But....but....It's supposed to be a RW court, they gave Bush the election, remember?? Now its even more so with Roberts & Alito. What's up with that??
5 to 4 means that sanity still rules in the court. It's not a 'stolen decision'.
The court's liberal justices were in the majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy pivotal. Writing for the court, he said: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
....
The court's four conservative justices dissented. Antonin Scalia said that America was at war with radical Islamists and that the decision ?will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Juniorbush did not deserve to be president in 2000 and he still doesn't. He was selected by the court.
For the first time anywhere , prisoners of war have the right to be considered innocent untill proven guilty.
For the first time anywhere , prisoners of war have the right to be considered innocent untill proven guilty.
They are not prisoners of war, so the administration claims, which is why, so the administration claims, they are not to be treated as the Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should be treated. If they were considered prisoners of war, seems to me highly likely the case that brought about this decision would never have been presented. But they aren't and it was. All the protestations against the decision seem to me like a lot of noise because some folks don't like the consequences of having decided these detainees were not prisoners of war.
I would rather have them POWs. As Criminals we are obliged to try them and never release the ones guilty of murder.
Who is this a favor to?
===========================================================
Well, you can't have them as POW's because they are not members of any army. Many were not fighting asnyone when captured.
They are each obliged to be tried as criminals, but it is not required that any be held for life. After they reach their 50's or 60's they are unikely to be a threat to anyone.
I fail to see why this should be a favor to anyone, other that to the US itself, which purp[orts to be a fair and just country. Favors are not the issue here, justice and security are.
I would rather have them POWs. As Criminals we are obliged to try them and never release the ones guilty of murder.
Who is this a favor to?
For the first time anywhere , prisoners of war have the right to be considered innocent untill proven guilty.
They are not prisoners of war, so the administration claims, which is why, so the administration claims, they are not to be treated as the Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should be treated. If they were considered prisoners of war, seems to me highly likely the case that brought about this decision would never have been presented. But they aren't and it was. All the protestations against the decision seem to me like a lot of noise because some folks don't like the consequences of having decided these detainees were not prisoners of war.
Then I guess that this Administration should have classified them as POW's from the start, rather than trying to circumvent the issue by claiming that they weren't POW's and also trying to make the case that they aren't obligated to rights that general criminals are granted.
You seem to think that justice should only be administered when it's convenient. Justice isn't supposed to work that way, though lately it's seeming more and more like it does. As far as I'm concerned, the government made this bed, they can sleep in for awhile.
Pirates would be treated as criminals, and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, unless they were caught in the act of hostile action against the US, and that would not apply to figting the US in Afghanistan. The US was not at war with Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda was not the Taliban, they were a foreign organization given sanctuary by the Taliban, which was the closest thing to a government that Afghanistan had at the time.
The Taliban was given an ultimatum to turn over the Al Qaeda to the US, and they did not or could do this, and Afghanistan was invaded.
So do you feel as if the Al Queda were mercinarys of the Taliban?
Osama Bin Laden was giveing a lot of support to the Taliban so one might argue that Afganistan was being rented.
=================================================
No, Al Qaeda were not mercenaries. Te Taliban had enough of an army to control most of the country, ad there were insufficient Al Qaeda people to make a difference.
There was an alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda: they were both Muslim fundamentalists and adherents to Sharia law. It was an alliance in the same way that the US and the UK are allies. Al Qaeda also supported the Taliban with money and weapons from their donors in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They served as a liason between the Afghanis and the Arab speaking fundamentalists of various Arab countries.
So they had a national sponsor , which is now a government in exile.
======================
Not really, since the Taliban is not in exile, and Al Qaeda is not and never was a government. The Taliban controls a goodly portion of Afghanistan these days. They were originnalli against the opium trade, but now they derive millions from it to support their fight to retake Afghanistan.
The Taliban is still a sponsor of Al Queda and still has pretention of government?
Seems strange to examine such details about the status of an enemy , as if they were useing their ambiguous status as a sheild against definite action against them.
==========================================
No one is cutting the Taliban any slack for any "ambiguous status" . The Kharzai government, the Americans and the rest of the UN mission treat them as an enemy of peace and stability, which, of course, they are. They seem to have some secret pals in the Pakistani government, though.
We really should treat them as enemy soldiers per the Geneva Convention. If we catch them on the battlefield without uniforms or insignia we can shoot them on the spot as spies.
Done. No more liberal claptrap.
I do enjoy responding appropriately to asanine premices
Either Congress reasserts itself, or terror-friendly bedlam ensues.
But these are largely folks killing, or trying to kill, or helping to kill our soldiers, at a time of war,
But these are largely folks killing, or trying to kill, or helping to kill our soldiers, at a time of war,
Then proving that should be no problem.
So how much money are you willing to put down now on that Sahara land deal? I've got lots of investors lined up, so this opportunity won't last long, but I like you, and I'm willing to let you get in ahead of all the rest. You'll double your investment, at the very least. Guaranteed.
I do enjoy responding appropriately to asanine premices
Then you'll understand completely what I'm about to say.
Either Congress reasserts itself, or terror-friendly bedlam ensues.
That is complete adult male bovine excrement. It's fearmongering nonsense that is entirely political. If you really believe we're risking "terror-friendly bedlam", I'd like to get you in on the ground floor of a business to sell lake front property that is going to sky rocket in value once they get that man made river and lake finished in the Sahara.
But seriously , I would like you to consider the case of the 93 World trade center bombing. All of the conspiritors that we could catch were treated like criminals and jailed after conviction.
But fromn that trial Osama Bin Laden learned that we could listen to his cell phone , Al Queda learned who most of our scorces were, Al Quieda learned who we knew of their names , and etc.... The right of discovery was used to discover how to hide Osama and Al Quieda better.
This is a tried and false model , it failed very much to discourage Al Queda and it is very wrong to return to it.
In a tribunal court. I've been on record indicating they should be moving on those faster, then again, I'm not too tweeked about it given the indefinate detention we applied to the POW's of previous wars, but it should go faster.
I can only speculate that the administratiuon believes it's better to get those trying to kill our soldiers and citizens out of the battle all together, similar to prior wars. But this is a war, make no mistake about it, and they are non-uniformed enemy combatants in this war.
This Suprieme Court Decision has the potential for killing a lot of people
Lets not wait for the aftermath of the next big attack , lets look over the last few.
Al Queda attacks ..... The agents of the attack die or are captured and the Al Queida learns from experience .
Then they attack again.
Thank you for trhe respect , but how can you possibly think so? This has as much potential for causeing trouble as the Dred Scott decision.
This Suprieme Court Decision has the potential for killing a lot of people
I respectfully submit that the SCOTUS decision will not kill anyone.
Lets not wait for the aftermath of the next big attack , lets look over the last few.
Al Queda attacks ..... The agents of the attack die or are captured and the Al Queida learns from experience .
Then they attack again.
So... instead let's just round up anyone who might possibly remotely be connected with terrorism, assume they are all completely guilty of terrorism and lock them away, no trials, no hearings, no justice? Beyond calling them pirates, what, exactly, is your solution?
Thank you for trhe respect , but how can you possibly think so? This has as much potential for causeing trouble as the Dred Scott decision.
Lets win the war in the shortest possible time , every other choice kills more people.
Don't be hard hearted about that.
When we find them and we are not sure they are guilty , I would not mind a statutory limit on their incarceration , but it should be very long .
When we are sure they are guilty we should treat them as Pirates , those rules are still on the books , and they are Pirates.
When we are sure they are guilty we should treat them as Pirates , those rules are still on the books , and they are Pirates.
Pirates still get trials, don't they?
When we are sure they are guilty...
Not always , Ship Captains in the regular Navy were empowered to hold these "trials", we and the English and French and Spanish got fed up and shot or hanged them all , untill Piracy became a joke.
Bin Laden Cheers Court Decision
(http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s251/gotti210/139337.jpg)
<<I suppose the war on drugs has little uniformed drug dealers and bottles too>>
Most people are smart enough to have figured out long ago that the "war on drugs" is not a real war.
It should be mentioned, however, that one terror campaign aims at the domination of one region by invaders who don't live anywhere near there and the other terror campaign aims at getting the aggressors out of its homeland and back where they belong.
<<It's why we're in a war with militant Islam, but if you want to refer them as being on a terror campaign, no skin off my back>>
Uhh, it wasn't militant Islam that I was referring to as being on a terror campaign, it was the Bush administration.
<<I mean, largely the Iraqis are thankful Saddam is no longer in power. Largely the Iraqis are grateful that we took him out. >>
I don't know where you get this BS from, sirs, but it's obviously at odds with the real world.
<< Largely they support our efforts of bringing democracy to their country, where it didn't exist during Saddam.>>
Oh, and you know this because . . . ?
<< Iraqi "elections" (that elected Saddam) were a complete sham. >>
Like they really gave a shit.
<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>
NO!! In the Middle East?? A DICTATOR?? Oh God, whoever could have imagined??
<< . . . his government sponsored and carried out brutal mass murders . . . >>
Yes, he suppressed rebellions against his rule with the use of force. Shocking.
<< . . . including the use of WMD. >>
Yeah, the use of WMD.
<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>
NO!! In the Middle East?? A DICTATOR?? Oh God, whoever could have imagined?? I guess all those years the U.S. government supported him, they must have thought he was bringing democracy to his people. IMAGINE the surprise and the horror your government must have felt when they realized the man they had supported all those years was really a DICTATOR. Oh, the SHAME of it all!!
<<Al Queda was entirely stupid to attack us on our own territory , no enemy has had that poor a judgement since imperial Japan.>>
We'll see. So far the plan worked up to the point of getting America to invade Muslim lands and kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but it seems stalled at the point of provoking the overthrow of major American puppet regimes in the region.
I regard the fact that America was forced to blow three trillion bucks in Iraq plus the cost of the Homeland Security Program as an umitigated and unparalleled success for al Qaeda. If you think that blowing three trill on a totally pointless and profitless enterprise is some kind of success for America, I'd hate to see YOUR idea of a failure.
<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>
NO!! In the Middle East?? A DICTATOR?? Oh God, whoever could have imagined?? I guess all those years the U.S. government supported him, they must have thought he was bringing democracy to his people. IMAGINE the surprise and the horror your government must have felt when they realized the man they had supported all those years was really a DICTATOR. Oh, the SHAME of it all!!
The root cause of terrorism .
===================================
Saddam was hardly the root cause of terrorism in the Middle East.
There isn't one country that has not been a victim or a perpetrator of terrorism there in the last 20 years or so.
Yeah, basically (minus the sarcasm) I wrote that you can't possibly support (with facts) your allegation that the Iraqis are "largely" thankful that Saddam is no longer in power." You have no basis in fact at this point in time for saying that. You made it up out of your own head.
Perhaps the Iraqis WOULD HAVE BEEN glad to see Saddam gone, had he not been replaced by violence, civil war and anarchy. It's pretty hard to beieve they think they feel better off when a fifth of the country has been driven out of their homes and several hundred thousand have been killed.
| This is why claims (made by people like Scott Johnson at Powerline) that we "give al Qaeda more rights than German POW's during World War II" are absurd. First, we did not claim the right to hold German POW's for the the rest of their lives. Second, and more to the point, not everyone in our custody is a member of al Qaeda and therefore it is not unreasonable for detainees to have the right to challenge their captivity. Too many in the administration and too many of their defenders have bought into the poisonous notion that the United States only capture the guilty, which is manifestly not the case. [...] Since it is clearly possible for US forces to have arrested the wrong people, I cannot see how it is an abuse for SCOTUS to decide that those in captivity should have the right to question their detention. |
| 1. Yoo: "Under the writ of habeas corpus, Americans (and aliens on our territory) can challenge the legality of their detentions before a federal judge." This is an astonishing statement coming from a former Department of Justice official like John Yoo. I say that because Americans were locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." And their attorneys did file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The Bush administration responded to those petitions by urging the federal courts to immediately throw them out of court! At one point in the litigation, Bush's lawyers told the Supreme Court, "The Commander in Chief ... has authority to seize and detain enemy combatants wherever found, including within the borders of the United States." Brief for United States, Rumsfeld v. Padilla (No. 03-1027), p. 38. Yoo and others now seem to be playing down those previous assertions about the executive's military powers, but the record is there for anyone to check. Bush's lawyers argued that such American prisoners were perfectly free to "challenge" their imprisonment by filing a habeas corpus petition--again, just so long as the courts pronounced such petitions dead on arrival. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 283 (2002) ("The government [argues that the courts] may not review at all its designation of an American citizen as an enemy combatant--that its determination on this score are the first and final word."). |
| Yoo, for instance, claims that the Supreme Court in Boumediene allows "an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention." But huge numbers of detainees in U.S. custody weren't "captured fighting against the U.S." at all. Many were taken from their homes. Others were just snatched off the street while engaged in the most mundane activities. Still others were abducted while in airports or at work. [...] The other deeply misleading claim in Yoo's Op-Ed is even more transparent. He characterizes the Court's decision as "grant[ing] captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court." What minimally self-respecting law professor would be willing to make this claim with a straight face? The whole point of the habeas corpus right is that without a meaningful hearing, we don't know if the individuals our Government is imprisoning are really "al Qaeda terrorists" or something else. That ought to be too basic even to require pointing out. |
After the habeas corpus hearing, what do we know?
The whole point of the habeas corpus right is that without a meaningful hearing, we don't know if the individuals our Government is imprisoning are really "al Qaeda terrorists" or something else. That ought to be too basic even to require pointing out.
After the habeas corpus hearing, what do we know?
Some more thoughts on this topic (all emphasis in original sources):
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=13800 (http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=13800)
First, we did not claim the right to hold German POW's for the the rest of their lives. .
After the habeas corpus hearing, what do we know?
Let's just allow the government to put anyone in jail indefinitely and never charge the person or allow the person to challenge their incarceration. I'll recommend that the government start with you. And after you've been in jail for a while with real charges and no chance to argue your case, maybe then you can tell me what we might learn after a habeas corpus hearing.
Yes, that was sarcastic. But as the man said, "That ought to be too basic even to require pointing out."
The war would be over when the enemy signed an instrument of total surrender.
So far ,fifty people released from Guntanimo have been killed in fighting with American soldiers.
I find it amazing that you accept this figure at face value.
It's like they shoot an Abdul Hassan Al Hussein in Afghanistan, and someone types the name into the database, and behold, they had a guy with that name in Gitmo.
They lie. They make up stuff. They lied about WMD's. It is what they do.
Wake up!
So far ,fifty people released from Guntanimo have been killed in fighting with American soldiers.
This is a high recidivism , and there isn't anything in the Supreime Court ruleing that benefits someone like those guys .
Narrowing the definition of war so much that what we are presently involved in isn't one , reminds me much of someone insisting that the Vietnam Confilct was a "Police Action " as opposed to a war .
Narrowing the definition of war so much that what we are presently involved in isn't one , reminds me much of someone insisting that the Vietnam Confilct was a "Police Action " as opposed to a war .
Narrowing? Plane, you're reaching.
<<I have your word on it that they do not fingerprint the residents of Gitmo?>>
What's the difference? They fingerprint AND they lie. The one doesn't preclude the other. They've been fingerprinting for years and they've been lying for years.
Fine then, define war , such that the struggle with Al Quieda doesn't count.
Fine then, define war , such that the struggle with Al Quieda doesn't count.
Are we at war with al-Qaeda? Have we declared war on al-Qaeda? I don't recall that event. As I recall, we are supposedly in a "war on terror". War, generally speaking would be "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." Possibly one could argue we are in a such a conflict with al-Qaeda. We are not in such a conflict with "terror". Now if you want to do away with the notion of a "war on terror" and pursue merely a war on al-Qaeda, we can have that argument. But if we're going to start demanding definitions, then you need to settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable.
Fine then, define war , such that the struggle with Al Quieda doesn't count.
Are we at war with al-Qaeda? Have we declared war on al-Qaeda? I don't recall that event. As I recall, we are supposedly in a "war on terror". War, generally speaking would be "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." Possibly one could argue we are in a such a conflict with al-Qaeda. We are not in such a conflict with "terror". Now if you want to do away with the notion of a "war on terror" and pursue merely a war on al-Qaeda, we can have that argument. But if we're going to start demanding definitions, then you need to settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable.
When Al Queda declaired war on us we were at war , it does not take two to agree to be at war this has beena war since Osama Bin Laden started shooting, we cannot stop being at war unless Al Queda also stops being at war with us.
It may take two to tango , but fighting does not require mutual agreement on terms.
"...then you need to settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable."
Oh?
Why would someone join Al Queda if he didn't want to be a terrorist?
Al Queda is 100% terrorist ,so an attack on Al Queda is necessarily an attack on terror.
"...then you need to settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable."
Oh?
Yes.
Why would someone join Al Queda if he didn't want to be a terrorist?
Al Queda is 100% terrorist ,so an attack on Al Queda is necessarily an attack on terror.
Parcheesi on a chess board, Plane. So no other group in the whole world uses terror as a tactic? Only al-Qaeda? Come on, Plane, elevate your thinking here.
That's nice, BT, but authorization of use of military force is not the same as a declaration of war.
It has been since 1941.
We need to fight all terrorism at once elese we are not fighting terrorism?
All members of Al Queida are terrorists , so a fight with Al Quieda is a fight with terrorists , it is a sylogism.
The Korean _ _ _ , the Vietnam _ _ _
What should we call this phenominon in which groups of US and THEM are meeting in combat , this time?
1941 was the last US declaration of war. Since then (1941) Congress has used other means to stamp approval upon conflicts.
But you knew that.
Because they didn't want to declare war.
QuoteBecause they didn't want to declare war.
Why do you think that is?
Many people just define war as whatever they want it to be, and so then to question whether the "war on terror" can actually be war becomes meaningless.
This is my complaint on you too.
If this present level of fighting is not war what is it?
Slavery is a practice. And we have gone to war over that. Granted we fought the practitioners, but the fight was over the practice.
Same with Fascism, Communism and any other ism that ruffles feathers.
Was the elimination of Piracy no war?
Ig Al Queda were not terrorists we would not be at war with Al Queda.
No suicidal hijacker has actually been arrested or tried.
If a suicidal hijacker could be arrested, ten they should be read their rights at an opportune moment, as depicted in the idiotic cartoon. But if they could be arrested, then they would no longer be a threat.
They are not becoming successful because someone is required to read them their rights while in the act of suicidally crashing a plane into stuff.
My point is that this cartoon is beyond stupid.
A juror in the death-penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui said Thursday that some panel members decided the al-Qaida conspirator should not be executed because he was a bit player in the Sept. 11 attacks and did not kill anyone that day.
"He wasn't necessarily part of the 9/11 operation," said the juror, who spoke about the jury's deliberations on condition of anonymity. "His role in 9/11 was actually minor," said the juror, who voted for a life prison sentence even though he considered Moussaoui "a despicable character" and someone who "mocks and taunts family members whose loved ones died."
Moussaoui did just that one final time Thursday, when he was formally sentenced at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., to life in prison without parole ? a day after the jury rejected the death penalty. The only person convicted in the United States in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, he confronted the families of the victims and the judge he has spent years insulting.
Even after U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema instructed him not to make a political speech, Moussaoui, 37, leaned forward in his chair, his lips touching a microphone and hissed: "God curse America, and God save Osama bin Laden! You will never get him!"
Brinkema replied with a smile, noting that Moussaoui had yelled "America, you lost! ... I won!" after the jury delivered its verdict. "Mr. Moussaoui, if you look around this courtroom today, every person in this room when this proceeding is over will leave this courtroom, and they are free to go anyplace they want," she said before pronouncing the mandatory life sentence. "They can go outside, and they can feel the sun, they can smell fresh air ... but when you leave this courtroom, you go back into custody. In terms of winners and losers, it is quite clear who won yesterday and who lost yesterday."
The judge concluded by voicing contempt for Moussaoui's oft-expressed desire to have been part of the Sept. 11 operation, in which he said he was supposed to fly a fifth hijacked airplane into the White House.
"You came here to be a martyr and to die in a big bang of glory," Brinkema said. "But to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, you will die with a whimper."
There was no declaration of war on fascism. In point of fact, prior to U.S. entry into the war, many people in the U.S. thought fascism was a grand idea. We made war on Germany, not on Nazism. Again, I'm willing to accept that we are at war with al-Qaeda. We are not, however, waging a "war on terror". The reasons for this are so obvious that I have a hard time understanding why I need to point this out.
Al Qaeda volunteers do not think like Americans. That much is clear.
Sometimes you almost seem to get it.
FDR seldom said anything nice about Fascism during WWII .
I can just imagine you upbraiding Chirchill after one of his speeches .
Sometimes you almost seem to get it.
FDR seldom said anything nice about Fascism during WWII .
I can just imagine you upbraiding Chirchill after one of his speeches .
Plane, you're not this stupid. I was not esoteric or obscure in what I said. I will not play childish games with you.
On the Contrary that seems to me to be exactly what you have been doing.
What are you hopeing to have result?
Are you trying to prove that terrorism is nothing but an idea and that we cannot war on such an idea?
So as a result of this line of argument you want to establish that there is not really a war on terrorism seems to fly in the face of the facts , and depends on very narrow definition of terms much more thanm on any practical understanding of the situation.