Black Hole Sun
by Lee
Marty Lederman gets it right.
On the basic habeas question, perhaps the most explanatory line of the majority opinion is this one: “The test for determining the scope of [the Suspension Clause] must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.” In other words, because the Government chose to detain these prisoners at GTMO for the very purpose of avoiding a judicial check on the legality of the detentions, the Court will ensure that the constitutional guarantee extends to the naval base. Or as Gerry Neuman and Harold Koh put it in their amicus brief in Rasul: “The U.S. government should not be permitted to evade judicial scrutiny by transporting [prisoners] to Guantanamo instead of Puerto Rico.”
In other words, the idea that the US government can use a US military base to hide from US law is, to put it mildly, complete and total bullshit. Had the Bush administration not tried to find half-assed excuses for their lawlessness, and had Congress found the balls to try and check their power grab, the SCOTUS would never have been put in a position to have had to make this decision. Which gets back to what I have said all along, if you want to blame someone for this decision, blame the Bush administration. If they’d just followed the law, or taken the proper path in creating new law, none of this ever would have transpired.
If the power of the government to create “law-free zones” had been upheld, there is no limit to how far this would be abused.
Comments
It’s all the “true” Republicans that make me abhor the Party. Don’t get me wrong, I like some of what Bush did.
However, it’s the “true” Republican stance on torture that makes me want nothing to do with the party.
Amen. There will always be asshole presidents. What the clincher was for me this time around was the iron-clad support that Bush received from the “real conservatives,” even as he engaged in activities that are completely antithetical to everything that I have ever appreciated about conservatism.
In the great argument last night I asked Thrill about four times if he was, on principle, opposed to the concept of indefinite detention without trial. He never answered me, and I think he’s a typical example of the Bush apologist Republican era.
If Saudi Arabia were holding an American forever without trial the howls of indignation would be deafening. But when we do it, well, it’s okay, because the only people we do it to are terrists who wanna destroy Amurka.
My liberty and freedoms are far more threatened by Thrill and the rest of the “real conservatives” than by some raghead a few thousand miles away.
In the great argument last night I asked Thrill about four times if he was, on principle, opposed to the concept of indefinite detention without trial. He never answered me
Was that the question? How many times do I have to make a statement around here on one thread?
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 07:18 AM from
They’re prisoners-of-war. They should therefore be interred for the duration of hostilities. I’m simply agreeing with stogy and Ed Kline on this one.I’m not being out of bounds at all by saying that if they are POWs, they should be treated as such.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 07:44 AM from
Lock them up until the end of the conflict, as begun with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2002. We can repatriate them at the end of it all or we can try them for war crimes.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 07:54 AM from
POW status does mean that we can’t “torture them, or ship them off to other countries to be tortured”, but it also means that we can totally detain them for the duration of hostilities without a trial.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 08:20 AM from
Then call them “soldiers” and lock them up for the duration of the conflict as befits POWs.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 08:28 AM from
I say they should be POWs. Then we can lock them up indefinitely, but not put women’s underwear on their heads. I can think of nothing that should make you happier.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 08:40 AM from
I don’t know. However, declaring captured AQ fighters to be POWs is a valid option if you don’t mind the indefinite detention.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 10:48 AM from
The rest of their lives does seem harsh. We should just go for the duration of hostilities like I keep saying.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 11:02 AM from
Uh, no, habeas corpus never was given to people who were actually fighting us. Even Confederate soldiers captured on Union soil were in fact detained for the duration of the war without trials
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 11:19 AM from
Lee, you are the one who has been saying that the DTA and MCA were unacceptable alternatives to habeas corpus in federal courts. Quit trying to move the goal posts. I showed you in no uncertain terms that tribunals--such as in Ex Parte Quirin--have been acceptable by the Supreme Court for foreign soldiers. Now you want a citation for detaining anyone “forever”? There is no such thing because SCOTUS has never before ruled on the detainment of enemy prisoners of war. They can absolutely be kept indefinitely without trial. End of story.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 11:29 AM from
This is fucking surreal. In what world conflict has detaining enemy soldiers for the duration of combat (minus parole and trades) NOT been the norm?
Here’s where I did, in fact, directly answer you:
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 11:37 AM from
Admit it, Thrill, it’s a simple question. Do you have a problem with the concept of detention forever without a trial?I have no problem with detaining prisoners of war for the duration of a conflict. That is all over this thread.
Let’s see if this one “takes”:
I firmly support the concept of indefinite detention for prisoners-of-war without trial because that is consistent with international law and military custom. If I Google this site, I can also show that I have been in favor of tribunals for detainees all along as opposed to indefinitely detaining them. However, for you to accuse me of not answering a question when I most certainly did reflects poorly on you.
More to follow…
I have no problem with detaining prisoners of war for the duration of a conflict. That is all over this thread.
Cop out answer, as usual. It’s a simple question, Thrill. Do you have a problem with the concept of permanent detention without a trial? I know very well that you’re falling back on your typical semantic wordplay, but the issue here is very simple.
1. If you support the concept of indefinite detention without trial then you’re a fascist.
2. If you are willing to admit that the GWOT can, and almost certainly will, be a war without end, then you by default support indefinite detention without trial, and thus are a fascist.
3. If you don’t support indefinite detention without trial, then you’ve spent a countless amount of time arguing in favor of something you don’t believe.
The “duration of the conflict” response is as lame as the “Obama’s middle name is Hussein” response. The only reason the current laws refer to the duration of the conflict is predicated on the idea that, within a somewhat reasonable timeframe, the conflict will end. Since the GWOT is aimed at the tactics used by specifics groups, and not the groups themselves, there will always be terrorists we are at war with. I don’t have any problem whatsoever with this war being more or less permanent, our enemies have put us in that position. But I’m certainly not going to use it as justification for the type of barbaric behavior with which you clearly have no problem whatsoever.
When I cal you a fascist I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean it literally. You’re in favor of unchecked government power, indefinite detention, and people with the classification as “unperson.” Read last night’s Churchill quote again for one other man’s opinion.
You also don’t seem to have a problem with the administration using bullshit legal semantics to avoid US laws. One more strike against you.
To carry some more from the previous GTMO thread:
Posted by Lee on 06/18/08 at 10:18 PM from
And before the usual gang of lunatics goes off with their bullshit theories about soldiers reading Miranda rights or anything else that absurd
Why is that absurd? Seeing as how the Supreme Court has ruled for the first time in history that foreign belligerents engaged in combat against the United States captured and held overseas are entitled to challenge their detention in federal court, it follows that they could claim that their due process rights were violated because they were never informed of their rights. This sort of thing can certainly be grounds for an appeal and I can’t say with any certainty what the Court will find if it comes before them.
If you want to blame someone don’t blame the courts, blame the administration for creating this mess and the Congress for being too gutless to do anything other than punt it to the courts.
By justifying the bad behavior of SCOTUS by pointing to the perceived bad behavior of Congress and the Administration, aren’t you really just doing your own version of the “Democrats Do It To Defense”? This was an awful ruling in which five justices applied their own ideals to the verdict instead of existing precedent and their own Constitutional role in warfare.
I don’t think these men qualify as POWs, but they certainly aren’t unpersons with no rights.
Everytime I bring up the designation “Unlawful Enemy Combatants”, you scoff and call it a made-up term. As it turns out, you don’t really know what to call them either.
What are the GTMO detainees to you, Lee? What sort of court should handle them? What rules of evidence would you have? Where should they be incarcerated?
I have seen all your criticisms, but how about some alternatives?
Those questions may be worth a whole post, I think.
Thrill, I think the problem is that ‘detention until the end of the war’ is a flawed concept in a ‘war’ that has no conceivable end.
To be unfairly (and clumsily) trite - if the condition of the end of the war is that we want no more members of AQ, but we are keeping (say) 100 suspected AQ members alive in Gitmo, then by definition the war cannot end, and therefore they are being detained indefinately.
On top of that - if we happen to keep an innocent arab incarcerated for 15 years until the GWOT ends - the minute he is released, the problem starts all over again…
1. If you support the concept of indefinite detention without trial then you’re a fascist.
Then every US president who was in office during a war in which prisoners were captured and detained is too. Thomas Jefferson=Hitler.
2. If you are willing to admit that the GWOT can, and almost certainly will, be a war without end, then you by default support indefinite detention without trial, and thus are a fascist.
I’ve never said that the GWoT was neverending. Furthermore, I have been in favor of tribunals all along.
3. If you don’t support indefinite detention without trial, then you’ve spent a countless amount of time arguing in favor of something you don’t believe.
If you believe that you can find any examples of nations not holding prisoners for the duration of conflicts (not counting exchanges, ransoms, executions, or paroles), then I’d say you have some homework to do. Indefinite homework.
Since the GWOT is aimed at the tactics used by specifics groups, and not the groups themselves, there will always be terrorists we are at war with.
That’s ridiculous. I even gave you the appropriate line from the AUMF of 2002 yesterday. We are fighting those that:
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,
Claiming that we are at war with everyone who uses terrorist tactics is simply untrue. Are we at war with ecoterrorists who burn down SUV dealerships? No. The President claimed to be acting under the authority of the AUMF of 2002--rightly or wrongly--and to expand this to any other organization would require a new authorization. The destruction of al-Qaeda will not take forever.
When I cal you a fascist I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean it literally. You’re in favor of unchecked government power, indefinite detention, and people with the classification as “unperson.”
You spend too much time with leftists nowadays, Lee. You now have learned to substitute “fascist” and “racist” in place of arguments.
I have always stood for checks on government power--including and especially rogue courts.
I do support indefinite detention for enemy prisoners of war as does everyone else on this blog who thinks that you’re completely out of touch with historical fact on this issue.
I do not support calling anyone an “unperson”. I favor calling them “unlawful enemy combatants” and placing them before tribunals in which classified information can be protected but the defendants are still entitled to a fair trial. You yourself have no idea what to call them.
Your beloved strawman tactics don’t work on me. I comment enough around here that my opinions are well known by even casual readers.
Thrill, I think the problem is that ‘detention until the end of the war’ is a flawed concept in a ‘war’ that has no conceivable end.
Any war could drag on forever, in theory. What is your point?
On top of that - if we happen to keep an innocent arab incarcerated for 15 years until the GWOT ends - the minute he is released, the problem starts all over again…
If he has committed war crimes, then he can be tried as a war criminal and dealt with at any time. If the al-Qaeda network is effectively disbanded and the prisoner has not violated any laws, he should be returned to his home country.
Any war could drag on forever, in theory. What is your point?
Well, no, because there is usually a treaty or a surrender. As long as there are 6 guys with an internet site in east Finchley, this will never happen. Unless you’re saying that once we catch OBL we’ll pack up and go home?
To be unfairly (and clumsily) trite - if the condition of the end of the war is that we want no more members of AQ, but we are keeping (say) 100 suspected AQ members alive in Gitmo, then by definition the war cannot end, and therefore they are being detained indefinately.
Which is exactly the kind of argument based on legal semantics that Thrill seems to think is shit-hot iron-clad proof of righteousness.
Any war could drag on forever, in theory. What is your point?
Really? Name one that we’ve been involved in that’s gone on forever.
Everytime I bring up the designation “Unlawful Enemy Combatants”, you scoff and call it a made-up term. As it turns out, you don’t really know what to call them either.
You can call them “Dancing Sunshine Bunnyrabbits” for all I care, it makes no difference. Ultimately what matters is their disposition, and “unperson with no rights” just doesn’t cut it.
At least for me since I have that pesky respect for the law that you seem to find such a hinderance.
I have seen all your criticisms, but how about some alternatives?
I’ve answered this about a thousand times. I’m not going to waste my time doing it again.
Really? Name one that we’ve been involved in that’s gone on forever.
Fell into your own trap that time, Lee. If no war can go on forever, then I guess we can’t really detain everyone “forever” like you keep saying, now can we. Point: Me.
If you choose to ignore the qualifier “in theory”, there isn’t much I can do for you.
You can call them “Dancing Sunshine Bunnyrabbits” for all I care, it makes no difference. Ultimately what matters is their disposition, and “unperson with no rights” just doesn’t cut it.
At least for me since I have that pesky respect for the law that you seem to find such a hinderance.
No answers. You still don’t know what to call them.
I’ve answered this about a thousand times. I’m not going to waste my time doing it again.
Well, Lee, you incorrectly accused me of ignoring a question from you four times until I showed you explicitly that I did in fact answer it. Perhaps you would be so good as to simply provide the link to where I could find this answer. Thanks.
That’s ridiculous. I even gave you the appropriate line from the AUMF of 2002 yesterday. We are fighting those that:
Ah, I see. Let’s assume that AQ is “defeated” and we are “victorious.” If a movement calling itself the “Popular Front for the Free Ejaculation of Palestine” were to launch a terrorist attack against a US target you’d say, “Well, golly gee, since AQ is now defeated we better let all these guys go since they’re not part of the group we’re attacking.” Of course you wouldn’t.
Claiming that we are at war with everyone who uses terrorist tactics is simply untrue. Are we at war with ecoterrorists who burn down SUV dealerships? No.
Why shouldn’t we be?
You now have learned to substitute “fascist” and “racist” in place of arguments.
No, I haven’t. There are plenty of other people here who disagree with me who haven’t earned that sobriquet, just you, for your continued and repeated support of the right of an emperor/king president to use lettre de cachet to imprison anyone he likes for as long as he likes.
I do support indefinite detention for enemy prisoners of war as does everyone else on this blog who thinks that you’re completely out of touch with historical fact on this issue.
Exactly. You support detention of “prisoners of war” (I like how you use a term that you don’t think should be applied to detainees) until the end of hostilities in a war that will never end. Thus you support the detention without trial of detainees forever.
I do not support calling anyone an “unperson”.
Actually, that was Stalin’s word. You just support the same rules for detaining of enemies that he did.
Your beloved strawman tactics don’t work on me. I comment enough around here that my opinions are well known by even casual readers.
Indeed they are.
Fell into your own trap that time, Lee. If no war can go on forever, then I guess we can’t really detain everyone “forever” like you keep saying, now can we. Point: Me.
No, stupid. I’m saying that previous wars were against a specific enemy, not an ideology or a tactic. Thus previous wars, once the specific enemy was defeated, would come to an end. This war, since it is not directed against anyone specifically, can and will go on forever.
I’m not complaining about the war on terror, I think it is a war and I think not specifying one particular group is the correct approach. But I also don’t think that torture and detention forever without a trial are the hallmarks of the world’s greatest democracy. But, then again, I’m not a fan of the lowest common denominator like you are.
No answers. You still don’t know what to call them.
Enemy combatant is a perfectly acceptable term, provided it’s not used in the manner you use it, as “proof” that current laws don’t provide any sort of legal protection for detainees.
Well, Lee, you incorrectly accused me of ignoring a question from you four times until I showed you explicitly that I did in fact answer it.
No you didn’t. The question requires a simple yes or no answer, one which you will not provide without your bullshit semantic qualification at the end.
Ah, I see. Let’s assume that AQ is “defeated” and we are “victorious.” If a movement calling itself the “Popular Front for the Free Ejaculation of Palestine” were to launch a terrorist attack against a US target you’d say, “Well, golly gee, since AQ is now defeated we better let all these guys go since they’re not part of the group we’re attacking.” Of course you wouldn’t.
Maybe we should just sit down and talk with them (see, I can be flippant too!).
Why shouldn’t we be?
Had nothing to do with the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2002.
Exactly. You support detention of “prisoners of war” (I like how you use a term that you don’t think should be applied to detainees)
Read the above quotes I gave you the last time you got my words wrong. I outright said that we should classify them as POWs as a valid option.
Actually, that was Stalin’s word. You just support the same rules for detaining of enemies that he did.
I thought it was Orwell. Either way, FDR detained enemies without trial as well. They were called “prisoners of war”.
And before everyone gets all worked up, I’m not getting into the same argument I got into last night. I’m tired, I just got home from work, it’s about 90 degrees in my apartment, and I’m certainly not going to waste my time arguing against someone as clueless and immoral as Thrill.
Maybe we should just sit down and talk with them (see, I can be flippant too!).
I’m not being flippant. You said that the end of hostilities would come when AQ was defeated. But the war isn’t against AQ, it’s against “terra.” So as long as there are “terrists” you will support indefinite detention without trial.
Had nothing to do with the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2002.
Nice dodge. I said “Why shouldn’t we be?” If the war is against terrorists, and the environmentalist lunatics are clearly using terrorist tactics, why shouldn’t we be at war with them? Why shouldn’t we be locking them up without trial in Gitmo?
I thought it was Orwell
You ought to try *reading* a little Orwell. Particularly Animal Farm, I think you might find a few of the characters in there eerily familiar.
Either way, FDR detained enemies without trial as well. They were called “prisoners of war”.
Actually, they were called “American citizens of Japanese descent.” But I’m sure you have no problem with that, either, do you?
No, stupid. I’m saying that previous wars were against a specific enemy, not an ideology or a tactic
Third time now. Those who:
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,
How is that referring to a tactic or idealogy? It refers to the perpetrators, conspirators, and sponsors of a specific act.
No you didn’t. The question requires a simple yes or no answer, one which you will not provide without your bullshit semantic qualification at the end.
I gave you an answer that you didn’t like because you could not distort it to support all of your fantasies about my viewpoints.
And before everyone gets all worked up, I’m not getting into the same argument I got into last night. I’m tired, I just got home from work, it’s about 90 degrees in my apartment, and I’m certainly not going to waste my time arguing against someone as clueless and immoral as Thrill.
Then don’t. To be fair, you called me out on this thread. If you don’t want an argument, don’t ask for one.
Actually, they were called “American citizens of Japanese descent.” But I’m sure you have no problem with that, either, do you?
Actually, I was thinking of those German, Italian, and Japanese of Japanese descent POWs. German POWs were actually held on US soil without trials for the duration of the war. Fascinating.
FDR was quite the fascist when he wasn’t so busy, uh, fighting fascists.
How is that referring to a tactic or idealogy? It refers to the perpetrators, conspirators, and sponsors of a specific act.
You do remember that the AUMF for Iraq was predicated on the idea that Iraq fell into that category, right? Well, we all know now that that was total bullshit. So don’t sit there and argue the specificity of that one act when, clearly, it can easily be expanded to cover just about anyone and anything.
Tell me, if the US were to capture members of Hezbollah should we let them go? You know, since they’re not covered by the AUMF you keep quoting ad nauseum.
I gave you an answer that you didn’t like because you could not distort it to support all of your fantasies about my viewpoints.
Let’s do it one more time, for the record.
Yes or No: Do you, on principle, support the right of the government to lock away those it deems enemy combatants indefinitely without the right to trial or review?
Simple question. My answer is no. Yours is, as the Chinese say, “bu ming bai.”
Actually, I was thinking of those German, Italian, and Japanese of Japanese descent POWs. German POWs were actually held on US soil without trials for the duration of the war. Fascinating.
Exactly. They weren’t tortured, they weren’t abused, and they were held to the highest standards. I remember reading one story about Germans held in an American POW camp asked for, and received, a Nazi flag so that they could perform a burial ceremony for one of their members who died in camp. Why? Because this was required under the GC’s.
These soldiers all knew that, one way or another, they would get a hearing of some kind and/or be repatriated. Those who committed war crimes were held for trial and punished according to the law.
The people we have in Gitmo, until a few days ago, had no such guarantee.
FDR was quite the fascist when he wasn’t so busy, uh, fighting fascists.
Actually, I think the Japanese internment was one of the more despicable acts of the US government in the 20th century. You, no doubt, think it was super awesome and wonder why we haven’t done the same thing to scary Arabs in America.
You do remember that the AUMF for Iraq was predicated on the idea that Iraq fell into that category, right? Well, we all know now that that was total bullshit. So don’t sit there and argue the specificity of that one act when, clearly, it can easily be expanded to cover just about anyone and anything.
Nevertheless, a separate resolution was needed. The intelligence that provided the declarations used in the resolution was “substantiated” even according to the Phase II report.
Tell me, if the US were to capture members of Hezbollah should we let them go?
Captured where and doing what?
Yes or No: Do you, on principle, support the right of the government to lock away those it deems enemy combatants indefinitely without the right to trial or review?
No. I have always said that they should be tried in military tribunals and I had no problem with the review procedures of the CSRT. POWs are a different classification and a different set of rules applies.
The people we have in Gitmo, until a few days ago, had no such guarantee.
Ah, but they weren’t POWs either.
You, no doubt, think it was super awesome and wonder why we haven’t done the same thing to scary Arabs in America.
There is not enough straw in all the barns in Kansas to keep your arguments going sometimes, Lee.
Nevertheless, a separate resolution was needed. The intelligence that provided the declarations used in the resolution was “substantiated” even according to the Phase II report.
Nevertheless, the second resolution was gotten by basing it on the first, which blows your specificity theory out of the water.
Captured where and doing what?
Dunno. Let’s say special forces come across a large weapons cache in Iraq. They kill a bunch of terrorists and capture a few more. The guys aren’t AQ they’re Hezbollah. Found along with the cache are plans for future attacks against US troops, and even preliminary plans for an attack on the US homeland.
Fair game to be sent to Gitmo? Yes or no.
No. I have always said that they should be tried in military tribunals and I had no problem with the review procedures of the CSRT.
What you “don’t have a problem with” is immaterial, it’s a matter of law. (That pesky thing that keeps getting in your way.)
Ah, but they weren’t POWs either.
Of course not. They were “enemy combatants,” a classification intentionally designed to place them into a legal gray area, outside the purview of existing law. They were taken to Gitmo, a US military base, specifically for the purpose of ignoring existing US and international law.
And you have absolutely no problem with this.
Nevertheless, the second resolution was gotten by basing it on the first, which blows your specificity theory out of the water.
Go read the Iraq Resolution. The AUMF of 2002 is referenced in a single paragraph near the end. Saying that the Iraq War is based on it is weak beer.
Fair game to be sent to Gitmo? Yes or no.
No. Prisoners captured in Iraq were not sent to GTMO, to the best of my knowledge. I’ll revise my comment if anyone can show otherwise.
What you “don’t have a problem with” is immaterial, it’s a matter of law.
“Law” is what is passed by Congress and signed into the effect by the President. That’s how the Constitution works. The CSRT’s are based on law, regardless of whether you like them or not.
Of course not. They were “enemy combatants,” a classification intentionally designed to place them into a legal gray area, outside the purview of existing law.
And, as was pointed out to you yesterday, “unlawful enemy combatant” Nazis were denied the privilege of habeas corpus by SCOTUS and put before a military tribunal (which I agree with for the GTMO detainees), a precedent ignored by our current Court.
No. Prisoners captured in Iraq were not sent to GTMO, to the best of my knowledge. I’ll revise my comment if anyone can show otherwise.
Really? So what should we do with Islamic terrorists who are actively planning attacks on US troops and the US homeland?
“Law” is what is passed by Congress and signed into the effect by the President. That’s how the Constitution works. The CSRT’s are based on law, regardless of whether you like them or not.
Absolutely. And the constitutionality of laws is decided by the SCOTUS, regardless of whether you like it or not.
And, as was pointed out to you yesterday, “unlawful enemy combatant” Nazis were denied the privilege of habeas corpus by SCOTUS and put before a military tribunal (which I agree with for the GTMO detainees), a precedent ignored by our current Court.
There’s absolutely nothing in the recent decision which precludes military tribunals. The ONLY thing it did was state that detainees have an inherent right to challenge their detention. The current system provides no such right, and as such the federal courts are the only avenue available to adjudicate these claims.
Remember, Congress has the explicit power to regulate the courts, they could easily create a new system of courts to deal with this issue.
No. Prisoners captured in Iraq were not sent to GTMO, to the best of my knowledge. I’ll revise my comment if anyone can show otherwise.
One more point: the lack of any degree of reasonable transparency in this process guarantees that we never really know exactly who we have, where they came from, what they’re really accused of, or how they’ve been treated.
Plus, it’s clear to me, Thrill, that you have no problem with the government completely disregarding any laws it finds inconvenient.
Go read the Iraq Resolution. The AUMF of 2002 is referenced in a single paragraph near the end. Saying that the Iraq War is based on it is weak beer.
A quick Google search will show you the countless pages of quotes from administration officials linking Iraq to 9/11.
Really? So what should we do with Islamic terrorists who are actively planning attacks on US troops and the US homeland?
If they are in a foreign country, we could simply have them arrested and extradited to stand trial in federal court or we could kidnap them forcibly and bring them to federal court or before a military tribunal or we could have them charged by the country in which they are residing. It depends on the circumstances.
Absolutely. And the constitutionality of laws is decided by the SCOTUS, regardless of whether you like it or not.
Well, SCOTUS also said that the military tribunals for which you have so much contempt can go forward as well.
There’s absolutely nothing in the recent decision which precludes military tribunals. The ONLY thing it did was state that detainees have an inherent right to challenge their detention.
Which was the precedent that was ignored in Ex Parte Quirin.
Remember, Congress has the explicit power to regulate the courts, they could easily create a new system of courts to deal with this issue.
What’s wrong with the Military Commissions that they already did set up?
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,
Do you honestly believe everyone being held in Gitmo right now fits that description? We have people who are from Iraq ans may have been indurgents in the Iraq conflict who have absolutely nothing to do with Al Quaeda in dentetion right now. Do they get to go hom as soon as the Iraq conflict is over? And more importantly who makes sure they do? The people who captured and detained them in the first place?
Furthermore, I have been in favor of tribunals all along.
Tribunals that are under no compulsion to happen whiles these guys get one day close to death everyday. Tribunals where they dont get to face their accusers. Tribunals where evidence gianed through illegal means is used against them? C’mon thrill you’re making Lees job easy here.
One more point: the lack of any degree of reasonable transparency in this process guarantees that we never really know exactly who we have, where they came from, what they’re really accused of, or how they’ve been treated.
I would agree with you that the process should be completely open if not for the fact that the war is still going on.
Plus, it’s clear to me, Thrill, that you have no problem with the government completely disregarding any laws it finds inconvenient.
Nor do you have any problem with the Supreme Court ruling based on its personal preferences in opposition to its own precedents, it’s role in the Constitution, and against the appropriate laws passed by the elected branches.
There was no “disregarding of laws”. It was all done within the law.
A quick Google search will show you the countless pages of quotes from administration officials linking Iraq to 9/11.
A quick Google search will also show me some interesting Brazilian fart porn. It has nothing to do with what is in the Iraq Resolution.
Seeing as how the Supreme Court has ruled for the first time in history that foreign belligerents engaged in combat against the United States captured and held overseas
I am having trouble with the reasoning behind the Roberts and Scalia dissents. They are being held on a U.S. base in Cuba, not a foreign jail under U.S. control. If a man can be born in gitmo and become president, then why arent habeas rights extended to prisoners there. Where is the legal distinction? I have read many pages of the dissents, and cant find why they think this is not different than the German prison case. It sure seems different to me the more I read it.
Do you honestly believe everyone being held in Gitmo right now fits that description?
I don’t know the status of every single one of them, no. We captured something like 10,000 prisoners in Afghanistan and put 800 in GTMO, half of whom or so were released. Because we were acting under the AUMF in Afghanistan, I would certainly say that anyone fighting our forces without a uniform was supporting a regime that harbored al-Qaeda, who carried out the 9/11 attacks and is subject to a military tribunal.
Tribunals where they dont get to face their accusers
And why do you think that is, Ed?
Tribunals where evidence gianed through illegal means is used against them?
Illegal means such as what?
There was no “disregarding of laws”. It was all done within the law.
Seems to m the meat of the case is whether gitmo should be considered sovereign territory, and I ma not sure why th dissenters are so convinced it shouldnt. If it should be, then this decision makes sense and isnt bad law, as that congress has not authroized the suspension of habeas specifically to enemy combatants outright during this war. If congress had done so the SCOTUS wouldnt have a leg to stand on.
Illegal means such as what?
You cant torture someone and then use that evidence gained from them to convict them Thrill.
You cant torture someone and then use that evidence gained from them to convict them Thrill.
I know. The MCA forbids statements gained by the use of torture. What other illegal means are you talking about?
The MCA forbids statements gained by the use of torture.
What we did wasn’t torture. There’s a memo and stuff, just ask John Yoo.
What we did wasn’t torture. There’s a memo and stuff, just ask John Yoo.
Yup.
Thrill can you please the ‘sovereign territory’ issue I brought up, maybe you know something I dont.
Which was the precedent that was ignored in Ex Parte Quirin.
The court reversed itself based on a new set of circumstances. Happens all the time.
please address that is
Yup.
Do you actually believe that at this point?
Thrill can you please the ‘sovereign territory’ issue I brought up, maybe you know something I dont.
I’ll do it for him. The US government holds prisoners on a US military base with the specific intent of evading US law. It also declares the prisoners to be “enemy combatants” with the specific intent of evading the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and numerous other international laws.
Do you actually believe that at this point?
Isn’t that obvious by now? Of course he does.
I’ll do it for him. The US government holds prisoners on a US military base with the specific intent of evading US law. It also declares the prisoners to be “enemy combatants” with the specific intent of evading the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and numerous other international laws.
yes, but I want to know is the legal reasoning behind Scalias and Roberts dissetns in this regard, cause I have read quite a bit, and am not really seeing it.
I guess I havent been paying as much attention as I thought, but Thrill you can confirm for me that you believe that water-boarding, stress position for extended periods and inducing hypothermia are not torture?!
Thrill can you please the ‘sovereign territory’ issue I brought up, maybe you know something I dont.
Wait until Lee is done “wasting time” with me. It’s been over an hour since he wrote that he wasn’t going to do that. I know where the relevant thing you want is in the dissents.
The court reversed itself based on a new set of circumstances. Happens all the time.
So much for the ancient concept of stare decisis. The law is whatever five unelected lawyers in black robes say it is. Is this the government you want?
Do you actually believe that at this point?
That’s up to the judges. If it is found that any of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture and statements rendered by the defendants are inadmissible, I will change my opinion and call them torture. Is that fair?
That’s up to the judges. If it is found that any of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture and statements rendered by the defendants are inadmissible, I will change my opinion and call them torture. Is that fair?
No, I really want your personal opinion.
No, I say they are not.
So much for the ancient concept of stare decisis. The law is whatever five unelected lawyers in black robes say it is. Is this the government you want?
Like Clarence Thomas I never was a fan of stare decisis. Dont want it cited in support of Roe, and dont want it cited in support of blue laws, didnt like Scalia citing in regard to miranda rights, and dont want it cited now.
No, I say they are not
I couldnt disagree more. Perhaps if someone decided to put someone you cared about naked in a cold room for days and then made sure they didnt die of hypothermia by checking them with a rectal thermometer periodically , and then on another day repeatedly waterboarded them till they broke, you’d change your mind.
Lock them up until the end of the conflict, as begun with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2002. We can repatriate them at the end of it all or we can try them for war crimes.
I would agree with you that the process should be completely open if not for the fact that the war is still going on.
Posted by Thrill on 06/18/08 at 10:48 AM from
The rest of their lives does seem harsh. We should just go for the duration of hostilities like I keep saying.
Does the fact that this ‘war’ differs in nature from previous wars, and that one of the differences is that this war could last indefintely faze you in the least when you say things like these?!
Perhaps if someone decided to put someone you cared about naked in a cold room for days and then made sure they didnt die of hypothermia by checking them with a rectal thermometer periodically , and then on another day repeatedly waterboarded them till they broke, you’d change your mind.
Ed: “I think if a man attempts to rape a woman, she should be allowed to shoot him”.
Thrill: “Well, perhaps if someone shot you in the chest, you’d change your mind”.
Does the fact that this ‘war’ differs in nature from previous wars, and that one of the differences is that this war could last indefintely faze you in the least when you say things like these?!
Again, in theory, every war is “indefinite”. When is the end of hostilities known in the midst of any war, much less its outcome? You’re taking a lot for granted.
Ed: “I think if a man attempts to rape a woman, she should be allowed to shoot him”.
Thrill: “Well, perhaps if someone shot you in the chest, you’d change your mind”.
how about more like this :
Thrill: ‘I think if a woman accuses a man of rape, she should be allowed to shoot him.’
Ed: “Well, perhaps if someone wrongfully accused you and then shot you in the chest, you’d change your mind”.
Do you see the distinction?
Again, in theory, every war is “indefinite”. When is the end of hostilities known in the midst of any war, much less its outcome? You’re taking a lot for granted.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit… shenanigans!
This war is obviously different than previous wars, and one of the big differences is that a ‘war on terror’ never has to end because there will always be someone we can designate as terrorsists.
Seems Lee has disengaged , so if you please...the relevant information in the dissents, as that I have a hard time believing my 4 favorite justices got it wrong. though if they did I will be able to admit it.
Do you see the distinction?
Yes. Yours made absolutely no sense. My issue is whether or not use of force (coercion in the case of interrogation) is permissible to prevent death or seriously bodily harm to others. Regardless of whether or not one would like that done to them does not invalidate that force may be used in extreme circumstances.
This war is obviously different than previous wars, and one of the big differences is that a ‘war on terror’ never has to end because there will always be someone we can designate as terrorsists.
Again, read the AUMF of 2002. It does not apply to just anyone we call terrorists. That’s like saying that the Revolutionary War would never end if the British had just keep hiring more mercenaries.
Seems Lee has disengaged , so if you please...the relevant information in the dissents, as that I have a hard time believing my 4 favorite justices got it wrong. though if they did I will be able to admit it.
Keep an eye on the thread. I have to go pick up my car from the mechanic but will be back shortly. I have the decision up right now and will excerpt and explain what you’re looking for.
Yes. Yours made absolutely no sense.
Youre an idiot.
Keep an eye on the thread. I have to go pick up my car from the mechanic but will be back shortly. I have the decision up right now and will excerpt and explain what you’re looking for.
thank you.
Youre an idiot.
I love you too, Ed.
Hopefully, dwex shows up before I do. I think he’s read the decision more thoroughly than I have.
Alright, Ed. Here’s what Scalia, the Smartest Justice, had to say in his dissent:
The Court purports to derive from our precedents a
“functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of the writ,
ante, at 34, which shows that the Military Commissions
Act unconstitutionally restricts the scope of habeas. That
is remarkable because the most pertinent of those precedents,
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, conclusively
establishes the opposite. There we were confronted with
the claims of 21 Germans held at Landsberg Prison, an
American military facility located in the American Zone of
occupation in postwar Germany. They had been captured
in China, and an American military commission sitting
there had convicted them of war crimes—collaborating
with the Japanese after Germany’s surrender. Id., at 765–
766. Like the petitioners here, the Germans claimed that
their detentions violated the Constitution and international
law, and sought a writ of habeas corpus. Writing
for the Court, Justice Jackson held that American courts
lacked habeas jurisdiction:
“We are cited to [sic] no instance where a court, in
this or any other country where the writ is known, has
issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant
time and in no stage of his captivity, has been
within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text
of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does any thing in our statutes.” Id., at 7
Okay, we’re talking about a US controlled military installation on foreign soil. The court in the most relevant precedent said outright that there is no habeas corpus privilege for those prisoners. Period. Dot.
Now, the majority opinion in Boumediene outright stated that GTMO is on Cuba’s soveriegn soil.
Speaking of precedents, it’s Scalia who points out that:
A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
548 U. S. 557 (2006), when the Court held (quite
amazingly) that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had
not stripped habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo petitioners’claims, four Members of today’s five-Justice majority
joined an opinion saying the following:
“Nothing prevents the President from returning to
Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military
commission] he believes necessary.
“Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation
with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation
does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal
with danger. To the contrary, that insistence
strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—
through democratic means—how best to do so. The
Constitution places its faith in those democratic
means.” Id., at 636 (BREYER, J., concurring).1
The same Supreme Court found that the GTMO detainees had not been denied the right to challenge their detention. These exact same justices flipped on their own original judgement regarding whether or not the procedures set up by Congress amounted to habeas (!). So much for “changing circumstances”.
So there you go, Ed. The Supreme Court had one established case in which it had found that foreign combatants imprisoned on US military installations on foreign soil do not have the right to challenge their detention in federal court. Roberts agreed that this precedent should have been followed since even the majority didn’t disagree that GTMO is on Cuban territory, but it’s only really because we’ve been there for 100 years that it is technically “ours”. Their basis for dismissing the Johnson v Eisentranger precedent is that we:
did not
“pla[n] a long-term occupation.” Ante, at 38, 39. Those
factors were not mentioned in Eisentrager. Worse still, it
is impossible to see how they relate to the Court’s asserted
purpose in creating this “functional” test—namely, to
ensure a judicial inquiry into detention and prevent the
political branches from acting with impunity. Can it
possibly be that the Court trusts the political branches
more when they are beholden to foreign powers than when
they act alone?
It appears to me that it’s the amount of time we have spent and plan to spend in an installation on foreign soil that determines whether or not habeas corpus is permitted on foreign soil as far as the majority was concerned.
Whether or not you are a fan of stare decisis, it is a practice as established in common law as habeas corpus. When courts can simply ignore any settled law and rule based on their own preferences, it isn’t law.
I’m here. I posted a detailed response to Lee’s hyperbole about the military tribunal process at the end of yesterday’s thread. You know, actually reading and referring to the statutes. Ed, I suggest you go read that response (or I could repost it here), because:
Tribunals where they dont get to face their accusers. Tribunals where evidence gianed through illegal means is used against them?
is flat-out incorrect under the MCA, and if you’d actually read the statute you would know that this is liberal hyperbole.
As to:
If a man can be born in gitmo and become president, then why arent habeas rights extended to prisoners there.
I tried to make this point to Lee yesterday, but he didn’t get it, and neither do you, it seems.
There are 2 ways to be born a US citizen:
- Be born in US territory, regardless of the citizenship of your parents.
- Be born of parents who are US citizens.
McCain is a US citizen because his parents are US citizens, not because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. He could have been born in Havana, Moscow or Beijing, and he could become president.
A child born of non-US parents in the Panama Canal Zone or GTMO cannot become president, because they are not US citizens until they become citizens by the same process as any other immigrants.
This isn’t that hard to understand. Although a potentially interesting side-effect of this SCOTUS ruling could well change the 2nd part, and allow a child of non-US parents born at GTMO to become president. Hadn’t thought of that before.
As to the original premise of this post:
Had the Bush administration not tried to find half-assed excuses for their lawlessness, and had Congress found the balls to try and check their power grab, the SCOTUS would never have been put in a position to have had to make this decision.
This is probably true. The Woo loophole that put GTMO outside normal convention is almost certainly what led us to this point. It is also close to irrelevent, because the bolded part of the blurb is untrue. Congress came up with DTA and MCA.
What I keep pointing out is that Lee, and apparently Ed, have not actually read and grok’d the DTA and MCA, because you keep repeating things that are absolutely trivially refuted by the text of these documents.
As to what constitutes torture - there is plenty of debate on this. This is an area where Thrill and I are at widely divergent positions. It appears that a lot of military lawyers & Justice Department officials are as well. As I pointed out in my response in the other thread, MCA explicitly disallows evidence obtained via torture. When there is debate about the torture issue, it defines criteria by which the presiding judge makes an evaluation (which is how coercion is addressed in any trial in any context that I am aware of). The MCA also defines, in gory detail, the appeals process for all parts of the trial, up through the US Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS. Forget the hyperbole, it’s all there. In black and white. And most of it is pretty readable.
There are major issues to debate w.r.t. the indeterminate end of the GWoT and hence indeterminate detention. Again, Thrill and I don’t exactly agree on these issues either.
But what we do agree on, and this, I believe, is the heart of Robert’s dissent, is that DTA and MCA DO define rights & privileges, processes & procedures, regardless of what people want to flame about. These were developed in response to prior SCOTUS rulings, rulings in direct response to the Yoo memo loophole & executive-branch power-grab.
And by not ever exercising the appeals process defined in DTA & MCA, the majority decision did not even allow for a test of the procedures developed in direct response to their prior rulings.
It is certainly possible, maybe even probable, that the decision the majority reached was inevitable. But it should have come AFTER the MCA-defined appeals process. They basically rejected the validity of untested law, and that’s wrong.
Honestly, I’m getting sick of repeating this. DTA & MCA are eminently readable (the SCOTUS decision not so much). Read them. Understand them. Then debate them. Leave the hyperbole behind, and debate the current state of affairs.
I do wish you two would move this thread over here, dwex. I addressed many points from the last thread on this one.
Okay, we’re talking about a US controlled military installation on foreign soil. The court in the most relevant precedent said outright that there is no habeas corpus privilege for those prisoners. Period. Dot.
Now, the majority opinion in Boumediene outright stated that GTMO is on Cuba’s soveriegn soil.
The issue you ignore is that no previous president took the fact that the military installation was on foreign soil to mean “I can do whatever I like because there is no law there.” That’s a ridiculous argument. The court, rightly, held that there can’t be any of these legal “no mans land” situations. So while finding that, yes, Cuba might not technically be American soil, for the purposes of law the soil argument is not persuasive enough to merit the “legal black hole” that was created.
As I quoted previously, the court essentially said, “Okay, for many things the soil argument would have worked. But you’re going out of your way to claim that this military base has no laws that you have to follow except those you choose, and that goes against everything this country was founded on.”
Whether or not you are a fan of stare decisis, it is a practice as established in common law as habeas corpus
Stare decis means “settled law.” This, clearly, was not settled law since, as two or three of you never tire of writing, the court had never ruled on this particular issue before.
Here’s the top search from Google, since you no doubt will want a precise definition. Emphasis in bold is mine.
STARE DECISIS - Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court’s panel is “bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).
Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, “It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . ‘is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.’” (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.
Wow, that was tough. Keep on quoting those latin, legal-soundy words. It makes you sound smarter than what you is actually like.
I tried to make this point to Lee yesterday, but he didn’t get it, and neither do you, it seems.
There are 2 ways to be born a US citizen:
- Be born in US territory, regardless of the citizenship of your parents.
- Be born of parents who are US citizens.McCain is a US citizen because his parents are US citizens, not because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. He could have been born in Havana, Moscow or Beijing, and he could become president.
This is the generally accepted definition, but this has never been ruled upon. There are many who anticipate one group or another filing suit against McCain. The suit will probably be decided in his favor, but this is hardly (Hey Thrill, I’m using them legal-soundy words, just like you!) stare decis.
The issue you ignore is that no previous president took the fact that the military installation was on foreign soil to mean “I can do whatever I like because there is no law there.” That’s a ridiculous argument.
Another fabulous strawman argument. Yoo correctly pointed out that federal criminal statutes do not apply inside the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” and he cited US v Bowman (1922) as a precedent. Perhaps he used the same time machine that you use when you choose to only view current events through your 2005 prism to go back to the 20’s and influence the Court to find a way for him to torture people.
“Okay, for many things the soil argument would have worked. But you’re going out of your way to claim that this military base has no laws that you have to follow except those you choose, and that goes against everything this country was founded on.”
And it’s only been two years since they ruled the exact opposite way. Where are the changing circumstances?
The suit will probably be decided in his favor, but this is hardly (Hey Thrill, I’m using them legal-soundy words, just like you!) stare decis.
Bravo for learning stuff, Lee. Maybe eventually you’ll learn how to spell those fancy Latin words. Good luck with that.
This is the generally accepted definition, but this has never been ruled upon
Tested in court? Not yet. But it’s not “generally accepted definition”. It’s law from Congress in 1790:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens
I do wish you two would move this thread over here, dwex. I addressed many points from the last thread on this one.
Yeah. I have a tendency to try to follow up on the previous day’s threads before I start a new day’s threads. But I should remember to at least review the new stuff before I start replying, because I’ve done this 2 days in a row now.
There are 2 ways to be born a US citizen:
- Be born in US territory, regardless of the citizenship of your parents.
- Be born of parents who are US citizens.McCain is a US citizen because his parents are US citizens, not because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. He could have been born in Havana, Moscow or Beijing, and he could become president.
A child born of non-US parents in the Panama Canal Zone or GTMO cannot become president, because they are not US citizens until they become citizens by the same process as any other immigrants.
This isn’t that hard to understand. Although a potentially interesting side-effect of this SCOTUS ruling could well change the 2nd part, and allow a child of non-US parents born at GTMO to become president. Hadn’t thought of that before.
Ahh I missed that yesterday, and for some reason at some point in my life I was given the impression that a child born of two u.s. citizens in another country could NOT be president. Something about Kennedy being born somewhere else, but in an embassy or something...old childhood memory of a conversation overheard...I dont trust its accuracy...but the thrust was if he had been born off the embassy he could not have been president. I have thought so ever since. Also didnt know the german prison was on a u.s. base...just thought it was run by americans.
Also I didnt think Kennedy was an American citizen because he was born in the right zone..I knew he was a citizen because his parents were...i was just under the impression a person could be a natural born citizen and not be eligble to be president if born say in a hospital in London.
As for Stare decisis...its a grabage precedent, that is quoted as if to end debate when convenient, and studiously ignored by the very same justics when they dont agree with ‘settled law’. Just watch if Scalia treats a revisitation of Roe with the same reverence that he treats other cases of what he does agree with.
The issue you ignore is that no previous president took the fact that the military installation was on foreign soil to mean “I can do whatever I like because there is no law there.”
Well legally speaking lee, thats not a a legitimater argument. The Bush administrations intent is irrelevant. SCOTUS decision arent supposed to be contextual, they are supposed to be immutable.
Yoo correctly pointed out that federal criminal statutes do not apply inside the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” and he cited US v Bowman (1922) as a precedent.
Nobody has claimed that federal criminal statutes apply in that case. The recent decision has no bearing on this.
Perhaps he used the same time machine that you use when you choose to only view current events through your 2005 prism to go back to the 20’s and influence the Court to find a way for him to torture people.
You’re the one who wants to give the president unlimited power, not me.
And it’s only been two years since they ruled the exact opposite way. Where are the changing circumstances?
To put it in very simple terms, the president declared that Congress had no power to tell him to do anything, that he was an emperor. He also declared that since the detainees were captured on foreign soil, and were not technically in the United States, they were in a legal black hole, and he could detain them or torture them as he saw fit. The Hamdan decision, which stated that Common Article 3 of Geneva applied to detainees, was the court’s way of saying, “Hey, asshole, you can’t do this. And Congress, get off your fucking asses and do something about it.” As so often happens in politics the appearance of doing something was far more important than the substance of actually doing it. Thus we ended up with the MCA. Obviously this wasn’t good enough from a legal standpoint, since it still didn’t address the major concern of an emperor/king president who was above the law. Thus the recent decision, in which the court said, “Okay, we warned you. Stick this up your ass.”
You just can’t get past the simple fact that had Bush done this the right way from the start NONE of this would have happened. We would not be having this conversation were it not for Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and the whole rest of those shitfucks who decided to wipe their asses with the US Constitution.
Tested in court? Not yet. But it’s not “generally accepted definition”. It’s law from Congress in 1790:
Fair enough, I stand corrected. I read an article somewhere about a week ago (don’t remember where) about a few left-wing groups who were preparing arguments against McCain on the grounds that he wasn’t “natural born” because of Panama.
Just watch if Scalia treats a revisitation of Roe with the same reverence that he treats other cases of what he does agree with.
Well, Ed, Roe was based Justice Black finding “rights” that did not exist in the Constitution. Johnson was a case involving habeas corpus within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction and they found that no such privilege existed for the defendants.
But you don’t have to acknowledge that, you can just ask why it is that the majority in Boumedienne contradicted their own prior ruling on the matter. Was their decision garbage in 2006 or was it garbage this time?
You just can’t get past the simple fact that had Bush done this the right way from the start NONE of this would have happened. We would not be having this conversation were it not for Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and the whole rest of those shitfucks who decided to wipe their asses with the US Constitution.
And you dont seem to get that we still shouldnt be having this conversation. if it wernt for Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, who think that if they dont approve of how the executive branch conducts itself, then they are obligated to not only reverse settled law, but reverse their own decision two years ago. What this president odes or does not do should have no effect on what the correct legal decision is. Which I shamefully admit I am still trying to figure out.
Nobody has claimed that federal criminal statutes apply in that case. The recent decision has no bearing on this.
So is it a legal “black hole” created by the Bush Administration or not?
You’re the one who wants to give the president unlimited power, not me.
Show me just one quote--just one--where I said...oh, who am I kidding? You can’t.
To put it in very simple terms, the president declared that Congress had no power to tell him to do anything, that he was an emperor.
I had to laugh at that. Fantastic exaggeration.
You just can’t get past the simple fact that had Bush done this the right way from the start NONE of this would have happened.
I’m still waiting for the explanation or link that describes what you would consider to be an optimal process.
Well legally speaking lee, thats not a a legitimater argument. The Bush administrations intent is irrelevant. SCOTUS decision arent supposed to be contextual, they are supposed to be immutable.
Actually, it’s a completely legitimate argument. One of the immutable principles upon which this country was founded was habeas corpus, the idea that government couldn’t lock someone up forever without providing justification through due process. The Bush administration found a Thrill-style semantic legal loophole under which they claimed that the US government was not subject to US law because said law did not apply on a US military base.
So the court had two choices. They could either side with habeas corpus, the foundation for the entire concept of modern democratic republican government, or they could side with Thrill and the Bush Administration’s bullshit trickery. The weight of legal merit in favor of one of the pillars of democracy was far more important than the specifics of a legal loophole.
Honestly, Ed, imagine if they’d ruled the other way. The message to every future president would be clear: “If you ever want to break the law, do it on a military base overseas. You can’t be touched.” Can you possibly even begin to imagine the degree to which this would be abused over the years, the threat to liberty and freedom that this poses?
You can argue that maybe the court overstepped its bounds, and you might have some merit to that argument. But it was only in response to the monumental Constitutional asswiping that has taken place over the last six years on the part of this administration. As I’ve said many times, if one side is going to err I’d much rather it be on the side of too much freedom than on the side of too little.
A country where detainees get their day in court is far more preferable than living under an emperor/king with no accountability to the people.
Come on, we all claim to be conservatives here. Conservatives are supposed to understand that the natural progression of things is for liberty to decrease and for government power to increase, which is why LIMITED FUCKING GOVERNMENT is so vitally important. Unfortunately, to all too many people (Thrill, Dwex, etc.) this is more a campaign slogan than an actual idea by which to govern.
We are cited to [sic] no instance where a court, in
this or any other country where the writ is known, has
issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant
time and in no stage of his captivity, has been
within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text
of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does any thing in our statutes.” Id
Very compelling...not a decision denying habeas rights, but one that affirms that it isnt within the scope of the constitution to protect their habeas rights.
So is it a legal “black hole” created by the Bush Administration or not?
It might not have been created by the Bush administration but it was certainly exploited by them. Someone else might have left the door unlocked, but they’re the ones who declared that they had the right to go inside and steal the TV.
Show me just one quote--just one--where I said...oh, who am I kidding? You can’t.
Show me one quote where you’ve actually argued in favor of limiting the rights of the president to follow his policies of detention and torture. Not just one where you say “I’m against detention and torture,” but one where you specifically say, “Enough is enough, this is bullshit, this asshole has gone too far.”
I had to laugh at that. Fantastic exaggeration.
Well, I’m trying to put it in terms simple enough for you to understand.
I’m still waiting for the explanation or link that describes what you would consider to be an optimal process.
I have no idea what an optimal process would be. I’m not a lawyer. I can only tell you what an optimal process isn’t.
I have no idea what the optimal process for a heart transplant is, I’m not a doctor. I can only tell you that hitting the patient in the head with a brick and slicing his chest open with a hatchet isn’t it.
The Bush administration found a Thrill-style semantic legal loophole under which they claimed that the US government was not subject to US law because said law did not apply on a US military base.
Actually what they found was an historical legal precedent that was more than relevant, and nearly indentical.
They could either side with habeas corpus, the foundation for the entire concept of modern democratic republican government, or they could side with Thrill and the Bush Administration’s bullshit trickery.
Which they apparently did in 2006 and then flipped on their own decision.
LIMITED FUCKING GOVERNMENT
Yes, I like limited fucking government. However, I would also like the government to do the job that it is required to do under the Constitution and defend this country from people who would like to destroy it instead of running around conferring civil rights on them by fiat. Is that too much to ask?
Also, dwex is not a conservative nor does he claim to be one.
Actually what they found was an historical legal precedent that was more than relevant, and nearly indentical.
It was totally irrelevant and in no way “nearly identical.” Besides, as I have shown, the stare decisis concept in no way precludes the judiciary (especially the SCOTUS) from changing its mind based on new circumstances which come before it.
As I’ve said many times, if one side is going to err I’d much rather it be on the side of too much freedom than on the side of too little.
I tend to agree, but I am vexed by the decision regardless....and yes I am vexedwith this administration creating a situation that allowed this to happen.
Come on, we all claim to be conservatives here. Conservatives are supposed to understand that the natural progression of things is for liberty to decrease and for government power to increase, which is why LIMITED FUCKING GOVERNMENT is so vitally important. Unfortunately, to all too many people (Thrill, Dwex, etc.) this is more a campaign slogan than an actual idea by which to govern.
Again agreed, but as a ‘conservative’ I hate to saee the court overstep its bound as well. The whole damn situation pisses me off.
have no idea what the optimal process for a heart transplant is, I’m not a doctor. I can only tell you that hitting the patient in the head with a brick and slicing his chest open with a hatchet isn’t it.
ha...funny!
Which they apparently did in 2006 and then flipped on their own decision.
They didn’t flip on anything.
Yes, I like limited fucking government.
No, you CLAIM to like limited government, then you support the most odious type of totalitarian activities imaginable.
However, I would also like the government to do the job that it is required to do under the Constitution and defend this country from people who would like to destroy it instead of running around conferring civil rights on them by fiat. Is that too much to ask?
I’d like a government which treated people fairly, and didn’t shit all over MY civil rights in the process. Is that too much to ask?
You’re still under the delusion that anything we’ve done at Gitmo has actually made us the slightest bit safer.
Yes, I like limited fucking government
Well maybe you like limited government in the way that you might advocate tha the post office be privatized...but it doesn seem like you like ‘limited governemt’ when it comes to amount of power the people in government have.
You’re still under the delusion that anything we’ve done at Gitmo has actually made us the slightest bit safer.
I dont doubt that it mightve, but I just dont think its worth the pricetag.
Well maybe you like limited government in the way that you might advocate tha the post office be privatized...but it doesn seem like you like ‘limited governemt’ when it comes to amount of power the people in government have.
Bingo.
I dont doubt that it mightve, but I just dont think its worth the pricetag.
Other than people with an enormous amount of self interest saying “Gitmo has made us safer” I have seen no evidence to indicate that it has. That being said, I completely agree with your sentiment, that the price we have paid in terms of liberty is too high a price for the illusion of temporary safety (to paraphrase Ben Franklin).
Thrill’s inevitable response will be that he prizes safety over anything else. He won’t phrase it in those terms, and he’ll deny to his dying breath that that’s what he means, but it’s clear from his remarks the last two days that he’s motivated primarily by fear.
Show me one quote where you’ve actually argued in favor of limiting the rights of the president to follow his policies of detention and torture.
Why don’t you provide one quote of from the past 6 months where you think he’s done one thing right? Nevertheless, I’ll provide my views on limiting the president’s authority (interestingly, you ignored these responses at the time, just like you do now) I’ll even go back to all the way back to last year:
Posted by Thrill on 12/01/07 at 03:57 AM
I don’t support the federal government treating all citizens as suspects.
I do not support the President being able to deem American citizens on American soil to be “enemy combatants”. I repeatedly stated this on RTFLC before, during, and after Padilla’s trial.
I’m against the use of torture.
I do not support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against American citizens ever.
I thought he went too far on the Padilla case.
Now show me where I said that I want an all-powerful president. Is anyone else starting to notice that I graciously face every one of Lee’s challenges and answer all of his questions while he backs away from mine?
I have no idea what an optimal process would be
Then how can you be so adept at figuring out that this one is so awful? You can only spot a bad one but can’t even give me the most general description of a good one? Wait, I got it:
Bad one: Created by Bush and Republicans
Good one: Not
He won’t phrase it in those terms, and he’ll deny to his dying breath that that’s what he means, but it’s clear from his remarks the last two days that he’s motivated primarily by fear.
Actually I sometimes wonder if it isnt his religious certitude that lets him see these ‘scary muslims’ as subhumans. I dont know him well enough to say one way or the other, but I wonder, though I do admit my predjudice against religion might make me leap in that direction without good reason.
You’re still under the delusion that anything we’ve done at Gitmo has actually made us the slightest bit safer.
That point of view is no more or less delusional than your contention that it hasn’t.
He won’t phrase it in those terms, and he’ll deny to his dying breath that that’s what he means, but it’s clear from his remarks the last two days that he’s motivated primarily by fear.
Right. I’m the one who is hysterical about the loss of civil rights and attributes all the evil and oppression of the world to Bush and stays up all night arguing about these issues because I’m scared that the French don’t like us.
If you’re so concerned about your civil rights over security, why did you take a job in a country with no civil rights for the security of wealth? Simply a philosophical question.
Actually I sometimes wonder if it isnt his religious certitude that lets him see these ‘scary muslims’ as subhumans.
I would love to know where I’ve called Muslims anything approaching “subhuman”, Ed. You and Lee tend to come closer to holding that particular view of fundamentalist Christians and are not in a position to judge others.
If you’re so concerned about your civil rights over security, why did you take a job in a country with no civil rights for the security of wealth? Simply a philosophical question.
That is not a philosphical question , its a personal one, and quite frankly a rude personal one. It implies that Lee’s taking this job is smoehow an indication that he is less than sincere in his political philosophy.
Why don’t you provide one quote of from the past 6 months where you think he’s done one thing right?
I think he’s done exactly the right thing by refusing to boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. I wrote about it on LeeInChina, don’t remember if I crossposted it here. But on the GWOT front I think it’s been one monumental string of disasters, lies, and fuck-ups from the get-go.
Now show me where I said that I want an all-powerful president.
You won’t say it. That’s the point. I could secretly hate black people, but I could say “I’m not a racist” all day. The proof is in the arguments you make, not in the declarations.
Is anyone else starting to notice that I graciously face every one of Lee’s challenges and answer all of his questions while he backs away from mine?
That’s why I had to ask you my question about 14 times before you’d give me a straight answer. You’re the Straight Talk Express, aren’t you?
Then how can you be so adept at figuring out that this one is so awful? You can only spot a bad one but can’t even give me the most general description of a good one?
Because, just like with the heart transplant example, there are some things which are so blindingly obvious that even a layman can see that they are wrong. There are countless brilliant legal minds who have proposed all sorts of remedies, I’ll leave it to them to figure out the specifics. Provided torture and indefinite imprisonment without review aren’t characteristics of them I’m open to suggestion.
Bad one: Created by Bush and Republicans
Good one: Not
Hey, I can’t help it if Bush and the Republicans created this mess. They had the chance to do it right and they blew it spectacularly. Don’t go attributing BDS to be for accurately pointing the blame at the responsible party.
I would love to know where I’ve called Muslims anything approaching “subhuman”, Ed.
You havent, but you seem ok with the gitmo detainess being treated as such.
You and Lee tend to come closer to holding that particular view of fundamentalist Christians and are not in a position to judge others.
I dont think you religous wackos are ‘sub-human’, I just think your wackos . -_-
Oh wait fundamentalist Christians....well I do think that the Christians that you’ll find in that Bill Maher hit pice religulous are gonna be pretty damn entertaining, and I havent met an atheist like that yet.
That point of view is no more or less delusional than your contention that it hasn’t.
Ah, so the burden of proof isn’t on the one making the contention? I think there’s an invisible man standing next to you as you sit at your computer and read this. Prove to me that there isn’t.
If you’re so concerned about your civil rights over security, why did you take a job in a country with no civil rights for the security of wealth? Simply a philosophical question.
China isn’t my country. I’m not Chinese. I’m not discussing Chinese politics. I knew EXACTLY what I was getting myself into here. And, odd as this may sound to someone as terrified as you of “strangers and weird foreign folk” the experience of living here has done nothing but make me even more vocal in protecting those civil liberties that we still are lucky enough to have in America.
You can’t appreciate what living in a police state is like until you actually do it.
Wanna see what life in a police state is like? This was on the wall at the restaurant I ate lunch at yesterday.
Note the little smiling cartoon thumbs-up police character. You see him all over the place on signs.
You havent, but you seem ok with the gitmo detainess being treated as such.
Of course. They’re terrists. The government said so, and why would they lie?
I think he’s done exactly the right thing by refusing to boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. I wrote about it on LeeInChina, don’t remember if I crossposted it here.
No you didn’t cross-post it but it counts. Thank you.
You won’t say it. That’s the point. I could secretly hate black people, but I could say “I’m not a racist” all day. The proof is in the arguments you make, not in the declarations.
Like these declarations (God, I love doing this):
Posted by Thrill on 12/01/07 at 03:57 AM
I don’t support the federal government treating all citizens as suspects.
I do not support the President being able to deem American citizens on American soil to be “enemy combatants”. I repeatedly stated this on RTFLC before, during, and after Padilla’s trial.
I’m against the use of torture.
I do not support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against American citizens ever.
Posted by Thrill on 11/30/07 at 12:41 PM from
The FBI’s use of National Security Letters was ruled unconstitutional two months ago in federal court, although their use against banking institutions hasn’t been challenged yet. I agree with the decision and wonder how Congress and the White House got it into their heads that this wouldn’t be blown apart in court.
Again, I can go back in the archives and burn every single one of your strawmen.
That’s why I had to ask you my question about 14 times before you’d give me a straight answer.
But I did give you a straight answer and I made my position clear on the point you were asking about before you even asked about it in the previous GTMO thread. The quotes are above for all to see. When are you going to get around to answering these questions from this thread that you evaded:
What sort of court should handle them?
What rules of evidence would you have?
Where should they be incarcerated?
Because, just like with the heart transplant example, there are some things which are so blindingly obvious that even a layman can see that they are wrong.
Such as? Dwex has answered every single one of your challenges regarding tribunals quite well.
Ah, so the burden of proof isn’t on the one making the contention?
Either one of us can have the burden of proof of establishing whether or not GTMO has made us safer. It’s going to be closed anyway, so I guess we’ll just have to see what happens next.
Other than people with an enormous amount of self interest saying “Gitmo has made us safer” I have seen no evidence to indicate that it has. That being said, I completely agree with your sentiment, that the price we have paid in terms of liberty is too high a price for the illusion of temporary safety (to paraphrase Ben Franklin).
It hasn’t made us safer internally in the USA, that’s what our domestic prisons are for. It has made the soldiers on the field of battle safer (ie. these people are detained on the battlefield in afghanistan and Iraq) which is what it is designed to do.
I thought we were discussing the legal ramifiations of the recent detainee ruling, not the “skerry bruwn turrist syndrum” that should be entered into Mad magazine’s book of mental illness, or the delusion that our system of checks and balances has disappeared under “King George”. WE have steered very far from rational scenarios in this debate.
The thing I find the most humorous is that this ruling, the upswing in peace in Iraq, and near destruction of al Quaed and the Taleban et al are the core beliefs you thought were worthy causes even up to 2005-6. The fact that you thought all of things things were impossible because of Bush is what everyone thought you were pissed off about.
The fact that the country has demonstrated it’s ability to challenge “King George”, the Iraq War is basically won, Al Quaeda is rendered all but useless in those countries, should be the proof in the proverbial pudding that our country has retained all of it’s original greatness, yet it draws only further paranoia from you. These are the things I find baffling with your POV.
The fact that the country has demonstrated it’s ability to challenge “King George”, the Iraq War is basically won, Al Quaeda is rendered all but useless in those countries, should be the proof in the proverbial pudding that our country has retained all of it’s original greatness, yet it draws only further paranoia from you.
Nope. It’s all a coincidence. Nevermind the declining support for jihad in poll after poll in the Muslim world and the 40% decline in acts of terrorism worldwide since 2001. Pay no attention to the facts. Bush is an emperor, that’s all you need to know, Manwhore.
I’ll tell you something else about China, Thrill, and it gets right to the heart of something you wrote above.
However, I would also like the government to do the job that it is required to do under the Constitution and defend this country from people who would like to destroy it instead of running around conferring civil rights on them by fiat.
The Constitution, as anyone who claims to be a conservative should know, is a list of LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER. It is not a list of jobs, or a list of suggestions, or a list of rights for citizens. It is a list of LIMITS.
The Chinese government does an amazing job of controlling crime. Honestly, I have never felt safer in any country in the world than I do here. When I go out on the weekends I go to the ATM and I take out about 3000 RMB, about $440. I am perfectly comfortable walking around with that much money. I can open my wallet to pay for something and have Chinese people see it, and know that there is virtually no chance of anyone attempting to rob me. Women walk down dark alleys at 4am here without a care in the world. For someone like you, primarily concerned with safety, this is a paradise on earth.
Of course, the government can (and does) monitor everything I do. Every single word I write over the internet is monitored for content. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if my apartment were bugged. There are security cameras EVERYWHERE, as well as people in uniforms monitoring your every move. Terrorism? Ha, not a chance.
One way the Chinese government grants this illusion of safety is by generally leaving most people alone. Things are getting a little tense now in the run-up to the Olympics, but as soon as they are over everything will go back to exactly how it was. So for a safety nut like you, this is right up your alley. No crime, no terrorism, nothing.
No rights, either, but hey, that’s a small price to pay, right? Detention without trial? Hey, if it keeps us safe from terrists it’s a small price to pay. Torture? If it gets us information about terrists, who cares? Limits on governmental power? Take all the power you need to keep me safe.
This is the safest place I’ve ever lived. And also the scariest.
That is not a philosphical question , its a personal one, and quite frankly a rude personal one.
The guy who calls RepMom a “cunt” all the time is suddenly going to dictate to me matters of etiquette. I don’t think so.
The Constitution, as anyone who claims to be a conservative should know, is a list of LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER. It is not a list of jobs, or a list of suggestions, or a list of rights for citizens. It is a list of LIMITS.
True. What is also true is that arguably the one single thing the federal government is actually obligated to do under the Constitution is defend the people of this nation.
The Constitution, as anyone who claims to be a conservative should know, is a list of LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER. It is not a list of jobs, or a list of suggestions, or a list of rights for citizens. It is a list of LIMITS.
Once again Lee (let’s hope this rattles around a little) “We the people” (one party of the contract) of “The United States of America” (the government is the other party in the contract) “In order to form a more perfect union” (the terms of the contract) and then the rest.
By the people (of America), for the people (of America), NOT detainees that are non-citizens of the USA.
It hasn’t made us safer internally in the USA, that’s what our domestic prisons are for. It has made the soldiers on the field of battle safer (ie. these people are detained on the battlefield in afghanistan and Iraq) which is what it is designed to do.
That is absolute, total crap. If anything it’s made our soldiers less safe, not more.
The thing I find the most humorous is that this ruling, the upswing in peace in Iraq,
You’ll have to excuse me if, after a war almost in its sixth year, if I don’t find a six month uptick to be a fait accompli.
and near destruction of al Quaed and the Taleban et al
Same thing. I’ll believe it when I see it.
are the core beliefs you thought were worthy causes even up to 2005-6. The fact that you thought all of things things were impossible because of Bush is what everyone thought you were pissed off about.
Those are worthy causes. But when our actions make the problems worse then, gee, I might get a little sore about that.
The fact that the country has demonstrated it’s ability to challenge “King George”, the Iraq War is basically won, Al Quaeda is rendered all but useless in those countries, should be the proof in the proverbial pudding that our country has retained all of it’s original greatness, yet it draws only further paranoia from you.
The fact the country has challenged King George is BECAUSE of people like me. I’m hardly taking credit for it, I’m just some dumbass blogger. But the fact that there are people in legal institutions and think tanks and institutes of learning who, y’know, actually appreciate the things that make this the greatest place on earth and are willing to fight for them, THAT is what has prevailed, not the slapdash, “Hey, it’s all good” attitude displayed by you, Thrill, and others.
I’ve never been against the goals, I object to the means.
Once again Lee (let’s hope this rattles around a little) “We the people” (one party of the contract) of “The United States of America” (the government is the other party in the contract) “In order to form a more perfect union” (the terms of the contract) and then the rest.
By the people (of America), for the people (of America), NOT detainees that are non-citizens of the USA.
You forgot the “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” part. Show me where that mentions citizenship.
Look, I’m not arguing for full rights for detainees. I’m arguing two things: we cannot empower our government to torture people, and we cannot allow them to detain people without due process of some kind. It’s that simple.
True. What is also true is that arguably the one single thing the federal government is actually obligated to do under the Constitution is defend the people of this nation.
Oh, national defense is certainly a governmental responsibility. To quote Ben again:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
That’s you, Thrill. He was talking about people exactly like you.
Your whole problem, Lee, is that you have absolutely no ideas. The criticism is great, to a point but I have yet to see you offer anything beyond that.
Actually having ideas and solutions is also a hallmark of conservatism, Lee, while meaningless epithets and perpetual malcontence are trademarks of liberals. We’re fighting a different kind of war and I have yet to read one thing on this blog by you that actually says what we should be doing now--not three years ago--to win this.
Iraq was bungled in the beginning. Fine, we get it; should we pull out now?
GTMO has become a symbol of torture. Neat, what do we do with the detainees? Where do we put them? What kinds of trials should they get? What kind of classified evidence will you give them?
Warrantless wiretapping is bad. Alright, we heard that enough. Congress has curtailed the President. What forms of espionage do you approve of?
No solutions, just a permanent stuck in the past, “I don’t have to read the MCA because Glenn Greenwald told me it’s bad” mentality.
Enough already!
Ten minute warning, then it’s my bedtime. Get in your parting shots.
That is absolute, total crap. If anything it’s made our soldiers less safe, not more.
That is a wild and astonishing accusation. Is there any accompanying evidence, or is this chalked up to another CRACKED theory?
You’ll have to excuse me if, after a war almost in its sixth year, if I don’t find a six month uptick to be a fait accompli.
We are in our 50th plus years of occupation of Japan, south Korea, and Germany. Next.
Those are worthy causes. But when our actions make the problems worse then, gee, I might get a little sore about that.
From 2001 forward to today, what exactly is worse about international terror? There hasn’t been any erosion of rights, you and I can log on here and demonize and criticize every aspect of what the government is doing, I can make and profit from pornograpy, use Legal drugs (in the state of california), come and go freely to almost any nation I choose (you too), and challenge almost anything (including the government) in a court of law.
What. is. so. bad?
The fact the country has challenged King George is BECAUSE of people like me. I’m hardly taking credit for it, I’m just some dumbass blogger. But the fact that there are people in legal institutions and think tanks and institutes of learning who, y’know, actually appreciate the things that make this the greatest place on earth and are willing to fight for them, THAT is what has prevailed, not the slapdash, “Hey, it’s all good” attitude displayed by you, Thrill, and others.
It’s not all good, and no one takes that position, despite the words you put in our mouths. The idea is that it isn’t all bad, as you have consistently ranted about for years. If the country has challenged King George and won, then this argument is over with, because it is irrefutable proof that the power of the executive is not checkproof. The system works, and that means game over to the assertion that it doesn’t.
That is absolute, total crap. If anything it’s made our soldiers less safe, not more.
Terrorist attacks are declining worldwide and we’re winning the Iraq War. On what do you base your statement?
Look, I’m not arguing for full rights for detainees. I’m arguing two things: we cannot empower our government to torture people, and we cannot allow them to detain people without due process of some kind. It’s that simple.
Torture is a moot point. I know it’s your favorite issue, but it’s over. Not one lawyer anywhere can justify even the tamest harsh interrogation techniques anymore.
The detainees have due process. They have all they want. They will be allowed to challenge their detentions based on any number of legal technicalities and may be able to view classified evidence being used against them. How in the world does that make us safer?
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I haven’t talked about giving away any liberty; only not extending liberty to foreign belligerents on foreign soil who are at war with us. Until last week, I had 200 years of tradition on my side, but now, I am supposed to believe that giving liberty to al-Qaeda is going to help defeat al-Qaeda?
Ten minute warning, then it’s my bedtime. Get in your parting shots.
Rest well. Another day in the Thunderdome. Teeth, blood and body parts adorn the walls. :)
Your whole problem, Lee, is that you have absolutely no ideas. The criticism is great, to a point but I have yet to see you offer anything beyond that.
And I have yet to hear you say anything other than “Everything Bush has done is super awesome, and John Yoo is my hero, and everything is legal, and they’re keeping me safe from scary brown terrists with weird foreign names like Muhammad.”
Iraq was bungled in the beginning. Fine, we get it; should we pull out now?
No, I’ve said this about a thousand times. That being said, the open-ended “stay until the job is done” mentality isn’t exactly blowing my skirt up either.
GTMO has become a symbol of torture. Neat, what do we do with the detainees? Where do we put them? What kinds of trials should they get? What kind of classified evidence will you give them?
Can you stop writing GTMO? It’s not a fucking acronym, it’s a nickname. For the millionth time I’m not a lawyer. I don’t write laws, so there is a limit to the specificity I can give you. There are, however, countless people who ARE lawyers who can and have offered solutions over the years.
One of your loved ones needs surgery. I propose that bleeding them medieval-style will cure them. You say this is a stupid idea. I then ask for specifics. “Okay, if bleeding them won’t cure their cancer, you tell me specifically what will.” You can’t because you’re not a doctor. But you can sure as hell tell me that leeches aren’t the solution.
Same goes here. I’m willing to listen to suggestions from people who are a lot smarter and a lot more well-versed in the law than any of us are. But I can certainly here a proposal and say, “That idea is antithetical to the ideals upon which the United States was founded. Come back with something better.”
No solutions, just a permanent stuck in the past, “I don’t have to read the MCA because Glenn Greenwald told me it’s bad” mentality.
I don’t read Greenwald, other than the odd post linked to on some other website. Nice to see you’re using Manwhore’s tried-and-true “guilt by association” logical fallacy.
I’m done for now. You can have the last word and pass out. I’ve kept you up long enough.
Thanks for another good one!
I swear this entire week-long debate is surreal.
Let’s get rational for a second.
If there had never been anyone tortured, never been any extraordinary rendition, never anyone detained at GTMO, we would STILL have the problem of what to do with detainees in this non-traditional war.
We can’t treat them as criminals under civilian jurisprudence, ‘cuz that makes no sense.
We can’t treat them as PoWs, because then they would be detained potentially forever, sitting around waiting for their Red Cross packages.
So there needs to be something else. You can’t come up with what “something else” should be; you come back with “I have no idea what an optimal process would be.”.
Well, neither do I. But when it comes to matters like this, I’m gonna give a hell of a lot of weight to what John Warner and John McCain think is a good answer, and then I’m gonna discuss and debate that on its own merits.
Something you seem incapable of doing.
To lump me & Thrill together as conservatives is right up there as one of the most ludicrous things ever written on this blog. On any given day, the number 1 target of ThrillWhore is either dwex or stogy (with the occasional side trip to bash a brit).
The fact that Thrill and I are arguing the same side of this should give you pause. It’s almost unheard of, even more so because on all the other points of distraction you keep throwing out, we are on opposite sides of the fence.
The reason we are able to argue together on this issue is because we recognize what the root issue is - detention of combatants in an unconventional war. With a key point of that being - regardless of what set of rules is devised by whatever set of experts you choose, the Habeas issue will come up. You could sit these guys in the Ritz, and Habeas would still come up.
Because Habeas is about the length of detention, not the state of detention, and this is a war with undefinable end-state.
And so you can scream all you want about LIMITED GOVERNMENT, but what you are failing to realize is that the SCOTUS just allowed Habeas to an entirely new class of people who were never allowed such in our legal system, ever, in history. Not only never allowed, but precedent for explicitly disallowing. That’s not a small thing. That’s a big deal.
And it may even be the right answer. But it’s not the right answer YET. Because the system developed by people smarter than us has not yet been tested. You won’t find me often agreeing with Chief Justice Roberts, I expect. But I agree with him on this.
Now back to your regularly scheduled frothing about historical mistakes that are irrelevent to a discussion of what to do with detainees in an unusual war.
Ten minute warning, then it’s my bedtime. Get in your parting shots.
Whew. Got mine in with 1 minute to spare!
Can you stop writing GTMO? It’s not a fucking acronym, it’s a nickname.
That is the base designation.
If there had never been anyone tortured, never been any extraordinary rendition, never anyone detained at GTMO,
HA! I got him doing it too!
Terrorist attacks are declining worldwide and we’re winning the Iraq War. On what do you base your statement?
On what do you say we’re “winning” the Iraq War? Let’s use some numbers to illustrate a point. Zero is the baseline, the state Iraq was in when we invaded. Negative-ten is total anarchy, positive ten is functional government. I’d say that we got down to about a -8, and the recent upswing has put us at about a -3. We’ve still got a long way to go before we can come close to declaring us “winning.” Things can go to shit there really, really quickly.
Torture is a moot point. I know it’s your favorite issue, but it’s over. Not one lawyer anywhere can justify even the tamest harsh interrogation techniques anymore.
Indeed. And how many people on this blog, just a few years ago, were arguing in favor of it? A whole shitload. Now the idea has been totally discredited. A year from now, the position you and Thrill are arguing will be equally discredited.
The detainees have due process. They have all they want. They will be allowed to challenge their detentions based on any number of legal technicalities and may be able to view classified evidence being used against them. How in the world does that make us safer?
It may not make us safer at all. When did I say it would make us safer? It may well make us less safe. You can blame the Bush administration for that.
I blame them. You regurgitate the same drivel about runaway courts, which is one of the hallmarks of the soon-to-be-irrelevant “conservative” movement.
I haven’t talked about giving away any liberty; only not extending liberty to foreign belligerents on foreign soil who are at war with us. Until last week, I had 200 years of tradition on my side, but now, I am supposed to believe that giving liberty to al-Qaeda is going to help defeat al-Qaeda?
Giving liberty to AQ? The whole point, Manwhore, is that we don’t KNOW if the people we are detaining are AQ or a fucking guy who pumps gas in Mosul. That’s the whole point, determining who actually *is* AQ and who isn’t. I have no sympathy for AQ, you can execute as many of them as you like for all I care.
We’ll pick up from here later. Go to bed, you maniac.
To lump me & Thrill together as conservatives is right up there as one of the most ludicrous things ever written on this blog. On any given day, the number 1 target of ThrillWhore is either dwex or stogy (with the occasional side trip to bash a brit).
To be honest (and don’t take this personally) I’ve been writing this blog for six years. After a while most of you blend together. I mix you guys up all the time.
Because Habeas is about the length of detention, not the state of detention, and this is a war with undefinable end-state.
Completely agree.
And so you can scream all you want about LIMITED GOVERNMENT, but what you are failing to realize is that the SCOTUS just allowed Habeas to an entirely new class of people who were never allowed such in our legal system, ever, in history. Not only never allowed, but precedent for explicitly disallowing. That’s not a small thing. That’s a big deal.
It is a big deal, it’s a huge deal. But I think the fact that we had a president who, at one time, believed it was perfectly okay to detain anyone he wanted for any reason he wanted by declaring them an enemy combatant, INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS CAPTURED ON AMERICAN SOIL, is a bigger deal. I think the fact that this administration thinks that warrantless spying ON AMERICAN CITIZENS is an appropriate thing to do is a bigger deal. I think that the fact that this administration thinks that torture is acceptable, INCLUDING TORTURE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, is a bigger deal.
Every one of these excesses was supported wholeheartedly by the “true conservative” movement. And every one of them was eventually halted by the courts. The administration was wrong on all these previous counts, and they were wrong to think they could deny some form of habeas to detainees.
Bedtime. Catch y’all niggaz on the flip side.
But I think the fact that we had a president who, at one time, believed it was perfectly okay to detain anyone he wanted for any reason he wanted by declaring them an enemy combatant, INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS CAPTURED ON AMERICAN SOIL, is a bigger deal. I think the fact that this administration thinks that warrantless spying ON AMERICAN CITIZENS is an appropriate thing to do is a bigger deal. I think that the fact that this administration thinks that torture is acceptable, INCLUDING TORTURE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, is a bigger deal.
Yeah. And probably all issues where I agree with you and maybe disagree with Thrill.
And all absolutely irrelevent to the debate around detention of combatants, and that’s the point I keep making.
I think I’ve clarified my opposition to the issues of American citizens on American soil being designated as enemy combatants and being subjected to harsh interrogation techniques just fine.
I do agree with the Domestic Surveillance Program, however, for technical reasons.
The guy who calls RepMom a “cunt” all the time is suddenly going to dictate to me matters of etiquette. I don’t think so.
Well sometimes she is…
My thanks to all here for the insight on this issue. I just got back from vacation and am still a little jet lagged.
What irritates me on this issue is the rug pulling by the SCOTUS. In a situation never before addressed (detention of combatants in an unconventional war) a sincere attempt was made with much stumbling in the dark along the way to get it right, finally we have an agreed upon method (the DTA and MCA)to proceed and just as the first tribunal was set to start the SCOTUS negates its prior ruling and moves the goalposts.
What irritates me on this issue is the rug pulling by the SCOTUS. In a situation never before addressed (detention of combatants in an unconventional war) a sincere attempt was made with much stumbling in the dark along the way to get it right, finally we have an agreed upon method (the DTA and MCA)to proceed and just as the first tribunal was set to start the SCOTUS negates its prior ruling and moves the goalposts.
winner!
Leave it to Rich to nail the whole point in one comment when the rest of us were battering each other senseless for 300 comments over two posts in two days.
That’s why Manwhore and I regard him as something of a man-god.
Leave it to Rich to nail the whole point in one comment when the rest of us were battering each other senseless for 300 comments over two posts in two days.
That’s why Manwhore and I regard him as something of a man-god.
Hey! In my very first post in yesterday’s thread, I said:
And those procedures have never been exercised (well, the CSRT classification process has been, but not the appeals process). THIS is a problem, and the SCOTUS should have rejected the appeal right there (as Roberts pointed out). The majority even acknowledged this issues with their “don’t leap to Habeas without trying the defined process first” guidance, but they didn’t follow their own rule.
The issue is more with listening than with saying :)
Speaking of torture, I’m off to Physical Therapy. Stress positions FTL!!!!
Hey, ThrillWhore gave you all due credit for your points yesterday, dwex.
When rich was born, he stood on two feet, ripped off his umbilical cord, and punched the doctor’s teeth out for looking at his mother.
DEWX.& RICH thank you for that post.
:)
Speaking of torture, I’m off to Physical Therapy. Stress positions FTL!!!!
I hope she cute…
my new masseuse is a old school mate of mine,… heheh,
That’s why Manwhore and I regard him as something of a man-god.
Kind words, Master Kan :)
”Master Kan: Quickly as you can, snatch the pebble from my hand.
[Young Caine tries to do so and fails]
Master Kan: When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave. “
BTW, have you or Harley been affected by the floods? We can pass the collective RTFLC hat around and send you guys some sand bags.
Manwhore, has kevinmkr regaled us yet with his pic of him sporting his stylish new keffiyeh?
Manwhore, has kevinmkr regaled us yet with his pic of him sporting his stylish new keffiyeh?
I had mercy on him and called off the bet after game 4. I thought it was a little too humiliating, and that fact that the Lakers got thier asses kicked in the last game by 43 points was all the satisfaction I needed.
See, I am capable of human compassion here and there!
See, I am capable of human compassion here and there!
Magnanimity, thy name is Manwhore.
Next entry: You Will Drill, But Only For Us
Previous entry: Programming The Gay Out
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4397
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 51
Total anonymous users: 0
Miguelito,
West Virginia Rebel,
working_man,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
I got an idea!
(35 total, Last @ 06:20)
working_man: Just wanted to make sure nobody took it as advice instead of just another jab at dog’s expense working_man.Roger that
Obama gets a real interview finally.
(4 total, Last @ 05:45)
Mississippi Yankee: Day by Day
http://tinyurl.com/ap9kz
I got an idea!
(35 total, Last @ 05:16)
Mississippi Yankee: HARLEY, I didn't "dig" anything on Gaius Baltar or what ever the fuck his name may be. He sent it to me because I called (and still do) his credentials in to question. As for my thinking- I have a limited education which is apparent in my little rants here…
Obama gets a real interview finally.
(4 total, Last @ 04:56)
Miguelito: I thought the interview sucked. Yeah, he asked a few hard questions, but he let Obama walk all over him. Continual use of "let me finish" to simply continue spouting a bunch of complete BS that just avoided actually answering the question asked of him. A good interviewer should interrupt…
I got an idea!
(35 total, Last @ 03:56)
HARLEY: Harley, Join Date August 30, 2004 06:47 AM That is almost 6 years. , you haven't been paying attention.
Last 30 Comments
He’d do it In Cars.
Sorry, just couldn’t miss the pun.
Watch for the spin that The Administration did follow the laws while/as They made up new ones.
Seriously, understanding the Rules of the Bush Administration is like making sense of Calvin Ball.
Chalk me up as yet another person that is changing his registration from Republican to Independent because of Bush. However, it’s not Bush himself that makes me leave the Republican party.
It’s all the “true” Republicans that make me abhor the Party. Don’t get me wrong, I like some of what Bush did.
However, it’s the “true” Republican stance on torture that makes me want nothing to do with the party.
To paraphrase The Gipper: “I didn’t leave the Republicans, the Republicans left me”
But I guess I’m some Christ-punching leftist to some here.
So be it in their minds.