Would "Common sense" be a good answer>

Basically you can't make shit up...

Because this Administration feels that they are above the Law. Thats what the Courts are all about controlling these ASSHOLES.

The Fascist Four will back Bush without even hearing the facts. herm

okay but here is something to ask.......
I have read from so many of you that this isnt a war....and yet here your little thread starts off like this

The Supreme Court has rebuked a president during wartime only rarely during the nation's history

so who's right.....they say its a time of war, but you guys talk like they are just common thiefs......

GENTLEMEN AND LADIES......AND you who have already posted here.......( AH...ba dump dump)


I may have had an epiphany (SP)....and no it wasnt something I discovered after this morning shit......
george will this morning, just may have gotten it right.
he said that both sides are exaggerating and that this ruling does not say that we cant hold them. it says that we have to find out if they are guilty or not and that is sort of....stretching it I know....what I and a couple of others have said.
but at the same time I am concerned because of what I heard krystle say.......and he asked...does this mean that some local judge will have to decide what some cia agent or the like has done in basra or something like that.......and I agree with hume too who talked about the military system in place can work....

so I guess my question is.....are we over reacting because of the importance to our welfare and security that the RELEASE OF these people and/or information that might come to light because of any trials that may happen..

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

(YES thats me thinking and YES.......every now and then)

I figure they just recognize what a terrible blunder they made in 2000 and have committed themselves to spending the rest of their careers trying to make it up to America.

Just as those who voted for Dubya, the Supremes who supported him, they own 9-11, the failures in afghanistan and Iraq, the economy....

If you are basing it on this last decision, you are f****d. The last decision was a pile of crap.

This is far from a unique situation.. the lifetime tenure of the position means that the Justice who is appointed will likely far outlive the term of the President, and thus give the person appointed freedom to be independent.

One of many examples is Earl Warren, whom Eisenhower expected to be a moderate conservative but ended up overseeing many landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda, causing Ike to call his appointment of Warren "the biggest damn-fool decision I ever made"

Tis funny. The right hates it when the US Constitution is upheld. Too funny.

Larry Mohr

and of course the fact that this HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE has nothing to do with it???? please......

and remember there is nothing in the constitution about the feds having a dept of education and all that.......how many things that are supposed to be states rights because they were not spelled out in the constitution has the SC ruled on? just wondering....

one more time......the main thing is the different definition of enemy combatants and whether even IF its a war or not.
if you think it is, you have a whole different take on it than if you dont.......and that seems to be the place to really debate on.

"Why This Court Keeps Rebuking Bush"

Simple really. There are only 4 out of 9 of the judges who will rubber stamp his criminal offenses against established law and the constitution.

Tis funny. The right hates it when the US Constitution is upheld. Too funny.

Posted by LarryMohr

Tis funny lar that you think the US constitution applies to the entire world. IT DOSEN'T!!!!

It applies to US citizens and people who are here in the US leagly. I don't even think it applies to anyone who is here in the US illeagly.

It certainly dosen't apply to foreign countries.

It applies to US citizens and people who are here in the US leagly. I don't even think it applies to anyone who is here in the US illeagly.


It certainly dosen't apply to foreign countries.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-06-15 06:41 PM | Reply

It covers anyone in Her jurisdiction.

Larry Mohr

and apparently it also covers anyone who wants to kill you and me and replace our government with muslimicity......HEY look a new word.........

"Tis funny lar that you think the US constitution applies to the entire world. IT DOSEN'T!!!! It applies to US citizens and people who are here in the US leagly. I don't even think it applies to anyone who is here in the US illeagly. It certainly dosen't apply to foreign countries."

You poor illiterate slob, basic human rights and basic human dignity apply to everyone, everywhere, every time. The five non-fascists understand that; why don't you? herm

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which part of that magnificent statement do you find limited to the US soil?

It says for the United States of America because that is the only place thoes virtues could be enforced by our self rule.

Most importantly it is not a limiting document, it doesn't alienate anyone.

It expresses ideals to be be admired and copied by all.

To deny those beliefs to others is truly sacrilegious of the beliefs we hold most dear.

Ok for the sake of argument that the detainees are all guilty. They committed acts of terrorism. What is so wrong with allowing these folks their impartial days in court?? I mean if You want to not accord these folks their rights under our Constitution. Aren't we lowering ourselves to their standards?? This is supposed to be America with the Rule of Law is supreme. If they are guilty then it should be easy to prove and then convict and send them to prison.
Larry Mohr

You poor illiterate slob...


Posted by herm at 2008-06-15 08:04 PM | Repl

Yet another example of how senile and stupid this little hermaphrodite is...

Just minutes ago you were wetting your adult diaper about the name calling as opposed to debate.

How many Sundays do you figure you've got left old man? Boo!

Re: "they say its a time of war, but you guys talk like they are just common thiefs......"

A lot of people are getting confused between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are real wars, and the so-called "War on Terror" which some people think is a real war, and some think SHOULD be considered a real war, and others think should NOT be considered a real war. The Supreme Court's ruling is a blow to the idea that the War on Terror is a real war.

Under that concept Bush initially thought he could just pick up anyone walking down a street anywhere in the world (including the USA, until US courts knocked down that idea) and charge that person with being a terrorist and hold that person FOREVER.

If you think that Bush should have all or most of that power, well then naturally you are disappointed by the court's ruling. But you may just be confused by the two senses in which war is used in this case: the real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror."

The laws of war apply without question to Iraq and Afghanistan. If a person is seized on the battlefield in Iraq and kept in Iraq (and NOT transferred to Guantanamo) he will be dealt with under the laws of war. The Supreme Court's ruling applies ONLY to territory that is under de facto control of the US, and in this case specifically to Guantanamo.

Some of the people in the case were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and charged with being "unlawful enemy combatants" and then transferred to Guantanamo.
Others were captured in places far from the battlefield, such as in Bosnia or Gambia. The Supreme Court's ruling pointed out that of those asking for Haebus Corpus "all are foreign nationals, but NONE is a citizen of a country now at war with the United States." It also noted that some of the petitioners "were captured as far away [from a battlefield] as Bosnia or Gambia."

It is clear that all persons in this case are expected to be charged with crimes, either of being "unlawful enemy combatants" (which some countries punish with death) or with terrorism, which also can lead to the death penalty if murder is proved, or terrorism, which can also lead to the death penalty if people were killed as a result of an act of terrorism. So obviously these are criminal cases.

So, two issues arise: 1) is Guantanamo US territory for the purposes of the Supreme Court making a ruling on legal issues; and 2) Do persons accused of crimes who are now in Guantanamo have enough rights under the Military Commissions Act to override the clear provision of the constitution that Habeus Corpus cannot be suspended.

The court ruled that Gitmo is de facto US territory and that therefore Habeus Corpus can NOT be suspended (not even by BOTH Congress and the President acting together), and it ruled that the Military Commissions Act is not as good as Habeus Corpus. The result is that the accused have the right to demand that the government present enough evidence to show that there is a real case against them before a US federal court.

But, as George Will, a conservative commentator, pointed out today, this is not a big deal. He presumes that the US government has some evidence in virtually every case, and it should be glad to present that evidence to show that it has been doing a good job in collecting evidence and to show "how bad these guys are."

Re: ""Tis funny lar that you think the US constitution applies to the entire world. IT DOSEN'T!!!!"

Quite right. The Supreme Court's ruling discusses in great detail where the constitution applies and where it does not apply. But the court comes to the conclusion that the Constitution applies to Guantanamo, and that's all that matters.

And why would you ever think Guantanamo should be treated as a foreign country? In what way is Gitmo NOT effectively US territory? The government had taken the very silly approach of claiming that Guantanamo is really Cuban territory. Absurd.

Tis funny lar that you think the US constitution applies to the entire world. IT DOSEN'T!!!!

It applies to US citizens and people who are here in the US leagly. I don't even think it applies to anyone who is here in the US illeagly.

It certainly dosen't apply to foreign countries.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-06-15 06:41 PM | Reply

So the implication here is.... The Bush administration has free reign to torture the Fuck out of anyone they want...Justification not necessary....Throw someone in Gitmo with no chance at due process of law. This is the new America that Conservative Republicans have made for us folks !


One of the greatest questions of my life has been.... How could the German people have just ignored the Nazi's and allowed them to torture and send 6 million Jews and other ethic groups to the deaths thru murder and gassing in concentration camps?

And then you see Asshole responses like the one above and understand perfectly.

Can we all sing the song ..."And I'm proud to be an American" now?

But, as George Will, a conservative commentator, pointed out today, this is not a big deal. He presumes that the US government has some evidence in virtually every case, and it should be glad to present that evidence to show that it has been doing a good job in collecting evidence and to show "how bad these guys are."

Posted by smrstrauss

I said this earlier and I am beginning to think that too....HOWEVER, as I also said what krystle brought up.
so some local district judge is going to pass judgement on cia and other intelligence scources or groups? and as always, I fear that too much information could compromise the people in the field who are keeping us safe WITH NO ATTACKS SINCE 9/11.........
and I do agree that we on the right need to hold off of our charge that this automatically means that all of them will be in the streets shooting at our troops....ALTHOUGH I also think that possibility does exist..........

And just think.

All of this could have been avoided had we not coined the new term "enemy combatant".

All you had to do was call them prisoners of war and treat them humanely. But instead, you had to call them criminals. Well, criminals usually get put on trial. How long did the administration intend to hold these "criminals" before giving them a day in court and allowing justice to take over?

Indefinitely, it appears.

Folks, again, this ain't about left or right, demodumbass or rethuglican.

This is about a principle that transcends all that crap.

This is about what makes this country what it is. It is unfortunate to the left or the right when they think the law of the land is too cumbersome to achieve what they want to achieve. So they try to change the law.

But luckily, there is a group (the supreme court) that doesn't have to rely on any kind of politics or even looking for a job later, so they can interpret the laws at least marginally more unbiased than others.

The reason they are blasting Bush is because he continually breaks the law, period.

SCOTUS has decided for the decider.

Cheney can do whatever he wants, but Shrub can't.

BLT: No attacks since 9-11? I guess those anthrax attacks that killed as many Americans as WTC 1 were just figments of the librul media's imagination. and that Airbus that fell apart over NJ? happens every day, right?

Sounds like the beat goes on:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. has failed to convince the Supreme Court to halt a human rights lawsuit against it.
The justices, without comment, on Monday rejected the energy company's appeal of a ruling on a 2001 lawsuit filed by International Rights Advocates on behalf of 11 villagers in Indonesia's Aceh province.


The suit, which did not seek a specific amount of damages, alleged that members of the Indonesian military committed rampant human rights abuses against the villagers while under Exxon's employ to guard a natural gas facility. The Indonesian government has been accused of brutally repressing separatist efforts in Aceh in the 1990s.

Lawyers for Exxon argued in a federal district court that the case should be dismissed because it involves issues of international relations that should be left to the executive branch.

The Constitution is more powerful than any President and will outlast us all.

Go America!

As for the whinners like snippy... the Constitution does not "cover" Foreigners until or unless we take them into custody and bring them to our "soil". Then being as we Americans are aware that WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT...then it then becomes our responsibility to protect the rights of those humans that are in our care.

If you do not wish to "share" our Constitution and Democracy with "foreigners" quit capturing them and taking them into custody and to our "soil". Try them in their own courts then.

The Constitution is more powerful than any President and will outlast us all.
DONNERBOY

The scary thing is, some of them are doing their damnedest to see that it doesn't.

"The last decision was a pile of crap.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-06-15 04:44 PM"

That is a very persuasive argument you make there, Prof. Snipe. The cites to precedent, the illumination of the gaps in logic, a masterpiece for sure.

The scary thing is, some of them are doing their damnedest to see that it doesn't.

Posted by BobOtto at 2008-06-16 12:23 PM

Freedom is not free. It requires constant vigilance against the forces of Tyranny.

Sic Semper Tyrannis!