Anf id some of those Gtmo prisoners do turn out to be violant it might be because no one likes being locked up in prison while being torturd for 5 or 6 years without being able to challenge the detention in a court. You'd be angry too if they interrupted and fucked up your life in that way, angry enough that if you weren't a terrorist before, you would gladly become one now.

AMEN Member You got that 100% Correct.

Larry Mohr

I got two words for you, Antonin Scalia: Vaffanculo.

(With a nod to Robert DeNiro in "Midnight Run," i.e., "Yeah? Well, I got two words for you: Shut the fuck up.")

.........I never thought that a Supreme Court judge would be dumb enough to spout Fox talking points........

..........I was wrong again.........

What a bonehead.

These clowns' terms should be limited.

Libs would love to see terrorists pardoned and returned to fight against our troops because libs are invested in our defeat in Iraq and Afganistan.

Scalia's thinking is so disjointed that it would lead to a country in which it is legal to torture leagally innocent people (not yet convicted), but would be illegal of they are leaglly guilty (convicted). He claims toeture is not punishment. He should be impeached.

Libs would love to see terrorists pardoned and returned to fight against our troops because libs are invested in our defeat in Iraq and Afganistan.

Posted by fwthom at 2008-06-22 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Dude, honestly, you can't be serious?!

Since you have this preconception of what "libs" want.... What the fuck do you want?!?!

The Army Recruiter was at my house last Friday. Do you and the NEO CONS (cons=con artist and conservative) "Want" me to serve them up my son who is facing his 18th birthday???

You're a parrot that hears this shit and can do nothing with it but vomit it at the cost of looking Like a fucking brain dead moron.

get a life and quit kneeling to the alter of the radio gods on the right....

Another Bush failure.

And once again, Reality and the Right don't mix.

"The Army Recruiter was at my house last Friday. Do you and the NEO CONS (cons=con artist and conservative) "Want" me to serve them up my son who is facing his 18th birthday???" - LFT

Recruiters don't visit your home unless someone's allowed them to come. I assume it was your son who had the recruiter visit. How did the visit go? What are your thoughts about it?

URBAN LEGEND, my Ass this is an out right LIE, an Scalia is a fucking LIAR!!! The fact that we have this CLOWN sitting on our Supreme Court is a National Disgrace, him an his house boy Uncle Tom, Clarence Thomas, is reason for all to vote for Obama an get this Court on a more Centerist mode....

And here I thought Supreme Court Justices were supposed to be smart.

My bad.

I hope The Daily Show rips Scalia (et. al.) to shreds over this idiocy.

Damn well know it won't make the broadcast/cable News.

And so it goes.

Sigh.

Recruiters don't visit your home unless someone's allowed them to come. I assume it was your son who had the recruiter visit. How did the visit go? What are your thoughts about it?

Posted by OohRah at 2008-06-22 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

My son has been talking to the guy for sometime now. Yes he was invited I invited him because he's been sneeking around a little...

My son asked me wat I thought. I said don't do it but thats just me... I want to make sure my son gets a fair shake in the deal if he decides to do it.

so here's a question concerning this......sort of.
if we capture the tall guy.......that's bin laden.
who will mirandize him from the cave or where ever we find him........
and when he is in court with his ACLU FREE lawyer, will he have to give up any secrets about planning the murder of so many.....or what????

and is there any doubt AT ALL that if freed, these people will dedicate the rest of their lives to killing us......now DONT GET ME WRONG....on another site I agreed with george will who said this doesnt mean the gates will come open and they the street.........but there are so many other ramifications to this ruling that even JUSTICES who are liberal dont think about the 'unintended consequences'

FWTHOM, BLT, RaH,

What are you waiting for? This country needs you. You believe in this Bizzaro Busco agenda. BushCo needs you in Iraq now. Go for it. The surge is working, its safe now.

LFT-
As you may know our son Bob enlisted in the Marines. He did so during the summer between his junior and senior high school years (age 17, but he would be turning 18 by mid July). Even if we'd refused to grant him permission to enlist, upon shortly turning 18 he'd be free to make that career decision.

I went to college and college was always emphasized as the next step beyond high school for our sons. So it was surprising when he voiced interest in pursuing another path.

The only non-option was for him to fail to attend college or fail to join the military and basically work at Wendy's till he "finds himself."

I don't know about your son's career options - whether college is an option for him. For Bob, college was an option, but he simply didn't know what he wanted to study and didn't want to just go party for four years.

If college isn't an option, would you still prefer he stay away from the military even if his option is essentially working at the mall?

So what, the supreme court has sighted opinions in the past that were based on dis-information generated by a pew foundation 527.

Can someone help me here???

That link says DoD data shows not ONE has attacked Americans, but then the next bullet indicates the DoD has NO mechanism to track their conduct.

So the DoD can't track their conduct, but somehow knows what their conduct is NOT, i.e., attacking Americans. Seems odd.

Furthermore, the link argues for closing down Guantanamo because it negatively affects America's image. But how does closing it down improve our image? That Court's opinion does NOT limit the government's ability to detain people at other foreign locations America does not have control over (as it does in Guantanamo through a lease). Now, based on the Court's opinion -- those detained at Guantanamo NOW have habeas rights etc -- that's MORE protection than detainees at other foreign locations. This opinion seems to say -- "do what you want, just don't do it on land the U.S. controls." By closing Guantanamo down, detainees will have less protection.

If college isn't an option, would you still prefer he stay away from the military even if his option is essentially working at the mall?

Posted by OohRah at 2008-06-22 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

College has been the plan since middle school.
His grades have been lacking recently and coupled with him not really knowing what he wants to do right now is what prompted this.

The choice is his but he'll be 18 when he makes that call.
He values my opinion and wants my input.

I didn't go to college but I worked my way into a professional career with school on the side.

I could put him to work with one of our contractors at the refinery making pretty good money but what he'd be doing would be dangerous and very discouraging to view as a career. maybe thats what he needs.... He works at Winn-Dixie right now (grocery Store)

I just think if we're gonna keep feeding our kids to Iraq my advice is no...

The neighbors kid got back from the 3rd tour last week.

...the supreme court has sighted opinions..."

Yer funny.

"...the supreme court has sighted(sic) opinions..."

Good grief, even Scalia isn't that stupid.

LEFTHANDTHREADS<

If you are lucky that military recruiter will be able to sign your son up and make a man out of him. And you need to buck up and grow a set of balls. Libs have you brain washed. Despite what they and Michelle Obama say, this is a great country.

but there are so many other ramifications to this ruling that even JUSTICES who are liberal dont think about the 'unintended consequences'

Sort of like invading a country without enought troops to do the job and watching the Iranians take it over?

As for mirandizing Osama, we can bet Bush isn't interested in finding him, because that would piss off the saudi royals, who have both on their payrolls.

NORTHGUY,

Are you still wearing tinfoil hats to block signals from outer space? The conspiracy theories you wacky libs dream up are laughable.

Scalia is a Repuglican crime boss, of course he spreads propaganda from the highest court in the land.

But how does closing it down improve our image?

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-22 06:18 PM

Good point. There is nothing that can improve the USA's image in the world.

But, on the off-chance that anyone really gives a fuck about what the rest of the world thinks, putting John McSame in the White House would be the surest way of ratcheting the image down yet another couple of notches, as impossible as that sounds.

Scalia needs to be held accountable. Does the Senate have any authority over these scumbags?

This should make the paper and Scalia should resign but it probably won't happen. Everyone has an opinion but in this case Scalia has his own facts.

Obviously none of you know about the Pew ex-employee who bragged about their agenda driven 527's which made it into the nyt and the post....and then were quoted by the SC.

But why let facts get in the way of your hatred?

US Army- 6 year enlistment 20,000 bonus for many, many fields. Medical,law enforcement ect. Where you can get college paid for,good training and a good paying civilian job when you get out.

If this is an urban legend then it was also used in the minority report on the Habeas Corpus Act passed by the Senate with Senators Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, Coburn and Sessions writing a dissenting opinion detailing these subsequent crimes by released detainees. That's who Scalia was quoting. It originated in the Pentagon I believe and was broadcast by CNN and the Washington Post. That's how it got into circulation. If we could trust any of the above perhaps we'd be more inclined to believe them. That's the heart of the problem.

My own gut reaction is that it's probably mostly true but this doesn't alter the fact that Habeas Corpus should not be rescinded at the whim of the president. Particularly when you get a president like Bush whose stupid decisions in the first place like going to war and authorizing torture lead him to Gitmo, the Detention of Terrorists Act and the Military Commissions Act and the subsequent need to cover his ass.

We're supposed to put our constitutional rights at risk for the benefit of the likes of Bush and Cheney? I don't think so.

My own gut reaction is that it's probably mostly true

You may want to read the linked pdf in the article. I'll short-cut that a bit for you:

This is a suprise? Appointed for life? They are part of the elite, corrupt few who control our lives. And throw in state governers and local judges also they make the decisions that effect most of the sheeple. Just over 30% vote and ,what about 80% know the winner of American idol?wtf is wrong here.

I am so sick of hearing the Kool-Aid drinking Far Out Right parroting that only THEY are patriotic Americans. Are you kidding me? You all sit there with smug faces while the country we ALL love is heading over a cliff in a handbasket! True patriots care enough about their country to speak up (and have, thank God and the Founding Fathers, the freedon to do so...at least until the present mis-administration polluted the White House and Capitol Hill) when it heads in the wrong direction. To hear that a Supreme Court Justice uses urban legends as TRUTH in writing an opinion should send cold chills down the backs of each and every citizen of the United States! This is beyond the pale and simply cannot be allowed to go unremarked. Of course nothing will happen here except to make Scalia look the fool he is to those who care enough to actually READ the news. And there are too few of us these days.

What about sleeping on the bench and Judges using"self pleasuring devices" while hearing cases? Gotta love that

Life long appointments are at least in todays world not protecting the people. Since it is not easy to impeach anyone from anywhere we need to reshape the appointment system.

A 20 year minimum with of course the usual provision for impeachment. If the justice in question hasn't performed improperly(as determined by ???) then the justice would if he/she desires, be permitted a second term.

Anyone serving on the court must also be medically sound of mind and if deemed important of body. It seems almost a no brainer that an eighty year old man/woman is out of step with society in general.

It is true that the cases heard by the Supreme Court are issues of constitutional question. They don't hear just anything. If and only if a matter involving whether the constitution is involved and just how it is, is their meat.

The problem most of us see is that a very narrow minded Justice will be appointed to "stack the deck" as in the appointments of late by the President.

A new method that would require a Constitutional Amendment is need to assure complete adherence to that of named document as well as total competence. If we were able to have utter neutrality in the selection of our Justices how much better their performance.

Justices not for the right or the left but, for the people.

Posted by BlueInBushland at 2008-06-23 09:27 AM

My own gut reaction is that it's probably mostly true but this doesn't alter the fact that Habeas Corpus should not be rescinded at the whim of the president.

The "extension" of judicial protection to people apprehended on the field of battle opens a can of worms that operates to our detriment. We don't "collect evidence" when taking prisoners. It's a different process and the milieu is not conducive to that. You have a mission that supersedes other concerns, and then there is the matter of your survival. It's not the leisurely collection of evidence and interview of witnesses situation.

And insofar as the detainees are concerned, there are dossiers and informants in an intelligence gathering situation. The exposure of informants can lead to their deaths and that of their families, and severely compromise our ability to recruit sources.

The Islamics have taken advantage of our system as enabling them to more readily do us harm.

The detainees are in a different situation than citizens, and the extension of protections to them does not take note of the situation in which we live. Those oblivious to reality are not those such as Scalia, but the other Justices, who have put our citizenry at risk by their inability to distinguish among different kinds of activity.

Many of the Justices have led sheltered lives and are prisoners of their backgrounds, enscounced as they are in verbal abstractions that are not grounded in reality, and operating on the basis of legal fictions.

We're supposed to put our constitutional rights at risk for the benefit of the likes of Bush and Cheney? I don't think so.

The rights to live and be free from harm are important to the American people. President Bush and VP Cheney will be protected. The attacks are on targets such as those selected by the blind sheikh, and other targets worldwide, of people who are vulnerable. All Americans are protected by restrictions on terrorists. It is a category that we need to recognize and to which we need to adapt a reasonable response. Nowadays fewer and fewer people have the ability to do greater and greater harm to more victims. We need to remain cognizant of that.

Due to the ideological impetus that has driven Islamics to try to do harm to non-believers, we are at risk. There has been a resurgence of terrorist activity propelled in part by oil wealth and the rise of militants over the past 75 years, or so. But the enmity to the United States is traceable to our conflict with the Barbary Pirates, who informed our Ambassadors, who could not understand the motivation for the depredations that even then, the Islamics were on a jihad against non-believers.

Re: so here's a question concerning this......sort of. if we capture the tall guy.......that's bin laden. who will mirandize him from the cave or where ever we find him........
and when he is in court with his ACLU FREE lawyer, will he have to give up any secrets about planning the murder of so many.....or what????

Well, first Bin Laden is a millionaire, so no free lawyer unless Bin Laden proves that he has no money, and just doing that would be embarrassing ("Hey Americans, help me out. I'm Poor. I'm Poor!") to Bin Laden.

They next point is that we may WANT to try Bin Laden and not because a trial gives him rights. Instead, a trial is the only way to dramatize again just how bad 911 was and how evil Bin Laden is. This is why the Allies had Nuremburg and why the Israelis tried Adolph Eichmann.

Then, Bin Laden would probably prefer a swift bullet to the head over a long drawn out trials process. Why? Because he would think that a summary execution or death in combat will help his cause, make him a martyr among Muslims, where sitting in a public trial makes him look like a creep. And he would prefer to exit like a hero.

The next point is the assumption that if we bring Bin Laden to trial he has a chance of winning. This takes little effort to disprove. In his first trial, the federal trial, he would be charged with terrorism, attempted terrorism, some 3,000 first degree murders, ditto for second degree murders, ditto for manslaughter, ditto for kidnapping.

The jury would see again the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, hear the accounts of people jumping to their deaths, hear their last recordings to their families. No, I do not think there is much chance of him being found NOT guilty.

Then, perhaps you did not know, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT double jeopardy to be tried for a crime in a federal court and then for the exact same crime in a state court. Indeed, that it a States' Right. So then there could be three additional trials: in New York criminal court, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is unlikely that he would be found innocent of all charges in all four trials.

And then, in the extremely unlikely event that Bin Laden were to win all four trials, why then we can extradite him to another country that is seeking to try him. One of them is Saudi Arabia, where he has absolutely no chance of winning a trial (the royal family hates him) and they cut peoples' heads off. Of course, he could fight extradition to Saudia Arabia, but that would also be embarrassing to him (it would imply that he admitted that the USA is better than a Muslim country, at least for a criminal) and he would have little chance of winning that suit.

Of course, all this is absurd; we haven't even come close to capturing Bin Laden. But I did want to make the point that giving someone the right to trial is not necessarily a great benefit to them. Indeed, it can be a benefit to us. First, it shows the world that the USA is fair and humane, a long-term benefit. Then it shows the world that the criminal is miserable and evil.

Now you could get some of this benefit by trying him at a military commission under the MCA, but nowhere near to the extent. Think of the difficulty of holding very public trials, with hundreds or thousands of journalists at Guantanamo.

Think also, the judges at MCA trials are essentially military legal bureaucrats. If they see evidence that some 3,000 people died, they do not need to see the pain and suffering again. In other words, the trial would hardly be as dramatic as an ordinary criminal court trial.

And finally, the guilty sentence pronouncement from a military court would be a simple "guilty," but the statement from a criminal court judge would be likely to be along the lines: "I have sentenced rapists and murderers, but no one was as contemptible as you."

If Osama wants a legal aid court appointed lawyer, I say we give him one... One who shows up to court drunk, passes out half way through the proceedings, and has nowhere near the the resources necessary to provide the defense a defendant deserves.... then Osama can spend the next xx number of years in the appeals process. his dialsysis needing ass should be dead before then.

If Osama wants a legal aid court appointed lawyer, I say we give him one... One who shows up to court drunk, passes out half way through the proceedings, and has nowhere near the the resources necessary to provide the defense a defendant deserves....
Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-06-23 01:08 PM

Kuma?

Kuma?

Posted by redlightrobot at 2008-06-23 01:23 PM | Reply

Bailiff- All rise
Kuma- Defense rest

Bailiff- All rise
Kuma- Defense rest

Posted by 101Chairborne

COL!! Choking on my lunch.

Are we not tired of the Hollow Lies yet?

Are we not tired of the Hollow Lies yet?

Posted by donnerboy

If you say it enough times, eventually it becomes true, even if its false (ouch... that hurt my brain). But if Scalia says it once, it becomes dicta.

"My own gut reaction is that it's probably mostly true"

You may want to read the linked pdf in the article. I'll short-cut that a bit for you:

Funny but you people accept as gospel something from a liberal campus organization. Did they contact the detainees to see where they were at? No, because their research is bogus. Besides what happened to them at GITMO was not torture. Try Googling Daniel Pearl and watch his execution, now that is torture. I bet not one of you has put on the uniform and done one thing for this country, yet you think you have a right to sit in judgement of those who do. You are a bunch of cowards. How about we give the detainees home arrest and all you liberal idiots volunteer to take them in your houses and babysit them until they are to be released? Do you think you would be safe? They'd kill you for being gay or drunkards or druggies or just because you aren't Muslim. So give me a break and shut your ignorant yaps while real men and patriots guard you cowards.

Funny but you people accept as gospel something from a liberal campus organization.

Read the analysis, Fumbduckling.