Supreme Court 5-4

[WhatsHisNuts]

again

reading is a skill

I not defending ANYBODY. Please don't think I ever want to take away your favorite whipping boy. Knock your effing socks off. But just don't kid yourselves or anybody else as to many actions taken by our (or ANY) government.

I apologize for speaking my mind or complaining about a leader that breaks the rules. If McCain or Obama do the same stuff, I'll be in here bitching about it too.

By the way, if you read my first post (and I know you did) you'll note that I mentioned we should be complaining that it wasn't a unanimous vote. There are a lot of people that spit on the constitution, Bush is just the one that is in charge.

Question for you IO: At what point do you stand up and cry "BS"? My threshold is pretty low, what's yours? Do you have one? If so, what is it?

 

[IntenseOperator]

I wouldn't say I have a threshold

I would say I have triggers :0corn

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Then let's just say he's tripped my trigger. Sorry you have a problem with that.

 

[IntenseOperator]

no problems GM

just posting ( fyi new and adapted version) lol

 

[gardenweasel]

Thu Jun 12, 1:38 PM ET


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Osama bin Laden's former driver may not go on trial this summer at Guantanamo after all. The military lawyer for Salim Hamdan says the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners is likely to at least delay the Yemeni's war crimes trial....


Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer told The Associated Press he will file a motion to dismiss the war crimes charges against Hamdan based on the court's finding that Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional rights"....

Associated Press writers Andrew O. Selsky and Michael Melia contributed to this report

it starts...

a question for the "treat `em like american citizens' crew....

what if we have a war with another country....much like,say,ww2.....

and we have to take prisoners....alot of prisoners...


doesn`t this set a precedent for all these prisoners to have the constitutional right to have their own trial in a civilian court in the u.s.?....

i mean,these would be legit enemy combatatnts that are doing "the right thing" by wearing uniforms so civilians won`t get caught up in the mess....

how`s that work with say 50,000-100,000 prisoners?....

how dumb are these justices to not think about the potential impact of their "feel good b.s. " decision and it`s future ramifications.....

incompetents...

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Thu Jun 12, 1:38 PM ET


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Osama bin Laden's former driver may not go on trial this summer at Guantanamo after all. The military lawyer for Salim Hamdan says the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners is likely to at least delay the Yemeni's war crimes trial....


Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer told The Associated Press he will file a motion to dismiss the war crimes charges against Hamdan based on the court's finding that Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional rights"....

Associated Press writers Andrew O. Selsky and Michael Melia contributed to this report

it starts...

a question for the "treat `em like american citizens' crew....

what if we have a war with another country....much like,say,ww2.....

and we have to take prisoners....alot of prisoners...


doesn`t this set a precedent for all these prisoners to have the constitutional right to have their own trial in a civilian court in the u.s.?....

i mean,these would be legit enemy combatatnts that are doing "the right thing" by wearing uniforms so civilians won`t get caught up in the mess....

how`s that work with say 50,000-100,000 prisoners?....

how dumb are these justices to not think about the potential impact of their "feel good b.s. " decision and it`s future ramifications.....

incompetents...

Weasel: Is this an enemy combatant? If so, sounds like he could be a prisoner of war. If he's not an enemy combatant or someone that has threatened or plotted a threat, I don't think we should be holding him. If we've had him in GB already, we should have had the chance to interrogate him....I'm guessing the driver wasn't the mountain of information we hoped he'd be.

One thing I don't understand about you great americans on the right who are so afraid of communism/socialism is that you immediately point out the "problems" with gov't paid public programs, but you have no problem when our personal rights are threatened (ie., to be held without reason) in the name of the "War on Terror". If you think this is not related to us, just remember, it's a war on terror. Anyone could be considered the enemy if we get another McCarthy running around pointing fingers at Joe Public.

 

[gardenweasel]

Weasel: Is this an enemy combatant? If so, sounds like he could be a prisoner of war. If he's not an enemy combatant or someone that has threatened or plotted a threat, I don't think we should be holding him. If we've had him in GB already, we should have had the chance to interrogate him....I'm guessing the driver wasn't the mountain of information we hoped he'd be.

One thing I don't understand about you great americans on the right who are so afraid of communism/socialism is that you immediately point out the "problems" with gov't paid public programs, but you have no problem when our personal rights are threatened (ie., to be held without reason) in the name of the "War on Terror". If you think this is not related to us, just remember, it's a war on terror. Anyone could be considered the enemy if we get another McCarthy running around pointing fingers at Joe Public.

are you saying that terrorists that do not observe geneva conventions...that hide among civilians without any uni`s or demarcation causing the civilian collateral damage that the rules of war are specifically set up to avoid......are entitled to habeas corpus while those that observe the rules of war set up to try and civilize such a barbaric endeavor,are not eligible for the same treatment?....


this is almost as crazy as giving terrorists habeas corpus while forcing our own soldiers to be tried by military tribunals.....

look,these "guys' have been around forever...in traditional warfare...in their "civvies" doing their nasty little deeds...they used to be called "spies" and "saboteurs".....and, traditionally, they have had no rights whatsoever, not even the right to live.....


you`re rewarding these monsters for their heinous activities?.....

you lost me there,gm...

and btw...these guys weren`t ripped outta central park west....most of them were apprehended in afghanistan and iraq...

 

[gardenweasel]

gmro...we`ve been getting along of late and i`m not trying to bust your balls...my point is,almost as long as there have been armies, soldiers have worn distinctive garb, or even just a symbol, to show that they were members of an army, to differentiate themselves from non-combatants....

to encourage this, even when nations had agreements for handling prisoners of war, they have agreed that combatants disguised as non-combatants forfeited ANY rights from any treaties signed....

take that away, and there is no disincentive to put civilians at risk by disguising one's self as one of them...

the supremes agreed to let congress and the president settle it and they decided on military tribunals...with appeals rights...they agreed...a democratic congress and the president...

now they`ve changed it and the long range ramifications are enormous...

proving,that the 3 branches of government are not co-equal...

i don`t want these judges involved in military issues.....

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Here's what I'm saying Mr. McCarthy:

Terrorist = Someone who commits or plots to commit terror.

If they don't fit that definition, you can't hold them as a terrorist. I don't care if you rip them out of the Columbus, OH airport or off the back of a camel in the Middle East.

You can say all you want about terrorists not following the laws, but I'd like to think we adhere to a higher standard of humanity and personally, I don't think we should be following their lead.

As I said a long time ago, I would have responded to 9/11 with a nuclear bomb that would have taken out a "few" square miles of terrorist turf and relied on "peer pressure" to keep them from another attack. I'm not afraid of using force, but I also think we should follow the Constitution.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

gmro...we`ve been getting along of late and i`m not trying to bust your balls...my point is,almost as long as there have been armies, soldiers have worn distinctive garb, or even just a symbol, to show that they were members of an army, to differentiate themselves from non-combatants....

to encourage this, even when nations had agreements for handling prisoners of war, they have agreed that combatants disguised as non-combatants forfeited ANY rights from any treaties signed....

take that away, and there is no disincentive to put civilians at risk by disguising one's self as one of them...

the supremes agreed to let congress and the president settle it and they decided on military tribunals...with appeals rights...they agreed...a democratic congress and the president...

now they`ve changed it and the long range ramifications are enormous...

proving,that the 3 branches of government are not co-equal...

i don`t want these judges involved in military issues.....

This is actually a really good post and I think you'd sell me on your points if you approached it like this in the past. However, I still think that this issue falls under Constitutional law and we can't give our President Dictator-like authority.

 

[gardenweasel]

This is actually a really good post and I think you'd sell me on your points if you approached it like this in the past. However, I still think that this issue falls under Constitutional law and we can't give our President Dictator-like authority.

you`re saying let the supreme court make it up as they go along?...

and remember...as i said,the supremes charged THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS "AND' the president to come to a compromise and they did...and it was only in 2006,i believe...

it wasn`t an arbitrary decision made by bush...as the decision to use force against saddam wasn`t an arbitrary decision...congress agreed to that...

how can you ignore those facts?...

and you still haven`t told me how legally,these terrorists can warrant habeas corpus protections while legal soldiers can`t get the same consideration....

why wear any uniform?..just hide amonst civilians,cause their deaths and you`re rewarded with habeas corpus rights,which means we`ll be pulling soldiers off the battlefields to appear at hearings.....

it`s totally insane.....,

the precedent is now set....

 

[smurphy]

At one point, we had a higher bar than being as good as China, Saudi Arabia and Mehico

Yeah, I'm thinking that we don't really want to be like them regarding this subject matter.

 

[Tenzing]

Well let me ask you this

Well let me ask you this

I usually land on the other side of this issue but please tell me what is so wrong with this ruling? Why should any government have the right to INDEFINITELY keep an individual in prison without giving them a chance to challenge the reason behind their imprisonment? If these are such bad guys, why have they not been charged?

Um, what law was being violated? None. This is just like Roe v Wade, where no law was cited by the SCUSA, they just make shit up as they go. The constitution is VERY clear, "persons born or naturalized in the United States, or subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

These terrorists are in no way even remotely 14th Amendment persons, and the notion they are entitled to rights is absurd. They are irregular troops, and international law already has a way of dealing with irregular troops, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

If you choose to fight as a guerrilla, or a mercenary, or in violation of the rules of warfare, you exculpate your abductors of any wrong doing, ex parte. This is clear and it's been adjudicated in courts all over the world for almost a hundred years now. Fortunately, the president can ignore the SCUSA, just like they themselves ignore defined law.

 

[Tenzing]

Listen

Listen

you`re saying let the supreme court make it up as they go along?...

and remember...as i said,the supremes charged THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS "AND' the president to come to a compromise and they did...and it was only in 2006,i believe...

it wasn`t an arbitrary decision made by bush...as the decision to use force against saddam wasn`t an arbitrary decision...congress agreed to that...

how can you ignore those facts?...

and you still haven`t told me how legally,these terrorists can warrant habeas corpus protections while legal soldiers can`t get the same consideration....

why wear any uniform?..just hide amonst civilians,cause their deaths and you`re rewarded with habeas corpus rights,which means we`ll be pulling soldiers off the battlefields to appear at hearings.....

it`s totally insane.....,

the precedent is now set....

Leftists aren't intersted in law. The courts of this land are by and large activists, who just do what they want, and these leftists just want to destroy America.

 

[AR182]

Very good explanation. I think that sums up my opinion and I would guess most of America. The problem is that Bush and his followers are trying to say it's either black or white. When everyone knows that it isn't.

i don't know what the polls say but i think most of america is against this ruling by the court.....this issue will play out during the election & it will be interesting to see what happens..

 

[Tenzing]

Of course they are

Of course they are

i don't know what the polls say but i think most of america is against this ruling by the court.....this issue will play out during the election & it will be interesting to see what happens..

How about this, smurphy, we condemn the house next to yours and use it to house all these terrorists....

 

[StevieD]

It's got nothing to do with Bush or any "Bush followers.

Your blind as hell if you don't ever think EVERY fuking president this country has had, ESPECIALLY in time of war, not taken liberties with the rules. They all have. All that must be taken in context of the then conditions, whether it was WWII, the Cold War, or puke ass terrorists they don't play by the rules and not under ANY FLAG.

Keep banging your same drum post after post after post with the same small picture view.

We went to their country. Captured them. Locked them on an island for how many years? How do you know they were even terrorists. Hell. you probably got some guys that were on our side.

 

[rusty]

I usually land on the other side of this issue but please tell me what is so wrong with this ruling? Why should any government have the right to INDEFINITELY keep an individual in prison without giving them a chance to challenge the reason behing their imprisonment? If these are such bad guys, why have they not been charged?

Lets let loose terriorists on our own soil,to wreck havoc on our own soil!!OK I find nothing wrong with this ruling!!:nono:

 

[smurphy]

How about this, smurphy, we condemn the house next to yours and use it to house all these terrorists....

Whatever you want, sweetie.

 

[smurphy]

these leftists just want to destroy America.

:rimshot