So when you claim that the white house counsel "fixed the law to meet their own needs," you are saying that because that's what you want to believe. Offer precedent to the contrary and maybe someone will listen to you.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 02:48 PM

No need to get snippy, I'm just giving my plainly undereducated opinion based on cursorily glancing at the data. Your post is missing some spaces which doesn't help reading it, unless that's also your intention.

Here's your data:
"The President relied on our settled precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) when he established the prison at Guantanamo Bay for enemy aliens. Citing that case, the President's Office of Legal Counsel advised him "that the great weight of legal authority indicates that a federal district court could notproperly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an alien detained at [Guantanamo Bay]." Had the law been otherwise, the military surely would not have transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention.Those other facilities might well have been worse for the detainees themselves."

So, basically - the advise was to keep a stock of prisoners because we can't rely on their own nation to apply habeus jurisdiction, which we also deny them? Isn't that the jist of the "advise"? How is that not fixing the situation to suit their own needs?

Justice Antonin Scalia took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench, calling the court's decision a "self-invited . . . incursion into military affairs," and was even stronger in a written dissent joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Now he is Kreskin Joe???? Predicting the future? Using war as an excuse in his dissent?

Scalia is out of line.

I call bull shit on your post Joe. Mine stands as accurate until proven otherwise.

Feel free to back your bull shit up at any time.

"REtail Sales Jump"

Great, all you brilliant conservative financial geniuses need to do is keep sending $600 checks to everyone. The very fact that there was a need to send the checks were sent at all proves just what a bad job the conservatives have been doing, I don't remember Clinton having to resort to such lengths to keep things from completely unravelling before Nov.

Rob, sure backfired on you didn't it???

The most pertinent of those precedents, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, conclusively establishes the opposite. There we were confronted with the claims of 21 Germans held at Landsberg Prison, an American military facility located in the American Zone of occupation in postwar Germany. They had been captured in China, and an American military commission sitting there had convicted them of war crimes--collaboratingwith the Japanese after Germany's surrender. Id., at 765
766. Like the petitioners here, the Germans claimed that their detentions violated the Constitution and international law, and sought a writ of habeas corpus. Writing for the Court, Justice Jackson held that American courts lacked habeas jurisdiction:

"We are cited to [sic] no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes." Id., at 768.

Justice Jackson then elaborated on the historical scope of the writ:

"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. . . .
"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act." Id., at 770771.

Lest there be any doubt about the primacy of territorial sovereignty in determining the jurisdiction of a habeas court over an alien, Justice Jackson distinguished two cases in which aliens had been permitted to seek habeas relief, on the ground that the prisoners in those cases were in custody within the sovereign territory of the United States. Id., at 779780 (discussing Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), and In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1 (1946)).

"By reason of our sovereignty at that time over [the Philippines]," Jackson wrote, "Yamashita stood much as did Quirin before American courts." 339 U. S., at 780.

Eisentrager thus held--held beyond any doubt--that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign.

I, like many Cons, am a strict constructionist ......the 14th Amendment was written in reference to freed slaves.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The above was meant to apply to freed slaves, and NOT to homicidal maniacs who are trying to kill our soldiers and citizens.

BUT I think an Amendment is in order just to clear things up.....

"Wow Danni . It really is amusing that you are stupid enough to think that people get promoted based upon their political beliefs. I worked in Corporate American sinc ethe early 90's and never was once asked who I am voting for"

I didn't say "political beliefs" I said "conservative". Lots of lefties tow the line in corporate America to fit in but if their bosses knew how they really thought there would be problems. Considering the fact that you happen to be a conservative you aren't really in a position to judge whether what I say is true or not. Pucker up.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No Fredo it was written to protect "any person within its jurisdiction."

"BUT I think an Amendment is in order just to clear things up....."

Lots of luck with that.

The Court also relies on the "[p]ractical considerations" that influenced our decision in Reid v. Covert, supra. But all the Justices in the majority except Justice Frankfurter limited their analysis to the rights of citizens abroad. See Reid, supra, at 56 (plurality opinion of Black, J.); id., at 7475 (Harlan, J., concurring in result).
(Frankfurter limited his analysis to the even narrower class of civilian dependents of American military personnel abroad, see id., at 45 (opinion concurring in result).)
In trying to wring some kind of support out of Reid for today's novel holding, the Court resorts to a chain of logic that does not hold. The members of the Reid majority, the Court says, were divided over whether In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453 (1891), which had (according to the Court) held that under certain circumstances American citizens abroad do not have indictment and jury-trial rights, should be overruled. In the Court's view, the Reid plurality would have overruled Ross, but Justices Frankfurter and Harlan preferred to distinguish it. The upshot: "If citizenship had been the only relevant factor in the case, it would have been necessary for the Court to overturn Ross, something Justices Harlan and Frankfurter were unwilling to do." Ante, at 32. What, exactly, is this point supposed to prove? To say that "practical considerations" determine the precise content of the constitutional protections American citizens enjoy when they are abroad is quite different from saying that "practical considerations" determine whether aliens abroad enjoy any constitutional
protections whatever, including habeas. In other words, merely because citizenship is not a sufficient factor to extend constitutional rights abroad does not mean that it is not a necessary one.

""Damn Liberal activist judges!" -- The Right"

The Right is rather fond of activist judges, around election time.

Anyhoo, I'm relieved by this decision. Roberts' court has been so pro-right it hasn't been funny. This is a hopeful sign that perhaps the Constitution still matters.

If we can't impeach Bush, maybe we can still teach him what the law is.

Scalia leans on the war in his dissent, thanks for provinding that Joe, and starts out saying that the reason this judgement is worng is because it will make the war harder to win.

BooHoo.

He is trying to dictate US policy from the Bench and defend the Bush administration at the same time.

This is a horrible example of how a judge should decide a case. He should be immune to the headlines, but he isn't. His dissent is all to clear in that respect.

Joe,

"They had been captured in China, and an American military commission sitting there had convicted them of war crimes--collaboratingwith the Japanese after Germany's surrender. Id., at 765"


I think the Supreme Court is having a major problem with Bush's people not having a military commission convict them yet. That was stated in the article - the amount of time passed.

I thought the same way about the previous court cases as you do, but because these prisoners have not yet been convicted, there hasn't been justice. If you read the previous decisions, they already was a decision made by judiciary.

I don't think they should have the right to civilian courts. But, I think they have every right to have the military commission hear the case in a relatively, timely manner.

Once convicted in the military commission, I think they lose.

And, Bob, why did you quote the 14th Amendment to my issue of a Constitutional Amendment in dealing with prisoners of war.

hey stupid fuck Danni I just got finished saying I was a constructionst , asshole try to get the point next time

Fredo I seriously doubt you even know what strict constructionist even means. Interpreting the words the way you see fit is not being a strict constructionist. duh!

Petrous- the fact of conviction in Eisentrager (and the lack thereof in this case) is tangential to the point that the overall holding of that case denied habeas corpus to alien detainees being held by the US in areas over which the US is not sovereign. I see where you are coming from, and the lack of a conviction does make one "feel" as though one would be entitled to some sort of process, but the clear holding of that case indicates otherwise.

manypaths while in this case you have a point about scalia the absolute worst "judicial legislator" is ginsberg that grandma hippy freak.

And, Bob, why did you quote the 14th Amendment to my issue of a Constitutional Amendment in dealing with prisoners of war.



Posted by Petrous at 2008-06-12 03:13 PM | Reply


Since we are not at war, and there are no prisoners of war involved, the 14th amendment comes into play. This part:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think the prisoners are within our jurisdiction.

I don't remember Clinton having to resort to such lengths to keep things from completely unravelling before Nov.


Maybe if he had the Recession that began right around the time he left office never would have happened...

Danni, I'm not going to argue the economy is great right now, but you couldn't honestly expect to get away with bringing up today's economic situation and the Great Depression without being called on such stupidity did you?

The above was meant to apply to freed slaves, and NOT to homicidal maniacs who are trying to kill our soldiers and citizens.

BUT I think an Amendment is in order just to clear things up.....

Posted by Fredo_C at 2008-06-12 03:06 PM | Reply


Wrong--it applies to ANY PERSON which is why it says ANY PERSON instead of FREED SLAVE

8 HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS OF HABEAUS CORPUS

we finally get it right.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

TO ALL YOU ASSHOLE LIBS, NO THEY DON'T!

hey danni, constructionist means using the corresponding historical backdrop of the time of the writing in your interpretation. in some cases this can be a weak approach - as we will never know exactly what was in the minds of forefathers long dead. but what we absolutley DO know about the 14th Amendment is that it was written due to the issues at the time with the recently freed slaves. So when you see the words : nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A strict constructionist says that this is quite obviously intended to refer to slaves, and not suicidal jihadists. a constructionist feels that in 1868 nobody knew there could be suicide bombers walking into crowded markets in the USA.
Now that you have been schooled, you may have recess. Go mow your giant hippy bush.

"I think the prisoners are within our jurisdiction."

Gee, that's funny Bob. Justice Jackson disagreed with you in 1950:

Writingfor the Court, Justice Jackson held that American courts lacked habeas jurisdiction:
"We are cited to no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes."

Fredo,

What if I as an American citizen tried to kill a memeber of the armed forces.

Are you saying that the 14th amendment doesn't apply?

What if my Spanish foriegn exchange student tried to kill a member of the armed forces?

Are you saying that we can lock that student up forever without charges and/or trial? He did try to kill our soldiers. What say you?

My opinion is if we cannot try these people while adhearing to the Constitution, then we are no longer Americans.

Why is it so hard to convict these people without breaking the laws of this land? Why is that so fucking hard?

"A the A Hole" That's because Clinton was to busy getting his cock sucked.

and remember all you cocksucking mother fucker neocon fascist wannabees

this does not mean that we are handing the keys to the white house to khalid shake my penis.

it means that he is a human being and is entitled to his day in court.

and when found guilty will pay for his crimes.

and the world will see justice and rejoice.

and angels will stand on high and sing hallelujia

and lions will lay down with lambs

and dogs and cats will fornicate

but rob will still be stupid.

TO ALL YOU ASSHOLE LIBS, NO THEY DON'T!

Posted by ozzieoswald


except the SC says they do

all you douches you once again misunderstand basic stuff.

these scumfuckers in gitmo amoungst the innocent will not get full protection of our laws but will get the basic protection of a day in court, something that has been basic to western culture for 800 years.

Petrous- the fact of conviction in Eisentrager (and the lack thereof in this case) is tangential to the point that the overall holding of that case denied habeas corpus to alien detainees being held by the US in areas over which the US is not sovereign. I see where you are coming from, and the lack of a conviction does make one "feel" as though one would be entitled to some sort of process, but the clear holding of that case indicates otherwise.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 03:17 PM

Thus, "fixing" the situation to meet their needs. These people were subject to inhumane treatment - where in military doctrine is that advised? Under what advisement is electrocution used?

These people were stolen from their nation - which makes their detainment a war crime. Not being given any military hearing whatsoever - war crime. Years of torture - war crime.

The Court admits that it cannot determine whether the writ historically extended to aliens held abroad, and it concedes (necessarily) that Guantanamo Bay lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States. See ante, at 2223; Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466, 500501 (2004) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Together, these two concessions establish that it is (in theCourt's view) perfectly ambiguous whether the common-law writ would have provided a remedy for these petitioners.
If that is so, the Court has no basis to strike down the Military Commissions Act, and must leave undisturbedthe considered judgment of the coequal branches.2
How, then, does the Court weave a clear constitutional prohibition out of pure interpretive equipoise? The Court resorts to "fundamental separation-of-powers principles"to interpret the Suspension Clause. Ante, at 25. According
to the Court, because "the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers," the test of its extraterritorial reach "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." Ante, at 36.

Manipulation - implying that they do have some rights even prior to a military hearing, but what those rights are is undetermined? Wouldn't that be acknowledged as the sovereign rights of the nation of origin? Wouldn't we simply extradite them into a court approved by said nation? It's obvious that they had no intention of permitting military hearings of any kind so that they could be held indefinitely, but why? It's totally counter-productive to establishing Democratic rule of law? It's counter-intuitive to the separation of powers. It's plainly WRONG.

"something that has been basic to western culture for 800 years."

But Truth, that's "pre-9-11 thinking." To most of the wingers 9-11 virtually cancelled the Constitution. The think of it as a set of suggestions.

nononon strict construtionist means a judge who will overturn roe v wade

SCALIA, should drop Fucking Dead this Redneck BASTARD is an embarrassment to the Court. There have been 800 prisoners at GITMO an so far 2/3 of them have been released without charges ever been brought. These men were kept, TORTURED, and then after as much as 5 years released, only after they had to sign an agreement that the would never sue the United states, on this alone they would be freed.

Rev. Wright was right "DAMN YOU AMERICA" for standing by an allowing this Criminal ADMINISTRATION TO Trash our Constitution, An a special DAMN to the Congress for allowing this Criminal Administration To go unchallenged, History will not look positive on This Presidency an to the Congress for lack of oversight!!!!!

SCALIA, should drop Fucking Dead this Redneck BASTARD is an embarrassment to the Court. There have been 800 prisoners at GITMO an so far 2/3 of them have been released without charges ever been brought. These men were kept, TORTURED, and then after as much as 5 years released, only after they had to sign an agreement that the would never sue the United states, on this alone they would be freed.

Rev. Wright was right "DAMN YOU AMERICA" for standing by an allowing this Criminal ADMINISTRATION TO Trash our Constitution, An a special DAMN to the Congress for allowing this Criminal Administration To go unchallenged, History will not look positive on This Presidency an to the Congress for lack of oversight!!!!!

SCALIA, should drop Fucking Dead this Redneck BASTARD is an embarrassment to the Court. There have been 800 prisoners at GITMO an so far 2/3 of them have been released without charges ever been brought. These men were kept, TORTURED, and then after as much as 5 years released, only after they had to sign an agreement that the would never sue the United states, on this alone they would be freed.

Rev. Wright was right "DAMN YOU AMERICA" for standing by an allowing this Criminal ADMINISTRATION TO Trash our Constitution, An a special DAMN to the Congress for allowing this Criminal Administration To go unchallenged, History will not look positive on This Presidency an to the Congress for lack of oversight!!!!!

Fredo,

What if I as an American citizen tried to kill a memeber of the armed forces.

Are you saying that the 14th amendment doesn't apply?

What if my Spanish foriegn exchange student tried to kill a member of the armed forces? Congress authorized us to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not so sure we are at war with Spain, so........ there is a little latitude for interpretation here...if your example happened, because we are not talking about an onslaught of Spaniards at war with our soldiers.

Are you saying that we can lock that student up forever without charges and/or trial? He did try to kill our soldiers. What say you? see above. And you sound like ORielly

My opinion is if we cannot try these people while adhearing to the Constitution, then we are no longer Americans.

Why is it so hard to convict these people without breaking the laws of this land? Why is that so fucking hard? because these people are a huge network of highly intelligent adaptive terrorists using new intelligence techniques and intensive logic and training to break our system down and we do not want to showcase a trial system for them to figure out how to weasel out of trials. We all know our system of justice is not perfect and if we cave to putting on these freakin trials for terrorists they will learn the whole system and adapt and use the loopholes that they will discover. You see, it is a weak point for us in this situation- I mean the fact that we protect the accused so well in our American system. They will exploit it and use the weaknesses in the system to become justfied in their activities in the eyes of our law. We cannot let that happen. Sure, while the obvious committers of terrorist acts will be found guilty in any sort of reasonable trial, it is the fringe operators, the intelligence upper operators, that we should not afford the ability to worm out of the imperfect system and go free.

Celisay's fucking crazy

Fredo,

What if I as an American citizen tried to kill a memeber of the armed forces.

Are you saying that the 14th amendment doesn't apply?

What if my Spanish foriegn exchange student tried to kill a member of the armed forces? Congress authorized us to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not so sure we are at war with Spain, so........ there is a little latitude for interpretation here if your example happened, because we are not talking about an onslaught of Spaniards at war with our soldiers.

Are you saying that we can lock that student up forever without charges and/or trial? He did try to kill our soldiers. What say you? see above. And you sound like ORielly

My opinion is if we cannot try these people while adhearing to the Constitution, then we are no longer Americans.

Why is it so hard to convict these people without breaking the laws of this land? Why is that so fucking hard? because these people are a huge network of highly intelligent adaptive terrorists using new intelligence techniques and intensive logic and training to break our system down and we do not want to showcase a trial system for them to figure out how to weasel out of trials. We all know our system of justice is not perfect and if we cave to putting on these freakin trials for terrorists they will learn the whole system and adapt and use the loopholes that they will discover. You see, it is a weak point for us in this situation- I mean the fact that we protect the accused so well in our American system. They will exploit it and use the weaknesses in the system to become justfied in their activities in the eyes of our law. We cannot let that happen. Sure, while the obvious committers of terrorist acts will be found guilty in any sort of reasonable trial, it is the fringe operators, the intelligence upper operators, that we should not afford the ability to worm out of the imperfect system and go free.

and repetitive...

The Right Wing Assholes will hate this decision, you know how that works The Law an Order Party loves the Law as long as it agrees with it, FUCK THEM ASSHOLES!!!!

BTW...

SCALIA, should drop Fucking Dead this Redneck BASTARD is an embarrassment to the Court.

Antonin Scalia, was born in Trenton, NJ and grew up in NYC... I think you might want to reconsider your use of "Redneck" you crazy bastard...

Danni you just proved that I was exactly correct:
once the meaning of the text has been ascertained (perhaps using tools such as originalism or purposivism).

ONCE THE MEANING HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED USING ORIGINALISM........

Duh Danni! you just cut and pasted my point EXACTLY, from Wiki!

go back and read your own paste again carefully!!

BTW do you know what originalism means???

BWAH HA

YOU FUCKS!!! FOX NEWS!!! RACISTS!!!! wash socks. take out garbage. FUCKING WAFFLES!!! call mom. take meds. REDNECKS!!!! frogs are gross. hey, a butterfly. FOX NEWS!!! FUCK YOU!!!

Chairborne is fucking crazy

LOUD NOISES!!!!

"Gas bags in black robes deciding how to run a friggin war!"

To think that the rule of law would supercede the authority of a military commander. The horror.

If these righties are this angry now wait until President Obama takes office....OMG these poor lunatics will need major meds.

hey danni, constructionist means using the corresponding historical backdrop of the time of the writing in your interpretation. in some cases this can be a weak approach - as we will never know exactly what was in the minds of forefathers long dead. but what we absolutley DO know about the 14th Amendment is that it was written due to the issues at the time with the recently freed slaves. So when you see the words : nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A strict constructionist says that this is quite obviously intended to refer to slaves, and not suicidal jihadists. a constructionist feels that in 1868 nobody knew there could be suicide bombers walking into crowded markets in the USA.
Now that you have been schooled, you may have recess. Go mow your giant hippy bush.
Posted by Fredo_C at 2008-06-12 03:25 PM

Hey, fuckwit - 1908 G.K.Chesterton wrote a story regarding suicidal bombings. I'm sure if I dig hard enough I will find plenty more fiction detailing this concept. Historically, it's not unheard of. Never heard of Guy Fawkes?

"Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot."

You are such a simple, foul-mouthed asshole, why do you attack Danni? Do you hate women or just the uppity outside the kitchen, shoe-wearin' kind?

Danni how bout that strict constructionism....you clear on it yet?

Historically, it's not unheard of.

WOW.

You should stick to the insane approach.

I never understood why the America hating left wants to let these guys go and treat them like some sort of political prisoners, Shot I say let them go. The left will pay for it, I have never hear an Islamist Jihadist say "I will destroy that Barn in Nebraska"..Nope, they want the target rich environment and what would that be? New York, LA Chicago..You know those Liberal bastions and where all those "we know much better than you rural america rubes what's best for you" so let them Nuke NY or LA, I say good riddance, After the dems watch millions of their voters vaporize, then we could see that state go red (and I don't mean glowing)

I never understood why the America hating left wants to let these guys go and treat them like some sort of political prisoners, Shot I say let them go. The left will pay for it, I have never hear an Islamist Jihadist say "I will destroy that Barn in Nebraska"..Nope, they want the target rich environment and what would that be? New York, LA Chicago..You know those Liberal bastions and where all those "we know much better than you rural america rubes what's best for you" so let them Nuke NY or LA, I say good riddance, After the dems watch millions of their voters vaporize, then we could see that state go red (and I don't mean glowing)

"ROB THE A HOLE"....SCALIA IS A FUCKING RACIST PRICK, an being a fucking Redneck has nothing to do where you were born. If you would just take that DICK out your Ass an use some common sense you may see the error of your ways!!!!!

Why do so many people seem to have difficulty understanding the moral and legal necessity to provide legal recourse under American law to anyone who has been detained by direct US authority? It seems obvious detainees who are being held should have access to our justice system. Which makes me think that it is equally obvious that hatred, sadism and thirst for vengeance is what motivates those people who wish to deny such access.

OK so you admit that i know what constructionist approach is, and you entered the debate clueless.
I accept that. You are forgiven.

whatever YOU think the intent was at the time of the writing of the 14th amendment does not change the fact that i was, and am, totally correct about the definition of constructionist view.

Also, your argument were you site US v WKA does nothing to alter an acceptable constructioniust opinion that 14th ammendment was written for slaves. It simply shows that a NON constructionist ruling prevailed in the case of US v WKA

Redlight:

"These people were stolen from their nation - which makes their detainment a war crime. Not being given any military hearing whatsoever - war crime. Years of torture - war crime."

Thye Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over whether or not this was a war crime. They were given authority to decide whether alien detainees are entitled to habeas corpus, not whether the detainment itself is valid. Perhaps if you had a little more perspective on what the issue is, you would be more correct.

"Manipulation - implying that they do have some rights even prior to a military hearing, but what those rights are is undetermined?"

Ask the court majority, since that's whose opinion you were quoting. Learn to read - Scalia disputes the fact that those rights exist just as much as you inadvertently do.

"Wouldn't we simply extradite them into a court approved by said nation? It's obvious that they had no intention of permitting military hearings of any kind so that they could be held indefinitely, but why?"

Again - you stray from the issue, which is whether alien detainees who are outside US sovereign territory are entitled to a hearing in US civilian courts. You are wrong, because you allow your emotions to take you elsewhere.

"I never understood why the America hating left wants to let these guys go and treat them like some sort of political prisoners,"

You don't understand why America wants even the worst scum to be tried and convicted and punished according to our Constitution and laws. Why am I not surprised that you don't understand why???

In other words, Redlight, extraditing them to a court of the nation they are in, or the fact that they are never getting the military court hearing they are entitled to, is completely irrelevant. They were not asking to be extradited, and they were not asking for a speedy trial in a military court.

Danni,

I see citizen littered all throughout your quote....

I go back to the question...in the terms of the law...how are non citizens being afforded the protections of the constitution?

I don't read your clip of the Amendment to be inclusive of non citizens.

"ROB THE A HOLE"....SCALIA IS A FUCKING RACIST PRICK, an being a fucking Redneck has nothing to do where you were born. If you would just take that DICK out your Ass an use some common sense you may see the error of your ways!!!!!

Posted by celisary

Do you buy your keyboards from Sams Club? Are there any keys left after your furious posts?

I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

they want the target rich environment and what would that be? New York, LA Chicago......so let them Nuke NY or LA

ease up there H.William. I commute into NYC every day, I and thousands of people here are quite the opposite of the American hating left. ( I think one of these cats here now is from Jersey)
Hell dude I missed a meeting on the 82nd floor of Tower 2 on Sept. 11th because I woke up late hung over (it was the day after a NY Giant night game, thank God).
Yep - saw the whole shit go down on TV while I was gettin out the shower. Didn't go in to the city that day.....

Celisary smell like Bigfoot's dick.
Sincerely,
Kuma

No, I disagree Fredo. If that amendment had been written "all former slaves" instead of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" you would have a point but just the fact that "or naturalized" is in the text it is obvious that the amendment, while written after the civil war to extend citizenship, it was clearly not limited to just "former slaves" or the authors would have said it that way. Thus, a strict constructionist view, would pretty much have to admit that the authors did not intend to limit rights granted by the amendment to only "freed slaves." You are trying to make a case that since it was written post civil war that the authors only intended for it to apply to "former slaves" when that is not the case. Sorry, you just don't prove your point.
BTW, isn't it nicer to discuss stuff without resorting to insults???

Celisary smell like Bigfoot's dick.
Sincerely,
Kuma

Posted by 101Chairborne


Hes a smelly pirate hooker

Celisary, why don't you go visit your mother on Whore Island

Alright I have to go home and watch Anchorman now...

Go fuck yourself, San Diego

Kuma no like Habeas Tyrannosaurus. Kuma detain wife in cave indefinitely.

Danni-

I may be late to your argument, but just because the Amendment doesn't only apply to former slaves does not mean that it does apply to alien detainees in other countries.

"Since we are not at war, and there are no prisoners of war involved, the 14th amendment comes into play. This part:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think the prisoners are within our jurisdiction.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob "

I agree the US has been very lax when it comes to declarations of war. I think some would say we are not at war because it wasn't properly declared.

As for the 14th amendment, the part you quote applies to the States, not the Federal gov't. The sentence starts "No State..."

The Prisoners are not in a State.

Danni,

correct it doesn't say former slaves...

but does it say to non-citizens?

In other words, Redlight, extraditing them to a court of the nation they are in, or the fact that they are never getting the military court hearing they are entitled to, is completely irrelevant. They were not asking to be extradited, and they were not asking for a speedy trial in a military court.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 04:06 PM

Then who was detaining them? The civilian court?

They weren't permitted a hearing in any instance. Not one. They were not able to be seen by Red freakin' Cross for years! What precedent promotes detainment and subsequent irrevocability of a military trial when they are held as military combatants? If it's just a matter of location then again, I see this as suiting the whim of whomever wishes to show Islam as "radical". Keep your insults.

Joe, the amendment refers to "no person." I am not going to try to defend the decision of the SC, it makes sense to me because I dont' think we, as a nation, have the right to just go into another country, kidnap people who we "think" are terrorists and just imprison them permanently. Even the kangaroo court Bush offered at Guantanamo goes against the Constitution, IMHO and apparently in the opinion of a majority of the court.
I am really surprised that there are so many here who don't think basic rights are inherent to every human being. But hey, that's just me and Jefferson.

"Then who was detaining them? The civilian court?"

The US was detaining them. In a country over which we are not sovereign. Why are you asking this?

"They weren't permitted a hearing in any instance. Not one."

And they weren't asking for one. Again, you're missing the point. The court's job yesterday was not to decide whether the detainees were entitled to have things sped up under the current system. The court's job was to determine whether the right to habeas corpus applies to alien detainees. It never has. Until now.

"Joe, the amendment refers to "no person."

No, it refers to "no person within (the US') jurisdiction." Complete the sentence. Alien detainees being held in an area outside US sovereignty are not "within the US' jurisdiction."

If that amendment had been written "all former slaves" instead of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" you would have a point but just the fact that "or naturalized" is in the text it is obvious that the amendment,

Danni , first of all, i like the insults and they will continue, you fat whore.

second of all, being a strict constructionist I can read the words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" and say to myself what the hell does that have to do with a race of animals from the middle east who are chopping off American heads.

so dear, the intent of the 14th Amendment at the time it was penned did not take into account that 125 years later there would be a global ideoligical war against wild suicidal fanatics. Pig.

Danni,

I do think that everyone has basic human rights...

I don't think they should be held indeterminately...

I DO think that the solution should be the correct legal interpretation of the constitution. Now if it is a correct interpretation then fine. However, if it is not, then we shouldn't applaud this decision just because it does what we think is the right thing. If we believe these people deserve a quick fair trial, then fight for that...just don't say everyone on the planet is covered by our constitution...it might actually offend some them.

"Then who was detaining them? The civilian court?"

The US was detaining them. In a country over which we are not sovereign. Why are you asking this?

"They weren't permitted a hearing in any instance. Not one."

And they weren't asking for one. Again, you're missing the point. The court's job yesterday was not to decide whether the detainees were entitled to have things sped up under the current system. The court's job was to determine whether the right to habeas corpus applies to alien detainees. It never has. Until now.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 04:28 PM

No, you are missing my point - the "current system" is designed to not permit any rights whatsoever. That's the justification for using Cuban territories, right? Therefore, it's rather unjust to permit United States military the duties to observe over prisoners it has no ability to try.

They were never offered trial, to my knowledge.

How many years does it take generally for a military trial?

"Danni , first of all, i like the insults and they will continue, you fat whore."


Fredo, you're not smaaart. You're a douchebag; you're probably some pimply faced teenage boy that can't get laid and takes out his anger here.

Fredo C

I suggest you move, The lefties you live with up there are gonna eventually get you killed. Come out to the free west..Arizona, My Friend, where people lIke Sheriff Joe are loved and lefties are scorned as they shuld be..with the court making decisions like this and the left protecting Iran and all the depsots of the worl. NYC is on Borrowed time

"the "current system" is designed to not permit any rights whatsoever."

You keep talking about that. The validity of the current system was not being challenged in this case. The issue for debate was whether alien detainees are entitled to the constitutional right of habeas corpus. At issue was NOT whether the current system was working properly or should have been implemented in the first place. Your only form of argument is about the current system (which is no longer the "current system"). This proves you have no argument as to the real issues before the court.

Good advice. Every rightwing fuck should move to Arizona. Make it a rightwing paradise. Then we can nuke it.

fredo_c i agree with you on the constitution

"with a race of animals from the middle east"

you are fighting camels or people?

just cause you think their ideology is wrong doesn't make them any less human then you

your reasons are correct, but when you start spewing hate... you null out any reason and logic you give.

you are not fighting a race of people
you are fighting an subset of a race who believe an extreme version of the common belief of the area.

that common belief i share with them, though i am american.

please refrain from calling me an animal. i agree with you... chill out

"Make it a rightwing paradise. Then we can nuke it."

Who says liberals are open-minded? Just kill everyone with an opposing viewpoint. How American of you.

"NYC is on Borrowed time"

thats what the confederates said
and they got their asses handed to them

"the "current system" is designed to not permit any rights whatsoever."

You keep talking about that. The validity of the current system was not being challenged in this case. The issue for debate was whether alien detainees are entitled to the constitutional right of habeas corpus. At issue was NOT whether the current system was working properly or should have been implemented in the first place. Your only form of argument is about the current system (which is no longer the "current system"). This proves you have no argument as to the real issues before the court.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 04:37 PM

So habeus corpus is not standard practice for military prisoners? Or is this an issue strictly because of the location they are being held?

Also, what right do we have to detain them and not try them? Isn't that the point?

"Make it a rightwing paradise. Then we can nuke it."

Who says liberals are open-minded? Just kill everyone with an opposing viewpoint. How American of you.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 04:43 PM

Naw, just detain them indefinitely without trial or proof. That's apparently good enough for America!

Fredo, you're not smaaart.
Posted by nullifidian (AKA the spelling Bee champion of '46)

"Naw, just detain them indefinitely without trial or proof. That's apparently good enough for America!"

Bill wasn't talking about war prisoners. He was talking about right-wing American citizens. How shocking that you'd miss the difference.

Klifferd

Yeah, c,mon down for a visit..We will show you a real good time..remember "Deliverence"..But I am sure the Ned Beatty experience is nothing new to you anyway..

"Who says liberals are open-minded? Just kill everyone with an opposing viewpoint. How American of you.

Posted by JOE "

Hahahahahaha. Can always count on Joe to take the bait.

RLR

who's said that?

Try them, and fry em or free em...


but don't give them Constitutional Rights

"Fredo, you're not smaaart.
Posted by nullifidian (AKA the spelling Bee champion of '46)

Posted by wisgod "

You do know I spelled it that way to mimic Fredo Corleone's New Yaaaawk accent, right? Or maybe you're just stupid.

As for the 14th amendment, the part you quote applies to the States, not the Federal gov't. The sentence starts "No State..."

The Prisoners are not in a State.

Posted by Petrous at 2008-06-12 04:23 PM | Reply


So the federal government is free to torture and murder as long as it is outside the counrry. I see how the founding fathers were clever that way.

"So habeus corpus is not standard practice for military prisoners? Or is this an issue strictly because of the location they are being held?"

Habeas corpus by its very language extends to everyone. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (at issue in this case) codified what had already been held by US courts for decades - that alien enemy combatants are not entitled to habeas corpus and are instead subject to the jurisdiction of a military court.

Or maybe you're just stupid.

Posted by nullifidian

Fuck that. You fat-fingered it. You've nerver been funny before, so that excuse is off the table.

"Naw, just detain them indefinitely without trial or proof. That's apparently good enough for America!"

Bill wasn't talking about war prisoners. He was talking about right-wing American citizens. How shocking that you'd miss the difference.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 04:48 PM

No, I certainly did not. [sigh] look, you obviously understand the legal precedent for argument, and I'm just trying to learn what has happened to create this scenario. I'm feeling that you are not willing to answer my questions straightforward because it's possible that Cuba is just one of many non-American territories used by American military as prisons, kept outside of legal pervue. Illegal, immoral and all that, yes, but that's not what I've been questioning.

The purpose of Gitmo is to permit the military to torture without legal repercussions. That has to end. You have not given any reason why aliens would not be held to the same privileges as any other military combatant. Even the Nazi got trials, but not these innocent Muslim - yes, 90% at minimum are innocent. That strikes me as fictious that Scalia would imply no rules of conduct provide for this activity and that the "branches must duke-it-out". He is a disgusting waste of judicial powers and simply not what I would look for in a Justice.

You're a moron. Obviously I know how to spell "smart." And if I didn't the spell-checker I use would've caught it, dipshit. Just because you're too dumb to catch my Fredo Corleone allusion isn't my fault.

hillbilly

i've been to the south

i go to north carolina every year
and my wife is from atlanta ( georgia is where deliverence takes place )
and i go to arizona all the time for my friends

but it still doesn't take away from the fact that YOU LOST and you won't ever win no matter how much you want to split up the usa

"The purpose of Gitmo is to permit the military to torture without legal repercussions. That has to end."

And the purpose of this lawsuit was not to end the practices occurring at Guantanamo Bay.

"You have not given any reason why aliens would not be held to the same privileges as any other military combatant."

Because Constitutional rights have long differed in terms of their applicability to citizens as opposed to non-citizens.

"Even the Nazi got trials, but not these innocent Muslim - yes, 90% at minimum are innocent."

I'm not sure how you know that. You're the one saying that none of them have been tried.

"That strikes me as fictious that Scalia would imply no rules of conduct provide for this activity and that the "branches must duke-it-out"."

I suggest reading the court opinions. Scalia pointed out that in the Hamdan case, the same justices who ruled in the majority today noted that while a similar law had not stripped Guantanamo prisoners of their habeas corpus rights, that "Nothing prevents the President from returning toCongress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary." Yet today, those same justices are now striking down the result of the president and Congress taking their suggestion in the first place.

"So habeus corpus is not standard practice for military prisoners? Or is this an issue strictly because of the location they are being held?"

Habeas corpus by its very language extends to everyone. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (at issue in this case) codified what had already been held by US courts for decades - that alien enemy combatants are not entitled to habeas corpus and are instead subject to the jurisdiction of a military court.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 04:55 PM

Only in 2006 they decided to "codify" an excuse for their treatment of innocent civilians held as military combatants in an off-shore torture prison?

Was any member of the Bush administration instrumental in pushing that through?

This again reminds me of the Lisbon Treaty..

"Only in 2006 they decided to "codify" an excuse for their treatment of innocent civilians held as military combatants in an off-shore torture prison?

Was any member of the Bush administration instrumental in pushing that through?"

Yes - at the suggestion of the same liberal supreme court justices who struck down the 2006 codification that they recommended. I'm done telling you what you could already know if you weren't too lazy to read.

Klifferd

I never said I won or lost, for you to compare the UIslamic Fundamentalist to the War between the states and repeating rifles to Nuclear terrorism is one of the most ludicorus things I have ver heard. But of cource lefties always make outrageous comnparisons. All I am saying is when these animals you want to coodle vaporize your glorious cathedrals of hedonism and moral relativism..Don't come whining to us "warriors" to protect you..I am going to say "HA HA"

Just prior to the Hamden vs. Rumsfeld I read this:

Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemycombatants by CSRTs. Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist
network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Tali-ban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sovereign U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding that 28 U. S. C. 2241 extended statutory habeasjurisdiction to Guantanamo. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466, 473. Petitioners' cases were then consolidated into two proceedings. In the first, the district judge granted the Government's motion to dismiss, holding that the detainees had no rights that could be vindicated in a habeas action. In the second, the judge held that the detainees had due process rights.
While appeals were pending, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 1005(e) of which amended 28 U. S. C. 2241to provide that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to. . . consider . . . an application for . . . habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo," and gave the D. C. Court of Appeals "exclusive" jurisdiction to review CSRT decisions.

So, it appears that they ALL have asked for trials prior to the Military Commission Act 2006 stating that they are not elegable. You've been incorrect in repeatedly posting that they have not. Their appeals are apparently still pending.

I'm done telling you what you could already know if you weren't too lazy to read.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 05:12 PM

Fine by me.

"So, it appears that they ALL have asked for trials prior to the Military Commission Act 2006 stating that they are not elegable. You've been incorrect in repeatedly posting that they have not."

You are seriously fucking retarded. Any time that I have said they were "not asking for a trial under the current system," I was referring to the facts of THIS LAWSUIT ONLY. This lawsuit contended that they were entitled to habeas corpus and to a hearing in US courts - not military courts. The fact that you so repeatedly make this mistake is just sad.

"So, it appears that they ALL have asked for trials prior to the Military Commission Act 2006 stating that they are not elegable. You've been incorrect in repeatedly posting that they have not."

You are seriously fucking retarded. Any time that I have said they were "not asking for a trial under the current system," I was referring to the facts of THIS LAWSUIT ONLY. This lawsuit contended that they were entitled to habeas corpus and to a hearing in US courts - not military courts. The fact that you so repeatedly make this mistake is just sad.
Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 05:27 PM

No, the fact that habeus corpus isn't applicable unless "the dicider" says so is sad.

"This is BS--this is activist judges--same as the Kelo decision."

Oh, Murphy is so upset. I'm wondering how upset Murphy got when the SC decided to select a president. I bet Murph approved of that "judicial activism".
Seems funny that you say "Nor does it take away the POTUS and Congress responsibilities and their roles in running a war." when we both know the Constitution requires that Congress "declare war" and that it never did so, thus technically we are not "at war constitutionally." Yet you expect the SC, the decider of constitutionality to decide "as if" we were at war.
It makes me believe even stronger than before that the Constitution demands that wars be declared by Congress and we should be sure, in the future, to enforce that part of the Constitution. Perhaps we would not be stuck in Iraq today had our Congress and president abided by the Constitution. Maybe those founding fathers weren't just a bunch of old guys writing a "piece of paper." Any attack on Iran should be approved by Congress, even if Pelosi sold out to AIPAC.

"No, the fact that habeus corpus isn't applicable unless "the dicider" says so is sad."

Congress said so as well - with a 65 to 34 vote. There's no need to pretend that Bush created this program unilaterally.

"I'm wondering how upset Murphy got when the SC decided to select a president."

What a hilarious liberal myth that is. Had the outcome of their case been that Gore won the election, you'd find a way to separate the legal issues that were before the court from their eventual result. But since Bush had more electoral votes, you'll instead walk around saying "the supreme court appointed the president." Pathetic.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-12 05:31 PM | Reply



Danni--did you read the wiki and other links on this?

The SCOTUS accepted that we are war--that is not the issue!

And you forget I voted for moderate Gore in 2000.

I wanted the votes to be counted--but how can you count a friggin dimpled chad? It is not a clear vote for anyone.

Why not just look at a new ballot and make an intent there? What? Well why not?

The FLSC screwed around with the FL rules and laws that are in FL Constitution and were wrong.

Good Grief they counted the votes 3 times! And Bush won every recount! Get over it!


Enemy combatants do not have the same rights as American citizens. The court just said they do and doomed us.

"The court just said they do and doomed us.

Posted by MURPHY "

That's right! Al Qaeda tanks will be rolling into your neighborhood any day now.

Boo!

You are seriously fucking retarded


Posted by JOE at 2008-06-12 05:27 PM

Hou 'lawerly" Punkin.

"lawyerly"

Yeah I know. It's not a word.

Scalia's an elitist piece of shit and I for one will never "get over it".

What rude hand gesture did Antonin Scalia make to a question about his impartiality in matters of church and state?

He flicked his fingers out from under his chin, as if to say, "Fuck you."

What question was before the Supreme Court when Dick Cheney gave Antonin Scalia an airplane ride to Louisiana so the two of them could hunt ducks together?

Whether Cheney could keep documents pertaining to his energy task force secret. Scalia decided that yes, he could.

Judges do not know shit about NS.

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-12 05:18 PM

they apparently don't know shit about electing a president either...

Guilty of all charges until proven innocent! Don't give those dogs rights! Shoot first, ask questions later.

"The Court just said so and doomed us...."

I listened to Rush today, knowing I would be entertained. It was worth tuning in just to hear the US Supreme Court described as "Leftists".

But what did Rush have to say about enemy combatants? He said these people had no rights because they were captured on battlefields and within the SAME SENTENCE stated they weren't always acquired that way.

It's the same sort of BS we've had to contend with for seven years. It doesn't make sense, it's not consistent, it may be an outright lie, but by God it's our manure pile and the safety of the United States depends on it.

I'm willing to bet it will be proven that one very large reason Bush was so intent on keeping some of these men in Gitmo forever was because he knew or suspected they were innocent and therefore never wanted them to see the light of day to cover his mistakes.

To the extent I am right, Bush is an evil man, on a par with the worst of those in Gitmo who are guilty.

Oh brother...

MURPHY

You think "Justice" is a bad thing?

If they're innocent they get justice.

If they're guilty we get ours.

Been that way a looooooooooon time in our legal system - the only thing that prevents us from being like those who would do us harm.

That's the beauty of trials, Murphy---We'll get to know the answer to that question. If the answer is "yes", would it change your mind at all concerning Bush?

Our country gained a small part of its soul back with that ruling.

Disturbingly the vote was only 5 to 4. Our constitution must hold for all who are US citizens and for those who are under our custody. It applies to everyone or it means nothing.

Somebody please tell me why we are not impeaching President Bush and Vice-President Cheney?

Let me put this very simply for you Donner Boy

Fuck You

I asked a simple question prompting debate, and your knee jerk reaction is to call me an idiot...

Posted by kwrx25 at 2008-06-12 02:18 PM



If the shoe fits! oooo did I piss you off?

good! The stupidity of the Right has killed too many. The Supreme Court has ruled that Detainees are protected by the Constitution once they are in our custody. You don't want that? Don't put them in custody! (I guess you could kill them instead of capturing them...to bad Bush didn't think of that.)

And too bad you don't like the ruling. I didn't like it when the Supreme Court elected Bush President either.

Perhaps you can just "get over it" too.

smurphy doesn't mind playing both sides of the fence. jesus take a position.
wait, he/she does, now we're all doomed

So your hatred of Bush is the same as these idiot judges--who cares if it endangers the country.

The judges should be arrested and jailed. This is treason.

But Bush is so busy kissing the liberal butts--he won't do anything.

This is the wrong ruling.

Al Quada gets a lawyer--what a crock of manure.

So your hatred of Bush is the same as these idiot judges--who cares if it endangers the country.

The judges should be arrested and jailed. This is treason.

But Bush is so busy kissing the liberal butts--he won't do anything.

This is the wrong ruling.

Al Quada gets a lawyer--what a crock of manure.

murphy

are you drunk smurphy? you should move to iran, china, maybe sudan. all those fit your view.

oh and why is this ruling wrong and what are your legal crentials to be able to deem this ruling wrong?

oops should be credentials, i think...

are you drunk smurphy? you should move to iran, china, maybe sudan. all those fit your view.

oh and why is this ruling wrong and what are your legal crentials to be able to deem this ruling wrong?

Posted by cjk85

You might want to check with KUMA - our resident "USC Law School" grad BWAAAAAA

Murphy-
re: "The judges should be arrested and jailed. This is treason."

That's nice. Would they have the right to Habeas Corpus, or is the Magna Carta too "liberal" for your delicate senses?

kuma? wowza who woulda thunk.

no betelg, by his/her logic, these justices are performing terror attacks from within and therefore should be in gitmo. you can take it from here....

"Would they have the right to Habeas Corpus"

How about only the five who believe it's important?

"No, the fact that habeus corpus isn't applicable unless "the dicider" says so is sad."

Congress said so as well - with a 65 to 34 vote. There's no need to pretend that Bush created this program unilaterally.

The previous Supreme Court defeat of Bush lead to MCA2006. This decision slapped Congress for being a participant in this garbage.

The Writ is restored.

Your argument lost.

for the first time in our history enemy combatants will be given the same rights as you and me. THAT has to make you happy now. we can fight this war just as blowjob billy wanted us to. about the same as clearing the drunks off the street.

and this is NOT a defeat or rebuke of george bush or the administration.
I will NOT say I told you so, but let me say this now.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will regret this discision.

and with this and if obama is elected, alqaida and the taliban and hamas and other terrorists will get just what they want and thats the same thing that you want. a socialist pussy in the white house.
I didnt read the thread as I have read all this bullshit before, but I am sure I could read a paper in gaza and read the same shit.
shame shame shame.....

and read the dissenting papers......they are scathing and justified.

"and this is NOT a defeat or rebuke of george bush or the administration. "

Nothing ever is, in your world.

"if obama is elected, alqaida and the taliban and hamas and other terrorists will get just what they want "

So what were you drinking tonight?

I will just say the most important thing again.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will regret this discision. somewhere and sometime, this ruling will be involved in something we will regret.

and here is one of those 'unintended consequences' that the FEELING and EMOTIONAL left gives us.

what a wonderfull campaign wedge or comment for john mccain......THIS is some of the worthless, unbelievable shit that happens when the SC judges are selected by liberals. ( even if one of them was appointed by .....oh say reagan or bush 41.....that doesnt matter when they get there and turn "LEFT"

An extremely slippery slope! If those not deserving our rights are granted them; it dilutes the rights for those intended.

BL2

Not to be snarky, and it's probably none of my business....

Are you manic? You show up late and type crazy assed disjointed posts

As Seinfeld would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that....."

*grin*

"If those not deserving our rights are granted them; it dilutes the rights for those intended."

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal


What...were we kidding?

An extremely slippery slope! If those not deserving our rights are granted them; it dilutes the rights for those intended.
Posted by MSgt at 2008-06-13 01:32 AM

And which humans don't deserve humane treatment by their captors? Barbarism begets barbarism - that is just one important lesson of Abu Gharib and Guantanamo. These INNOCENT people were TORTURED and DETAINED FOR YEARS. That is NOT justice, democracy or the America that I believe in.

These detainees NEED to know American justice - not some torture prison instituted by military and religious crackpots.

"If those not deserving our rights are granted them; it dilutes the rights for those intended."

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal


What...were we kidding?

Posted by Danforth at 2008-06-13 01:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

AH, but some men are more equal than others it seems.

This is "out of sight, out of mind" for most Americans, sadly. I blame the public school system for caring more about tax dollars, than adequately teaching the constitution, and I blame religious institutions for being more concerned with donations and fraudulent land deals, than teaching their flock to have souls.

Mostly I blame these individual pinheads for always following the "ends justify the means" thinking because 9-11 made them piss their pull-ups. And because the enemy is brown. This country seriously needs to grow up and stop fucking with people. Our yard needs to be clean before we tell the neighbors what to do with theirs.

***** how is it that non-American citizens have rights under the constitution.
honest question, can anyone explain that?
Posted by kwrx25 *****

.......yes......but you would still not be bright enough to understand it.....

......the SC explained quite clearly why the constitution extended to those prisoners......

Gitmo was created only to further and strengthen the Bush Regime's Fascist Agenda!

Guantanamo Bay Prison wasn't built to contain so-called terrorists it was in reality created as a "test case" by the Bush Regime to see if they could get away with tearing up the US Constitution and then by creating their own fascist state,they could arrest and imprison (without charge or trial) anybody they wanted too,especially their agitating detractors and opponents at all levels in American society!

again, I'll offer this skizziks

fuck you.


thanks for pointing out that you're not bright enough to engage in an honest debate about anything, and all you offer are insults to those who disagree with you.


The best part is, in this case I probably don't even disagree with you...but there have been good arguments on both sides of this coin...5/4 in the SC being a good case in point. Yet again though, all you can offer is an insult to support your view.

Bravo, you illustrate the point so well that those with no strong point resort to insults.

I already admitted to not being as informed in the interpretation of the constitution as to its applicability to non-citizen detainees..especially those detained as unlawful combatants...so I have not problem resulting to insults, so again

Fuck You

Hmmm...does this decision mean that every swingin' dick in the entire world is covered under the U.S. Constitution? (No offense, Danni, I meant to cover everyone without a dick too.)

does this decision mean

If someone is on US soil, including it's territorial possessions, they have the right to Habeas Corpus because they are within our jurisdiction.

"If someone is on US soil, including it's territorial possessions, they have the right to Habeas Corpus because they are within our jurisdiction.

Posted by OzarkAggie
"

Funny, I don't seem to recall us giving the German soldiers we held on US soild during WW II the same treatment.

Terrorists are treated better then Nazi's and their soldiers.

Only in America.

Lemme see now...Let's suppose I'm engaged in combat and some nerd surrenders to me. If I take him captive and have him locked up, he files suit against the U.S and ME and could end up owning my house and motor home? Guess what....he ain't EVER gonna be held captive.

Setting aside every shithead's anger and hatred toward Bush and Republicans, let us suppose that Dems get the whitehouse and the congress. Now let's suppose that the next war comes while the Dems are in complete control, and 5,000 prisoners are taken in that war.

Each of these prisoners now has the right to a trial in a US court of law, to protest his treatment as a prisoner, to tie up our courts even more, while his cohorts continue to kill Americans.

Hey, but we're standing up for human rights! Look at me everybody, I'm a humanitarian!

"Hey, but we're standing up for human rights! Look at me everybody, I'm a humanitarian!"

Not really...it's lawyers creating jobs for lawyers.

"Now let's suppose that the next war comes while the Dems are in complete control, and 5,000 prisoners are taken in that war."

Well, that's 5000 lawyers each earning exorbitant fees amounting to millions of dollars. You know who will be paying those fees, don't you?

Funny, I don't seem to recall us giving the German soldiers we held on US soild (sic) during WW II the same treatment.

They were held under the Rules of the Geneva Convention. Bush says it doesn't apply. What I know is that when my dad was stationed at Ladd Field they had German prisoners doing KP and living in barracks. They were not subjected to interrogations or held in cells or cages or what have you.

Each of these prisoners now has the right to a trial in a US court of law...

Most likely the Democrats would be smart enough to either keep them outside the US or afford them their rights under the GC.

Who wants to lay odds that if you sent these guys to the store for apples they'd bring home oranges?

"If those not deserving our rights are granted them; it dilutes the rights for those intended."

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal


What...were we kidding?

Posted by Danforth at


nice retort and I bet it makes you feel REAL good and all tingly all over.....and in the meantime when we allow millions upon millions of illegals stay here and drain our er's and our public schools and the other problems they cause.....and so now people who are out to kill as many americans as they can take with them ALSO have the same rights as a citizen does.......
only an american liberal could POSSIBILY believe this shit.

again......sometime in the future this country will look back on this ruling and say......OOPS......or oh shit.....or...
damn we should have listened to the rightwingers on the retort because THEY WERE RIGHT........too bad that will cost lives, probably or desctruction of property.
damn......you libs are falling right into place...right where terrorists want you to be.......problem is AGAIN.....the "unintended consequences" that come with liberal policies........ETHONOL DEAL for your memory, perhaps.........

"only an american liberal could POSSIBILY believe this shit."

Or someone who actually read and understood the phrase We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. Quick quiz: where's the term "enemy combatant" in the constitution?

"and in the meantime when we allow millions upon millions of illegals stay here"

We? Wake up, BL2, the Republicans have been in charge for 7 years. Time for the party of responsibility to start taking some responsibility.

"too bad that will cost lives"

How will allowing habeas corpus cost lives?

BL2

"Believe this shit". I guess if you think the founding concepts of America and human dignity are "shit", you have a point. That's what America and Freedom are all about. If we are no different than our enemies, then what are we fighting for? Sounds like you need to be on the other side. Your concepts of humanity are much more closely aligned with the jihadists than free Americans.

Future marching orders..."There were no survivors therefore no prisoners."

Or someone who actually read and understood the phrase We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. Quick quiz: where's the term "enemy combatant" in the constitution? posted by Danforth


Gee, I wonder if Jefferson was thinking about redcoats when he penned these words? I wonder if Jefferson thought that fighting redcoats as enemies of the state was a contradiction of his penned words? Naaah, I'm sure thought every enemy of the young state, seeking to destroy that state, ought to have their day in court.

Danforth, you're really a Dickforth. Stupid ass libs never see the larger context, but only the context which enables to dumb down this country, or put it in harm's way.

They ought to ship your sorry ass to G'itmo so you can help all those Muslim swine you have so much humanitarian concern for. After all, we must be principled.

" Stupid ass libs never see the larger context"

And jagoff Republicans are always willing to trade one more right for more control over the citizenry. The "larger context" is that AT NO TIME do we suspend the Constitution for temporary convenience.

Read the Constitution, dumbass. And then read the SC decisions.

"They ought to ship your sorry ass to G'itmo so you can help all those Muslim swine you have so much humanitarian concern for. "

Strange you use a Christian reference in your moniker, yet your suggestions are the most non-Christian one could imagine.

Funny that Scalia and Roberts, the strict construction guys, resort to non legal argument and fear tactics. Talk about legislating from the bench.
Bravo for Kennedy.

"There were no survivors therefore no prisoners."

On Okinawa the Army took one side of the island and the Marines took the other. After the battle the Army built a crude stockade and then sent a message to the Marines that they could send their prisoners to them.

The response was something like: "Prisoners?"


Gee, I wonder if Jefferson was thinking about redcoats...

Considering that a government hadn't been formed until after the war the only law was in the colonies which followed the English practice.

But ultimately you fail to understand habeas corpus. It means simply, Bring the prisoner before the court. It's basically a hearing to determine if the government has enough evidence to hold that person. Since they have released several detainees who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 911 - determined years later by the military - those people could have been released and those who were involved would have remained in prison.

It doesn't mean that they would be free to hang out in America. Those released would be sent back to their countries of origin, just as they have been.

I've always found that playing by the rules is the more difficult path, yet with determination it makes you stronger. You and especially BushBlower seem to think that you're the tough guys when in fact you are the weak link.

And jagoff Republicans are always willing to trade one more right for more control over the citizenry. The "larger context" is that AT NO TIME do we suspend the Constitution for temporary convenience.

Hey dumbfuck, Muslim terrorists are not citizens, and therefore not citizenry to be controlled. Well done, muddying the issue, shithead! Typical dumbass liberal who confuses terms to fuck up the country more.

Read the Constitution, dumbass. And then read the SC decisions.

No, you go read it...and do so within its context and not your imposed liberal shit. Dumbass!



Strange you use a Christian reference in your moniker, yet your suggestions are the most non-Christian one could imagine.

Strange you should change the subject, trying to paint me as a Christian so you can impeach me in some way? Another liberal tactic. Whether I am a Christian is beside the point. Neither can you judge me by something you don't hold to anyway. So fuck off you liberal piece of shit!

All men are created equal.

Some of you would think the United States actually believes this. That this is the real belief of America and the American system.

Fools. The Declaration of Independence is not law. It is not a part of our country. It has no place in America except as a rag to wave saying 'boo' to England.

If this piece of paper is so important to be a reason for these rights to aliens, then don't forget what is also in the Declaration of Independence.

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
endowed by their Creator
with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

So, is God a major part of America? Should we remove any mention of God from our schools and lives? If this paper can be used to grant rights to aliens, then it grants God to be mentioned by our Government.

Unfortunately for your tortured logic, "natures god" is not your imaginary friend, asshat.

"Hey dumbfuck, Muslim terrorists are not citizens"

Hey idiot, read the SC decisions; they disagree with you.

"Whether I am a Christian is beside the point."

You're joking, right? The fact you're a Christian makes you all the more a hypocrite: eschewing human compassion. What would Jesus do? Certainly not what you're suggesting.

"The Declaration of Independence...is not a part of our country."

Some idiotic posts defy comment.

I say we let them go. Before we do, we should implant tracking devices to see where they go then nuke them and all those around them. It would be a win-win...they get their 72 virgins and we are rid of the scumbags! If they had done that in the first place, this would have not come before the Supreme Court!

You're joking, right? The fact you're a Christian makes you all the more a hypocrite: eschewing human compassion. What would Jesus do? Certainly not what you're suggesting.

Hey doofus...check my name again. Maybe that should tell you something about what I think of Christianity? Probably not for one who has the relative IQ of a deck chair.

It's not a matter of citizenship or the rights of Americans. If a visitor makes lawful entry and is detained because he may have committed a crime he gets a hearing in a court of law because he is within our jurisdiction. If he is arrested in another country and brought here the same thing happens.

Case in point: Manual Noriega.

This wouldn't have been a problem if they had kept these guys in Afghanistan. They could have hired the locals to interrogate them, kept our hands clean.

So you really ought to be pissed at Bush for yet another dumb move - at least by your argument that the detainees have no rights to the Geneva Convention, and no rights to habeas corpus.

Inside our jurisdiction it's one or the other. That's not an opinion, that's the law.

"...check my name again."

In that case, you're just a compassionless, cold-hearted, uninformed asshole.

DonnerBoy

no I wasn't mad...I can tell someone to fuck off without raising my pulse.

and you assume I don't agree with the decision. Never said that.

I think it is wrong to detain indefinitely....I do question however if this is the correct interpretation of the constitution. It reaches the goal of getting these people trials...but was it the right avenue, should getting these people trials been accomplished differently and what potential slippery slope are we now on. OR was this legitimately the correct interpretation?

See, I'm not a righty or a lefty...I was actually asking an honest question based from the middle...to examine what had transpired from a intellectual viewpoint.

something a kneejerker like you wouldn't and cannot comprehend apparently

**** again, I'll offer this skizziks
fuck you....Posted by kwrx25 *****

......why would you want to fuck me ?..do I look Republican ?....

*** thanks for pointing out that you're not bright enough to engage in an honest debate about anything, and all you offer are insults to those who disagree with you. ****

......just read the decision and you will understand the reasoning of the SC.....perhaps.....but if you go asking people "what did they say ?...what did they mean ? "...when the answer is right in front of you, then I have to conclude you would never understand it anyways........

.........about the fucking .....no thanks......I may be meeting China off the Florida coast tonight.......theres some drilling to be done.....

Skizziks,

If hooked on phonics actually worked for you, you would have read in the SC decision what makes this unconstitutional. Instead of letting the lower courts continue to fight this out, they decided to overstep there timing and say that this has constitutional significance, which it doesn't. They jumped into the middle of this feeling that it was taking too long for court trial. The reason it took too long for these trials to take place was because the detainees, who were filing motions for habeous corpus, decided to do so. The act of congress that described the process by which these detainees were being treated was simply nullified. Now who know what's going to happen in the future. I agree witha previous poster who believes that there will be less POW's taken on the battlefield.

This is a sad day for our country AND for any army we fight in the future.

There is no way that these "Spys" (under the rules of war and Geneva Conventions anyone that is fighting in a war that has civilian dress when caught can be shot as a spy. As none of these guys had uniforms they are technically spies) or any military combatant should be given the rights of a citizen of this country. (Do you think ANY other country would allow this?)

This is what you get when you appoint liberal justice's (along with the horrible eminent domain ruling)

With this ruling we will be forced to kill ANYONE we find on the battle field to keep from being bogged down in legal battles after the war.

This is a VERY sad day for America.

This is a sad day for our country AND for any army we fight in the future.

There is no way that these "Spys" (under the rules of war and Geneva Conventions anyone that is fighting in a war that has civilian dress when caught can be shot as a spy. As none of these guys had uniforms they are technically spies) or any military combatant should be given the rights of a citizen of this country. (Do you think ANY other country would allow this?)

This is what you get when you appoint liberal justice's (along with the horrible eminent domain ruling)

With this ruling we will be forced to kill ANYONE we find on the battle field to keep from being bogged down in legal battles after the war.

This is a VERY sad day for America.

"With this ruling we will be forced to kill ANYONE we find on the battle field to keep from being bogged down in legal battles after the war.

This is a VERY sad day for America."

Posted by foshaffer at 2008-06-13 04:44 PM | Reply


This will not affect anything in wartime. We are not at war. There is no army in the field against us. There is no country at war with us. We are not holding soldiers, so it won't affect treatment under the Geneva Convention. We are holding accused criminals, not soldiers, and criminals should have their day in court.

One third of those currently in detention have been deemed innocent. Since we've made statements about them being the "worst of the worst" for years, radicalized them by imprisoning them for 7 years, used "enhanced interrogation" on them, their own countries no longer want them back. Now we have a problem that we created.

Had we actually been fair, granted trials, worked on determining guilt or innocence in a timely and lawful manner, we'd have smaller problem to deal with.

You do know that more than half of the original detainees have all been released?

This is more of the legacy of Bush. It stinks.

"With this ruling we will be forced to kill anyone found on the battlefield...."

You're so deeply into neocon voodoo it's up past your eyes.

Sure, kill "anyone" you find on the battlefield. Then you really will need a lawyer, a military one.

You guys need to arise from your fantasies of murdering opponents on the field and battle and review the history of just how badly Bush handled these prisoners and the legal issues associated with them.

If Bush had been competent, in touch with American values and history, and not quite such a sadist personally, none of this would have ever become the issue it has.

Had we actually been fair, granted trials...

Actually a habeas corpus hearing is not so much a trial as it is a review of the evidence against a person held by the authorities, often in absentia. It challenges the state to produce evidence of a crime, a prima facia, though it can also review evidence that a person did not commit a crime.

Most often it is a last resort when someone is incarcerated AFTER a trial, and exculpatory evidence is produced or revealed. The Innocence Project uses this means to present DNA evidence for example to exonerate inmates.

In the case of these detainees the Administration would have had to produce evidence a person had acted against the United States. It's not a huge burden considering that in these cases it would amount to an arraignment on charges prior to a trial by military tribunal.

But the mistake as I said before was to bring these prisoners into the jurisdiction of the US Courts.

Here's the operative Supreme Court ruling:

OzarkAnnie

We aren't holding War Criminals. We aren't holding soldiers or POWs. We are holding criminals--and criminals deserve their day in court. At least that is what the USSC said. The operative Supreme Court ruling was handed down yesterday, and has nothing to do with your point.

"A majority of the Court has ruled that provisions in the 2006 Military Commissions Act designed to strip away all habeas rights for detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center are unconstitutional. The Court has ruled that the Constitutional right to habeas corpus extends to territories, including Guantanamo Bay, where the United States exercises de facto control. The Court further held that the administration's detention procedures were constitutionally inadequate, and that those detainees who have been determined to be "unlawful enemy combatants" are entitled to seek habeas relief in Federal court."

Patrick Leahy

This will not affect anything in wartime. We are not at war. There is no army in the field against us. There is no country at war with us. We are not holding soldiers, so it won't affect treatment under the Geneva Convention. We are holding accused criminals, not soldiers, and criminals should have their day in court.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob a


well here is the old double B at it again.

we are at war and your comments are proof of the naviete that will get many more americans killed. what will it take? anopther city lost to terrorists?

these bastards declared war on us during the clinton presidency and it is precisley things like this ruling that caused them to keep going and get bigger andnbigger and then finnaly the world trade center.
now you are a pretty smart guy, so why cant you see that they have been at war with us for some time now? and if you still dont think that, then what do you call the cole and the first WTC and the embassies and finnaly 9/11?
please let me see into this naive thinking on this subject.

"too bad that will cost lives"

How will allowing habeas corpus cost lives?

Posted by Danforth at

well for one, jus suppose....and it may hopefully be a long shot....but suppose that kahlid muhammed....( is that the right name) were forced to be set free.....where will he go?
to florida and retirement? I dont think so.....

so lets say that no americans were killed by some of these personnaly......lets look at their trial....just what secrets in battling terrorism will the procecutor have to make public for the enemy to see......and maybe THAT INfo will get people killed or at least put a dent in our ability to capture these murdering bastards.....
but you see......this is the kind of thing that liberals dont even think or maybe even give a shit about........

I KNOW IT SAYS ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL......but surely the founders didnt think that we would protect our enemies with this same cherished statement.........

AND ALSO......I thnk of the countless men and women who gave their lives and blood to protect thsese same freedoms. I dont think THEY did that for muslims bent on killing us an wiping us out either.
the irony is that this freedom could be a part of reasons for losing it....

and oh yeah......report I read said that the military tribunals set up protect thier rights in an unprecendented way already.....anyone know of any of those details?

it just doesnt make sense, but then thats what you get with a liberal majority and another reason to keep obama in the senate......

and I too am with kwyz..??.. they shouldnt be there indefinitly but isnt the arument for them still being there the fact that if the enemy knows too much about our security forces, then cant they circumvent them?

and one more before I read responses......are you SURE that this isnt just a hate bush thing and you would be all ga ga over it the OTHER way if things were reversed and bush was in favor of this ruling? I think that is a part of the lefts joy at this ruling........

"and maybe THAT INfo will get people killed or at least put a dent in our ability to capture these murdering bastards..."

We face these questions every day and tackle them head-on. What makes you think a vengeful coke dealer shouldn't be feared as much as a jihadist?

"are you SURE that this isnt just a hate bush thing and you would be all ga ga over it the OTHER way if things were reversed and bush was in favor of this ruling?"

Are you joking? One path affords human rights, one denies them. The "side" one is on is distinct, regardless of the letter after the person's name.

I dont think THEY did that for muslims bent on killing us an wiping us out either.
the irony is that this freedom could be a part of reasons for losing it....

The fact that a good portion of the detainees have been released WITHOUT a writ of habeas corpus is naturally lost on BushBlower. Either the Bush Admin is releasing terrorists or they weren't terrorists to begin with. Some in fact were simply handed over for revenge, money, or both by the Afghan warlords. In the cases I've read about the guy arrested wasn't the guy they were looking for in the first place.

So if we have the wrong guy wouldn't it be prudent to know that sooner rather than later so WE CAN GET THE RIGHT GUY?


Then there the b00b p'Troll: "We aren't holding War Criminals. We aren't holding soldiers or POWs"

In response to the 1950 SC ruling that the Germans lacked standing because: "The prisoners had at no time been on American sovereign territory."

Ergo, those held in Afghanistan have no right to HC despite the fact that we are running the jail. Bring them to Gitmo and they are now on American soil and thus have standing and the courts therefore have jurisdiction.

IOWs, why they are being held, what their crime may or may not be, is irrelevant. WHERE they are being held is the issue.

Simple isn't it? (Obviously NOT.)

Howw about you Sizzle?

Any music samplings to share with the masses.

Don't be shy.

Don't be shy.

Guess not.

Do you fear me Mike?

You don't have to.

Nulli- I laugh everytime you link to that. Poor McCain...he's almost as much a gaffe machine as W.

Rex- Is there some reasons you're bothering us and not fucking your sister? She have a headache?

"well here is the old double B at it again.

we are at war"

Who are we at war with? Who is their leader? Who can surrender to us?

"and your comments are proof of the naviete that will get many more americans killed. what will it take? anopther city lost to terrorists?"

We haven't lost any cities yet, and if we did lose a city--who should we attack? There is every likelyhood that the 911 attack was aided by Bush and Cheney. We may be after the wrong terrorists.

"these bastards declared war on us during the clinton presidency"

What bastards are you talking about? Who are they and where are they? How do we know who to shoot? Wait till they take the first shot?

"and it is precisley things like this ruling that caused them to keep going and get bigger andnbigger and then finnaly the world trade center."

These are not soldiers. They belong to no army. If they are guilty of anything, it is criminal activity. They are criminals, and criminals have their day in court. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone in American society. If you take that away--the terrorists have truly won since they have destroyed the foundations of America. Finding out who is guilty and innocent should be a priority, not something to be avoided. At least by an honest nation. A nation with morals and a leader in human rights.


"now you are a pretty smart guy, so why cant you see that they have been at war with us for some time now?"

What they are you talking about? How large is their army? How will we know when we've won?

"and if you still dont think that, then what do you call the cole and the first WTC and the embassies and finnaly 9/11?"

Criminal actions motivated by reliious and political zealots. We got the guys on the first WTC attack, and the Cole---where's bin Laden after 4000 lives and billions upon billions?


"please let me see into this naive thinking on this subject."

Please let me know what army is in the field against us? What country are we at war with? Who is their leader? Who can surrender to us? How will we know when we've won? Please let me see into the warped sense of reality on the right.

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-06-13 10:48 PM | Reply

BBob

What they are you talking about? How large is their army? How will we know when we've won?

Exactly. Who signs the Declaration of Surrender when it's a full scale civil war consisting of multi-tribes, multi-clans, multi-religous factions all fighting each other, not to mention all of them fighting our own troops.

What a mess.

Good lord, nulli. The longer this goes on the more I'm convinced november will be a blowout.

I almost feel sorry for McCain.

From wonkette:

Patty Dumpling says at 12:04 pm, June 3rd, 2008
- Reply I know an ex-military, ex-first responder pastor!

Jeremiah Wright. Perfect!

ROFLMAO!

"The longer this goes on the more I'm convinced november will be a blowout."

The only thing I'm worried about is the inevitable movement to replace McCain as the nominee. The tension at the RNC and among down ticket candidates has to be tremendous as they watch McBush self-destruct.

It won't be too hard to pick the winner from all three submissions.

Donner--

My friend does it say in there that all Americans are created equal? .. no it says All Men.

So, either we hold these Truths to be self evident or not. All men have rights. All men should be treated as Americans would be treated. It is the American dream. Why in the hell would we be trying to "spread Democracy" if that were not so?


You are mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Null-the only one who is going to self-destruct is your man Obama..

something a kneejerker like you wouldn't and cannot comprehend apparently

Posted by kwrx25 at 2008-06-13 01:13 PM

bah! you showed your hate for the Constitution. You showed your lack of understanding of the SC decision and I called you on it and you resorted to the BIG FU... so sad for you!

The fact, is it was the correct decision and a slap in the face to Bushco and his NEOCON WAR policies. The third slap by the SC... (is he out yet?).

You see Bush has been flouting and trashing the Constitution by Torture and Rendition and Gitmo in HIS dirty WAR and it is a Major failed policy of his and a failure of ours as a Nation to call him on it. Of course when we capture a criminal and take them into custody and bring them onto our soil ANYWHERE (GITMO) or ANY SECRET PRISON then they do have rights under our Constitution. Because we do believe that These Truths are Self-Evident! No matter where we are...even if we happen to be on Mars.

Sooooo, It is done.

Now, it is your turn to "Get over it" and like it. (can I hear a big "Fuck You!")

It WAS the right decision.

Now look at the reactions and you can see who is going to continue to make the right decisions.

Hint...It will not be anyone on the McBush wagon!

You are mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Null-the only one who is going to self-destruct is your man Obama..

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-14 02:21 PM


No, I am not... there are fundamental beliefs of what this country is founded on in each document.



And you keep putting those pins in yer Obama voodoo doll hoping that Obama trips up... Our man Obama is gonna wipe the floor with poor ole McCain...intelligence over senility...yah looks bad for Obama!

so sorry Rethugs ... gonna be a bad year..err decade fer you!


but it is a good strategy, really! you keep it up!

Re: how is it that non-American citizens have rights under the constitution.

honest question, can anyone explain that?

You are kidding, of course. Are you saying that a Frenchman, say, who has a bank account in Alabama, and Alabama seizes the account and refuses to pay him back has no right to sue Alabama in federal court?

Of course he does. The issue in the latest case was not that the people involved were not US citizens or US residents, it was whether the place involved was really the USA. The court ruled that Guantanamo is really the USA for legal purposes since it is "de facto" a US sovereign possession.

The Bush administration is particularly pissed about that because they really believed they could get away with keeping the prisoners in a kind of limbo forever and they thought that Gitmo was an ideal place for limbo since it is legally Cuba. (If anyone had thought to bring a Habeus Corpus suit in a CUBAN court, they would have argued that it is USA I'm sure.)

The fact is the Geneva Convention does not even apply to terrorists, but we can just make up things as we go.

Please let me know what army is in the field against us? What country are we at war with? Who is their leader? Who can surrender to us? How will we know when we've won? Please let me see into the warped sense of reality on the right.

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-06-13 10:48 PM | Reply

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at

oh bob.and you too chris......I guess we could take kalid and put him on a ship and make him sign something.......NOT....
again, that sounds real good and all that but you are overlooking....NO your not....you are ignoring that this isnt a war like 1 or 2 but a war against an enemy who doesnt get out in a field somewhere and lines up like the revolution and just fires muskets at each other and then its a race to see who can reload first......THAT KIND OF WAR IS OVER......and now we are fighting a war in the streets and a war against thier BANK ACCOUNTS and cell phones and all of the modern day war 'toys' they have acquired.....
I just dont know for the life of me why you smart guys cant figure that out....and THEN I KNOW.....if you knew that you would have to agree with bush and thats something that just isnt allowed.....

BL2

Answer up or shut up.

How do we know who to shoot. What country are we at war with? Who is their leader? Who can surrender to us? How will we know when we've won? Please let me see into the warped sense of reality on the right.

Re: we are at war and your comments are proof of the naviete that will get many more americans killed. what will it take? anopther city lost to terrorists?

For people who really think that we are at war I always like to ask if they know of the Steel Seizure Case. That case (really know as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) ) was over the issue whether the president, in that case Truman, who had seized steel mills under his rights as commander in chief, has the right to seize property in time of war. Truman lost.

There were many different reasons that the Supreme Court ruled against Truman, ruling that he had NO right to seize the steel mills, but many of them were along the lines that Korea was not really really a war since it had not been declared officially by Congress. If it had been a real war, an official war, Truman would have had the right to seize the steel mills.

Now you, and some of the Supreme Court justices, such as Scalia who said: America is at war with radical Islamists" may say that the USA is at war, but is it the kind of war in which the president (Obama, say) can seize steel mills? If so, he can seize your house or your bank account. Is it really that kind of a war? Or is it more like "the war against cancer" or "the war against drugs." (Anyone hear anything about that one lately? It seems we are so involved in "the war on terror" that we forget "the war against drugs.")

In any case, the Congress has not officially declared a war on terror, though it did authorize the president to take war-like measures following 911.

Re: The fact is the Geneva Convention does not even apply to terrorists, but we can just make up things as we go.

That is right. It applies to prisoners of war. But most of those at Guantanamo were taken on battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the issue in their case is over whether they are legitimate prisoners of war (POWs)or what the Military Commissions Act calls "illegal combatants." If they are found to be "illegal combatants" under the MCA, they need not be treated as POWs and can be tried for various crimes. But, if they are found to be ordinary POWs, not "illegal", then they have to be treated as ordinary POWs and afforded their Geneva Convention rights, which probably means that they have to be returned to POW camps, allowed to write letters to their relatives, Etc.

I did a little more digging and looked at the Cuban ~ American Treaty signed in 1903.

ARTICLE III

While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof.