Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen the U.S. Senate voted in September, 2007, on whether to restore habeas corpus protections for those detained by the United States, the senators who would emerge as the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees for president parted company.
Illinois Democrat Barack Obama embraced the basic Constitutional principle that individuals who are detained by the U.S. government have a right to challenge their detention -- no matter where they are held.
Arizona Republican John McCain rejected the wisdom of the founders of the American experiment and voted against restoring habeas corpus protections for foreign suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and others who are detained by U.S. authorities.
Today, the Supreme Court said Obama was right and McCain was wrong.
A majority that included conservatives and liberals issued a 5-4 decision holding, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, that, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
This was the third time the nation's highest court has rejected the claim of the Bush administration -- and allies such as McCain -- that the military has the authority to hold people it labels "enemy combatants."
During the Democratic presidential primary campaign, more than 125 constitutional lawyers and legal experts signed a "Habeas Lawyers for Obama" letter that read:
Dear Friends:
We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.
The Administration's Guantanamo policies have undercut our values at home and stained our reputation around the world. All of us are lawyers who have worked on the Guantanamo habeas corpus litigation for many years, some of us since early 2002, and we were all deeply involved in opposing the Administration's attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear the Guantanamo cases. We have talked with Senator Obama about why the Guantanamo litigation is so significant, and we have worked closely with Senator Obama in the fight to preserve habeas corpus.
Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration's efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.
The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration's attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues "in his bones."
We urge you to support Senator Obama.
Among the signers of that January 28 letter were: Rear Admiral John Dudley Hutson, U.S. Navy (Ret.), the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1997 to 2000 who currently serves as dean and president of Franklin Pierce Law Center; Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, U.S. Navy (Ret.), the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 2000 to 2002 who currently serves as dean of Duquesne Law School; Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Edwin Chemerinsky, the renowned constitutional law and federal civil procedure scholar and founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at the University of California, Irvine.
Of course, Justice Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, will not be signing the "Habeas Lawyers for Obama" letter. Nor will the other Republican appointees (Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter) who formed the majority of the court's pro-habeas majority that also included Democratic appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. But the justices have made it clear that Obama, a lawyer who has taught constititional law at the University of Chicago Law School, was right in his judgement that -- to, again, quote Kennedy -- "(the framers) deemed the writ (of habeas corpus) to be an essential mechanism in the separation-of-powers scheme."
At least this much will be a change, our next president will know the law & has never displayed contempt for it, unlike so many presidents we've been subjected to. How far will Obama dare go in resuscitating the Constitution, that will be a key Q in his 1st year.
Posted by sloper at 06/12/2008 @ 12:38pm
I am almost hopeful that the rule of law can be restored - if a court that includes Thomas, Roberts and the Scalito twins is willing to decide thus, maybe we aren't too far gone after all.
Expect the spittle to fly as the howler monkeys of the Neoconistas raise their hideous shrieking to fever pitch.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/12/2008 @ 12:48pm
Well you know what they say, "A bird in the had is worth two in the Bush/Mcain".
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Haha. You can expect to see a lot of this Mary. The way to beat McCain with 70% of the US is to tie him to Bush and show them that he is the same.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 12:51pm
I do not believe the general public will like this ruling. It will be spun against the Dems one way or the other, accurate or not.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/12/2008 @ 12:57pm
Not only is McCain a McSame, but so is the rest of the GOP. They enabled, indeed they cheered on & bullied through the measures that have US in the soup. Time for them all to pay their fair share of the bill.
Posted by sloper at 06/12/2008 @ 12:57pm
I think I'm going to have to Rev Wright/Obama my congressman.----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
So Jeremiah Wright and Dubya are analogous in your mind?
Okay.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 1:09pm
BTW, how soon until LVLIB shows up to tell us how Anthony Kennedy "wants to allow terrorists to destroy America!!!!"?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 1:10pm
What do we stand for as citizens of the United State of America when we allow our leaders to choose when to respect and abide by the fundamental principles that this country was founded on: "life, liberty, and justice for all". I'm sure that our founding fathers, persons of infinitely greater wisdom and moral character than any of our current or recent leaders, would prefer to have America be at greater risk of a terrorist attack than to betray the fundamental principles on which this great country was founded and for which our sons and daughters are shedding blood to defend as I write these painful words. The greatest attack on America's soil was neither the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1942 nor the terrorist attack on New York City in 2001. It was and continues to be the rape of our founding principles of life, liberty, and justice for all by the current administration that began shortly after 09/11/2001. Since that day our leaders have had the opportunity to give America the moral high ground, to show to our friends and enemies that we are a defender of justice, but instead, they have chosen to desecrate the memories of those who lost their lives on that fateful morning by pursuing the same actions of those who were responsible for the attacks and who we are condemning as terrorists. The illegal and treasonous attack on the principles that define us as a country and that serve as the bedrock on which this great nation has been built has been more harmful than any previous attack. What right do we have to criticize the oppressive actions of others when our government holds prisoner and tortures in order to obtain false confessions persons whom it knows are innocent? More importantly, how do we as proud and patriotic citizens of this country allow such illegal actions to go unpunished? Why do we allow our current leaders to be above the law? Have we regressed back to the Divine Right of Kings…I do not think so. Although our leaders WILL ultimately answer to God, they currently also answer to us, the citizens, for we are their judge, jury, and executioner. What do we have left when we betray our own morals for the false perception of safety? What kind of America do we leave behind for our children and grandchildren?
Posted by danconstan at 06/12/2008 @ 1:20pm
I suspect Wright is the only person in the US with lower poll numbers than Bush.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
I offer into evidence, Dick Cheney.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by danconstan
here, here....
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2008 @ 1:28pm
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Posted by danconstan at 06/12/2008 @ 1:30pm
BTW, how soon until LVLIB shows up to tell us how Anthony Kennedy "wants to allow terrorists to destroy America!!!!"?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
I am waiting for our resident constitutional scholar PONTI.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:36pm
BTW, how soon until LVLIB shows up to tell us how Anthony Kennedy "wants to allow terrorists to destroy America!!!!"?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
I won't say that but it was a terrible ruling. Fortunately, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito understood International Law that Kennedy and the others seemed to want to ignore.
As noted here by the Conservative members of the Court:
"In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
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."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/
So Mask, this is not merely my view, but 4 of the most notable legal authorities in our country.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:38pm
Perhaps the rest of the world should concern themselves with the log in their own eye before pointing out the speck in ours.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
I don't think this was the rest of the world criticizing us. I think this was American lawyers and Senators criticizing us.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Oddly, Darin, Anthony Kennedy and 4 others with pretty prestigious law degrees and experience disagree with you on ignoring "specks".
But what do THEY know, huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 1:45pm
Do US Citizens enjoy the right of Habeus Corpus in Iran? China? Russia? France? How about Canada?
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Who gives a rat's ass?
This is America and we hold ourselves to be different and to a higher standard than any other nation on earth.
If we do not, there is nothing worth defending.
And yes, it really is that simple.
Oh, and no offense to Frosty.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/12/2008 @ 1:46pm
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."
Sorry, LVLIB. Scalia's reasoning doesn't offer anything even approaching legal analysis. It's a political soundbite.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:47pm
danconstan:[quote]The greatest attack on America's soil was neither the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1942 nor the terrorist attack on New York City in 2001. It was[/quote] to finish your quote with my own opinion- it was when SCOTUS denied the right of this country's citizens to choose their own leader through the basic right to vote. btw this travesty was administered by one person only, ...if any of the treasonous five had cast their vote the other way, there would be no 9/11, no Afghanistan conflict, no Iraq war, no suspension of Habeas Corpus, no unitary executive theory or practice. One man, or woman brought down the whole thing.
Posted by douglaslee at 06/12/2008 @ 1:50pm
I disagree with the decision and this a hugh disappointment. The writ of habeas corpus was designed as a safety measure against unlawful imprisonment for the citizens of the US, not foreign nationals in a time of war. By stripping the military of it's ability to fully prosecute enemy combatants, we will leave ourselves exposed. I know those lawyers are chomping at the bit to open arguments regarding the detainees right to challenge the evidence against their confinement.
One of the first things the lawyers will do is have a bond hearing. Rest assured many of the those detainees (like Sheik Khaled Mohammed) will get bailed out and leave the US.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 1:51pm
Canada has this little thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our Bill of Rights on steroids. And yes habeaus corpus is specifically mentioned and nowhere is it limited to Canadian citizens. So try again Mary. In fact, Canadians are stunned at the actions of their neighbours to the south (with a deference to Frosty in the spelling) and the attitude I get from my Canadian friends is, "What happened to you?"
Posted by yutsano at 06/12/2008 @ 1:53pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
Well, too bad, Antonin was outvoted...by a REAGAN appointee.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 2:01pm
So Mask, this is not merely my view, but 4 of the most notable legal authorities in our country.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
And the other 5 of the most notable legal authorities in the our country said the opposite. I guess you choose to ignore that fact because it doesn't agree with what you feel. They were outnumbered by equally experienced legal authorities. Some of them MORE experienced considering Alito was only appointed to the Supreme court within the Bush term. Only one of the 5 who voted to overturn was appointed during the Bush term. So overall the people who decided to overturn were more experienced or equally as experienced as the sum total of the people who fought the opposite way. But I guess those peoples opinions are wrong and don't matter because they disagree with you right?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:01pm
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
And you KNOW for a fact they're all guilty?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 2:02pm
By stripping the military of it's ability to fully prosecute enemy combatants, we will leave ourselves exposed.
osted by ACook at 06/12/2008
The problem that you seem to be ignoring ACook is that they are NOT prosecuting the detainees. They are holding them indefinitely without EVER hearing their cases. This does not strip the military of the ability to prosecute. It is forcing the military TO prosecute. Holding a detainee indefinitely does nothing. If you KNOW they are guilty then why not actually prosecute the person? You must be off your ball today to ignore such glaring facts in your assessments.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:05pm
Oh yeah, that whole presumption of innocence under the law. Mask you had to bring that up huh? I'm sure that's one of those "Quaint" notions Gonzo wanted to sweep under the rug for his bosses.
Posted by yutsano at 06/12/2008 @ 2:10pm
"By stripping the military of it's ability to fully prosecute enemy combatants, we will leave ourselves exposed."
One of the big problems is that the military has yet to prosecute these enemy combatants after letting them languish at Guantanamo for the past seven years and counting.
Also, prosecution is most effective when the charges are clear and the evidence is strong. There's been a lot of contention about these two crucial elements of justice insofar as the Guantanamo detainees are concerned.
Posted by habiba at 06/12/2008 @ 2:13pm
Is the glass half empty or half full?
The other four Justices are toadies of the Bushes. Two of them gave us Bush v Gore, the worst SC decisions since Dred Scott. The other two were selected by W himself ... and to them loyalty to the Bush brand trumps the Constitution.
... Folks, it's really not any more complicated than that .. EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 06/12/2008 @ 2:13pm
Do US Citizens enjoy the right of Habeus Corpus in Iran? China? Russia? France? How about Canada?
One thing I am certain of is that US citizens don't enjoy the right of free speech in Canada or Eruope where they have laws against such a thing.
Right now, Mark Styen is on trial in Canada for hate speech. He was criticizing a television show called Little Mosque on the Praire and said Muslims today are the Gay of the 1990's.
Bridget Bardotte was just convicted (again) for hate speech in France for criticizing Islamic religious customs that slaughter animals.
Perhaps the rest of the world should concern themselves with the log in their own eye before pointing out the speck in ours.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
You prove Danconstan's point -it's that America is different BECAUSE of our laws! You sound like a second grader when you say, in essence, "They do it, so why can't we?" Those of us who love and respect not just the symbols of America but its legal foundations say that because the rest of the world doesn't respect the basic civil rights due to all people makes it all the more important for us to do so. It's that respect for the rule of law and the equality of all people that makes America the great country it is (or if you and people like you have their way, was).
Patriotism isn't wearing a flag pin on your lapel, it's supporting the rights of all people, especially those whose views or actions we disagree with. To do otherwise is to admit defeat to the terrorists, because we will have let them demean ourselves and we will have become a lesser nation.
The British understood this centuries ago, our founding fathers risked their lives and the lives of their loved ones to get this for America, thousands of brave men and women have risked and sacrificed their lives for this, and you want to give it away because you've been told to be scared.
PATHETIC is what that is!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:15pm
"And you KNOW for a fact they're all guilty?"
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
Or do you feel they're all innocent?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:18pm
"Also, prosecution is most effective when the charges are clear and the evidence is strong. There's been a lot of contention about these two crucial elements of justice insofar as the Guantanamo detainees are concerned."
Posted by habiba at 06/12/2008
Habiba, a lot of that evidence is clear and strong, and it will also reveal what tactical movements our troops used to obtain these guys. Mind you these manuvers are still in play. Are you and the other liberals willing to risk full disclosure?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:23pm
"And you KNOW for a fact they're all guilty?"
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
Or do you feel they're all innocent?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Funny, I didn't think it was up to you or mask to decide, but for a court of law (military or otherwise) to determine?
Posted by Turk33 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:23pm
The writ of habeas corpus was designed as a safety measure against unlawful imprisonment for the citizens of the US, not foreign nationals in a time of war.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Your historical account is incorrect; the intent was not that narrow. You should read Section III.A. of Kennedy's opinion, which makes clear through many citations that the historical protections of the writ reached more than "citizens." This section also illustates that apart from providing protection to the individual, the writ was also conceived to be an "essential mechanism in the separation-of-powers scheme." Then read Federalist No. 84.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:24pm
Mary has (and obviously always will) reach towards Europe and elsewhere for rectifying arguments (or ignore them when they don't fit). Too bad she never considers the sociopolitical and historical contexts that lead to such differences between nations. It's just all one big McWorld.
Posted by JasonLitz at 06/12/2008 @ 2:26pm
Habiba, a lot of that evidence is clear and strong, and it will also reveal what tactical movements our troops used to obtain these guys. Mind you these manuvers are still in play. Are you and the other liberals willing to risk full disclosure?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Soooo this justifies holding someone in a cell for 3 years without ever prosecuting them of a crime or telling them even why they are being held? I don't think the maneuver takes 3 years.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:31pm
Habiba, a lot of that evidence is clear and strong, and it will also reveal what tactical movements our troops used to obtain these guys. Mind you these manuvers are still in play. Are you and the other liberals willing to risk full disclosure?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Also if they are all guilty why do most of them just get let go without any charges ever being given? If those people are guilty they should have been prosecuted and legally imprisoned not held and then released without ever knowing why.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:34pm
"This section also illustates that apart from providing protection to the individual, the writ was also conceived to be an "essential mechanism in the separation-of-powers scheme." Then read Federalist No. 84."
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008
Clearly, Hman, it didn't happen in this case.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:35pm
You must have had a bad day ACook because you are leaning very much toward totalitarianism today and very much away from Democracy. You are undermining much of what America stands for in all of your statements and ignoring some of the most glaringly obvious facts. Maybe you should take a break today.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:35pm
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Nice dodge.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:37pm
"In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
So they also have real trouble with:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Just goes to show you how new cons are such dic'tator philosophy whoreshippers.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2008 @ 2:41pm
This is America and we hold ourselves to be different and to a higher standard than any other nation on earth.....
.......Oh, and no offense to Frosty.
Posted by skeletonman
none taken.
nationstates will be an anachronism one day.
i'm more worried about individuals holding themselves up to the highest standard...
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 2:47pm
Just a moot point to bring up here, but the last few rethug presidential candidates aren't attorneys which means they aren't qualified to give legal advice let alone make decisions on whether or not they are breaking the law, which they seem to be quite good at doing. The last four dem candidates have all been attorneys. This is important when it comes to matters of knowing constitutional law as well as international law.
W, at best, could run a hamburger stand and Cheney is qualified to be the head of one the five families in the mafia.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:48pm
ACook***Or do you feel they're all innocent?
Until proven guilty, yes. That's another one of those principles that makes this country great, along with Habeus Corpus, the right to a fair and speedy trial, etc, etc, etc...
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 2:49pm
"Soooo this justifies holding someone in a cell for 3 years without ever prosecuting them of a crime or telling them even why they are being held? I don't think the maneuver takes 3 years."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
First off, the gitmo detainees know why they're there. Secondly, it's the lawyers who keep saying they don't to bolster their case.
Thirdly, military manuevers that have proven beneficial keeps our troop ahead of the game and alive. Full disclosure will take away that advantage.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:50pm
"the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
<snort> As if we have a long history of aliens detained as enemy combatants. If memory serves, the concept of "enemy combatants", as opposed to "Prisoners of War", was dreamed up by this administration.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 2:52pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2008
I thought Scalia's stunning legal argument that the majority decision will "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" was particularly Bush-like in its fear-mongering quality.
An embarrassment that this sort of garbage came from someone on the country's highest court.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:54pm
Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"
What a political tool! War has a definite legal definition, can be only declared by Congress, and Congress has never declared war on anyone, much less radical islamists, since 1941.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 2:55pm
"You must have had a bad day ACook because you are leaning very much toward totalitarianism today and very much away from Democracy. You are undermining much of what America stands for in all of your statements and ignoring some of the most glaringly obvious facts. Maybe you should take a break today."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
Why am I having a bad day? I understand what America stands for and I don't hate this country, but at what price are you willing to pay to cast your pearls among swine?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:56pm
Scalia should be impeached. He's not a jurist be any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 2:56pm
Scalia should be impeached. He's not a jurist be any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008
Here here. Scalia is a moron with a robe acting like a justice. He'd do better behind a pulpit at a southern baptist church or maybe one of those evangelical churches that heal people with but a touch of the hand of the grand pastor. Same goes for Alito and Roberts.
It's pretty bad when the "liberal" looking judges were appointed by Reagan and Bush senior.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:03pm
The posters who are claiming to love America are the ones supporting the diminishment of what makes this country great, and the posters who are continually called un-American and appeasers are the ones defending the Constitution and basic legal structures that make this the greatest country in the history of the world.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:04pm
"What a political tool! War has a definite legal definition, can be only declared by Congress, and Congress has never declared war on anyone, much less radical islamists, since 1941."
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008
Oh yes they did and yes they have. The "use of force" is the same as declaring war. The constitution makes no distinction of that.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 3:05pm
Scalia is a moron with a robe acting like a justice.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008
He's not a moron, he's an extremist ideologue - the end result's the same, but the path is a little less clear.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:06pm
Habiba, a lot of that evidence is clear and strong, and it will also reveal what tactical movements our troops used to obtain these guys. Mind you these manuvers are still in play. Are you and the other liberals willing to risk full disclosure?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Have you ever heard of a gag order by a court?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:08pm
New con supremacists...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2008 @ 3:11pm
Where is Pontificus declaring that Bush has never lost a court case?
habeous is a fundemental right of all people, or should be. If you want to see what a country is like without this basic legal tool, check out some of the most well known:
China
cuba
Tajikistan
Iraq under Saddam
Burma
ACOOK, is this what you strive to mirror?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2008 @ 3:16pm
CRAB -
Don't bother. ACook thinks habeas covers only US citizens.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:20pm
Or do you feel they're all innocent?----- Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Innocent until proved guilty....yeah...
I'm wacky that way.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 3:21pm
The America hating leftists here (and yes, today all of you are supporting hatred and destruction of the US) are passionate in their desire to usurp International law and afford these people dedicated to our destruction, rights greater than those afforded POW's.
Indeed I will not relent in labelling most of you what you truly are:
Dangerous ideologues committed to the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:22pm
Why am I having a bad day? I understand what America stands for and I don't hate this country, but at what price are you willing to pay to cast your pearls among swine?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
What price are you willing to pay for short term security? The desecration of everything America stands for. If we are willing to destroy everything that America stands for in order to stay secure then the terrorists won when they took down our towers. Their goal is not the obliteration of a country but to affect a change in which the country obliterates itself.
Someone quoted it earlier but I will say it again.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The most essential truth of America and one I hold fully in my logic.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
So, in your opinion, five justices of the Supreme Court should be lined up and shot?
I just want to be clear on what you are advocating.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:26pm
Well to live up to my name if GITMO is not American soil, and therefore, acording to the republicans, our laws do not apply there. Then if John McCain was born on a military base in Panama, he is a foreign born citizen not a natural born citizen and does not qualify to be president. BTW does anyone know the history of illegal enemy combatant, did the bush administration make it up?
Posted by Extraneous at 06/12/2008 @ 3:26pm
Dangerous ideologues committed to the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
You have once again proven that you really are an sob.
You talk about preserving the constitution and then turn around is shit all over it. So which one is it non-liberty? Do you believe in following the constitution or just going whichever way the wind blows in a particular day to get what you want?
You are the one who is the traitor. These guys can be tried, evidence can be presented, the trial can be fair and the evidence and transcripts can be withheld from anyone aside from the court.
Are you afraid that W and company broke the hell out of the law and these guys are going to walk after committing murder? If they do walk, it's W's fault for breaking the law, not ours.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:32pm
So, in your opinion, five justices of the Supreme Court should be lined up and shot?
I just want to be clear on what you are advocating.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008
So speaks the reverend Nazi.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:35pm
So speaks the reverend Nazi.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008
Yes. Pretty sad he calls himself Love Liberty.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:38pm
lvliberty***Dangerous ideologues committed to the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
Sounds like you are describing the Christian Right here...
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 3:41pm
Guantanamo is full of people 'turned' in by people for the promised monetary reward. Reminds me of the Salem witch trials when people were accused of being witches as an expedient way of getting 'rid' of them by their enemies.
There the similarity ends. The witches were accused and tried in court.
Posted by felicity at 06/12/2008 @ 3:45pm
ACook***The "use of force" is the same as declaring war.
The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority:
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 3:48pm
NEWS: Shortly after German-born Murat Kurnaz arrived at Camp Delta, intelligence reports show the plan was to let him go. What happened?
By Mariah Blake
March 10, 2008
They discussed their findings with CIA and Pentagon officials, then boarded a plane back to Germany. During a stopover in Washington, D.C., one of the agents visited the local branch of Germany's foreign intelligence service, the BND, and reported back to headquarters via a secure phone line, saying: "USA considers Murat Kurnaz's innocence to be proven. He should be released in approximately six to eight weeks." A few days later, a Pentagon release form for the detainee was printed and awaiting signature.
But Kurnaz was not set free. Instead, he spent another four years languishing at Guantanamo, where he was repeatedly designated an "enemy combatant," despite evidence showing he had no known links to terrorist groups.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 3:50pm
ON AUGUST 24, 2006, a C-17 cargo plane touched down at Ramstein Air Base, a U.S. military installation 44 miles southwest of Frankfurt. Shackled to the floor in its cargo hold was detainee 061, his face wrapped in a mask and his eyes covered by goggles with blacked-out lenses. Standing watch over him were 15 American soldiers.
On the tarmac, he was handed over to German police, who asked that his handcuffs be removed. Then they escorted him to a nearby Red Cross installation, where his family was waiting.
The reunion was bittersweet: His mother couldn't stop crying, and his father was so withered and gray that at first Kurnaz mistook him for an older uncle. During the car ride home, a journey of more than 250 miles, Kurnaz learned that his wife, Fatima--the reason he says he traveled to Pakistan--had filed for divorce. All those years with no word from him were more than she could handle. Later in the trip, his father pulled over at a rest stop and his mother poured him some coffee from a thermos in the trunk. Kurnaz was so busy marveling at the stars, which had been drowned out by the floodlights at Guantanamo, that he forgot to drink it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 3:52pm
Lvliberty-Love of America is not defined as agreeing with you.Sorry.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/12/2008 @ 3:52pm
"And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
Q: If Gonzales knows the difference, why doesn't Scalia?
A: Because he's a tool.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 3:54pm
"Scalia should be impeached. He's not a jurist be any stretch of the imagination.Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 Here here. Scalia is a moron with a robe acting like a justice. "
Tony S is no moron. He's a very clever Opus Dei ideologue, i.e. a fascist.
He should be impeached (Abe Fortas had to quit for taking less from fewer than Scalia has), but don't hold your breaths, folks.
One of the (probably few) benefits of an Obama presidency will be SC appointments to outweigh the OD fascists.
Posted by sloper at 06/12/2008 @ 3:55pm
UK man released from Guantanamo
Bisher al-Rawi
Mr al-Rawi has lived in the UK for nearly 20 years A British resident is back in the UK after being held in Guantanamo Bay for almost five years.
Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national, was held at the US detention camp in Cuba on suspicion of links to terrorism while on a trip to Gambia in 2002.
In a statement Mr Rawi, a businessman from south-west London, said: "I am delighted to be back home in England, with my family."
Mr Katznelson went on: "Right to the end they treated him with brutality, on the way to the plane in Guantanamo - they knew he was leaving - they insisted still on shackling him, blindfolding him, putting on earmuffs so he couldn't hear a thing and keeping him in the back of a very hot , very confined van on the way to the plane."
However the lawyer praised the way the British authorities treated his client after the handover.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 3:56pm
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"
Posted by lvliberty1
actually very few. and even fewer executed. Liverty just makes this stuff up.
United States Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence John Brown, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose." {perjured testimony}. Subsequently pardoned by President Gerald Ford Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion; released 1845; civil rights restored 1851; verdict annulled 1854. Mildred Gillars, "Axis Sally," convicted of treason on March 8, 1949, served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Force pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944 Adam Yahiye Gadahn, convicted of treason for pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2006.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 3:57pm
Dangerous ideologues committed to the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
We also incarcerated fascists which is what you are.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:57pm
"Have you ever heard of a gag order by a court?"
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008
Absolutely. But gag orders are lifted all the time. I'm almost certain if a gag order is put into place, the press will challenge it.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 3:58pm
The America hating leftists here (and yes, today all of you are supporting hatred and destruction of the US) are passionate in their desire to usurp International law and afford these people dedicated to our destruction, rights greater than those afforded POW's.
Indeed I will not relent in labelling most of you what you truly are:
Dangerous ideologues committed to the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
Do you know how much of a raving idiot you sound like? You sound like all those radicals you insult all the time. Jesus what is wrong with our local conserves today they have all gone insane. Can a conserve here come and give us a breath of sanity for God's sake.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:59pm
Dangerous ideologues committed to the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
Funny that you say this because 3 of the 5 who voted to overturn were put in place by YOUR party.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:07pm
to convict someone for treason is very difficult here. Liverty who is a totalitarean would be more comfortable in countries where it's easy to convict someone for treason. like on his appellation of same.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 4:10pm
It's refresing to know that when Senator Obama moves into the White House he will have a fundamental understanding of the importance of the law to the survival of the Republic. And when President Obama runs bush out of the White House(literally and figuratively), he will be running out an illegitimate pretender whose entire life has been an exercise in skirting, bashing, trampling, and outwardly defying the very laws that that he promised to uphold when he took the oath of office. Consider Obama the Protector of the Constitution and Savior of the Republic!
Posted by RPerry at 06/12/2008 @ 4:10pm
So, in your opinion, five justices of the Supreme Court should be lined up and shot?
I just want to be clear on what you are advocating.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008
I did not call any of the Justices anti-war leftists. I left that label for the leftist bloggers here.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
I want to point out something to everyone here by the way. THIS is the person who is saying he is trying to protect America. He is advocating the shooting of 36% of this country because they have a view point that is different than his. A "man of God" is advocating mass murder in order to prevent views that are different than his. You know who else advocated that? Saddam, Hitler, Stalin and many, many other dictators.
THESE are the people who deem themselves the saviors of America and "men of God." What ridiculously hypocritical and disgusting human beings.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:13pm
people dedicated to our destruction Posted by lvliberty1
This is the big assumption that the right is making and it is the justification they need to live with themselves. We do not know who all the detainees are or even if they deserve to be there, as far as I know they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need open trials, to determine if these people were part of 911 or not. Even if they killed US soldiers in Afghanistan they should be treated respectfully as POWs at a minimum, as we were an invading force... I do not see how having open trials at this point in time could threaten us security as 5 years later there are no secrets these people have or would come out in a trial that would still be relevant to impair our inteligence operations.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/12/2008 @ 4:13pm
lvliberty***I did not call any of the Justices anti-war leftists. I left that label for the leftist bloggers here.
So they should all be shot? <snort> And you call yourself a man of God!
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 4:13pm
Cccomfo1***A "man of God" is advocating mass murder in order to prevent views that are different than his.
He beautifully illustrates the wisdom and necessity of maintaining the separation of Church and State.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 4:15pm
Absolutely. But gag orders are lifted all the time. I'm almost certain if a gag order is put into place, the press will challenge it.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
I would highly doubt that. If top secret or higher information where national security truly hangs in the balance, the court will put a permanent gag order on the hearing and seal all of the documents and no challenge would open them back up.
Kind of like what is going to happen to all of the white house records incriminating the Bush administration. It will be sealed, put in his daddy's library and never seen again until he's been dead for 20 years.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:16pm
I did not call any of the Justices anti-war leftists. I left that label for the leftist bloggers here.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
Well, the main thing the "leftist bloggers" are doing here is agreeing with the decision, so I do not see the distinction.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:16pm
Sorry, LVLIB. Scalia's reasoning doesn't offer anything even approaching legal analysis. It's a political soundbite.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008
My...my... Isn't Scalia supposed to be strict constructionist of the Constitution. Hilarious. Talk about politicizing the Supreme Court. Good Call Hman......I'm afraid the Preacher doesn't understand the irony and hypocrisy however. We do though.
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 4:18pm
So its only the leftist bloggers here that should be shot then, Liverty?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:18pm
they still don't post the friggin' posts at the bottom. amateurs.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 4:19pm
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
So first off, we get an idea as to how LVLIB would run things if we "went back to the Good Ol' Days".
And he'd still consider himself an "American"...more the land than the idea, I guess.
Second, he's been making these generalizations for a few days now.
Anybody who doesn't support drilling in ANWR "wants America to go down"....then he casually forgets that MCCAIN doesn't want to drill in ANWR.
Then it's anybody who believes in global warming is helping a "socialist agenda"....again...MCCAIN onboard for that.
So he's just called the man he's going to VOTE FOR a "socialist who wants America to fall".
Now, he has allusions to the 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices and EXECUTING "similar" individuals.
Again, we're seeing the "collapse of the Right" ...uh....RIGHT before our eyes, so to speak.
They see it all slipping away...even with McCain....and it's driving them nutty.....uh...'ier.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 4:20pm
The British understood this centuries ago, our founding fathers risked their lives and the lives of their loved ones to get this for America, thousands of brave men and women have risked and sacrificed their lives for this, and you want to give it away because you've been told to be scared.
PATHETIC is what that is!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/12/2008 |
Right on Turk! Remember we rebelled against the monarchy that was given the Parliament as bone with no teeth on it. Comparing our laws to that of Europe (and Canada as the good child colony of Britain) isn't fair. Our founding fathers had a different idea.
It is wonderful to see the Constitution being upheld. Happy Day.
It will be great to have a President who has an understanding of the Constitution!
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 4:25pm
OneVote***It is wonderful to see the Constitution being upheld. Happy Day.
Indeed. Only someone who doesn't belive in The Constitution, who hates America, would feel otherwise.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 4:31pm
They see it all slipping away...even with McCain....and it's driving them nutty.....uh...'ier.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Now I know what the Preacher's disablility is: mental.
There are coming to take him away hahaheehee to the funny farm........
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 4:33pm
Indeed. Only someone who doesn't belive in The Constitution, who hates America, would feel otherwise.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
God (whoever whatever that is) Bless America! Fellow Patriots, never give up hope that we are going ti win this battle. Gosh its feels good. Separation of Powers.....Yes!
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 4:36pm
... Remember we rebelled against the monarchy that was given the Parliament as bone with no teeth on it. Posted by OneVote
this is just not true. in fact most of the beef with the "home office" was with Parliament, which was quite strong and independent.
king George would not have dared to monkey with habeas, something our George did with impunity. it is our present Parliament which is toothless.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 4:36pm
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Run By a Kid.
Posted by votenic at 06/12/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by votenic at 06/12/2008
Go buy an ad. Most of us do not appreciate the spam.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:55pm
McCave McContinuation of MchsuB's McUnconstitutional McCrimes...
McCain In 2005: I "Totally" Support Bush On The "Transcendent Issues" (VIDEO) stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust buzz up June 12, 2008 11:46 AM
http://tinyurl.com/5fs4jd
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2008 @ 4:55pm
You have once again proven that you really are an sob.
You talk about preserving the constitution and then turn around is shit all over it. So which one is it non-liberty? Do you believe in following the constitution or just going whichever way the wind blows in a particular day to get what you want?
You are the one who is the traitor. These guys can be tried, evidence can be presented, the trial can be fair and the evidence and transcripts can be withheld from anyone aside from the court.
Are you afraid that W and company broke the hell out of the law and these guys are going to walk after committing murder? If they do walk, it's W's fault for breaking the law, not ours.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008
Utter nonsense on your part.
I believe in using the same standards as the Geneva Convention. The reason that these prisoners were not labelled POW's is because they do not meet the criteria laid out in Geneva. That does not mean that we should not treat them and prosecute them the same was as Geneva calls for. That is what Bush has done and what Congress approved with the Military Commissions Act.
You do not try POW's in a civil court nor should these where you introduce the danger of revealing national security details. Furthermore, the rules of evidence for military commissions under Geneva are far different than for civilian trials.
I am the patriot because I want to preserve our participation in International Law, and people like yourself do not.
It has nothing to do with your nonsensical statement about Bush breaking the law. the war was legal and within the authority of the president.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:57pm
You do not try POW's in a civil court
and yet that is exactly what the supremes have ruled.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 5:04pm
We used to incarcerate and even shoot traitors. Today we just call them the "anti-war left"----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
Been through this before. What say you to the list of conservatives I gave you last week that are against the war in Iraq?
Pat Buchanon, Leader of the Anti-war "left"? Bill Buckley, a part of the "socialist left"?
come out of your box, see the world in 2008, not through the lenses of 1964.
When will this "war" against Islamo-fascists be over? Where is the battlefield?
Answers- Never
Everywhere.
Where does that leave the law?
Answer- where ever Chimpy says it should be. Till Obama takes office. Then we will hear the whining, and we get to say "He is the President, trust him, OBEY him!!!!'.
Obedience to authority, what more can a con ask for?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
No...what we are witnessing is the disintegration of our republic in the name of marxist/socialist, global government, anti G-d, ant-freedom ideology.
As I've said Mask, the past few months have shown that you are far more to the left than you used to insinuate. At the end of the day, there is little that seperates you and a Trotskyist like CKA2ND.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:08pm
Obey Obama!!
Better than obeying Opie/Deputy Fife/Bush
Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2008 @ 5:09pm
I believe in using the same standards as the Geneva Convention. The reason that these prisoners were not labelled POW's is because they do not meet the criteria laid out in Geneva. That does not mean that we should not treat them and prosecute them the same was as Geneva calls for. That is what Bush has done and what Congress approved with the Military Commissions Act.
You do not try POW's in a civil court nor should these where you introduce the danger of revealing national security details. Furthermore, the rules of evidence for military commissions under Geneva are far different than for civilian trials.
I am the patriot because I want to preserve our participation in International Law, and people like yourself do not.
It has nothing to do with your nonsensical statement about Bush breaking the law. the war was legal and within the authority of the president.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
We aren't advocating trying them in civil court. We are trying to get them tried at all. Do you not pay attention or just remain willfully ignorant. These people are not being tried at all. That;'s what the problem is. They are being held for an indeterminate amount of time without ever being tried at all.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
No...what we are witnessing is the disintegration of our republic in the name of marxist/socialist, global government, anti G-d, ant-freedom ideology.
As I've said Mask, the past few months have shown that you are far more to the left than you used to insinuate. At the end of the day, there is little that seperates you and a Trotskyist like CKA2ND.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/200
YEAAAAHHHH executing people for having different views is really freedom LV. You have lost it dude.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:10pm
come out of your box, see the world in 2008, not through the lenses of 1964.
liverty sees the world through 1564 lenses.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 5:10pm
"I would highly doubt that. If top secret or higher information where national security truly hangs in the balance, the court will put a permanent gag order on the hearing and seal all of the documents and no challenge would open them back up."
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/12/2008
I wouldn't doubt it, we're talking civillian courts here. Not all jurists are familiar with national security matters. The Gitmo case will go straight to the lower federal courts first.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 5:10pm
No...what we are witnessing is the disintegration of our republic in the name of marxist/socialist, global government, anti G-d, ant-freedom ideology.
As I've said Mask, the past few months have shown that you are far more to the left than you used to insinuate. At the end of the day, there is little that seperates you and a Trotskyist like CKA2ND.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
It's a plot by the scientists of the world to take over and create a Giant Cuba/Finland all over the World, granting asylum to every Islamo-fascist Unibomber welfare Queen Trotsky wannabe!!
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2008 @ 5:12pm
Let me pose a Constitutional question to you LVL. Can a declaration of war without the authority of Congress be legal? And is the phrase "military action" anywhere in the Constitution? And going to your international law argument, is the detainment of those under the age of 18 years old against international law?
Posted by yutsano at 06/12/2008 @ 5:13pm
Lvl has completely lost it dude. Jesus Christ. a "man of God" is promoting mass murder. What a damn lunatic.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:15pm
So, ACCOK, LUVVY
Exactly what "freedoms" are you finger fighting for?
NOT the freedom to question authority
Not the freedom to see the evidence brought against defendants
NOT the freedom to be tried in an open court
NOT the freedom to be told the charges against defendants
NOT the freedom to be free from unreasonable search and siezure by the federalis
NOT the freedom to not be held without charges brought
The freedom to pee your pants in fear?
OK, boys and girls, time to invest in Depends, work the system for your personal gain!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2008 @ 5:16pm
is just not true. in fact most of the beef with the "home office" was with Parliament, which was quite strong and independent.
king George would not have dared to monkey with habeas, something our George did with impunity. it is our present Parliament which is toothless.
Posted by emile duBois (Johannes Rolf Posing as a Person with French Derivation Name In Order to Cover Foolishness that May be Ascribed to Persons of German Ancestry if he were to use his Real Name) at 06/12/2008
Okay Johannes...whatever you say. I don't know what they taught you on the kibbutz but maybe they ran out of textbooks dealing with American history.
'The document, formally entitled The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,[1] explained the justifications for separation from the British crown,'........ Wikipedia
Bill of Particulars in support of said Declaration....
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 5:17pm
the king was the titular head of the gov't.
you will have to read a bit more history before you can attempt to argue with your betters.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 5:21pm
and what was this bullshit with the kibbutz, you anti semitic bastard?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 5:22pm
LV you forgot to rail against the pinko activist judges.
We'll be Sweden in no time. I can see it now...
80% tax.
Everyone kickin' back on the government teet
Mexico rushes the border
We can't defend ourselves cause guns are outlawed...
China lands 6000 747 repopulates our fair cities
The Forbes 500 become State property
Kim Jong Il and Obama fist bump on the podium
LV and Mark Canyon shave their heads, grab the ol glory and head for the mountains
Osama bangs the gavel at the NYSE
Allah is proclaimed supreme deity
Hagee and Falwell and Pat Robertson break down, get triple gay married
Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2008 @ 5:28pm
the king was the titular head of the gov't.
you will have to read a bit more history before you can attempt to argue with your betters.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 |
I will let my last post speak for yourself. As for your opinion, all you have proffered is I am Johannes Rolf and I have a following here who gloriously bow down before me and follow every word I say without consideration of the facts because I am Johannes Rolf, master of Germanic history and the classics -
Say, you aren't related to Wohlsletter are you?
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Have you read it? Or just Best Web's take?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:34pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Sorry, I just read your second post.
You have not read the decision.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:35pm
"We therefore do not question the Government's position that Cuba, not the United States, maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense of the term, over Guantanamo Bay."
Pgae 23 of the Majority Opinion.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:38pm
So the MBB/NeoCon logic (if we can stretch to call it that) is that torture, permanent uncharged detention, etc., etc. .. are hunky dory as long as we do it someplace else?
And they wonder why they're getting voted out?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2008 @ 5:43pm
osted by marybretbrad at 06/12/200
FINALLY, a rational thought out argument. Not someone talking about the mass murder of 38% of the American population.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
Larry, you're calling for the execution on "treason" who don't support a war we now are getting EVIDENCE was at the least "fudged"....
and you think everything, but the Interstate and NASA, since 1880 is "socialism"...
So naturally, you'd think I was a "Marxist" given everybody INCLUDING McCAIN falls into your category of "leftist".
I take your analysis of my politics for EXACTLY what it's worth.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 5:44pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Darin, who nominted Anthony Kennedy?
One of them durn left-wing Presidents?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 5:45pm
Posted by winyahn
LOL ... classic
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2008 @ 5:45pm
There are Conservatives who believe the ACLU throws a party every time a child molester goes free on a technicality. I suppose now they will accuse Liberals of throwing a party everytime a terrorist who murdered Americans goes free.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Well, scroll up Darin.
There is at least one conservative who believes that if you support habeas rights in this case you should be lined up and shot.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:47pm
I don't know, but I'm sure he regrets it today.-----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Well, he died in 2004....and you don't know that.
Like most things, you just "feel" that, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 5:53pm
I don't know, but I'm sure he regrets it today.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Do you believe we should all be lined up and shot Darin?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:58pm
emile ... the obvious is that BushCo has created the farcical (if unfunny) "enemy noncombatants" as a means to circumvent all normal lawful controls. If they were POWs then they'd have to (or at least supposedly) behold to the Geneva Conventions. If they were anything other, it should be a civil matter. By loosely defining this "grey area" they get to do whatever they please ... well, until now that is.
Charge or release as anything else is unconscionable. Should we leave them locked up until Iraq is "safe?" Guess we'll be shipping their bones home in a hundred years or so - per McSame's view.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2008 @ 6:00pm
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."
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
hmmm...lets see...Ben Franklin was a signatory of the declaration of independence and the constitution, nevermind that he was a genius. I think I will take his side over... ummm... Scalia... lol!
Perhaps the courts decision will make the "war" harder on us. Even if Scalia is right, the point is that a true American partiot is willing to sacrifice a little bit of safety in order to support the priciples of "life, liberty, and justce for all" that DEFINE this country. Our troops in Afganistan have been fighting for our saftey, but also for the liberties that we pride ourselves on (I don't know what our troops in Iraq have been fighting for cause ther were no islamic terrorists in Iraq when we invaded). If we give up our liberties for a little more security America is NO LONGER America.
Posted by danconstan at 06/12/2008 @ 6:04pm
a true American partiot is willing to sacrifice a little bit of safety in order to support the priciples of "life, liberty, and justice for all"
Posted by danconstan at 06/12/2008
Indeed. Did not our founding fathers sacrifice more than a little bit of THEIR safety in order to GIVE us those sacred principles?
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 6:11pm
sacrifice? sacred? you guys are making a religion out of it. a very poor idea.
the revolutionary war was not about ideals, it was about mercantile issues.
it was not about freedom and it was not about democracy. it was about money.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:15pm
Emeny combatans is whatever King George chooses it to be Mary. With such an arbitrary standard applied, habeas becomes even more vital, because punishing innocents just because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time is against the very fabric of our nation. But oh wait, there is no such thing as an innocent Muslim to you. Never mind.
Posted by yutsano at 06/12/2008 @ 6:22pm
We aren't advocating trying them in civil court. We are trying to get them tried at all. Do you not pay attention or just remain willfully ignorant. These people are not being tried at all. That;'s what the problem is. They are being held for an indeterminate amount of time without ever being tried at all.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
You are wrong. We began the trials of Kalik Sheik Mohammad and 4 other detainees last week
"The proceedings here offered the first public glimpse of the 43-year-old whom U.S. officials accuse of conceiving and executing the most deadly crime in American history. But the contentious start this morning only underscored the difficulties the Pentagon is expected to encounter in putting Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators on trial--a case that has become a top priority for the Bush administration.
The proceeding today is technically only an arraignment--a formal reading of the charges against the five co-defendants. But it comes amid intense controversy over the legitimacy and fairness of the military tribunal system."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140159?from=rss
And the Australian, David Hicks was convicted last year and is serving out his sentence in Australia
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 6:22pm
Well, I sure hope Bush has learned his lesson. All enemy combatants must be left on the battlefield with a bullet in the head.
That's the only policy that is sure to hold up to SCOTUS review.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008
Problem is many people have admitted that a lot of people being held at Gitmo are innocent.
Also overtime we have that mentality we always get incidents like the Blackwater troops shooting 17 unarme women and children in the street
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 6:24pm
Six out of 270 after six years. Yeah, I feel MUCH better now LVL. And thank you for completely ducking my questions.
Posted by yutsano at 06/12/2008 @ 6:25pm
sacrifice? sacred? you guys are making a religion out of it. a very poor idea.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
I regard The Constitution as almost sacred. Not sure that's a "poor" idea.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 6:28pm
these principles are not and were not ever sacred. they were ignored from the start. and they are being ignored right now by the occupant of the white house.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:29pm
You are wrong. We began the trials of Kalik Sheik Mohammad and 4 other detainees last week
"The proceedings here offered the first public glimpse of the 43-year-old whom U.S. officials accuse of conceiving and executing the most deadly crime in American history. But the contentious start this morning only underscored the difficulties the Pentagon is expected to encounter in putting Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators on trial--a case that has become a top priority for the Bush administration.
The proceeding today is technically only an arraignment--a formal reading of the charges against the five co-defendants. But it comes amid intense controversy over the legitimacy and fairness of the military tribunal system."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140159?from=rss
And the Australian, David Hicks was convicted last year and is serving out his sentence in Australia
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
And how many other people have waited 3 or 4 years? You remember the case they wrote about on here of the guy who was tortured. Proven to be innocent. Then held for 2 and a half years after that before they were willing to let him go?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 6:30pm
the revolutionary war was not about ideals, it was about mercantile issues.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Certainly, mercantile issues fanned the initial spark, but ideals fed the flames. The average Continental Soldier or local Militiaman was not fighting for "mercantile issues". The Southern Campaign against Cornwallis, which led to his defeat at Yorktown, was fought mostly by Militiamen who were defending their homes and their families.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 6:34pm
these principles are not and were not ever sacred
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
They are to me.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 6:35pm
I'll explain why it is a poor idea to make a religion out of it.
religions operate on faith not facts. people do not regard their religion with sharp rational thinking.
if you make a religion out of the constitution, it may prevent you from seeing clearly the many times its prescriptions have been ignored.
religions rely on dogma. the constitution was not written as dogma. it contains many contradictions.
religions generally do not allow for questioning their tenets. this would be a terrible prescription for our constitution and our civil life.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:35pm
they are being ignored right now by the occupant of the white house.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
On that,we are in complete agreement.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 6:37pm
by Militiamen who were defending their homes and their families.
Posted by Balrog
New englanders were down south defending their homes and families?
the casus belli was certainly not ideals of freedom and democracy.
the constitution was written well after the war ended.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:39pm
I'll explain why it is a poor idea to make a religion out of it.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Well, Emile, I don't belong nor subscribe to any particular religion. The Constitution is probably the one and only man-made document that I believe in.
Your objections to religion sound very close to mine.
Posted by Balrog at 06/12/2008 @ 6:44pm
Balrog
the damn thing, the constitution, was a lie for most of its existence.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:49pm