Bush wins. America and the world is a bit safer.

Safer? Although I understand teh bar's position, I'd say the dictators of the world made a stride forward.

It's probably a good thing Bush really doesn't like to travel all that much. More than one country is going to have indictments ready for him at some point if he ever lands on their territory. The irony will be, of course, that they'll all make damned sure he gets a lawyer.

I didn't even know Gitmo had a legal system.

"backing out of an agreement to find lawyers for Guantanamo detainees"

Translation: These terrorists can't sue Pfizer or some doctor for $50 million (including our 60%) so no lawyer is interested.

Hey, vern, have you been humming this to yourself:

Wow Hans, you managed to drag out two exhausted themes in one meaningless post! Completely unrelated to the topic.

I guess you've been sitting in front of your computer all day, just waiting to pounce! Well done!

I read a book, took a walk with my lovely wife, fussed with my motorcycle, and cooked dinner. Meanwhile, you sat in front of your monitor, breathing hard and savoring the moment when you could make that post!

Congrats! What a fulfilling life you lead!

I can see that putting down Algore really twisted your gizzard! And the best you can do is a pale imitation of me!

HAR~! HAR!~

Loser~!

"two exhausted themes"

Your mathematical expertise is a source for much hilarity here... having entering the Drudge lexicon as a given.

Same thing with your oil pricing acumen.

Hardly "exhausted" anything.

HAR~! HAR!~

Hans

all those shithouse lawyers belong in Gitmo, or better yet abu Grab.

Many a good american has been tainted by this administration. The bar simply is the latest to remove themselves from this abortion, ala Colin Powell and several others.

This must have been a difficult decision for them. I think they got it wrong. Some legal help and due process is important even if that temporary resident of the White House and his secret police have turned America's adherence to the rule of law into a sick joke.

Get in there and represent them. Sign whatever bullshit piece of paper demanding secrecy those assholes put in front of you. Ignore it, go to the public and the media with the facts, go to jail and wait for a real President, pray to God it isn't Giuliani, to pardon you.

Uh huh.

Well, as soon as President Hillary! sets foot in the White House, she can let all of the Gitmo boys go home.

Anyone wanna bet that she won't?

Still, this is yet another issue that Congress can weigh in on--they are run by the Dems now. So how about some legislation that de-funds Guantanamo Bay? Write your Congressmen, liberals--show some balls for a change. Easy to come on here and bitch and moan behind anonymous usernames. You have liberals in Congress who run the show. Make a phone call, unless that's just too much trouble for you.

No, she won't let them go home. Mr. Right. She'll put them on trial, and many will be convicted.

That's the way America used to work. You do remember that?

On trial for what? They're prisoners of war. So, no--I don't remember that German POW's or Japanese POW's were put on trial. They were rounded up, and kept in camps until the war was over. And they were treated on the whole a damn sight better than American POW's who suffered at their hands.

Just like today.

They're prisoners of war.

Really? I thought they were classified as "unlawful combatants" so they would not be considered "prisoners of war" and therefore couldn't be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Has this chagned?

They're unlawful combatants that we took prisoner.

But why get so worked up about it? Don't you have a Congress now who can deal with this? After all, you voted out all those pro-war hawks who were only out to strip us of our Constitutional rights. So where are the hearings? Where are Hillary and Obama and Biden to draft legislation that closes Gitmo?

When your own candidates start to take you seriously, feel free to come back.

You're straying from the point. You said, "They're prisoners of war." Not according to the government with which you appear to agree. The muddying of terms and facts is something at which the current administration excels. Try for a little precision, ok? When you get to that point, feel free to come back. Or not.

Doc, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, Sarvis says, "Really? I thought they were classified as "unlawful combatants" so they would not be considered "prisoners of war" and therefore couldn't be protected by the Geneva Conventions."

It is treasonous to support losing a war the entire nation is fighting justifiably, or allowing it to be lost, but the government is not out arresting the greedy party subversives of the Leftist/Democratics! Why not, if conservatives are such nazis, fascists, stupid war mongers, bumbling fools and intransigent dictators?

Because we are the kind of nation that imprisons those who could be shot, on the spot, as spies, saboteurs or "unlawful combatants"? Then, allows dissidents to mock and revile our actions of humanity in caring for them while confined away from the battle that is still taking place.

What a great nation this is, huh? During WWII, you would have been arrested for your words and confined after being found guilty of sedition for your words ... under a Democratic leadership, Pentagon and commander in chief ...

You're one lucky SOB, know that?

Not according to the government with which you appear to agree. The muddying of terms and facts is something at which the current administration excels. Try for a little precision, ok?
* * * *

Well, there are three branches of the government, isn't there? And so far the judiciary has agreed with the executive, with the new Democrat-controlled legislature yet to weigh in. If you want clarification, why not go to them? I'm just a guy on a 'blog, after all. What does Hillary think about it?

Do you even know?

Oh great more emotional vomit from Taddy Boy. Why am I NOT Surprised. He needs a mental kaopectate and a couple mental Tums. Maybe then He would feel better and come to terms with reality and the fucking truth for once in His life.

Larry

Fair enough, I will answer. They were captured on a foreign battlefield making war on US forces, so they can be imprisoned for the duration of the war, should we so choose. But since they also were not in uniform, nor a member of a recognized military unit with official rank--they are unlawful combatants. Just like when a commando dresses in civilian clothes to blow up something, if captured, he can be shot on sight. Or not. This is true irrespective of whether the commando's country or its enemy were signatories to Geneva--it's against the law of war to make war when not in uniform.

Again, though--where is the legislation? Am I to assume that the Democratic Party supports the goings-on at Guantanamo Bay?

I have no idea what Hillary thinks about it, RIR. You still need to deal with the fact that you evidently didn't know how the US government classified the inmates a Guantanamo.

As for Tad, well, what's to say? He's just fucking bonkers. (Yes, Tad, your posts ARE about you.)

The important point in this article is that the ABA has made it clear that they're not going to provide an air of legitimacy to the Bush Administration's classification and treatment of the prisoners. A good and wise step for the organization.

RIR You would have a point if Afghansiatn had Military Uniforms and such. Oh and let Me remind You that Protocol 1 of the Genenva Convention states that Unlawful COmbatants are not to be called Prisoners of War BUT nontheless they are accorded every right as a POW. Oh and they are allowed to challenge their detainment.

Larry

That's not what Protocol I is about.

Sure it is RIR do check it out sometime. You might learn something.

Larry

Once upon a time, I had to memorize the Geneva treaties and protocols. And protocol I was put in in the late 70's, and involved insurrection against a racist regime. I don't remember them word-for-word anymore, but it has nothing to do with what's going on here. And even so, the courts and the Congress seem to disagree with you, if their silence on the subject is anything to go by.

RIR try Protocol 1 Subsection 43 on. You might learn something. Oh and their silence doesn't mean squat it just means thy are't doing their Job.

Larry

Oh and let Me also Remind Yu RIWrog yet again that the Supreme Court declared they had a right to challenge their detentions in Court.

Larry

Kind of moot isn't it? No declaration of war by the only body empowered by the U.S. Constitution to declare it. Life was so much simpler when the government of the U.S. operated in accordance with the Constitution.

23 years in uniformed service, 3 years working for an alphabet agency, and I always considered myself one of the good guys. My kids are in this one. Wish they weren't.

USN says, "23 years in uniformed service, 3 years working for an alphabet agency, and I always considered myself one of the good guys. My kids are in this one. Wish they weren't."

What changed your mind, then? This war wasn't like the undeclared war in Bosnia, two airwars against Iraq for WMD, an assassination plot in Somalia, or deposing one murderous despot in Haiti with another? Were you a "good guy" then? Or, were you a "good guy" without a war to fight?

Now that you have an investment in this one ... you become faint of heart and talk of the power of Congress to Declare War ... not declare war. If congress provides funds, then war is declared. Otherwise, you'll prove that all but 5 of USA's wars are "illegal" and we're the worst, most fascist and bloodthirsty tyrants in history, and you and your family are supporters of that evil!

'63 - 86 Tadpole. Look it up. More wars than you've ever seen.

So please go to your room--the grownups need to talk.

Fresno500, the world's first apologist for the bar. Or was that pathetic statement just a self-serving statement from a member of it?

USN says, "'63 - 86 Tadpole. Look it up. More wars than you've ever seen."

Mine was '60-'73, and was RIFfed by a Democratic Congress, after they treasonously lost the war in Vietnam, on purpose.

"So please go to your room--the grownups need to talk."

You're a Democratic ... nothing more need be said, and because you hold party above nation.

BTW, I'll take that back if you can produce one post you made defaming Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq airwars, or Haiti invasion. The attack on Iran? Nearly starting a war with Russia over an airport? Bombing Chinese embassy? Burning to death Americans and their children to get one man for weapons charges?

Go ahead, son, tell me all about it ...

Sadly, I must concede the point, Tad is so bizarrely right-winged you can't have a decent conversation with him. Therefore, no more trying from me.

"On trial for what....?"

A good question. If tried, many Gitmo prisoners will be able to use the quite valid defense they were actually part of the armed forces of their country, taking orders from their government under conditions of actual warfare.

Before ya'll spaz out, this is nothing more than what Colin Powell thought in 2003.

Understanding this defense is possible is one big reason Bush hasn't wasted his time on trials. It's too possible someone might actually get off.