Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bush Administration Loses in Boumediene
The Supreme Court just released a 5-4 decision ruling that the government cannot deny prisoners at Guantanamo habeas rights unless it suspends them under the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Seems like a pretty serious blow to the Bush administration. I guess the only question now is whether the administration feels it's actually obligated to abide by the decision, or if it believes the president's absolute power in wartime means that in addition to ignoring Congress, he can ignore the Supreme Court, too.
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 10:51AM|#
I guess the only question now is whether the administration
feels it's actually obligated to abide by the decision, of if it
believes the president's absolute power in wartime means that in
addition to ignoring Congress, he can ignore the Supreme Court,
too.
On the one hand, I'd like to see him try, as it might actually
cause the Dem Congress to impeach him.
On the other hand, this Dem Congress is so craven and toothless
that they might let him get away with it. Which is worse.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 10:51AM|#
What bothers me is that the decision was 5-4.
I mean, aren't seated justices somewhat required to have read the
Constitution at some point? WTF is wrong with the four?
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 10:51AM|#
. . . president's absolute power in wartime means that in
addition to ignoring Congress, he can ignore the Supreme Court,
too.
Can't the Executive do that all the time, war not required?
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 10:53AM|#
From the article that is linked to:
"The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken
away habeas rights."
Without having read any part of the majority(which is 70 pages) or
minority opinion, how could any justice - let alone 4 of them -
reasonably believe that Congress HAD taken away habeas rights?
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 10:54AM|#
On the one hand, I'd like to see him try, as it might
actually cause the Dem Congress to impeach him.
Nothing on God's Green Earth short of an open-and-shut murder case
with the president holding the murder weapon and bathed in the
victim's blood would move Congress to impeach a president six
months before a presidential election.
It doesn't help that Reid and Pelosi are pussy bitches.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 10:59AM|#
of if it believes the president's absolute power in wartime
means that in addition to ignoring Congress, he can ignore the
Supreme Court, too.
Andrew Jackson didn't even need a war.
Anyays, the SCOTUS just overturned a Congressional Act, not Bush.
The upshot is the detainees can challenge their detention. Not a
big deal, since they will likely lose and their host countries
won't take them back anyway.
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Bush doesn't have to worry about this decision.
The decision says that detainees will have to file petitions before
District judges, who will then get to decide if the petitions are
valid.
So Bush merely has to gum that process up, appeal it, procedurally
frustrate it, etc.
And by the way:
On the basis of Scalia's asburd dissent, I never want to hear him
say anything about the theory of original intent, strict
construction, judicial humility, etc. ever again. The worthless
cocksucker has no right to have those words come out of his mouth,
or pass onto paper via his pen. He obviously cares about nothing
but results, is a completely outcome-oriented judge, and any time
he employed strict constructionist logic in the past it was a con
designed to reach an outcome he wanted. Fuck him.
|6.12.08 @ 11:01AM|#
I mean, aren't seated justices somewhat required to have
read the Constitution at some point? WTF is wrong with the
four?
Here's Scalia's opening comment:
The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor
of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application,
and the Court's intervention in this military matter is entirely
ultra vires.
So Elemenope, why is it so blinding obvious that they don't know
what the Constitution says?
MP-bang|6.12.08 @ 11:07AM|#
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
Note that these rights apply to all, not just to Americans...
And these founders saw it fit to rebel against the British
because:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by
Jury:
So, MP, are you saying that all humans have the right to trial by
jury, but the American government has the right to exclude it to
some?
What rights do you have, MP? And which of them are yours because
you are human, and which are "endowed to you" by your
government?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:08AM|#
The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in
favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no
application, and the Court's intervention in this military matter
is entirely ultra vires.
Apparently this is another of those evolving "living document"
penumbras. I really hate this, because when judges over-interpret
the law like some sort of fucking priesthood the law as written
becomes irrelevant and we get unconstitutional crap like the War on
Drugs whenever it becomes popular enough.
|6.12.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Seems like a pretty serious blow to the Bush
administration.
Yeah, either that or not a problem at all. Four years ago this
would have meant something. At this point, we're just collecting
the ashes of the principals that once comprised the foundation of
our system of jurist prudence.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:10AM|#
are you saying that all humans have the right to trial by
jury, but the American government has the right to exclude it to
some?
When they are actively trying to kill us, yes.
The last Gitmo detainee released blew himself up and killed a dozen
people, iirc. What about their rights?
tarran|6.12.08 @ 11:12AM|#
"The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad;"
No but neither are aliens abroad specifically denied access to the
courts.
A writ of habeas corpus compels a court to force a jailer to
produce a prisoner so that the court can examine the justification
of his imprisonment. The court can issue that order to the jailer
regarding any prisoner regardless of nationality or the
conditions of imprisonment.
Thus, a Federal Court can issue a writ of habeas corpus on anybody
in Federal Custody.
The notion that only U.S. citizens are protected by the
Constitution was a rationalization developed to justify federal
support for slavery (thus black man who was a citizen of a
particular state could be denied U.S. citizenship). It is doctrine
that sacrifices the notion of the rule of law for the sake of
political expediency.
The U.S. citizens who support the Bush administration on this
matter deserve the police state they are saddling themselves
with.
buckyballs|6.12.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Impeachment due to reasons of abuse of executive power is an impossibility . . . and it's not just the fecklessness of Congress that makes it so. It's a cold calculation on the part of Congress, where 500+ wannabe presidents would NEVER destroy or at least chip away at the powers that they one day hope to hold. The expansion of executive authority has been done with the open obeisance of Congress, despite protests to the contrary - to hope for impeachment on these grounds is to hope for nothing.
Poobah|6.12.08 @ 11:16AM|#
When they are actively trying to kill us, yes.
The last Gitmo detainee released blew himself up and killed a dozen
people, iirc. What about their rights?
Then, TallDave, you should immediately be arrested. You seem like
an arrogant prick who will, in the future rob a granny of her
handbag.
What a silly assumption. No one is questioning the necessity to
keep detained those who can be proven guilty. But those who cannot
be proven guilty are presumed innocent? Or am I missing
something?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:17AM|#
The U.S. citizens who support the Bush administration on
this matter deserve the police state they are saddling themselves
with.
So, if these guys are released, can they stay with you?
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Well, MP, in this particular case it isn't so much a matter of
Scalia not knowing the Constitution so much as not knowing facts in
reality. Like for example the fact that these are not "aliens
abroad" because they are not *abroad*; they are being held by
American troops on American territory (Guantanamo Bay).
And aliens in situ *are* historically afforded the right
to a writ of Habeas Corpus....so Scalia here is just blowing
obfuscatory smoke up your and everyone else's ass. (It's a great
deal of smoke.)
Poobah|6.12.08 @ 11:18AM|#
...In short that movie with Tom Cruise PROVED that it's wrong to jail people guilty of future crimes. Didn't you see it!?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:18AM|#
What a silly assumption. No one is questioning the necessity
to keep detained those who can be proven guilty.
Well, great. All we have to do is pick up the pieces after they
blow themselves up, hold a trial, and prove them guilty. Problem
solved.
Poobah|6.12.08 @ 11:20AM|#
So, if these guys are released, can they stay with
you?
What a clever argument. You dazzle me with your sheer brilliance.
No detainee of Guantanamo would want to stay with you or me.
They're either coming to stick a hot poker up your ass (something
you probably deserve for robbing that lady of her handbag in the
future) or they just want to go home to their families.
Again, answer me: should those who are not guilty (or cannot be
proven guilty) be detained indefinitely--at least for McCain's
hundred year war?
jj|6.12.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Well, great. All we have to do is pick up the pieces after
they blow themselves up, hold a trial, and prove them guilty.
Problem solved.
Answer the fucking question, TallDave. Should you be arrested for
presumed future crimes?
|6.12.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Don't you know that accused drug dealer wants to poison our
children?
Don't you know that accused murderer wants to stab people?
Don't you know the Amiraults want to molest children?
It's all true; we know, because security personnel from the
government said so.
How can you possibly want to hold trials for murderers, drug
dealers, and child molesters?
the innominate one|6.12.08 @ 11:23AM|#
TallDave, I'd like to see a news article cited to back up your
claim.
In any case, if I were being imprisoned unjustly, I might try to
take some revenge on my jailers when I was released.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:24AM|#
No detainee of Guantanamo would want to stay with you or
me.
No, they want a brief stopover with you or me on their way to
joining Mohammed and their 72 virgins.
Again, answer me: should those who are not guilty (or cannot be
proven guilty) be detained indefinitely--
When are you willing to let them stay with your family?
|6.12.08 @ 11:25AM|#
The last Gitmo detainee released blew himself up and killed
a dozen people, iirc.
Link?
How do I know you're not going to blow yourself up? Maybe we should
lock you up just in case.
Hyperbole, sure, but I don't see why convincing a judge that
there's a good reason for locking somebody up should be a serious
impediment to the government provided they, you know, have an
actual good reason for locking them up.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:25AM|#
How can you possibly want to hold trials for murderers, drug
dealers, and child molesters?
Because they aren't suicide bombers who immediately place
themselves beyond justice with the commission of their crimes.
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Well, great. All we have to do is pick up the pieces after
they blow themselves up, hold a trial, and prove them guilty.
Problem solved.
Dave, you are flat out saying that people (for now, "enemy
combatants") can be held indefinitely by the government. First of
all, that's wrong and utterly against our system of law. But even
more importantly--how long before they expand who can be held this
way?
How can you possibly be skeptical of the government in so many
areas yet give them this insane level of trust here?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:27AM|#
How do I know you're not going to blow yourself
up?
Because I haven't joined Al Qaeda and professed allegiance to
them.
Did you know we've already released pretty much everyone who's
willing to take a vow they would not engage in further
terrorism?
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
When are you willing to let them stay with your
family?
This is an uncommonly idiotic debate tactic for you, TallDave.
There are lots of reasons why a person wouldn't be willing to have
someone stay with them that have nothing to do with fears of them
trying to kill you, and you know it.
Do better.
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
"When they are actively trying to kill us, yes"
But that rests on the premise that everyoen in Guantanamo in in
fact actively trying to kill us. How is it even possible to know if
what the government is stating is true?
The % of those held in Cuba actually captured by US Forces is
extremely small. and therefor, to rely on the word of Afghan
warlords who were paid to turn people in to the US hardly seems
like a reasonable justification to believe that simply because
there are people on the planet that want to kill "us", that then
every person suspected and held by the gov't is that dangerous and
lethal person.
Take the case of the Ughuars (spelling?). They were Chinese
nationals picked up and brought to Cuba on the belief that they
were "trying to kill us". Well, it turns out that it wasn't true.
So, the US was told that China would not accept these people to be
returned to China. And guess what happened? They were returned to
Cuba, confined to cells, while the government tried to figure out
what to do with people that weren't "trying to kill us all".
Dr. Freud|6.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
GWB in the White House is worth at least a billion dollars in
campaign contributions (and some votes, too), so the Democrats are
in no hurry to impeach.
After 20 January, GWB, Cheney, et al. can be tried for war crimes
here in the US or at The Hague.
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Dave, I find your obeisance to big daddy government so it will protect you from the terrorists highly repulsive. I find your willingness to suborn our rights because you wet your pants when someone says "jihad" even more repulsive.
robc|6.12.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Dave,
I wont let OJ Simpson into my house, but he was found not guilty in
court and I have no problem with him thus being free. Well, other
than the problem with the jury getting it wrong. But, thats the
price you pay for a just society.
Hell, it this point there should only be a handful of prisoners at
Gitmo. Those that have no evidence against them should be free and
those that do should have been tried, found guilty, and hung (or
whatever) by now.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Dave, you are flat out saying that people (for now, "enemy
combatants") can be held indefinitely by the government.
As long as they remain committed to making war on us, yes. I would
say that falls in the "no-brainer" category.
|6.12.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Because they aren't suicide bombers who immediately place
themselves beyond justice with the commission of their
crimes.
Bzzt. No, I'm sorry, the correct answer is "Because we don't just
take the government's word for it when they make an accusation
against somebody, but make them prove it beyond a reasonable doubt
in a fair trial before giving them the sharp end of the
stick."
I would have also accepted, "Because we're neither gullible drones,
nor bedwetters."
|6.12.08 @ 11:30AM|#
And aliens in situ *are* historically afforded the right to
a writ of Habeas Corpus....so Scalia here is just blowing
obfuscatory smoke up your and everyone else's ass. (It's a great
deal of smoke.)
That's at least a better argument than your "Why don't they just
read the Constitution!" whine. Thanks. That's all I was looking
for. I do not have enough knowledge in this area to offer a learned
opinion.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Those that have no evidence against them should be free and
those that do should have been tried, found guilty,M
Found guilty of what? Is joining Al Qaeda a crime per se? Doesn't
that violate freedom of association?
robc|6.12.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Dave,
The point of this is to allow courts to find out if they are
committed to making war on us or not. Do you not acknowledge that
it is possible that at least one person at Gitmo has no interest in
making war on us?
|6.12.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Because I haven't joined Al Qaeda and professed allegiance
to them.
And I am supposed to believe on the government's say-so that all of
these people have done that? The government, of course, never makes
mistakes.
Did you know we've already released pretty much everyone who's
willing to take a vow they would not engage in further
terrorism?
Again, link? Are you telling me that these people are incredibly
dangerous but we'll release them the second they promise not to
hurt anybody?
Again, if it's so clear that these are dangerous terrorists, I
don't see why the government can't just go convince a judge of
that.
NotThatDavid|6.12.08 @ 11:32AM|#
This would be funnier if a blatant Internet troll weren't arguing with about the same amount of intellectual honesty as four justices on the Supreme Court of the United States.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Because we don't just take the government's word for it when
they make an accusation against somebody, but make them prove it
beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial
Not with foreign organizations that are making war on us.
I would have also accepted, "Because we're neither gullible
drones, nor bedwetters."
You seem to wet the bed pretty regularly over Bush's detainment
policy.
robc|6.12.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Brian24,
Again, if it's so clear that these are dangerous terrorists, I
don't see why the government can't just go convince a judge of
that.
Not only that, in most cases judges will bend over backwards to
agree with the administration. So, if there is any evidence at all,
they will be detained.
NotThatDavid|6.12.08 @ 11:33AM|#
You'd think, but no. He means it.
I thought so at first too, but "Did you know we've already released
pretty much everyone who's willing to take a vow they would not
engage in further terrorism?" pretty much sealed it.
|6.12.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Because I haven't joined Al Qaeda and professed allegiance
to them.
That is incorrect. The US Armed Forces have gathered intelligence
that indicates you HAVE joined al Qaeda and have many times
preached "death to America".
No, you cannot see this intelligence. And, no, you cannot petition
the courts to force the government to demonstrate that what they
claim is true.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:35AM|#
The US Armed Forces have gathered intelligence that
indicates you HAVE joined al Qaeda and have many times preached
"death to America".
Well, then take me away. I'm not one those bedwetters who thinks Al
Qaeda is some U.S. gov't conspiracy to lock up innocent people.
|6.12.08 @ 11:36AM|#
TallDave: T-R-O-L-L
No -- more like TallDave: B-E-D-W-E-T-T-E-R
How often do you have to change your sheets?
|6.12.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Not with foreign organizations that are making war on
us.
Actually, yes, we do. If someone from a foreign army or
organization making war on us is captured, we can either hold them
as a POW, with the protections that status provides, or try them
for a crime before a "regularly constituted tribunal" in order to
change their status to something criminal.
The government has never been allowed to declare someone a
criminal, who does not get POW status, just on the say-so of the
military on the scene.
|6.12.08 @ 11:36AM|#
robc,
Exactly. In any habeas hearing the benefit of the doubt would be
heavily on the government's side. No judge wants to be known as the
judge who let the suicide bomber go free.
Let's all remember here, we're not even talking about an actual
trial. We're just talking about the right to have the government
show up in court with some kind of evidence that you should be
detained. It's a pretty minimal standard.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:39AM|#
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Kuwaiti man released from U.S. custody at the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in 2005 blew himself up in a suicide
attack in Iraq last month, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.
Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi was one of two Kuwaitis who took part in a
suicide attack in Mosul on April 26, the officials said. Records
show that an attack in Mosul that day targeted an Iraqi police
patrol and left six people dead, including two police
officers.
There's six people who's kids probably are wetting their beds.
|6.12.08 @ 11:39AM|#
You seem to wet the bed pretty regularly over Bush's
detainment policy.
I'm perfectly fine with Bush's detainment policy having its day in
court. If it wins in a fair trial, it wins.
Unlike you, bedwetter, who can't understand why I won't just take
the government's word about the scary people.
ShortDave|6.12.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Well, I must be winning if the best arguments against are
namecalling.
You're winning. By not purposefully not answering just about
anyone's questions:
jj asked: Answer the fucking question, TallDave. Should you be
arrested for presumed future crimes?
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 11:40AM|#
"How do I know you're not going to blow yourself up?
Because I haven't joined Al Qaeda and professed allegiance to
them."
But what if the gov't simply said that you had? Would that
magically make you a member of Al-Qaeda?
We're not talking wholly about people that have come right out and
said "I'm in al-Qaeda". Your argument rests on the idea that all
the gov't has to do to detain someone that they believe to be a
threat is to merely believe that they are a threat.
"Did you know we've already released pretty much everyone who's
willing to take a vow they would not engage in further
terrorism?"
So the gov't is on a "pretty please don't attempt to kill us by
blowing up yourself again" handshake agreement with terrorists? Is
there an actual ceremony where this "vow" is articulated? Are they
given a Gitmo diploma after the vow?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Actually, yes, we do. If someone from a foreign army or
organization making war on us is captured, we can either hold them
as a POW, with
Not with terrorists or saboteurs.
|6.12.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Well, then take me away. I'm not one those bedwetters who
thinks Al Qaeda is some U.S. gov't conspiracy to lock up innocent
people.
You are misunderstanding the argument. Nobody is saying that Al
Qaeda isn't real, or that they are not dangerous. We are saying
that sometimes the government can make a mistake or be
over-zealous.
You know, like with Khaled al-Masri. Or is it totally impossible
that something like this could have happened at Guantanamo?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germanys-victim-of-extraordinary-rendition-sues-in-us-courts-as-rice-is-forced-on-defensive-518470.html
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 11:42AM|#
So, the current Supreme Court finds that unlawful combatants,
rounded up on a battlefield, are no different than pickpockets and
shoplifters.
Interesting.
|6.12.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Article 1, Section 9 states:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
Safety may require it.
The Constitution begs the question of what the "Privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus" is, including the question of whether it
applies to foreign nationals not in custody on US soil.
I don't know nearly enough to comment on whether it was so viewed
by the Founders, has been altered by federal statute to so apply,
or etc.
I just thought it a little odd that, in a discussion about the
Constitution, no one had bothered to actually, you know, look at
the Constitution (or at least post the relevant language). I've
come to expect that from SCOTUS, but frankly, I hold H&R
posters to a higher standard.
|6.12.08 @ 11:44AM|#
So, the current Supreme Court finds that unlawful
combatants, rounded up on a battlefield, are no different than
pickpockets and shoplifters.
To put it a different way, they found that unlawful combatants,
rounded up on a battlefield, are no different than murderers and
rapists.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:45AM|#
So the gov't is on a "pretty please don't attempt to kill us
by blowing up yourself again" handshake agreement with
terrorists?"
Yep. That's about right.
|6.12.08 @ 11:45AM|#
The Constitution begs the question of what the "Privilege of
the Writ of Habeas Corpus" is, including the question of whether it
applies to foreign nationals not in custody on US soil.
I believe in one of the previous cases, the Court already found
that Guantanamo, for these purposes, counts as "US soil."
|6.12.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Not with terrorists or saboteurs.
We most certainly can hold terrorists and saboteurs as POWS, if we
choose.
We also have the option to try them, and only upon conviction - a
finding by an impartial tribunal based on the laws of evidence -
can their POW status can be rescinded and they can be sentenced for
their crimes.
It cannot be done by the stoke of a pen, only through trying them
before a regularly constituted tribunal.
Jacob|6.12.08 @ 11:46AM|#
TallDave,
Should we lock everyone up, then, or just the ones who look like
Arabs?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:46AM|#
But what if the gov't simply said that you had?
Well, now you're in conspiracy-land again.
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 11:47AM|#
I cannot believe TallDave's obtuseness on this subject. It is so bone-crushingly dense as to resemble a neutron star.
T|6.12.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I love how the Bush apologists act like it has already been
proven that these people are terrorists in spite of the fact that
the military has acknowledged they have no evidence against most of
them and aren't even sure why they are there. (Though this may have
changed recently, but only because they have released so
many.)
Seriously, what evidence do you have TallDave? You are asserting
these people are terrorists when even the U.S. government doesn't
accuse them of it.
Mike M.|6.12.08 @ 11:49AM|#
So, the current Supreme Court finds that unlawful
combatants, rounded up on a battlefield, are no different than
pickpockets and shoplifters.
Interesting.
Interesting indeed. Not only has the U.S. Supreme Court with a
stroke of a pen just unilaterally amended the Geneva Conventions
which have governed the basic rules of warfare for decades, they've
essentially granted the potential protection of the U.S.
constitution to every person on earth.
The potential implications here are just staggering to think
about.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:49AM|#
We most certainly can hold terrorists and saboteurs as POWS,
if we choose.
Or we can choose not to.
We also have the option to try them, and only upon conviction -
a finding by an impartial tribunal based on the laws of evidence -
can their POW status can be rescinded and they can be sentenced for
their crimes.
What if they haven't committed any crimes, but merely profess
allegiance to Al Qaeda?
|6.12.08 @ 11:49AM|#
You might be surprised to discover this, but TallDave is full of
crap.
Pickpockets and shoplifters cannot be tried before military
tribunals, or held indefinitely as POWs without any judicial
process.
This decision did not grant POWS accused of crimes the right to
have their trial held in civilian courts. A Writ of Habeas Corpus
is not an order mandating a de novo trial in civilian court.
Joe Henchman|6.12.08 @ 11:50AM|#
On page 2 of his dissent, Justice Scalia refers to the President
as the "nation's Commander in Chief." Better sic Gene Healy on
him.
Blogged here:
http://jdhenchman.livejournal.com/496151.html
|6.12.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Well, now you're in conspiracy-land again.
Would love if you would address Khaled al-Masri's plight. It's no
conspiracy. He was tortured and interrogated for five months before
they figured out they had the wrong guy:
But his troubles were only beginning. At the border crossing
between Serbia and Macedonia he was hauled off the coach and handed
over to three men in civilian clothes carrying handguns. His name Â
identical to one of the 11 September hijackers  had lit up a
police computer.
The Lebanese-born German was starting out on a journey into the
darkest heart of America's war on terror. His ordeal would last
five months, where, unknown to his family and friends, he would be
trussed up, tortured and abused before being dumped in Albania,
fearing he was to be shot.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Brian,
Al-Masri's situation was certainly tragic, but he was released
after a couple months of detention. What do you say to those
families of the six people that released detainee murdered?
|6.12.08 @ 11:54AM|#
TallDave,
I have no problem with holding anyone who 1) professes allegiance
to al Qaeda and 2) was captured on the battlefield as a POW.
|6.12.08 @ 11:54AM|#
I'm not one those bedwetters who thinks Al Qaeda is some
U.S. gov't conspiracy to lock up innocent people.
Riiiiiiiggghhht. Because the only two possibilities regarding GTMO
detainees are:
1. AQ is a government conspiracy to lock up innocent people.
or
2. Everyone at GTMO is GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
It's totally unfathomable that there are people at GTMO that got
snared in too wide a dragnet or who were the victims of a snitch
with an axe to grind. I'm sure this particular Administration, one
which has clearly demonstrated that it values competence above all
else, would NEVER let an innocent person rot in Cuba... especially
given the admin's sweeping claims for super, unlimited, executive
powers.
Pshaw!
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Is that you volunteering to house Gitmo
detainees?
This doesn't even make sense. What does having to
produce evidence of a reason to detain someone have to do with me
housing them? Are you actually this fucking stupid? Are you really
this much of a dry pussy?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:56AM|#
I have no problem with holding anyone who 1) professes
allegiance to al Qaeda and 2) was captured on the battlefield as a
POW.
Well, you just spent half an hour calling me names for that exact
position.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 11:56AM|#
TallDave,
I think that we need to realize that these people are just
misunderstood and angry at us because of our foreign policy.
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 11:57AM|#
"But what if the gov't simply said that you had?
Well, now you're in conspiracy-land again."
Do you know who the Uighurs are?
I dind't imagine them or make them up as part of a conspiracy, nor
did the US gov't. They are actual people, actually wrongfully
detained by the gov't for being terrorists, were actually found out
to not be enemy combatants, were actually continued to be held by
the actual US gov't in actual prison cells on an actual island
called Cuba.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:57AM|#
What does having to produce evidence of a reason to detain
someone have to do with me housing them?
We have a reason to detain them, they're Al Qaeda. I'm fine with
the habeas trials, as I pointed out above.
Did you have a point?
|6.12.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Al-Masri's situation was certainly tragic, but he was
released after a couple months of detention. What do you say to
those families of the six people that released detainee
murdered?
To those families I say the military shouldn't have released THAT
GUY.
Again, I didn't say everyone in Gitmo should be immediately and
unconditionally released. I said that the government should be able
to provide some minimal level of evidence to a judge that there is
an actual reason to detain them.
Furthermore, though I'm not saying this is what happened with that
bomber in Kuwait, if the US government picked me up in the Middle
East, held me for 3 years with no explanation or justification,
torturing me the entire time, then released me in Kuwait, again
with no explanation, I promise you that I would be very strongly
inclined to take sides with America's enemies, even if I never had
been previously.
I know that's difficult to believe.
T|6.12.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Episarch, I think the answer is that asking irrelevant questions is easier than defending the concept of indefinite detention and torture of people for whom there is no evidence they committed a crime.
|6.12.08 @ 11:58AM|#
TallDave,
The situation of those men released from death row is tragic, but
what do you say to the families of people killed by murder suspects
who were found not guilty at trial?
I don't think those people would even care very much about some guy
they never heard of who was wrongly identified as the perpetrator
of a crime somewhere else.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 11:59AM|#
gmatts,
Officials at the detention facility told us that the Uighurs
were in fact planning acts of terrorism--but against China. They
are not enemies of the U.S., and hence do not belong in an American
facility for enemy combatants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121267898445648749.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
|6.12.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Well, you just spent half an hour calling me names for that
exact position.
No, bedwetter, because you don't want them to be held as POWs. You
want them to be subject to the treatment of criminals, including
the interrogation and sentencing.
That's the difference.
|6.12.08 @ 12:01PM|#
We have a reason to detain them, somebody said they're
Al Qaeda.
There, fixed that for you. Are you always this credulous about the
claims of the government?
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 12:02PM|#
I just thought it a little odd that, in a discussion about
the Constitution, no one had bothered to actually, you know, look
at the Constitution (or at least post the relevant language). I've
come to expect that from SCOTUS, but frankly, I hold H&R
posters to a higher standard.
Full of win, R C. Full of win.
What I could find (from the unreliable as always Wiki):
The writ of Habeas Corpus was originally understood to apply
only to those held in custody by officials of the Executive Branch
of the federal government and not to those held by state
governments, which independently afford habeas corpus pursuant to
their respective constitutions and laws. The United States
Congress granted all federal courts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by
any government entity within the country from custody in the
following circumstances:
* Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United
States or is committed for trial before some court thereof;
or
* Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act
of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or
judge of the United States; or
* Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States; or
* Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein
is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right,
title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under
the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under
color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law
of nations; or
* It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or
for trial.
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 12:02PM|#
"Is that you volunteering to house Gitmo detainees?"
How about we reverse your challenge? How about you volunteer to
house yourself, shackled for 20 hours a day, at Gitmo in a cell
with no windows for the next, say, 5 years, or until the gov't
decides that it wants to release you?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:03PM|#
TallDave: I think that we need to realize that these people
are just misunderstood and angry at us because of our foreign
policy.
I think it's time for us to hold unconditional talks with Osama Bin
Laden. Surely wearing burkas is a small price to pay for peace.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:04PM|#
How about we reverse your challenge? How about you volunteer
to house yourself, shackled for 20 hours a day, at Gitmo in a cell
with no windows for the next, say, 5 years, or until the gov't
decides that it wants to release you?
Warm Cuban sun, Rice Pilaf and beef stroganoff, all free of
charge?
Throw in a Playstation and I'm there.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:05PM|#
We have a reason to detain them, somebody said they're Al
Qaeda.
Again, we're releasing people who will vow not to support Al Qeada
or engage in terrorism.
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Throw in a Playstation and I'm there.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. I haven't seen this much talking out of an ass
since Ace Ventura.
OK, who is going to drop a dime on Dave? I'd do it but I don't want
anyone, even him, imprisoned without recourse to trial.
|6.12.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Seriously. I know what you're thinking.
He's not a troll. He means this shit.
He thinks people who disagree with his foreign policy want us to
convert to Islam to Osama bin Laden will be nice to us, and he
thinks that the captives at Gitmo are living the high life.
I bet he starts posting links to "prove" it.
Not a troll. For real. There are really people like this.
|6.12.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Propose we hit lunch around 1pm tomorrow and try to catch
the 2nd half of Croatia v. Germany.
Nice straw man.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:07PM|#
This guy? Not being released:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200408/ai_n6851522
US NAVAL BASE at GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (AFP) - An Algerian
detainee at the Guantanamo Bay US detention camp vowed before a
military tribunal to "kill Americans" if he was released, officials
said.
|6.12.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Ya know, I have shown myself to be an insufferable fucktard on here at times, but TallDave? When everyone here is in agreement with joe against you, that makes you the King of all that are just too Goddamn stupid to troll.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 12:09PM|#
TallDave,
I think it's time for us to hold unconditional talks with Osama
Bin Laden. Surely wearing burkas is a small price to pay for
peace.
Do we all get a poney, or do we have to give them as tribute to our
new partners in peace?
|6.12.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Again, we're releasing people that we have no evidence
against who will vow not to support Al Qeada or engage in
terrorism.
Fixed. We most certainly are not releasing people who can be shown
to be terrorists, we just swept up a lot of the wrong people in
Afghanistan. Like, for example, that cabdriver who was murdered at
Baghram.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Obviously Guy and I were joking joe, don't wet the bed over
there.
Anyways, you already conceded I was right about detainment policy.
It's amazing how I'm right when you actually bother to learn the
facts.
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 12:12PM|#
"They are not enemies of the U.S., and hence do not belong in an
American facility for enemy combatants."
Well if they don't belong at Gitmo, then why are they still there
(long after they found out NOT to enemy combatants)?
(and your also now expanding the rationale for detaining people.
Not only can the US gov't do it because they want to kill "us", but
they can also do it to prevent people from maybe killing them - the
Chinese)
By the way, my question wasn't whether or not you could google them
and then past an article. It was whether or not you were aware of
them and if they factored into your rationale that the gov't had
the right to hold people that they (wrongly as it turned out) were
hell bent on killing us.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Do we all get a poney, or do we have to give them as tribute
to our new partners in peace?
We get ponies, but they have to wear burkas too.
robc|6.12.08 @ 12:13PM|#
they've essentially granted the potential protection of the
U.S. constitution to every person on earth.
Ive got no problem with that.
Episiarch|6.12.08 @ 12:15PM|#
This thread is surreal. I was going to walk away but I'm morbidly fascinated.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 12:16PM|#
We get ponies, but they have to wear burkas too.
But ponies lose their cuteness that way.
robc|6.12.08 @ 12:16PM|#
Well, you just spent half an hour calling me names for that
exact position.
No, youve been called names for opposing habeus corpus.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:19PM|#
But ponies lose their cuteness that way.
Dude! It's their cuteness that enrages our enemies!
You just don't get it.
Reprobates like you will be ordered
encouraged invited to attend cultural sensivity
training, where you will learn to be sensitive to the needs of
other cultures.
|6.12.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Anyways, you already conceded I was right about detainment
policy.
You don't even know what POW status is, do you?
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Reprobates like you will be invited to attend cultural
sensivity training, where you will learn to be sensitive to the
needs of other cultures.
Isn't sensitivity training that class I took where they try to
convince people that you should not call broads chicks?
|6.12.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Whoa, just a joke folks!
I mean the part about people who disagree with me wanting to be
buddies with terrorists. That was a joke.
That part about holding people without the ability to challenge the
detention, and gleefully voiding the Constitution because I'm
askeered of the terrorists - I totally meant that.
Jeez, isn't the difference in my tone obvious enough.
Gotta go take some more linens out the dryer now!
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:23PM|#
There's a new curricula. Henceforth, you will learn that in some cultures women are appropriately referred not as "chicks" or "broads" but rather as "property."
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 12:23PM|#
"Throw in a Playstation and I'm there"
I'll buy you a playstation, wii, whatever you want. However, I can
make no guarantee that they will not be inserted up your anal
cavity daily to make sure that you never again want to kill us.
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 12:25PM|#
"Well, I like to think the Chinese are people too."
But apparently Chinese Uighurs aren't people, huh?
Is 6 years without being charg|6.12.08 @ 12:25PM|#
"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military could handle within some reasonable period of time."
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Property? Really? Okay, but if I buy a hot one is there some approved method to keep her in line?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Guy,
A beating stick disciplinary respect-inducer will be
passed out as part of the course.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 12:29PM|#
TallDave,
But what if she gets damaged in training? Can I trade her for
another?
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Of course! A local soccer stadium can be converted for use in disposing of unwanted property.
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 12:36PM|#
First of all, I am not impressed by reports that a former
Guantanamo detainee has engaged in political violence.
If the US government detains me incommunicado without trial for a
period of years, and then releases me, I absolutely assure you that
I will engage in whatever political violence I can when I get out.
And I will be absolutely, positively morally in the right to do
so.
That's what you don't get about Guantanamo, Dave. Because the US
government has held people there, there are now people in the world
with the moral right to employ violence against the government of
the US.
Is a falsely jailed man entitled to kill his jailers? I think he
is.
Also, no one has addressed the actual issue in this ruling, which
was that the majority decided that deliberately trying to find
government property outside of the purview of the Constitution in
order to perform unConstitutional acts didn't fly. The US pointed
to its Guantanamo lease and said that the terms of that lease
allowed Cuba to retain "sovereignty" over the land in question, but
the majority pointed out that there is no reasonable way to
construe that the US government is not in control of that
territory, so the Constitution applies.
The way to deny these guys access to the courts, once again, was to
declare them POW's. But we wanted to torture them, so we didn't
declare them POW's. Having made that choice, the Bush
administration now gets to live with it. If some court frees these
guys, it will be the fault of the Bush administration for putting
the desire to torture these guys higher than the need to detain
them in a status that would have placed them unquestionably outside
the federal court system. So fuck them, they fucked up.
against libs|6.12.08 @ 12:36PM|#
I guess our military will no longer "take" prisoners. If out troops could be tried for illeagally taking a terriorist why would they chance it. This is a good way to stop over population.
|6.12.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Reprobates like you will be ordered encouraged invited to
attend cultural sensivity training, where you will learn to be
sensitive to the needs of other cultures.
Its good to see you Christ-Fags understand us the mission of us
politically incorrect types.
But, you really don't believe in any of that shit, do you?
Its not about turning the other cheek so much as it is killing the
fucker just in case he is on the other team........
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Because the US government has held people there, there are
now people in the world with the moral right to employ violence
against the government of the US.
Well, given the regular violations of First and Fourth Amendments,
apparently we all have that right.
Would you like to attend our cultural training course with Guy?
They'll go over the mechanics and wiring of how other cultures
respond to perceived insults. (For liability purposes, please bring
your own dynamite and ball bearings). We have much to learn from
other cultures on the path to peace!
Michael Ejercito|6.12.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Note that these rights apply to all, not just to Americans...
So the First Amendment applies to Austria?
Austria's imprisonment of David Irving for Holocaust denial was
unconstitutional?
Michael Ejercito|6.12.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Is a falsely jailed man entitled to kill his jailers? I think he is.
So why has not anyone freed as a result of the Innocence Project
ever went on a campaign of bombing police cars and police stations
in retaliation for their wrongful imprisonment?
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Well, given the regular violations of First and Fourth
Amendments, apparently we all have that right.
Well, yes. There is that.
The United States has only rarely and briefly had legitimate
governments over the course of its history. Certainly at any point
prior to 1919 - eh, probably 1963 - there were large segments of
the population who were morally entitled to resist the US
government with violence.
So it's really nothing new or unusual.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:42PM|#
f out troops could be tried for illeagally taking a
terriorist why would they chance it.
Good point. Why bother? Acts of terrorism reduce humanity's carbon
footprint. We should thank our new friends for helping in the REAL
fight: the one against global warming!
|6.12.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I, for one, am shocked - shocked! - that a defense of this
detention policy would quickly turn into a thread about how bad
Muslims are.
Really. Stunned. You could knock me over with a howitzer.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Is a falsely jailed man entitled to kill his jailers? I
think he is.
For the most part I agree...perhaps not kill, but certainly slap
around a bit. I suppose it depends upon the length and conditions
of the incarceration.
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 12:47PM|#
So the First Amendment applies to Austria?
Austria's imprisonment of David Irving for Holocaust denial was
unconstitutional?
Well, the Constitution cannot account for the acts of the Austrian
government.
But if the US were to lease land in Austria, build a prison, and
start incarcerating people there for engaging in political speech,
it could not defend its action by saying that the Constitution
doesn't apply to Austria.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:49PM|#
We can always count on joe to try the "racist" or "religous
bigot" smear, and fall flat on his face because not once was
"Muslim" mentioned, but rather only the tenets of illiberal
Talibanist/Qaedist philosophy.
Shocking, that joe would lump all Muslims together with them.
Shocking.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Is a falsely jailed man entitled to kill his jailers? I
think he is
No, the state has a monopoly on the the legitimate use of force
except in situations of immediate self-defense.
The proper remedy is a civil suit, and I hope Al-Masri gets
millions.
gmatts|6.12.08 @ 12:52PM|#
"So the First Amendment applies to Austria?
Austria's imprisonment of David Irving for Holocaust denial was
unconstitutional?"
No. Your analogy is missing something to make it accurate. If this
Austrian were to come to the US and deny the Holocaust he could not
be arrested and detained indefinetely. Why? Because the 1st
ammendment, and a few others, wouldn't allow it.
So, the 1st Ammendment applies to Austrians in America.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Of course! A local soccer stadium can be converted for use
in disposing of unwanted property.
Okay, deal! There is a huge one just across the river from me in
DC.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Okay, deal! There is a huge one just across the river from
me in DC.
Be sure to invite you friends and neighbors. A disposal ceremony
can be great fun for everyone, as well as being instructive to your
current property. Bring the children and have a picnic!
|6.12.08 @ 12:59PM|#
What you can always count on, TallDave, is racist scum like yourself retreating behind the appropriate version of "There's a difference between n*ggers and black men" when you get called on it.
robc|6.12.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Austria's imprisonment of David Irving for Holocaust denial
was unconstitutional?
It was a violation of his right to free speech. Has nothing to do
with the constitution. Constitutions dont grant rights. Rights are
endowed by our creator.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:01PM|#
So if a black guy shoots someone, and I say "Hey! Shooting
people is wrong!" I'm racist scum.
What a sad little world you inhabit.
|6.12.08 @ 1:03PM|#
No, dumbass, if a black man shoots somebody, and your response
is a series of "jokes" about stealing hubcaps, collecting welfare,
drinking malt liquor, and having "baby mommas," you're racist
scum.
I love my world, not least because people like you are so obviously
on your way out.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:06PM|#
But don't worry, joe. Soon the cultural sensitivity training will begin and everyone will understand when people of other races/religions do evil things, we can never criticize because if we do, we're just racist scum.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Be sure to invite you friends and neighbors. A disposal
ceremony can be great fun for everyone, as well as being
instructive to your current property. Bring the children and have a
picnic!
Sounds like this might get expensive. Remember, cheap is my middle
name, er, when I am not lighting cigars with money that is.
But instruction for current property is helpful to cut down on
spoilage related losses.
|6.12.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Joe, another good one is the, "there's white n*ggers too ya know." I had a chat with my 19 y/o son just the other day about that one.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Again, if anyone's being racist it's you joe. I criticized the evil behaviors of a small and morally reprehensible subset of Muslims, and you analogize that to the inoffensive ethnic behavior of drinking malt liquor. Shameful.
|6.12.08 @ 1:10PM|#
brotherben, I like:
Not you, Frank You're one of the good ones. I mean, I'd hardly
know you're black!
|6.12.08 @ 1:11PM|#
I have no problem with holding anyone who 1) professes
allegiance to al Qaeda and 2) was captured on the battlefield as a
POW.
The problem is that, at this point, nobody we capture is on a
"battlefield" (unless you count all of Afghanistan and Iraq as a
battlefield) or is a POW (as defined by the Geneva Conventions, as
they are not in uniform, not under a sovereign nation's command
authority, etc.)
One of the major problems posed by the current conflict is that the
people trying to kill us and our allies do not fit within the
Geneva Conventions that we have adopted. (I seem to recall there is
another Convention that might cover them that we have not adopted).
The struggle has been to figure out how to deal with them.
Traditionally, they can be (and have been) shot out of hand, but
detaining them seems both more humane and more useful (if they have
intelligence value). How to detain them, that's been the rub.
|6.12.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Yes, TallDave, there are the good ones and the bad ones. Please,
write a multi-paragraph comment explaining the difference. I'm sure
it would be incredibly enlightening.
Oh, and please, make sure you take your time explaining how
drinking malt liquor is "ethnic behavior."
Good Lord.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 1:14PM|#
One of the major problems posed by the current conflict is
that the people trying to kill us and our allies do not fit within
the Geneva Conventions that we have adopted.
Yes there is. They are called "Unlawful Combatants" or "Irregular
Combatants" and we are signators of those provisions.
|6.12.08 @ 1:15PM|#
RC,
The problem is that, at this point, nobody we capture is on a
"battlefield"
Which is why we need to have additional levels of protections built
in to make sure we're not persecuting innocent people, because it's
become much more likely that that would happen, for precisely the
reason you mention.
|6.12.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Let me ask this: If you were in the wrong place at the wrong
time, hoodwinked, put in a van and then on a plane and shipped
halfway around the world to a prison where the guards mock your
religion, treat you like scum, and refuse to tell you why you're
being held, would you be angry at the country that did it to you?
Perhaps angry enough to do something considered crazy?
Maybe that's why the military is so reluctant to release detainees
- they don't want their mistakes to multiply.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:16PM|#
joe,
LOL Yes, strangely enough there are good and bad people of all
religions and races.
And you implied drinking malt liquor was ethnic.
Any more lame accusations of racism to throw around?
|6.12.08 @ 1:16PM|#
PS that was in response to TallDave's killer Kuwaiti story. Not saying it was the case there, but really, put yourself in someone else's shoes for a second.
|6.12.08 @ 1:17PM|#
They are called "Unlawful Combatants" or "Irregular
Combatants" and we are signators of those provisions.
Correct. Those same provisions require the use of a "regularly
constituted tribunal" in order to change someone's status from
"POW" to "Unlawful Combatant" or "Irregular Combatant."
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Hey, I know, maybe you can accuse me of being part of a government conspiracy to spread AIDS! I hear that one's popular now.
|6.12.08 @ 1:19PM|#
And you implied drinking malt liquor was ethnic.
Actually, I implied that racists like yourself stereotype it as an
ethnic behavior.
You, all by yourself, came out and called in an "innocent ethnic
behavior."
Maybe no one will noticed because you typed LOL at the beginning of
your comment, but I doubt it.
Oh, and just a head's up: expect to see your words "an innocent
ethnic behavior like drinking malt liquor" thrown in your face for
the next few months.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Guy,
According to joe, stealing hubcaps, collecting welfare,
drinking malt liquor, and having "baby mommas are all
indications that someone is of African origin.
|6.12.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Ha ha.
Now you have to pretend not to know the difference between
observing a racist belief (what I did) and holding one (what you
did, in your phrase "an innocent ethnic behvior like drinking malt
liquor.")
You know, like you pretended not to know the difference between a
suspect and a convict. Or how you pretended not to know the
difference between a POW and a convicted war criminal.
|6.12.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Guy,
People like TallDave often stereotype drinking 40s as "an innocent
ethnic behavior" carried out by black people.
People like me often point and laugh at him for it.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 1:25PM|#
According to joe, stealing hubcaps, collecting welfare,
drinking malt liquor, and having "baby mommas are all indications
that someone is of African origin.
Damn! So my big cans of Foster's don't count? Just have to settle
for people trying to speak bad Spanish at me when they respond to
my resume, you know, while they are trying to be multi-cultural, I
guess :(
|6.12.08 @ 1:25PM|#
joe | June 12, 2008, 1:03pm | #
No, dumbass, if a black man shoots somebody, and your
response is a series of "jokes" about stealing hubcaps, collecting
welfare, drinking malt liquor, and having "baby mommas,"
you're racist scum.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Well, if you want to think that's racist then you're free to
make yourself look stupid doing so.
I will just LOL.
|6.12.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Heh, pre-butted. I love that.
You did not repeat what I said. You cut out the part where I
denounced people, like yourself, who engage in racist
stereotyping.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 1:27PM|#
TallDave,
Ah, I stopped reading him for at least the day when he was having
one of his overly-sensitive moments on the German homosexual
memorial thread.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:27PM|#
No, dumbass, if a black man shoots somebody, and your
response is a series of "jokes" about stealing hubcaps, collecting
welfare, drinking malt liquor, and having "baby mommas," you're
racist scum.
Yes, dumbass, the obvious implication being those are things
associated with a particular ethnicity.
|6.12.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"Just LOL"ing is probably your best move.
The last you "defended" yourself, you called drinking malt liquot
an "ethnic behavior."
|6.12.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Yes, dumbass, the obvious implication being those are things
associated with a particular ethnicity.
Yup, associated by racists like yourself, who consider it an
"ethnic behavior."
Some of us disapprove of such ideas. Which is why knock around
those of you who indulge in them.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Ah, I stopped reading him for at least the day when he was
having one of his overly-sensitive moments on the German homosexual
memorial thread.
That's a good solution. Much better than trying to reason with him,
which is futile. I believe I'll employ it now.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:32PM|#
PS that was in response to TallDave's killer Kuwaiti story.
Not saying it was the case there, but really, put yourself in
someone else's shoes for a second.
I'd be looking for a fat cash settlement, not to blow myself
up.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 1:32PM|#
TallDave,
It really is the only way since the trolls never get banned here.
Well, the inside job ones don't anyway.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:36PM|#
This is interesting:
The procedures used by CSRTs, the Court said, "fall well short
of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate
the need for habeas corpus review."
Does that imply a better CSRT would eliminate that
need?
At this point I doubt they'll bother trying a new one, but maybe if
they had tried harder before it would have held up.
|6.12.08 @ 1:39PM|#
My meds are kickin in and this thread is becoming very similar
to a habanero enema. Nap time for me kiddies.
peace out
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Guy,
True. You hope they can learn something, but generally they just
try to bring you down to their level.
I think you've got right solution: ignorance is bliss!
You know, I think those baby leashes are going to make a big
comeback when females aren't allowed to leave the house unescorted
any more. I better look up what company makes those, I wanna get in
on the ground floor.
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 1:43PM|#
TallDave,
I know a good leash and collar site, but can't look for it from my
work computer. Will try to remember later.
|6.12.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Turning to Guy Montag for support.
You must be so proud.
I think I've made my point. Buh bye.
|6.12.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Episiarch's comment on Bush being possibly impeached is foolish. He'll be a lame duck come November and impeaching him would be a waste of time and money.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Rights are endowed by our creator.
My mommy and daddy will be very happy to hear they have the ability
to empower me with rights.
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I know a good leash and collar site, but can't look for it
from my work computer. Will try to remember later.
Hmm, that brings up a problem: if you attach the leash to the
collar, that would mean cutting a hole in the burka, through which
someone might catch a glimpse of her skin. Alligator clips might
work, but if they come loose your property could
escape be lost.
I'll have to check with the instructor.
First Little Pig|6.12.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Wow, what a thread.
Personally if I was locked up for years in GITMO, I would become an
enemy of those who locked me up regardless of my previous
inclinations.
I think the Uigars were sent to Albania even though they do not
speak the language and certainly do not fit in (but the Albanian
government was the only one that offered).
TallDave is such a moron
Guy Montag|6.12.08 @ 2:25PM|#
TD,
It does not have to go under, it can go around the outside. Just
have to get the right size collar to get by the
mummification material.
Kolohe|6.12.08 @ 2:33PM|#
they've essentially granted the potential protection of the
U.S. constitution to every person on earth.
You say this like it's a bad thing.
|6.12.08 @ 2:37PM|#
It seems to me that Scalia's argument hinges on the claim that Guantanamo is not within the jurisdiction of the US. This may be so -- I mean, is Rammstein AFB in Germany part of the United States?
First Little Pig|6.12.08 @ 2:45PM|#
For TallDave, Chris Potter and anyone else her who thinks that
it is ok for the US to indefinitely detain foreigners that are only
suspected to be the enemy what would you think of other countries
that are opposed to our invasion and occupation of Iraq being able
to detain US citizens indefinitely on suspicion of being
agents?
For fun, let's have Iranian agents snatch up Little Green Football
bloggers in the dead of night, whisk them away to some remote atoll
in the Persian Gulf and hold them without trial or even clear
charges and simply state that these people hated Iran and posed a
possible terrorist threat. Given their writings, they certainly
do.
|6.12.08 @ 2:50PM|#
"Seems like a pretty serious blow to the Bush
administration."
You mean, "...to the nation."
Confused|6.12.08 @ 3:10PM|#
The problem it seems is that it isn't illegal to wage war
against the U.S. No charges are ever going to stick, and no
evidence is ever going to be good enough.
Even people on this thread operate under the delusion that being
imprisoned for years gives you carte blanche to commit violent
crimes against your jailers.
But the courts will proceed to be gummed up over this for however
many years. Each time someone gets let go and not deported is going
to be very special. They'll probably get book deals, appear on
Oprah, get elected to Congress as Libertarians.
|6.12.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Yes there is. They are called "Unlawful Combatants" or
"Irregular Combatants" and we are signators of those
provisions.
I can't stay current on this stuff; it comes up too infrequently.
Got a link to a good discussion, Guy?
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 3:14PM|#
It seems to me that Scalia's argument hinges on the claim
that Guantanamo is not within the jurisdiction of the US. This may
be so -- I mean, is Rammstein AFB in Germany part of the United
States?
This is addressed in the decision.
One of the previous cases cited was a decision regarding
US-administered war crimes prisons in Germany. The fact that US
personnel were administering the facility did not make it part of
the US criminal justice system because Germany was still the host
nation for the facility.
The majority held that in this case pretending that Cuba retains
any actual authority or control whatsoever over events at the
Guantanamo facility didn't pass the laugh test.
When reading the decision, I learned once again to distrust
stare decisis. The majority was forced to construct its
decision around some pretty abysmal precedents set at the time of
the Phillipine occupation, during the Territory period
corresponding to the extirpation of the Indian tribes, etc. And
forgive me, but I don't really find the precedents that were
established when we were shoving Filipinos into concentration
camps and engaged in torture, pillage and rapine pretty much at
will through the Phillipines as the best precedents to consult
to know how to conduct ourselves.
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Even people on this thread operate under the delusion that
being imprisoned for years gives you carte blanche to commit
violent crimes against your jailers.
Actually, I've been thinking about it some more this afternoon, and
I think I have to amend my earlier statement to say that the true
carte blanche only applies while you are actually being
falsely held.
Whether or not such a moral right applies once you are no longer
being held depends a lot of the circumstances of your release and
on the ongoing conduct of the people who had been holding you.
Confused|6.12.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Not to mock your reasoning, but if you can't figure it out how
can the Judges and the alleged terrorists.
Uhm, can I get a ruling, is planning to wage war against American
illegal or not?
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Uhm, can I get a ruling, is planning to wage war against
American illegal or not?
Sure. And if you can prove in a court of law that people planned to
wage war against America, you can put them in prison.
But you can't use as "evidence" the fact that if you illegally
detain people for years and torture them for information, they tend
to say, "You fuckers, when I get out of here I am going to fucking
kill you." They get to say that.
Confused|6.12.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Ah but what is planning to wage war but the misapplication of
free speech?
It's so liberating to know that there exist such free peoples in
Afghanistan and elsewhere willing to say and do various unproven
things that somehow get people killed somewhere and nothing can be
done about it.
It's so life-affirming.
|6.12.08 @ 5:52PM|#
I don't have time right now to say all that I wanna say so YEA!! will have to suffice.
Michael Ejercito|6.12.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Traditionally, they can be (and have been) shot out of hand, but detaining them seems both more humane and more useful (if they have intelligence value). How to detain them, that's been the rub.
If we simply shot them out of hand, the issue of whether or not
Guantanamo detainees would not exist, because there would be no
detainees.
|6.12.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Wow, TallDave is a dense, thickheaded dingbat.
Someone buy the man a pair of Depends, already.
Kolohe|6.12.08 @ 8:46PM|#
That the majority opinion chose to cite Marbury vs Madison tells you something on how out of wack the executive is in this case.
|6.12.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Well, then take me away. I'm not one those bedwetters who
thinks Al Qaeda is some U.S. gov't conspiracy to lock up innocent
people.
I don't believe you should be taken away, TD - I also wouldn't have
you in my house...
|6.12.08 @ 11:00PM|#
these bastards on the court that stuck up for terrorists deserve to be fed to the terrorists - i hope the president ignores them - they should be sent to cuba to be tried too
Gilbert Martin|6.12.08 @ 11:56PM|#
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness."
That is from the Declaration of Independence - not the
Constitution.
TallDave|6.13.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Dear god people have you not yet figured out I am a complete troll and to just ignore me already?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245