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
"So-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits"
John McCain is calling yesterday's Boumediene v. Bush Supreme Court ruling "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Quote:
We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material.
Calls to mind another bedrock right McCain gave the scare-quote treatment to a couple of years back.
(Link via Andrew Sullivan.)
the innominate one|6.13.08 @ 2:01PM|#
the take-home message is that John McCain doesn't know what habeus corpus means
|6.13.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be
about the diet, whether it be about the reading
material.
I do not think Habeas Corpus means what McCain thinks it means.
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Why are we even taking prisoners?
Just
kill them upon capture, by whatever means happens to be
convenient.
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 2:03PM|#
What. An. Asshole.
As Andrew Sullivan noted, the choice (if it wasn't clear already)
just got clearer.
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 2:06PM|#
I read the link provided by Michael Ejercito.
What happened to those German agents was an atrocity. If they were
criminals, then they should have been brought to the U.S. to stand
trail for espionage in a U.S. court instead of being
murdered by our troops.
We can not undo this wrong, but the Supreme Court has ensured that
Americans will not commit such an atrocity again.
|6.13.08 @ 2:07PM|#
We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material.
Or even something ridiculous as being locked up indefinitely
without being charged and not being labeled a POW! The nerve of
these guys!
|6.13.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Oh Geezus Aitch Kryste doing loop-de-looops in a biplane.
Holy crap that's depressing, I could really go for a stiff belt
over that one.
Can't say as I'm the least bit surprised. Pretty much what we've
come to expect from the Constitutionally Retarded McCaint.
Naga Sadow|6.13.08 @ 2:11PM|#
What the fuck is McCain talking about? Its like he's speaking in a bizarre form of old and crazy.
Sorry|6.13.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Someone's forging my name.- Michael Ejercito
My apologies.
I'm reading three or four web pages right now, and I must have
typed your name into the name field instead of the comment
field.
Sorry about that.
|6.13.08 @ 2:14PM|#
McCain can not be so stupid that he doesn't know what Habeas Corpus means. He's obviously being disingenuous.
Andrew|6.13.08 @ 2:15PM|#
To be fair, McCain was born before the Magna Carta was signed,
so it'd make sense that he wouldn't know what Habeas Corpus
is.
(someone had to say it)
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 2:16PM|#
So German POW's held on U.S. soil were entitled to habeas corpus?
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 2:16PM|#
The choice is to give up a substantial portion my income when
Barry O'Bamma takes over or enjoy the police state that McCain will
institute.
I'm still hoping that McCain picks a really good VP, then has a
debilitating illness shortly after taking office.
|6.13.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Number 6 | June 13, 2008, 2:14pm | #
McCain can not be so stupid that he doesn't know what Habeas Corpus means. He's obviously being disingenuous.
Yeah, I don't know. I wouldn't give you a plug nickel either way.
But either way it's fricking disgusting.
Michael Volpe|6.13.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Here is my problem with the decision. Terrorists are NOT
criminals. They are the enemy in a war. They don't get the same
protections as criminals, because they didn't commit crimes. they
committed acts of war. You cannot give them the protections of
criminals because they didn't merely commit a crime.
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/detainees-to-get-habeus-rights.html
That's how I wrote about it.
Jerry|6.13.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Terrorists aren't humans, therefore they don't have any rights. See here the racist Republican worldview.
robc|6.13.08 @ 2:26PM|#
As Andrew Sullivan noted, the choice (if it wasn't clear
already) just got clearer.
Yep. If I had any doubts about my Barr vote, this helps push them
away.
Colin|6.13.08 @ 2:29PM|#
I'm afraid, kinnath, the choice isn't that simple. With Obama,
you could end up giving up your right to bear arms, your right not
to join a union, and your right to the last vestiges of
federalism.
On the flip side, no choice of VP will dilute McCain's
wretchedness. And don't count on him dying of sickness. If you're
destined to hang, you can't die of illness.
|6.13.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Michael Volpe,
Nope, they are criminals. Acts of terrorism are most definitely
crimes. Beyond that, the prisoners held in Guantanamo aren't even
terrorists. As far as we know they haven't committed any crimes at
all.
|6.13.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Here is my problem with the decision. Terrorists are NOT criminals. They are the enemy in a war. They don't get the same protections as criminals, because they didn't commit crimes. they committed acts of war. You cannot give them the protections of criminals because they didn't merely commit a crime.
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/detainees-to-get-habeus-rights.html
That's how I wrote about it.
And you couldn't be more wrong.
First hint: Nothing in the constitution that gives the President
his responsibility as Commander in Chief exempts him from following
the rest of the Constitution in such duties.
robc|6.13.08 @ 2:31PM|#
McCain - give up rights.
Obama - give up rights.
Barr - maybe not get back as much as you would expect from an LP
nominee, but at least it wont get any worse.
That isnt even a lesser evil argument. Barr is a lesser good, but
at least still on the good side.
|6.13.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Oh god
McCain is one of those former-military who thinks that because he
fought for your freedom he should be able to tell you what you can
say and do
Colin|6.13.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Enemies in war do have rights. It's called the Geneva Convention. And as quaint as Bush may believe this document to be, we signed on to it (with good reason) -- and we should uphold it.
|6.13.08 @ 2:37PM|#
My God,
McCain isn't even trying anymore, he's just eating the Constitution
line by line.
|6.13.08 @ 2:39PM|#
He's a US Senator.
He votes up or down on supreme court nominees.
Could he really seriously not understand what Habeas Corpus
is?
Thank god for small favors that he's not on the Judiciary
Committee.
Fluffy|6.13.08 @ 2:39PM|#
I know it's hard to believe that McCain can have no idea what
habeus corpus is, or what the case he's talking about was
about.
So it's tempting to think that he gave this response because he
wants the public to think that the case was about giving
prisoners at Guantanamo the right to sue to get cable TV and the
like.
But I think we need to consider the possibility that he's not just
being his usual lying "mavericky" self. He may genuinely have no
clue.
He doesn't seem like the most intellectually curious person in the
world and obviously has no real interest in Constitutional issues.
So maybe he really and truly thinks that you file a writ of habeus
corpus when you don't like the prison food.
|6.13.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Here is my problem with the decision. Terrorists are NOT
criminals. They are the enemy in a war. They don't get the same
protections as criminals, because they didn't commit crimes. they
committed acts of war. You cannot give them the protections of
criminals because they didn't merely commit a crime.
This is known as begging the question. You assume that there is
sufficient evidence to treat them as terrorists when that is
exactly the question at issue. But you knew that, didn't you?
I'm done giving people the benefit of the doubt and presuming that
they're stupid or uninformed, rather than being dishonest.
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 2:42PM|#
McCain isn't even trying anymore, he's just eating the
Constitution line by line.
Well, since he's older than the Constitution, one can understand
how he might feel he has the right to...
tarran|6.13.08 @ 2:42PM|#
If these guys aren't criminals, but merely enemies who have laid
down arms, why not build a POW camp provide them with rations and
the tools needed for gardening and hobbies and allow them to live
in comfort for the duration of the war so long as they don't
attempt escape?
Oh wait, that's right, mixed in with the chef from London and the
kid who was 9 years old when he was supposedly plotting to blow up
Americans and all the other people visiting Pakistan without clan
protection that were picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters and
turned in for the equivalent of several years' wages in FRN's are
some bad dudes who did really plot to commit crimes like mass
murder.
These guys are so bad, and so hard to separate from the rest of the
population that all the prisoners are kept in solitary confinement.
How do we know they're bad? Well, the governemnt claims to have
evidence. Of course, the evidence they have is of a dubious
quality, so dubious that guys are indicted under names they never
had for crimes comitted in places they never were with testimony
that clearly describes someone else - one guy even was indicted
based on the testimony of his wife in Pakistan, except that he had
never married and if memory serves had been in Pakistan all of one
week on a business trip before being picked up by the bounty
hunters.
It's these guys' plight which is the reason why we have habeas
corpus to begin with: it's too easy for the local shire reave to
"round up the usual suspects" and to refuse to release them because
it makes his life easier.
These guys aren't the Japanese Yakuza of that 80's Dolph Lundgren
movie. Even the actual enemies of the U.S. that reside in U.S.
prisons are mere humans, many of them semi-competent at war
making.
Naga Sadow|6.13.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Colin,
What would Bush know of the Geneva Convention? Granted he took to
the skies of Texas to keep the Viet Cong out but that is just one
example.
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Here is my problem with the decision. Terrorists are NOT
criminals.
Terrorists are not soldiers and they most certainly are criminals
(war criminals for sure, but criminals none the less).
There certainly are lots of problems with applying the US judicial
process outside our legal boundaries. But now we have the US
government bringing accused terrorists into the US jurisdiction
then refusing to apply either established civilian criminal
procedures or even established military criminal procedures.
I am far more comfortable extending habeus to them than not.
|6.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
So German POW's held on U.S. soil were entitled to habeas
corpus?
This is a new kind of war, Mr. Ejecito, one where the line between
civilians and military, criminals and combatants, the battlefield
and the home front are blurred. Surely you've come to realize
this.
In such a situation, where the U.S. military bursts into homes to
capture people they haven't seen commit any acts of war just on the
say-so of some third party, then puts them in a camp while not
giving them the rights of POWs, the risks of innocent people
getting caught up are much higher than when we were talking about
uniformed soldiers carrying assault rifles.
Faced with such a situation, and the attendant risks it poses to
innocents both at home and abroad, we can either reconcile this
blurring of military and civilians by allowing the practices of the
military on the battlefield to creep into our civil justice system,
or by allowing elements of our civil justice system to bleed into
the military's practices.
This is not a remotely difficult choice for people who prefer to
live in a free society.
|6.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Fluffy-The man's been in politics since the stone age. He's had
quite a bit to say about torture and similar issues. He knows damn
well what Habeas Corpus means. He's demagoguing.
Of course, he may be capable of Orwellian double-think. Maybe he
believes his bullshit even as he knows it's untrue. The best liars
are capable of that.
|6.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
This continues to prove my point that the north vietnamese
government were successful in their efforts to plant a sleeper
agent in America.
Seriously though -- I'm voting Barr but between Obama and McCain
its Obama by about a mile as imperfect as he is.
|6.13.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Joe-I was going to post a similar response to the German POW analogy, but you beat me too it and did it better.
|6.13.08 @ 2:46PM|#
A lot of people here claim to know an awful lot about the writ
of habeas corpus, but I doubt they do.
A threshold issue in this case that everyone seems to be just
blowing past was whether habeas corpus applied to foreign nationals
held at Guantanamo. I haven't had a chance to read the opinion, but
I suspect that there are non-trivial arguments that it does
not.
Its originally a common-law writ, based on Olde English case law,
that I would be shocked to learn the Olde English had ever applied
to require their armies to hold hearings on captured enemy
combatants.
The writ has also been defined, to some extent by statute. I would
bet not a single person on this thread has looked at the statutes
or the lore on the common-law writ.
C'mon, gang, we can do better than this.
At the moment, I'm agnostic on whether the Court did the right
thing jursiprudentially(because I haven't read the opinion yet),
and I suspect that the civilian courts are not, perhaps, the
optimum forum for people who were taken by our armed forces during
an armed conflict.
Acts of terrorism are most definitely crimes.
Most of the "crimes" committed by these men were outside the
jurisdiction of the US, and so they should not be held at all on
that basis.
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 2:47PM|#
I'm afraid, kinnath, the choice isn't that simple. With
Obama, you could end up giving up your right to bear arms, your
right not to join a union, and your right to the last vestiges of
federalism.
You are assuming that the republicans will not have enought
senators to filibuster. Even so, it will take the democrats far
longer to rewrite the laws which will most certainly be challenged
in court for the extreme cases.
McCain seems far more willing to extend the Bush philosphy that we
can just bypass that whole legislative/judicial nonsense.
|6.13.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Oh, I should say that joe @ 2:45 does as good a job as any at
framing the issue.
Remember, too, that treating them as POWs means that they can be
held "until the end of the war" (in this case, indefinitely), so I
would hesitate before throwing them in that bucket.
|6.13.08 @ 2:50PM|#
As Andrew Sullivan noted, the choice (if it wasn't clear
already) just got clearer.
Sit this one out? Good call.
the innominate one|6.13.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Colin: exactly right. in fact, since the Geneva Conventions have been ratified, they are US law under the constitution. If Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions, then he has violated US law and should be impeached and removed from office.
|6.13.08 @ 2:51PM|#
This is not a remotely difficult choice for people who
prefer to live in a free society.
What about a safe society?
|6.13.08 @ 2:51PM|#
threshold issue in this case that everyone seems to be just
blowing past was whether habeas corpus applied to foreign nationals
held at Guantanamo. I haven't had a chance to read the opinion, but
I suspect that there are non-trivial arguments that it does
not.
No doubt. But that's not the objection I've heard voiced my most of
the decision's critics. Instead, they just shriek that the Supreme
Court has given terrorists permission to murder Americans.
I'd be up for a reasoned discourse on the applicability of HC to
foreign nationals, but it's hard when you have to shout over the
morons and intellectually dishonest whores to be heard.
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Most of the "crimes" committed by these men were outside the
jurisdiction of the US, and so they should not be held at all on
that basis.
And the US government is capturing these criminals and bringing
them into the US jurisdication, then basically saying they are
beyond ANY jurisdiction.
If the US government set up kangaroo courts in the wilds of
Afghanistan, let the local government try and execute the prisoners
under whatever rules the locals set up, then we would still be
miles ahead of where we are now.
No Name Guy|6.13.08 @ 2:54PM|#
And you know what? Despite his hatred for the Bill of Rights, McCain will probably win.
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 2:55PM|#
In such a situation, where the U.S. military bursts into homes to capture people they haven't seen commit any acts of war just on the say-so of some third party, then puts them in a camp while not giving them the rights of POWs, the risks of innocent people getting caught up are much higher than when we were talking about uniformed soldiers carrying assault rifles.
So Al Qaeda terrorists who have no regard for any life, even their
own, have more rights than German soldiers who fought for their
homes and their neighbors?
Anyway, we
should just kill terrorists upon capture . No detainees, no
Camp X-Ray.
Fluffy|6.13.08 @ 2:57PM|#
A threshold issue in this case that everyone seems to be
just blowing past was whether habeas corpus applied to foreign
nationals held at Guantanamo. I haven't had a chance to read the
opinion, but I suspect that there are non-trivial arguments that it
does not.
I read the majority opinion, and the issue boiled down to whether
Guantanamo was US controlled territory.
The Bush admin argued that since the lease we have with Cuba says
that Cuba retains sovereignty over the land, that Guantanamo was
outside US jurisdiction.
The majority held that the fig leaf of sovereignty Cuba retains
over the territory in question was not relevant, because the US
clearly has complete control of Guantanamo. Relying on nominal
sovereignty in the face of that control was not acceptable to the
majority.
|6.13.08 @ 2:57PM|#
It seems like we have two alternatives for the people held as
part of anti-terrorist policies.
One, we hold them as enemy combatants, as stipulated under the
Geneva Convention, and hold them without trial or access to the
outside world for the duration of the War on Terror (how long is
that, again?)
Two, we treat them as criminals, as stipulated under the
constitution. This requires that they are innocent until proven
guilty, and it requires that the government provide evidence
against them in a public court. As I understand criminal law, it
does apply to foreign nationals on American soil.
As joe put it, its not much of a choice for people on the side of
freedom.
Taktix®|6.13.08 @ 2:58PM|#
McCain discussing the Oil Situation
(from this article):
"I believe there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of speculators to find out whether speculation has been going on and, if so, how much it has affected the price of a barrel of oil," Mr. McCain said in response to an audience member's complaint about investors driving up the price of fuel and other commodities. "There's a lot of things out there that need a lot more transparency and, consequently, oversight."
I'm trying to figure out when buying a stock or commodity, based on
what it will do in the future, became illegal.
Now that McCain has gone into full Pander Mode I don't agree with
him on one fucking thing!
|6.13.08 @ 2:59PM|#
What we need is some sort of mind control, where we reprogram these people into right thinking. If we could do that, then we could free them. If they already love America, well, a little extra love after the treatment shouldn't bother them much.
|6.13.08 @ 3:00PM|#
I'm flattered, RC. That is high praise indeed, given the source.
Thank you.
And you are quite right about the problem with the POW status.
That, too, is a wrinkle produced by this new kind of war we're
fighting.
Bob,
We will be a safer society if our military is focused on real
threats and not fake ones. Providing for a "judicial" system that
has adequate protections and adversarial conditions to weed out
mistakes - rather than simply a kangaroo court system to rubber
stamp any government claims - helps us do that. How does holding
people who aren't really the enemy, and using the statements they
provide to their captors as intelligence, make us safer?
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 3:01PM|#
"I believe there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of speculators to find out whether speculation has been going on and, if so, how much it has affected the price of a barrel of oil," Mr. McCain said in response to an audience member's complaint about investors driving up the price of fuel and other commodities. "There's a lot of things out there that need a lot more transparency and, consequently, oversight."
If investors are driving up the cost of oil by speculation, as they
did with real estate two years ago, the oil market will go the way
of the real estate market.
|6.13.08 @ 3:01PM|#
If we give them fair trial and the results become public, then they will essentially be a martyr to there fellow Islamic extremists, and then they'll use that to recruit more terrorists and we'll have another 9-11. 1 person detained vs. 3000+ people dead! Hmm, hard decision...
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 3:01PM|#
So Al Qaeda terrorists who have no regard for any life, even
their own, have more rights than German soldiers who fought for
their homes and their neighbors?
Are you reading-disadvantaged?
Terrorists are criminals. If the US government brings them into US
jurisdiction, then the US should apply US law to them. This could
easily be accomplished by applying US military law at Guitmo or in
US held Iraq.
First Little Pig|6.13.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Oh Bob @2:51,
Do I really have to quote Benjamin Franklin to you? Everyone else
here has read it at least a dozen times.
I'll give you a link so as not to bore the others.
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/000974.html
Now you might want to return to whatever other blog you usually
haunt.
Fluffy|6.13.08 @ 3:03PM|#
So Al Qaeda terrorists who have no regard for any life, even
their own, have more rights than German soldiers who fought for
their homes and their neighbors?
Until they're convicted in a court of law, they aren't Al Qaeda
terrorists. I'm not going to accept that they're Al Qaeda
terrorists based on your say-so, or Bush's. The President is not
the finder of fact.
If you're so anxious to keep these guys out of US courts, the smart
thing would have been to hold them in military detention in
Afghanistan until we had our puppet government set up, and then
turn them over for trial by the Karzai government. But we fucked up
and built a prison/concentration camp in Cuba for them, and having
taken that step the Bush administration now gets to live with the
outcome of it.
|6.13.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Just because someone else mentioned it...
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not
what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give
me death!"
|6.13.08 @ 3:05PM|#
So Al Qaeda terrorists who have no regard for any life, even
their own, have more rights than German soldiers who fought for
their homes and their neighbors?
Actually, those Germans soliders had vastly more rights - those
provided for regular, law-abiding uniformed soldiers under the
Geneva Conventions. Name rank and serial number, mandatory release
at the end of hostilities, no coercive interrogations, and all
sorts of other goodies.
Yes, enemies who operate openly get less of a right to challenge
their detention than those who operate by stealth, because of the
extra step the latter require to confirm their status. It sucks,
but it is what it is.
|6.13.08 @ 3:06PM|#
If we give them fair trial and the results become public,
then they will essentially be a martyr to there fellow Islamic
extremists.
More question begging. Again, you know that, don't you?
|6.13.08 @ 3:06PM|#
The choice is to give up a substantial portion my income when Barry O'Bamma takes over or enjoy the police state that McCain will institute.
Thanks for ruining my weekend. If Bob Barr doesn't get 5% of the
vote, then the situation here is hopeless, and I'll need to think
about which cave I'll emigrate to.
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Until they're convicted in a court of law, they aren't Al Qaeda terrorists. I'm not going to accept that they're Al Qaeda terrorists based on your say-so, or Bush's. The President is not the finder of fact.
How many German soldiers were convicted of being German soldiers in
a U.S. court?
|6.13.08 @ 3:07PM|#
1 person detained vs. 3000+ people dead! Hmm, hard
decision...
The Soviets didn't think so.
If the government can arbitrarily imprison people without having to
show cause how can you say where it stops?
tarran|6.13.08 @ 3:09PM|#
If investors are driving up the cost of oil by speculation, as they did with real estate two years ago, the oil market will go the way of the real estate market.
You say that like its a bad thing....
What's hapopening in the Housing Market is that speculators
miscalculated future prices. They bid up prices expecting future
increases. Had they been right they would have performed a useful
function, encouraging an increase in house production to meet that
future increased demand.
The future demand did not materialize, and the prices are returning
to the level that will clear the actual market for housing.
This meltdown, so called, is how market forces naturally correct
people's expectations. If oil is similarly mispriced, then a
correction would be a good thing.
the innominate one|6.13.08 @ 3:09PM|#
RC, IIRC, the Geneva Conventions have rules concerning treatment
of both "regulars" (uniformed, recognizable members of a state's
armed forces) and "irregulars" like the terrorists and the Bush
Admin has ignored them.
Michael Ejercito, you're an idiot and a pants-wetting pussy. I bet
you sleep in a safe room so the terrorists won't get you.
|6.13.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Anyway, we should just kill terrorists upon capture . No
detainees, no Camp X-Ray.
If a guy's bomb vest doesn't go off, and the Marines on the scene
put a round in his head, you're not going to hear my weeping.
But if two guys in Afghanistan show up at a base with some shmuck,
say he's bin Laden's manicurist, and ask for their $2000 bucks for
delivering a terrorist, that's a bit different, isn't it?
|6.13.08 @ 3:10PM|#
What we need is some sort of mind control, where we
reprogram these people into right thinking. If we could do that,
then we could free them. If they already love America, well, a
little extra love after the treatment shouldn't bother them
much.
I definitely agree, pro liberate. your overdoing it a bit, but the
idea is right. If they loved america, they wouldn't be in guitmo,
now would they?
NotThatDavid|6.13.08 @ 3:10PM|#
How many German soldiers were convicted of being German
soldiers in a U.S. court?
How many ethnic Germans born in Thailand were apprehended as
"soldiers" on the uncorroborated accusation of a third party?
|6.13.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Listen and repeat, DogDammit! Without some sort of due
process, we don't know if these people are terrorists or
not.
Being arrested is not proof-or even much evidence-of guilt. This is
especially true when dealing with spotty intelligence, mistaken
identification and the fog of war.
|6.13.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Is McInsane confused? Is age a factor? Is he to old to remember his oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic(Bush & crew)? Or is he an enemy of the Constitution himself?
|6.13.08 @ 3:13PM|#
If they loved america, they wouldn't be in guitmo, now would
they?
They might be if they pissed off their neighbor in Afghanistan and
the neighbor told US forces that they were terrorists.
|6.13.08 @ 3:14PM|#
tarran -
Hopefully this string of bubbles, all within the same decade, will
help teach the average American how to spot a bubble... or should I
might as well ask for a unicorn riding on a dinosaur with a
human?
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 3:16PM|#
How many German soldiers were convicted of being German
soldiers in a U.S. court?
Michael, you are either stupid or a troll. Uniformed soldiers
operating in a war zone are clearly uniformed soldiers operating in
a war zone -- So Geneva applies.
Non-uniformed soldiers operating in a war zone may be assumed to be
spies which also has an established set of legal procedures.
Terrorists operating in non-war zones are criminals, not soldiers,
not spies, criminals. You can't just "disappear" them into a
quasi-military holding pen forever.
Tacos mmm...|6.13.08 @ 3:19PM|#
So Al Qaeda terrorists who have no regard for any life, even their own, have more rights than German soldiers who fought for their homes and their neighbors?
It seems that the enemy of the day always gets a ridiculous
caricature. The same things were said about the Japanese during the
second World War. Somehow the enemy never has an
appropriate regard for life (whereas "we" always do). Somehow the
reasons that other people fight are always inferior to our
own.
Killing for religion? Absurd! Killing for your nation? Yeah, that
makes sense.
Billly Beck|6.13.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Scan this page for the word "petition" down until this comment
of mine.
John McCain is an asshole, and he's not the only one who doesn't
understand habeas corpus.
|6.13.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Terrorists operating in non-war zones are criminals, not
soldiers, not spies, criminals. You can't just "disappear" them
into a quasi-military holding pen forever.
When Barack Hussein Obama becomes president you'll all see what the
rest of us see now. He'll let all of his fellow Muslims out of jail
and then they'll all go and blow us up. Why else do you think he
won't wear a flag, or say the pledge? The democrat
environmentalists would just love that too since they hate there
own country.
John McCain is the only one running who has the courage to stand up
and say what the rest of us are thinking!
|6.13.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Terrorists operating in non-war zones are criminals, not
soldiers, not spies, criminals.
Well, they're WAR criminals, so a military court (also called a
court-martial) is a perfectly fine place to try them.
It just can't a kangaroo court. It has to be a real one. If not,
the civil courts have the duty to step in, but that's a second-best
solution.
If the accused were being given the courts-martial that the
military long endorsed for such cases, none of this would be
happening, and nobody would be getting habeas corpus rights. But
then, there would be the possibility of innocent people being
acquitted, and that might be embarrassing.
|6.13.08 @ 3:31PM|#
John McCain is the only one running who has the courage to
stand up and say what the rest of us are thinking!
"I could really use a nap."
First Little Pig|6.13.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Oh Reinmoose, you really should have written that as "Reinmoose
as Bob" or something. You really had me going. To think I was going
to write Bob back! Hahaha
Why are there so many people in this country who still think that
there are terrorists everywhere and that we're "fighting them over
there so we don't have to fight them here" and still believe
everything the White House tells them? Why?
|6.13.08 @ 3:35PM|#
FLP -
Because they can't think for themselves and they're encouraged to
believe that what they choose to believe is actually their own,
self-formed opinion?
tarran|6.13.08 @ 3:36PM|#
The crazy thing is that people actually believe that holding
those people in Guantanamo makes them safer. It doesn't:
Most of the people who were picked up were turned in by bounty
hunters far from any battle-field. This wasn't the case of someone
waving a white flag and surrendering on a battlefield.
No, a bounty hunter showed up with a bound captive and said "here's
a terrorist, where's my money?"
Many of the prisoners had no beef with the U.S. prior to their
capture. After brutalizing them for years, the U.S. government has
made them into enemies.
The unjustice of the way innocents are treated there alone (and
everybody knows there were innocents there: Osama Bin Laden did not
hire 9 year old Brits living in England to be on his bodyguard) is
a great argument in favor of Al Queda's efforts to recruit
talent.
Furthermore, have you read what constitutes a domestic terrorist
these days? Guess what Mr Ejertico, according to the U.S.
government, I am a domestic terrorist - because I counsel people to
not cooperate with the Federal Government any more than they
absolutely have to. In theory, if the president ever declares
martial law, and he can do that for almost any excuse at this point
according to Congress, I could face a knock on my door in the
middle of the night.
Oh, I don't think it will happen. The government has far bigger
fish to fry that lil ol' me. But according to George Bush's
interpretation of the law, he could order it. It will be the same
under President Obama or President H. Clinton as well. Of course,
if the FBI ever get a tip that a foreign born ex-navy nuke is
trying to construct a dirty bomb my name will be on a very short
list for further investigation, and once they come upon my
writings, well, I can see Gonzalez breathlessly quoting some of my
more intemperate posts while accusing me of wanting to destroy
America.
I spent a good deal of my childhood in a country where the
government could at a whim lock someone up and torture them, where
terrorism was a daily fact of life. And the terrorism was directly
fueled by the government's heavy handed attempts to enforce their
will on a restive populace, to suppress dissenters. And the more
the government cracked down, the more the dissenters turned to
murders and bombings. Over time the cycle got worse and not better.
You are far more likely to be shot dead by a government official
than to be killed by a terrorist. Your enthusiasm for throwing away
your freedoms for the false security of living under a state that
can lock up people with impunity is very misplaced - it puts your
life in greater danger, not less.
LibertyMark|6.13.08 @ 3:42PM|#
While not addressing any of the substantive points in the
paragraph he quotes, Mr. Ejercito says this:
So Al Qaeda terrorists who have no regard for any life, even
their own, have more rights than German soldiers who fought for
their homes and their neighbors?
These Bush regime apologists are such good little compliant
citizens.
Mr. Ejercito, you just take it as a given that the people being
held are "terrorists". How do you know that? You just take it in
the ass like the good little citizen you are and believe everything
your masters tell you I guess.
My god, how can you be so dense as to not realize that this is the
very reason we have the Writ? How do you get along in life when you
are so hobbled by circular reasoning?
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Well, they're WAR criminals, . . .
Open to interpretration, but I tend to disagree. The bastards that
flew airplanes into the towers and murdered 3,000 people are not
war criminals in that they are in no way combatants in an armed
conflict that overstepped the rules of war. They're just plain
fucking murderers.
I'm not opposed to pushing these criminals over to military court
martials when state secrets are involved, but he first choice
should always be the US criminal justice system.
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 3:45PM|#
On the other hand, Afghanistan and Iraq are active war zones, so terrorists in these jurisdictions would clearly go straight to court martial.
|6.13.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Maybe, kinnath. Maybe.
But that is a quibble. Compared to the difference between these
absurd Military Commission Act show trials and real courts, the
differences between a court martial and a federal district court
are imperceptible.
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 3:48PM|#
When in the course of human events things become bad enough to justify removing the US government by any means necessary, I could easily see shooting Bob as one of the first steps.
kinnath|6.13.08 @ 3:49PM|#
But that is a quibble. Compared to the difference between
these absurd Military Commission Act show trials and real courts,
the differences between a court martial and a federal district
court are imperceptible.
Agreed.
First Little Pig|6.13.08 @ 3:51PM|#
I've been thinking that McCain accidentally made a great point:
if rather than locking the gitmo detainees in a hell hole we rather
pampered them silly, they would neither want to leave nor be our
enemies.
I say build them nice cottages on the beach, provide them with all
the women, booze, smack, whatever they would want and see how
quickly they turn on their former allies just to stay!
Seriously, if they are being held so as to provide information then
this is a much better way than torture and it wont get our allies
all mad at us.
|6.13.08 @ 3:54PM|#
en Barack Hussein Obama becomes president you'll all see
what the rest of us see now. He'll let all of his fellow Muslims
out of jail and then they'll all go and blow us up. Why else do you
think he won't wear a flag, or say the pledge? The democrat
environmentalists would just love that too since they hate there
own country.
Whoops, my mistake. I was talking to you like a person capable of
thought. Sorry about that.
First Little Pig|6.13.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Number 6: That was Reinmoose trying to mock Bob. He was too successful and rather than making fun of Bob he really made us all think it was Bob.
Neil|6.13.08 @ 4:00PM|#
I may not be as good as Cesar was, but I'm much better than the puppeteer that is playing "Bob" today.
robc|6.13.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Remember, too, that treating them as POWs means that they
can be held "until the end of the war" (in this case,
indefinitely), so I would hesitate before throwing them in that
bucket.
Actually, since war was never declared, we couldnt hold them at all
under that standard.
|6.13.08 @ 4:03PM|#
RC, IIRC, the Geneva Conventions have rules concerning
treatment of both "regulars" (uniformed, recognizable members of a
state's armed forces) and "irregulars" like the terrorists and the
Bush Admin has ignored them.
I'm incredibly stale on what the Conventions signed by the US say
on this topic. I do recall that the traditional remedy for
"irregulars" was summary execution.
One of the reasons for the Geneva Conventions was to extend its
protections only to those who fought by its rules, and leave the
rest at the mercy of the enemy. This ruling would appear to be
contrary to that, awarding "illegal combatants" with rights far in
excess of those of legal combatant prisoners/POWs.
I tend to think that:
(1) They are not, and should not be treated as, POWs.
(2) The civilian courts are not a good forum for having these
hearings.
(3) We need a "third way" for dealing with these people. That's
what the tribunals that SCOTUS threw out were intended to
provide.
SCOTUS has closed off the third way with their ruling, at least for
anyone the US military brings onto a military base.
The next case will be whether simply being captured by the US out
of uniform means you get a habeas hearing, or, perhaps, exactly
what kind of US military facility triggers habeas protection.
Drawing fine lines around another country's sovereignty when our
troops are present will be a far trickier business than SCOTUS has
anticipated.
What if, for example, we capture a foreign national stealing
supplies on an Army base. Can we simply remand him to the local
authorities, or does he get to go to Washington first for a habeas
hearing? If not, why not?
TallDave|6.13.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Still not a big deal. The current detainment system is lenient
enough that this will likely result in very few people being
released by federal judges.
Of course, if those people go on to commit terrorist acts, it will
have political consequences anyway.
So all the court has done here is help Republicans.
|6.13.08 @ 4:10PM|#
The stench from this kettle-o-shyte is given me a headache. If I'm followin right, with the ruling from SCOTUS, the WOT just got immeasurably more FUBAR'ed
TallDave|6.13.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Actually, since war was never declared, we couldnt hold them
at all under that standard.
That would mean we never held POWs in Vietnam. Don't think we
declared war on Korea either. Or Panama, Grenada...
First Little Pig|6.13.08 @ 4:13PM|#
RC Dean,
My understanding is that the case of someone stealing supplies from
one of our bases abroad is treated by whatever law is recognized by
the treaty that established the base. I am pretty sure that theft
from one of our bases in Germany or Japan is treated by local law
enforcement.
But it is likely that we've instructed the (read "our puppet")
government in Iraq to allow us to handle most bad guys first.
robc|6.13.08 @ 4:20PM|#
TallDave,
That fact that we violated the law in past "wars" isnt a reason to
continue doing it.
|6.13.08 @ 4:22PM|#
From one Republican to another I gota say; John McCain, WTF are you thinking?! If we don't defend our constitution, we might as well join the other side.
short, fat bastard|6.13.08 @ 4:29PM|#
We survived Pearl Habor, lived through 50 years of mutually
assured destruction, and now we're going to flush the constitution
because where frightened by a bunch of ragheads with absolutely no
fucking ability to wage a serious war against the US.
The solution to the problem is sunshine RC, not some fucked up
third way.
gmatts|6.13.08 @ 4:32PM|#
My friends, Habeas Corpus attacked us on 9/11. So, my friends,
the fact that the Supreme Court, my friends, sided with Mr. Habeas
Corpus over the US just proves, my friends, that Mr. Corpus is, my
friends, a threat that not enough people understand, my
friends.
When I'm elected president, my friends, I'll make certain, my
friends, that the likes of Osama bin Laden and Habeas Corpus, my
friends, will never harm America again.
The only thing more dangerous, my friends, than bombing Habeas
Corpus is, my friends, allowing Habeas Corpus to obtain nuclear
weapons.
My friends.
|6.13.08 @ 4:33PM|#
short, fat bastard,
I think you're missing his point. He's not saying that their should
be no due process for these people; he's just saying that they
aren't domestic criminals or POWs. They are something else that
needs some other sort of due process option. The key words are "due
process" and "habeas corpus".
|6.13.08 @ 4:35PM|#
They have a large number of Americans shakin in their skivvies, willing to give up all kinds of freedoms to be safe. I'd say they are doin a fair job at waging some kind of war.
|6.13.08 @ 4:37PM|#
My understanding is that the case of someone stealing
supplies from one of our bases abroad is treated by whatever law is
recognized by the treaty that established the base. I am pretty
sure that theft from one of our bases in Germany or Japan is
treated by local law enforcement.
That makes it a treaty-by-treaty question where we have one, with
an overriding question of whether the treaty denying habeas corpus
rights could override the Constitutional guarantee. Offhand, I
don't think Congress can limit habeas corpus by adopting a
treatyany more than it can do so by passing a law.
It also leaves wide open the question of what is supposed to happen
in countries where we have troops and/or bases but not treaties
governing our bases there. Like, for instance, Iraq (that treaty is
being negotiated - right now the troops are there under a UN
resolution). And likely Afghanistan, too.
gmatts|6.13.08 @ 4:39PM|#
"We survived Pearl Habor, lived through 50 years of mutually
assured destruction, and now we're going to flush the constitution
because where frightened by a bunch of ragheads with absolutely no
fucking ability to wage a serious war against the US."
How can you not take serious the threat that we're facing? al-Qaeda
has already conquered the Midwest and is moving rapidly towards
taking Washington. And their Navy is positioned just off the
Northeast Coast. It's just like "Red Dawn" out there now.
WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!
And McCain is playing the Patrick Swayze role. Mitt Romney will be
filling in for C. Thomas Howell (rumor has it that he just killed a
deer with a bow and drank its blood).
Fluffy|6.13.08 @ 4:40PM|#
I think you're missing his point. He's not saying that their
should be no due process for these people; he's just saying that
they aren't domestic criminals or POWs. They are something else
that needs some other sort of due process option.
You see, this has never flown with me.
In the US system, there should not be any "something else". It's
either/or.
They're either POW's or criminals.
If they'er criminals, they're either criminals in a war zone
subject to military law, or they're criminals outside a war zone
subject to plain old regular US law.
The Geneva Conventions were designed to create a set of protections
for soldiers and civilians in war time to replace the utter
lawlessness that had accompanied wars in Europe for
millennia. The status of POW was designed to prevent summary
executions, torture, etc.
But we're the United States, and that means we shouldn't have a
"default state" of torture and murder that we need the Conventions
to overcome.
Outside of the protections of the Conventions, whatever legal
system a signatory wants to employ should control.
If you have some sort of Hitlerian legal system where you can
torture and kill whoever you want, if someone you capture isn't a
POW, you can submit them to that system. But if you don't
have that kind of system, the Conventions aren't your excuse to
create one, for people who can't be considered POW's. And
Bush - and McCain - thinks that it is, and that's a huge
problem.
short, fat bastard|6.13.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I think you're missing his point.
(3) We need a "third way" for dealing with these people.
That's what the tribunals that SCOTUS threw out were intended to
provide.
I disagree Pro Lib. Either we should not capture "terrorists" in
foreign lands then bring them into US legal jurisdiction or we
should us one of the two well-established processes for dealing
with them when they get here. There is absolutly no reason to
invent a new tribunal that ignores all existing criminal or
military justice concepts.
If terrorists are captured in a war zone, then we should use our
exiting military court martial to try them. If they're not in a war
zone, I don't see how we have any legal standing to bring them back
to the US for any kind of trial -- they should be turned over the
local justice system. Of course I don't see how we could capture
them in some other country to start with if it's not an active war
zone where our military is engaged.
short, fat bastard|6.13.08 @ 4:45PM|#
How can you not take serious the threat that we're facing?
al-Qaeda has already conquered the Midwest and is moving rapidly
towards taking Washington
Downtown is under water right now. Al-Qeada has clearly created
weapons that control the weather. We're all fucked now.
|6.13.08 @ 4:48PM|#
That would mean we never held POWs in Vietnam.
We didn't. We turned them over to the South Vietnamese.
gmatts|6.13.08 @ 4:50PM|#
"Downtown is under water right now. Al-Qeada has clearly created
weapons that control the weather. We're all fucked now."
I actually don't blame al-Qaeda for that. I blame "so-called"
Justice Kennedy.
|6.13.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Fluffy,
The problem is that the open-ended duration of the War on Terror
makes the POW classification a very bad thing. If this goes on for
twenty more years, and they're designated POWs, then they get to
stay in Cuba for another twenty years.
|6.13.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Incidentally, I'm not addressing torture or other ill treatment of prisoners. I think that's wrong, regardless of how we classify these detainees.
tarran|6.13.08 @ 5:02PM|#
AGAIN I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MANY OF THE U.S. PRISONERS WERE
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY BOUNTY HUNTERS AND SOLD TO THE U.S. ARMY!
It's a situation rife for abuse with people who are innocent of any
wrongdoing other than being a member of the wrong clan (or even
being a foreigner without clan protection) being hoovered up by
someone seeking easy money.
It's not like U.S. soldiers rushed an enemy position and the
fighters surrendered. The only "evidence" that the U.S. had that
many of them had carried arms against the U.S. was the word of
people who stood to gain financially (bounties and rewards) and/or
psychically (say anything to end the torture).
Shit, I guess in World War II, I could have mad a buttload of money
grabbing frenchmen and selling them to U.S. forces as collaborators
too. And my victims should have been out of luck.
These government officials are the same mental midgets who
prosecute the war on some drugs and argue that autarky is a cost
effective energy policy. Yeah, we really should give them a pass
and let them continue the detentions without judicial review.
My hat is off to all the military lawyers who have been so
successful at forcing this issue into the civilian court system
after their superiors decided that justice was secondary to looking
good.
And yes, if we end the solitary confinement, allow them to manage
their own messing and provide them with gardening tools, books,
sports equipment and access to the mails, then indefinite
confinement as a POW is far less damaging than indefinite solitary
confinement in a supermax style prison.
|6.13.08 @ 5:02PM|#
They are something else that needs some other sort of due
process option.
The Protocols to Geneva address this, but we're not signatory to
them. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't follow the spirit
of them.
Or we could have, you know, listened to the JAG's ideas of what to
do.
|6.13.08 @ 5:04PM|#
"""There is absolutly no reason to invent a new tribunal that
ignores all existing criminal or military justice
concepts."""
Sure there is. To demonstrate to the world that the principles of
justice and freedom which this country was founded don't really
apply when we don't want them to.
|6.13.08 @ 5:10PM|#
"""AGAIN I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MANY OF THE U.S. PRISONERS
WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY BOUNTY HUNTERS AND SOLD TO THE U.S.
ARMY!"""
Bush wants a court with a low enough bar to convict on hearsay
alone. Someone told me he was a terrorist, our troops took in
custody therefore it must be true.
|6.13.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Just found an interesting article. Apparently, we had this argument the last time we were at war.
|6.13.08 @ 5:27PM|#
There is absolutly no reason to invent a new tribunal that
ignores all existing criminal or military justice
concepts.
I completely agree. I don't think we should ignore all existing
criminal or military justice concepts.
I'm just not so sure its a great idea to give the full due process
panoply to these people.
For example, on the hearsay question alone: Are we really going to
fly the servicemen back from Iraq to testify about how and why
these people were taken into custody? Are we really going to out
our informants within the militias and AQ by forcing them to
testify in Washington in these hearings?
If not, how do we grant an exception to the hearsay rule to allow
this testimony in?
I just don't think its that easy.
tarran|6.13.08 @ 5:37PM|#
For example, on the hearsay question alone: Are we really going to fly the servicemen back from Iraq to testify about how and why these people were taken into custody?
There are these newfangled devices called television cameras,
satellites and televisions that allow moving pictures to be
transmitted nearly instantly from one part of the world to another
with sound even!
And yes, if you are going to treat someone as a criminal you need
to permit them a chance to rebut the evidence against them. It's
called the rule of law.
The alternative, where the government locks up whomever it wishes
with no recourse to the accused is far, far worse than an
occasional suicide bomber getting out of custody. And, if your
treat them humanely, they are less likely to strap on the vest
too.
|6.13.08 @ 6:39PM|#
"And yes, if you are going to treat someone as a criminal you
need to permit them a chance to rebut the evidence against them.
It's called the rule of law."
To piggyback..
The assumption of our rules are that some guilty people will go
free in order to prevent innocents from being incarcerated.
It's a risk. That's the price of freedom. "It's why we're the land
of the free and the home of the brave."
|6.13.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Scan this page for the word "petition" down until this
comment of mine.
John McCain is an asshole, and he's not the only one who doesn't
understand habeas corpus.
Any person, not just an interested party, can initiate a writ. I'm
not sure what you're point is here (although knowing the
Anarchrist, I never do...)
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Mr. Ejercito, you just take it as a given that the people being held are "terrorists". How do you know that? You just take it in the ass like the good little citizen you are and believe everything your masters tell you I guess.
Why should we question whether or not the people detained in
Guantanamo Baty are terrorists?
No one questioned whether or not people held in POW camps on U.S.
soil were really German troops.
Michael Ejercito|6.13.08 @ 8:52PM|#
This meltdown, so called, is how market forces naturally correct people's expectations. If oil is similarly mispriced, then a correction would be a good thing.
Yes, it would.
Of course, I would not enter into a futures or option contract on
the assumption that oil prices will go back to the December, 2000
price any more than I would on the assumption that real estate
prices would go back to the December, 2000 price.
!|6.13.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Why should we question whether or not the people detained in
Guantanamo Baty are terrorists?
No one questioned whether or not people held in POW camps on U.S.
soil were really German troops.
Ding ding ding. . . we have a winner . . you are clearly a Grade-A
mother fucker.
|6.13.08 @ 9:28PM|#
No one questioned whether or not people held in POW camps on
U.S. soil were really German troops.
There was never any reason to.
The substantive differences between how one came to be an
American-held POW in World War 2 and how people came to be
American-held POWs in Afghanstan are so immense as to render such a
comparison inapt.
As the wingnuts keep saying, this is a new kind of war, and we need
to come up with new ways to fight it, including in our detention
policies, to reflect those changes. They are absolutely right about
that - but that point cuts both ways. Even in a new kind of war, we
need to fight it in a manner consistent with our principles and
laws. We are not barbarians, we are civilized people who believe in
the rule of law and human rights.
tarran|6.14.08 @ 12:50AM|#
Why should we question whether or not the people detained in Guantanamo Baty are terrorists?
No one questioned whether or not people held in POW camps on U.S. soil were really German troops.
Okay, I guess I need to explain this again.
The German POW's were caught making war. U.S. or allied troops saw
them, pointed guns at them and they surrendered. The U.S.
government didn't grab people at random from a civilian population
and subject them to brutal interrogation in an attempt to ferret
out enemies. The U.S government wisely left that sort of behavior
to the Nazis
Guess how many of the guys in Guantanamo bay were captured in
battle? Maybe 5 - 10?
The significant portion of them were turned over by Pakistani
police who said, "trust me, this man is very bad... you got my
reward money?"
The vast majority of the rest were turned over by Afghani fighters
who walked up to U.S. forces and said "the man in that house is an
Al Queda fighter... you got my reward money?".
The only evidence we have is from those bounty hunters. Oh and
damning testimony from fellow fighters who helpfully explain that
"Yes, I saw him in a training camp in August of 2000, and if you
would be so kind as to withdraw your penis from my rectum, I would
be happy to sign a paper to that effect".
Thus it is no surprise that Gitmo has at one time or another held
as prisoners a guy who was a chef running the kitchen at at a posh
2 star restaurant in London while training as a terrorist in
Afghanistan. The 9 year old kid who was simultaneously attending
grade school in an English city while serving as one of Osama Bin
Laden's body guards in Afghanistan. Oh, and there was that guy who
stopped one of the first tribunals dead in its tracks when he
pointed out that he had never been married, and that his indictment
and the affidavits of his wife and all the other witnesses against
him referred to someone with a completely different name. "Don't
you guys do an identity check like we do in England whenever
someone is arrested?" he asked. This guy too can prove he was in
England at the time he was alleged to have been training with Al
Queda.
If I knocked you out, Mr Ejercito, and dragged your sorry
unconscious ass from Long Beach CA to Pakistan and turned you in
for the bounty, and you were subjected to the sort of investigation
the U.S. Defense Dept and the CIA have typically conducted, they
would have an equally persuasive dossier about your antiAmerican
activities and you would be facing death or life imprisonment in
supermax conditions. Hell, spend a few months in Morocco learning
how to be a bottom and you would probably be admitting that you had
actively looked into how to blow up the Coronado bridge in a manner
timed to drop it on a navy ship and ratting out that fellow with
the handle hb_engineer as a fellow member of the conspiracy. And
you'd be especially eager to convince the nice guys with the big
muscles of this fact so that they would leave you alone
again.
It is this sort of abuse that Habeas Corpus is supposed to limit.
Throw it away, and I say this as someone who has lived in a fascist
country as a kid, and you will be in far more danger than you are
from the ineptly run Al Queda.
Pablo Escobar|6.14.08 @ 1:10AM|#
I really hope Iran gets 100 or so nuclear warheads... and
soon.
Nuclear weapons, like widespread gun ownership, make for a polite
society.
There is no stopping John McCain if he gets elected president. He
will attack Iran and insitute a military draft -- unless Iran
actually acquires real WMDs rather than make-believe ones.
Pablo Escobar|6.14.08 @ 1:16AM|#
The only evidence we have is from those bounty hunters. Oh and damning testimony from fellow fighters who helpfully explain that "Yes, I saw him in a training camp in August of 2000, and if you would be so kind as to withdraw your penis from my rectum, I would be happy to sign a paper to that effect".
The above is the best response to the warmongers I've seen in a
while.
|6.14.08 @ 10:40AM|#
you all should understand that Mr. Ejercito isn't very smart and seems to like to troll.
Apaulogist|6.14.08 @ 3:56PM|#
McCain is ineligble to run-by his own argument!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/politics/fromtheroad/entry4180901.shtml
If Guantanamo Bay is not to be considered U.S. soil for
jurisdictional purposes, than neither is the military base in
Panama where he was born. According to the U.S. Constitution, only
"natural born" citizens are eligible to be President. Citizens born
elsewhere (like California Governor Arnold Schwarzennegar) are
ineligible.
The guy is digging his own legal/political grave.
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