Stevie wasn't there a Canadian or sum shit held prisoner and it took us about 4 years and a couple of good beatings to realize he wasn't a terrorist? Imagine if Canada bombed Iraq and Iraq came over and rounded up a bunch of us fighting for our country ,and telling us we have no shot at proving we are innocent, while also occupying us? These chest pounding rightwing draft dodgers would be the first set of guys screaming for counsel. That is if you could pull them out from under neath their beds long enough to get them to help fight.:mj07:
Supreme Court 5-4
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Stevie wasn't there a Canadian or sum shit held prisoner and it took us about 4 years and a couple of good beatings to realize he wasn't a terrorist? Imagine if Canada bombed Iraq and Iraq came over and rounded up a bunch of us fighting for our country ,and telling us we have no shot at proving we are innocent, while also occupying us? These chest pounding rightwing draft dodgers would be the first set of guys screaming for counsel. That is if you could pull them out from under neath their beds long enough to get them to help fight.:mj07:
I cant stand Bush,and this ruling is a mistake.
These people must not be released under any circumstance.No way,no how.
Why put this country at further risk ,by some ruling that trys to stick by the so called American standards!Personally im independent as a US voter.
Believe strongly we need to downsize in Iraq,probably will vote for Obama,but this ruling just makes no sense.
Must be the liberals who cant see thru the real pitchure.
They just dont get it!!
Rusty: You make it sound like those of us that favor the ruling don't think we should be able to detain terrorists. We absolutely should. However, you're not a terrorist unless you commit or plot to commit terror. We can't allow this fascist to continue pissing all over the Constitution in the name of the "War on Terror".
How do you interpret me wanting to adhere to the Constitution as "let the Supreme Court make it up as they go"????????????????????????????
weasel said:
Here you go again....IF THEY HID AMONGST CIVILIANS AND CAUSED THEIR DEATHS, WE WOULD HAVE A REASON TO DETAIN THEM!!!! You're so hell bent on holding innocent people based on no evidence that you're just starting to make crap up. Ridiculous.
Court to rule in lawsuit against FBI head and former attorney general
Case involves claims prisoners detained after Sept. 11 were abused because of their religion and ethnicity
By Mark Sherman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller must face a lawsuit that claims prisoners detained after Sept. 11, 2001, were abused because of their religion and ethnicity.
The case, to be argued around the end of the year, will help determine whether Cabinet officers and other high-ranking officials can be sued if lower-level government workers violate people's civil rights.
Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in New York in 2002 filed the lawsuit. Iqbal, since deported from the United States, says Ashcroft, Mueller and others implemented a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs and race.
A federal appeals court said the lawsuit could proceed, but the Bush administration said the high-ranking officials should not have to answer for the acts of subordinates, absent a glimmer of evidence that they intended or condoned the harsh treatment.
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that Ashcroft, Mueller and 32 other former and current government employees named in the lawsuit might eventually be dismissed as defendants if evidence shows they were not sufficiently involved in the activities to support a finding of personal liability.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the lawsuit can even get that far. Last term, in a lawsuit over alleged antitrust violations, the court made it harder for plaintiffs to get past an early hurdle in litigation before defendants even are asked to turn over evidence that could be used to prove what is being claimed. The administration said that decision should be applied to the current case.
Iqbal was arrested at his Long Island home on Nov. 2, 2001, and charged with nonviolent federal crimes unrelated to terrorism. Two months later, he was moved to a holding facility in Brooklyn, where he was in solitary confinement for more than 150 days without a hearing, his lawsuit alleges.
He said he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse, including unnecessary strip searches. He was cleared of any involvement in terrorism and was deported in January 2003 after pleading guilty to fraud and being sentenced to a year and four months in prison.
Also Monday, the Supreme Court made it easier for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the U.S. legally. The court ruled 5-4 that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain.
Case involves claims prisoners detained after Sept. 11 were abused because of their religion and ethnicity
By Mark Sherman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller must face a lawsuit that claims prisoners detained after Sept. 11, 2001, were abused because of their religion and ethnicity.
The case, to be argued around the end of the year, will help determine whether Cabinet officers and other high-ranking officials can be sued if lower-level government workers violate people's civil rights.
Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in New York in 2002 filed the lawsuit. Iqbal, since deported from the United States, says Ashcroft, Mueller and others implemented a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs and race.
A federal appeals court said the lawsuit could proceed, but the Bush administration said the high-ranking officials should not have to answer for the acts of subordinates, absent a glimmer of evidence that they intended or condoned the harsh treatment.
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that Ashcroft, Mueller and 32 other former and current government employees named in the lawsuit might eventually be dismissed as defendants if evidence shows they were not sufficiently involved in the activities to support a finding of personal liability.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the lawsuit can even get that far. Last term, in a lawsuit over alleged antitrust violations, the court made it harder for plaintiffs to get past an early hurdle in litigation before defendants even are asked to turn over evidence that could be used to prove what is being claimed. The administration said that decision should be applied to the current case.
Iqbal was arrested at his Long Island home on Nov. 2, 2001, and charged with nonviolent federal crimes unrelated to terrorism. Two months later, he was moved to a holding facility in Brooklyn, where he was in solitary confinement for more than 150 days without a hearing, his lawsuit alleges.
He said he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse, including unnecessary strip searches. He was cleared of any involvement in terrorism and was deported in January 2003 after pleading guilty to fraud and being sentenced to a year and four months in prison.
Also Monday, the Supreme Court made it easier for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the U.S. legally. The court ruled 5-4 that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain.
There really are some scary, idiotic fvcktards in this country. I have to believe that most of it comes from abuse as a child. I cannot explain why someone would grow up with Tenzing's belief system and refer to himself as an "ascended mage" in any other way. Sadly, he is not alone.
GW is a true American. He is willing to sacrifice the rule of law, the moral standard that America has always stood for, and all personal freedom to protect this great democracy. What is so hard to understand about that? Any true patriot can see it.
But you leftist, America hating socialists just don't get it. Follow the way of the Weas, Tenzing, Hedgehog and the rest to find true enlightenment. One minor drawback is you have to carve out your cerebral cortex with a rusty spoon and bang your head against a brick a few hundred times. But after that, the world reveals itslef in perfect simplicity and nothing is complicated anymore.
Jabbers you make about as much sense as Obama in his rebuttle to McCain on him having Sept 10th mindset.
"At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.
Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center - we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated"
Duh--is he totally clueless of who was behind attack in 93 also--he certainly must be as he also stated--
He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies.
Yep but at least confinded to cave and most close ties DEAD. Evidently O prefers him jet setting with crew with get out jail free cards ala Clinton per his above statements.
Doubt many other than the code pinkies will buy into that.
On added note would someone ask him how he would have managed to capture the 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--and all the conspirators he gave up that followed his "interrogation" saving thousands of lives-
1st Obama's
against methods that lead to capture
-against where he was held (out of reach from liberal attorneys)--and also
against method that led to greatest wealth of info on AQ in entire war.
So if somehow some other ally caught him and he went one step further than Clinton and did take him into custody--and supplied him with attorney --you think we'd ever got any info--or would they still be slow jacking him with the liberal "you have the same rights as american citizens approach"--and how many would have died as result.
Weak on terror is an understatement--doesn't take an Einstein to figure why all the terrorist orgs are :00hour for the liberals.
"At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.
Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center - we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated"
Duh--is he totally clueless of who was behind attack in 93 also--he certainly must be as he also stated--
He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies.
Yep but at least confinded to cave and most close ties DEAD. Evidently O prefers him jet setting with crew with get out jail free cards ala Clinton per his above statements.
Doubt many other than the code pinkies will buy into that.
On added note would someone ask him how he would have managed to capture the 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--and all the conspirators he gave up that followed his "interrogation" saving thousands of lives-
1st Obama's
against methods that lead to capture
-against where he was held (out of reach from liberal attorneys)--and also
against method that led to greatest wealth of info on AQ in entire war.
So if somehow some other ally caught him and he went one step further than Clinton and did take him into custody--and supplied him with attorney --you think we'd ever got any info--or would they still be slow jacking him with the liberal "you have the same rights as american citizens approach"--and how many would have died as result.
Weak on terror is an understatement--doesn't take an Einstein to figure why all the terrorist orgs are :00hour for the liberals.
Last edited:
