Powered by TypePad

« Drink Up | Main | To Which I Would Add... »

June 17, 2008

Comments

kim

Oh, please Obama, keep arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact. The primary is over, and this dude is still singing to the Kos Dancers.
===============================

clarice

A different view of the Constitution wqhich Congress agreed with and in an area the Constitution gives those two branches the responsibility and power to act, I'd add.

Bob from Ohio

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. 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"

Next time I'm in NYC, I really need to stop at the World Trade Center and ... Oops, I guess putting those people in US prisons did not work very well.

Rich

Obama's position is a GREAT strategy for terrorists!

Neo

The ability of Obama to embrace his a-holeness is breathtaking.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Yesterday, on a Seattle talk radio program, I listened to Richard Miniter--who has been to Gitmo and seen the detainees 'pocket lint' (including one guy's 16 passports)--discuss the fallout to be expected from the SCOTUS decision.

He said that in places where Al Qaeda's people have been tried in civilian courts--such as India--the judges, prosecutors, jurors and their families have all been targeted by Al Qaeda. Even defense lawyers and their families.

According to Miniter, everyone involved in any way can expect to become a target of terrorists.

TexasToast

Giving these people a right to a hearing regarding detentions lasting up to 5 years without any charge strikes me as somewhat less of a threat to the republic than a case reasserting Marbury v Madison.

Neo
Obama is already living in a fantasy world, one in which cold-hearted dictators will swoon in his presence like the hyperventilating fans at his rallies. But at this rate, I expect Obama to suggest, come October in one of the presidential debates, that if we'll just modify some of our spotlights to project a giant bat-image against the clouds, Commissioner Gordon will be able to mop up what's left of the war in Afghanistan within a fortnight.
LOL
AJB
Civil Rights for Terrorists
I believe you meant to say "Civil Rights for Random Brown People." Or at least that would be more accurate.
Great Banana

Giving these people a right to a hearing regarding detentions lasting up to 5 years without any charge

So, in a war, what we do is capture enemy combatents, and then charge them criminally and try them in american courts. Do our soldiers have to read them their rights? Do we need warrants and probable cause before we capture them? Can they sue the soldiers for using excessive force in their capture? Do they get discovery of all the top secret intelligence material that led to their "arrest"/capture.

It is a mindset like this, that does not understand the difference between apprehending a criminal w/in the U.S. and capturing an enemy combatent, that leads me to believe that most U.S. citizens are now too stupid for this nation to long survive.

narciso

You could ask those tourist at Luxor back in 1997, oops, you can't do either because
Lynn Stewart relayed messages from Omar Abdel Rahman to the Gamaa Islamiya cell that slaughtered them. Fizgerald let Al Mohammed go, until after the Embassy bombings in Kenya & Tanzania; it seems he did provide the sketchy details for the
December 1998 PDB; about Seif Al Adel and
Abu Haf al Masri, (Mustafa Atef) fellow Egyptians, whose names disappeared from the
August 2001 PDB. The PDB didn't containt information from William's Phoenix memo; re flight schools. Moussaoui's detention was two weeks in the future, as would Mohammed Manea Al Quahtani(whose training
regimen is in Peter Bergen's oral biography
of Bin Laden)a detail left off the defense
brief which is Phillip Sand's Torture Team.
"Abdullah Mujajir" the foreign servant's South Florida ties to Atta as well Adnan El Shukrijumah would also surface in thefuture.
It's ironic that if they had been apprehended on September 10th, Jarrah only had a traffic ticket in his past, Atta had no record, except his associations in the Hamburg Kuds mosque. It's unlikely that Al Hazmi & Al-Midhar would have surfaced because of the Gorelick "Wall" prescription"
Lawrence Wright speculates those two were not picked up, because they were considered
potential recruits by the I-4 team;However, they never made a move toward them.

Sue

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/06/thinking-outsid.html#comment-119150186>I posted this in another thread.

I know Andy McCarthy isn't that popular around here, but I think he hits a home run with this one.

Sue

http://www.drudgereport.com/>This really bugs me. Two pictures. One of a thoughtful candidate. The other an angry candidate. I have come to detest Drudge.

Jane

Obama's position is a GREAT strategy for terrorists!

No wonder some think of him as a Manchurian candidate.

cathyf
Giving these people a right to a hearing...
They already had a right to a hearing, and have had that right all along. The Supreme Court gave them a right to a habeas corpus hearing in a US federal court. "These people" are 1) not US citizens 2) in a prison outside of the US for 3) war crimes that they committed outside of the US.

So, TT -- where does it stop? Does every human being on the planet have the right to a habeas corpus hearing in a US federal court? Why stop at humans?

clarice

Rasmussen:
"Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters. "


You see-how McCain skirted the issue of Fla and Calif voter opposition? By sticking to his states rights argument.

Rick Ballard

"that leads me to believe that most U.S. citizens are now too stupid for this nation to long survive."

GB,

"Most" of the Great Muddle are always within 1 SD of the mean so "too stupid" just won't work. Statistically, anyway. The question is whether the educrats have succeeded in their quest to keep them more ignorant than they may have been in the past.

I have doubts about that. Once the muddle is released from the educrats indoctrination camps, "life education" begins and even the dullest notes the difference between the indoctrination and reality. The current polling on drilling points up the fact that the Greenie Watermelon piety, so heavily imbued with holiness by the educrats, lasts only until touched by the reality of the gas pump.

The Pod of Pustules Gitmo decision is going to be greeted with the same enthusiasm as additional drilling restrictions, once it sinks in.

The court has managed to once again diminish its undeserved stature as an arbiter. That's not a bad thing, per se.

Pofarmer

we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial.

Uhmmm, yeah, sorta, but you generally don't get the planners. Khalid Sheik Mohammed comes to mind. Arresting folks and trying them after they murder a few thousand folks is kinda pointless, wouldn't you agree?

And, the detainees at Gitmo have all had hearing in front of a military tribunal. Bringing them into the federal justice system is insanity.

cboldt

In comments at Beldar's blog, I speculate generally that the Boumediene fallout isn't as "dire" as popular belief. SCOTUS sits at the top of a Court system that has much flexibility.

Bill in AZ

narciso illustrates the single thing that most pisses me off about the autistic Fitz and his prosecution of Libby. Fitz knew who we were dealing with during his work at SDNY. He even interviewed Ali Mohammed ("scariest guy he ever met" hmmm... I presume he must not have ever met Scary Larry) and let him go. Yet he created perjury for Libby long after he knew there was no case, and thoroughly disrupted operation of the government during a time of war. Libby was one of the few voices properly defining what we were up against, along with Feith and a few others.
Thanks Fitz - I can see the supreme court for you under Obama.

Neo

All the children sing
All the birds are chirping harmony
The scent of love is in the air
Sunset on the sea
The angel of the lord
Just declared we arent worth a thing
The galaxy is null and void
All the children sing

sbw

Sue: I have come to detest Drudge.

Some of us had little regard for him from the start.

sbw

You cannot have expected the Supreme Court to cut itself off from the opportunity to intervene. You cannot expect the Supreme Court to tolerate a glut that paralyses the court system. This will work out.

sbw

H/T Instapundit: JOHN YOO on the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision. "Boumediene should finally put to rest the popular myth that right-wing conservatives dominate the Supreme Court."

Thomas Collins

So B57O belives that terrorist recruitment is increased because the US doesn't provide enough rights for terrorist suspects? This man is truly clueless. This man is 10 Jimmy Carters on the clueless scale. What was B57O and his Columbia International Relations compatriots smoking back in the day?

Sue

Thomas,

The entire pharleftistan believes that. That Obama does too is not shocking.

Danube of Thought

I'm outta here--it's all too depressing. Off to Florence, Sorrento and Rome.

Ciao.

Ranger

This really bugs me. Two pictures. One of a thoughtful candidate. The other an angry candidate. I have come to detest Drudge.

Posted by: Sue | June 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Sue, Drudge is just following his own self interest here. He knows that an Obama administration would be full of stupid mistakes, just like the Clinton administration was. A McCain administration would probably be pretty boring. Obama is better for his trafic meter (and thus ad revinue).

Pofarmer

SCOTUS sits at the top of a Court system that has much flexibility.

And that is supposed to somehow make me feel better? Somehow, flexibility in the body that interprets our laws seems more like a bug than a feature.

narciso

I should point out, that because of Ali Mohammed's experience with SDNY, he probably directed some of the preliminary scouting for the WTC attack before 1998.
Yet Fizgerald has done his best to be the Lawrence Walsh of this generation; going
after Libby, during a time of war, indicting
and removing one of the clearest proponents of military and intellectual approaches against terrorism (Conrad Black)while basically going soft against a real corrupter on several continents (Rezko,
& by extension Auchi and Alsammarai; who he probably hasn't given a jay walking ticket to. Auchi, who bribed Italian politicians with money that was meant to feed Iraqi children, Alsammarai, who ripped off the electricity grid, and now calls for the death of more Americans & Iraqis on off all things, Radio Sawa; which is supposed to be the RFL/RFE for the Middle East. Yet Gore's
'courageous' endorsement of Obama, magnitudes of stupidity greater than Kerry's endorsement of Obama, after the Massachussett's primary, McCain's old,did we mention he's old; Obama's signing up Patti Solis, & Stephanie Cutter; this is like getting the crew of the Titanic to steer the California and other ephemera will probably be the talk of the day. By the way. that way of the "Pooh" quote by Danzig, is priceless. Next, Goldilocks comments on real estate volatility and oil futures.

By the way, here's a minor issue, but where are the telethons and concerts for the Nation's breadbasket? We can do without jazz, but we can't do with bread or corn for long;(damm the carbs)Maybe this is the way to solve childhood obesity; I somehow doubt it. What happened to the levee boards in Cedar Rapids, are there levee boards in Cedar Rapids?

clarice

DoT Have fun you miserable bastard. We'll miss you.

MayBee

Oh please oh please oh please.

I just know that somewhere out there is a pre-Afghanistan invasion speech from Obama in which he calls for treating it as a police, not military, action.

Even in his famous post-invasion, pre-Iraq speech, he ambiguously says he supported "going after those" that committed the terrorist act. To my mind, that is code speak for not bombing the country itself.

Everything about this guy makes me know he did not support the kind of miliatry action that took place in Afghanistan post-9/11. Now we see a hint of it.
Someone with skills, please find a post-9/11, pre-Iraq speech by Obama for me!

Jane

Dot,

Don't forget to come back. I don't want to have to drag you - again. Have a wonderful time!

Anita

"Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims." - Obama.

Hmm, Why is it bothering Obama?

TexasToast

So, TT -- where does it stop?

At the end of that loooooong very slipppppppery slope?

"[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time," recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, which had lent great credibility to the proceedings.
"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals. We've got to have convictions.'"

-- Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions


So Cathy --- where does it stop?

cboldt

-- And that is supposed to somehow make me feel better? --

No. But perhaps you misunderstand the observation I was summarizing. The Court system has a wide range of procedure, and isn't limited to CrimPro. Scan a few of the habeas cases that are cited in Eisentrager. See the FISA Court (granted, it's specialized, but it's not CrimPro). The Court system has at least a finger on the UCMJ, etc.

The common reaction injects conclusions that flow from an assumption that the GTMO detainees now get benefits that match (or at least mostly match) CrimPro. I don't think that's a good or valid assumption.

GMax

Why isn't ANWR a states right argument? Alaska would approve drilling in a heartbeat if allowed to vote.

JM Hanes

Sue:

Thanks for linking to the McCarthy column. I'd forgotten that bin Laden has been under indictment since 1998! McCain should pointedly remind Obama of that fact -- in their first nationally televised debate.

I've been surprised at how little attention has been paid to the central defect in taking a law enforcement approach to terrorists: You can't arrest them till they've actually committed a crime. To have any hope of incarcerating potential perpetrators before they kill people, you will inevitably end up passing what is essentially a body of thought crime legislation, chilling communications and eroding privacy, one database at a time. Ultimately, that approach will intrude on civil liberties more thoroughly than any possible pre-Boumediene Gitmo effect.

Preventative law enforcement (with its necessary emphasis on preventative law) is an entirely different beast than the punitive ex post facto enforcement which constitutes the "rule of law" as we know it. There has been far too little explicit recognition of that fundamental fact in public dialogue.

Pofarmer

UHmmm, TT, I beleive they have already released some Gitmo inmates, and it seems like a pretty high percentage of them have shown back up on the battle field. If you release somebody who's guilty in a pursesnatching case, he may go clean, may snatch again. If you inadvertently release the wrong character from Gitmo, somebody, and maybe a lot of somebodies, are probably gonna die. They weren't just snatched from their job at a daycare.

cboldt

Just to pick one "procedural facet," Senator Graham stated, in a recent speech in NJ, that the GTMO detainees will now be able to forum shop for a sympathetic judge. In CrimPro, a defendant DOES get some ability to challenge the forum, e.g., locals are biased, can't seat an impartial jury, and other assorted excuses.

Eventually we will see if the Senator's statement, that the detainees have obtained the right to forum shop, bears out in fact.

sbw

GMax: Why isn't ANWR a states right argument?

Lefts don't believe in states rights. They believe in CONTROL!

Pofarmer

to have any hope of incarcerating potential perpetrators before they kill people, you will inevitably end up passing what is essentially a body of thought crime legislation, chilling communications and eroding privacy, one database at a time.

You just made Tommy Franks argument for taking the fight to the enemy.

BobS

I agree with Matthew, but am willing to wait and see what the fallout for be. But I love to use one of my liberal friends favorite expressions in that Boumediene is potentially......chilling.

Pofarmer

Eventually we will see if the Senator's statement, that the detainees have obtained the right to forum shop, bears out in fact.

And if it does?

This whole thing is being turned into a gigantic cluster f##k for no good reason.

cboldt

-- This whole thing is being turned into a gigantic cluster f##k for no good reason. --

Of course involving the courts complicates affairs. But the government wasn't getting its way in the Bismullah case (where the DC Circuit seemed to take as given, that the statutory review scheme passed constitutional muster), meaning that it's a gigantic cluster f##k no matter which way it's sliced.

There are places the courts won't go (see Hirota -- and recent tangential decisions), but I think there is good reason, in the general sense, to HAVE the third independent branch (even intruding to some wartime disputes), rather than NOT have it, or have it act as a "yes man."

Thomas Collins

I've never seen the term "pharleftistan" before, Sue, but I love it. Because I live and work in the Boston area, I'll have plenty of chances to use it.

cathyf
'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals. We've got to have convictions.'
That's just fatuous. Over half of the people ever held there have already been released. Thirty-some have been killed or captured on the battlefield after their release. (Whether that's a large or small percentage is based upon such questions as how many released prisoners are back on the battlefield undetected, and how many are unable to return to the battlefield because they are in custody somewhere else.)

If these guys had really been held for five years without any hearings, then it would be significant if we don't find any innocent people in the bunch. But every single one of them has had a status hearing in front of a military tribunal. This group has already been substantially culled, and by a process that made a significant number of errors in the direction of releasing the guilty.

The Geneva Convention requires that unlawful combatants be given a hearing before a "competent tribunal." That is the basic right in question. All of these prisoners had that right under the original procedure set up by the Executive Branch, and all of them have had hearings under that procedure. Then the Judicial Branch ruled that this was inadequate, and that the Legislative Branch had to enact a system for hearings explicitly by law, which the Legislative Branch did, and the Executive signed. Now the Judicial Branch has said that they were just kidding in their last ruling. It's not just that the prisoners must have access to a "competent tribunal" (basic human right), and not just that they must have access to tribunals set up by duly-enacted federal law passed through both houses of congress and signed by the president (which SCOTUS said was their constitutional right the last time around), but, instead, they are entitled quite specifically to habeas corpus rights in US federal courts (or, at least that's the rule until they change their minds again -- maybe the next version will be that each gitmo prisoner will be entitled to a bill of impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate?)

cboldt

I linked to the wrong phase of Hirota above. I meant to link to Hirota v. General of the Army MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197 (1948).

The punchline that I took away was this:

The conclusion is therefore plain that the Tokyo Tribunal acted as an instrument of military power of the Executive branch of government. ... It was solely an instrument of political power. Insofar as American participation is concerned, there is no constitutional objection to that action. For the capture and control of those who were responsible for the Pearl Harbor incident was a political question on which the President as Commander-in-Chief, and as spokesman for the nation in foreign affairs, had the final say.
Thomas Collins

The ironic thing about the Boumediene case is that it is largely a result of GWB's success in protecting the homeland. The more secure we Americans feel, the more likely we are to view fighting Jihadism as a police issue. Let's hope it doesn't take a suitcase nuke explosion to change our attitude.

narciso

Appeals Court Cotelly as well as thatSupreme
Court decision, relied on irrelevant cases like the Councilman case (involved enlisted
navy personnel in a courtmartial) Hirota was an appeal after a war crimes prosecution
(that Justice Jackson presided over)Quirin was an oversight, we had alreafy hung everyone but Dasch by the time the decision came out. We haven't even had theg@#$@#$@#$ trial/ tribunal, yet nearly 7 years after September 11th! mostly because the ACLU, Amnesty International, want to litigate every single word. It's become almost as bad as the Hague tribunal against Milosevic, where despite the mountain of evidence; they ultimately had to acquit him. You want an example of the "Chicago Way" of jurisprudence, consider the Saddam
trial, from capture to execution in three
years; We don't ever do it that way. they didn't give a carp about civil liberties in that deal, although they did give thedefense
too much leeway to filibuster. That's why that fellow Munaf is probably 'doing the
Brown Note' if you get the meaning about his fate.

By the way, on the way of the Pooh, when 3,000 American citizens either suffocate, are incinerated, or suffocate, that's when it becomes too painful, and it's time to try something new.

Pofarmer

The conclusion is therefore plain that the Tokyo Tribunal acted as an instrument of military power of the Executive branch of government. ... It was solely an instrument of political power. Insofar as American participation is concerned, there is no constitutional objection to that action. For the capture and control of those who were responsible for the Pearl Harbor incident was a political question on which the President as Commander-in-Chief, and as spokesman for the nation in foreign affairs, had the final say.

Doesn't that sorta undercut the current argument?

Pofarmer

We haven't even had theg@#$@#$@#$ trial/ tribunal, yet nearly 7 years after September 11th! mostly because the ACLU, Amnesty International, want to litigate every single word.

Exactly. The right to a speedy trial has been shanghied by the hucksters on the left.

cboldt

-- Then the Judicial Branch ruled that this was inadequate, and that the Legislative Branch had to enact a system for hearings explicitly by law, which the Legislative Branch did, and the Executive signed. Now the Judicial Branch has said that they were just kidding in their last ruling. --

Hamdan basically stood for the proposition that Congress necessarily has a role in crafting Military Commissions and Tribunals - that Executive-created tribunals don't pass constitutional muster. Hamdan went on to say that if the Commissions and Tribunals were an adequate substitute for habeas, the Courts would support the results.

"If" is a conditional state of affairs. The Hamdan court didn't prejudge the adequacy of what ended up as a CSRT+MCA review. It couldn't, the procedure didn't exist. It's not logical to accuse them of being Indian givers on a conclusion they didn't (and couldn't) express.

clarice

Was Milosevic acquitted? I thought he died sometime in the middle of his never ending trial.

Yes, ANWR IS a states right issue, too,but it has become a shibboleth that folks are afraid to tamper with.

Ralph

Actually it could be argued that these people are "illegal combatants" under the Geneva Convention, and could, as a result, be summarily executed when captured.

The fact that the terrorists don't comply with the basic requirements to be considered as combatants under the Geneva Conventions has been generally ignored.

(As have their clear "war crimes:" hiding behind non-combatants, etc)

clarice

June 17, 2008
Obama Channels Tz'u-hsi
Clarice Feldman

Tz'u-hsi ,the dowager empress of China, took sadistic delight in discomfitting those around her. She'd often walk in her gardens surrounded by her many ladies in waiting with retainers bringing endless dishes to be sampled. Many of these dishes were days old and crawling with maggots, and the empress offered these to her ladies who were forced to eat them while pretending they enjoyed the high honor of being singled out to share her food.

I thought of this when I read that Obama has announced that Patti Solis Doyle will be joining his entourage and she will be the chief of staff of whoever he names as his vice presidential nominee.


Doyle, as you will recall was Hillary's campaign manager and was bounced rather unceremoniously from her campaign after a series of losses. Reportedly they haven't spoken to each other since her firing.


It seems to me Obama is saying Hillary will not be his nominee, but if he is forced to take her he will control her staffing and surround her with enemies loyal only to him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_channels_tzuhsi.html

clarice

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_channels_tzuhsi.html>T'zu

Ranger

Was Milosevic acquitted? I thought he died sometime in the middle of his never ending trial.

Posted by: clarice | June 17, 2008 at 01:11 PM

You are correct Clarice. Milosevic died before the end of his trial. Ironicly, the Prime Minister of Serbia who extridited Milosevic (in violation of the Yugoslav constitution) was killed by a sniper 3 years before Milosevic died.

clarice

If I can remember that, ranger, why the heck can't I remember where I put my handbag?

kim

I wonder if his picking Doyle means he already has a Veep candidate in mind. It is just hard to believe that his running mate won't want his/her own Chief of Staff.
====================================

 Ann

Great blog Clarice

I also love Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:

In a question posed toward the end of the call by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, the McCain campaign might have found a new talking point with which to emphasize the possible effect of the Gitmo decision. Hayes' asked if -- in the campaign's interpretation -- the Court's decision would mean that if Osama bin Laden was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo, he too would be entitled to Habeas Corpus rights.

The McCain campaign's answer was yes.

"If Sen. Obama did receive that 3 a.m. phone call," Scheunemann said of the call so often mentioned throughout the Democratic primaries, "I guess his response would be to call the lawyers in the justice department." (firstread.msnbc.msn.com)

 Ann

It gets better, on the same phone call:

Sen. Kerry replied:

"Let me answer that on several levels. This is John Kerry. First of all the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights. This is not Barack Obama. This is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is say anything no matter what the other side has said. Just say it. And enough people may believe it unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#7368 ">Weekly Standard

clarice

If you are not already determined to work for McCain, let me remind you of the reports that that yutz Kerry wants to be Obama's Secretary of Statel Think of that as your head hits the pillow tonight.

 Ann

Looking forward to the day they release these guys in America:

Abu Qatada: Radical cleric to be released 'in next 24 hours'

Can anyone assure me that this won't happen here someday?

Pofarmer

Think of that as your head hits the pillow tonight

Yeah, well, I think that would probably foretell a lot of sleepless nights. Well, except for the terrorrists. I think they would sleep rather soundly with an Obama presidency/Kerry Secretary of State. No Hellfire's for you!!!

Thomas Collins

Ann asked:

"Can anyone assure me that this won't happen here someday?"

Noone can assure you of that, Ann. But it gets even worse. Imagine that B57O is elected POTUS with a solid Democrat Senate and with Anthony Kennedy continuing his shift to the post-modern leftist state of being. We can't even be assured that a SCOTUS with B57O appointments would refrain from applying John Kerry's "Global Test" to US national security operations.

However, I can assure you of one thing, Ann. There is still a lot of "Jacksonian Spirit" in this country. At some point, the Jacksonians will prevail and send the Global Testers to the scrap heap of history. But it will take awhile and unfortunately may be after another major Jihadist hit to the homeland.

Sue

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/17/haditha-watch-charges-dismissed-against-lt-col-chessani/>Charges dismissed against Chessani.

I admit, I don't understand exactly what happened. They can still refile these charges so he wasn't exactly cleared. But, hopefully, they have enough sense to let it go. Now, where's Murtha?

 Ann

Thanks for your response Thomas.

Another thing we can look forward to is the SCOTUS upcoming decision on the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

Interesting and very scary times, I think I will sleep standing up from now on.

clarice

Only Frank Wuterich is left and I can't imagine that this hoax will continue much longer.

glasater

Never have owned a gun. But if B570 is elected--I'm going to get one or two.

Greenzone

It just means we have to kill unlawful combatants on the battlefield. You want due process? Say hello to my "great writ." Section .556

Sue

Only Frank Wuterich is left and I can't imagine that this hoax will continue much longer.

Some of the milbloggers think Wuterich will go to trial and could possibly be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. I honestly don't know. But I do know Murtha is a cold blooded porker who needs to apologize to a bunch of Marines.

Pofarmer

Murtha should have already apologized.

MayBee

But I do know Murtha is a cold blooded porker who needs to apologize to a bunch of Marines

I love that!

PeterUK

"According to Miniter, everyone involved in any way can expect to become a target of terrorists."

Yes,standard procedure.The Mafia in Italy and Sicily use the same tactics.Interesting when it starts happening to liberals.

Bill in AZ

Never have owned a gun. But if B570 is elected--I'm going to get one or two.
Better get in line - gun sales have been brisk with the likelihood of Obama becoming President. I have had trouble finding a couple that I am interested in.

clarice

Last I saw, the officer in charge of reviewing the case pre trial recommended all charges be dropped down to negligent homicide. And I'll be rather surprised if given the problems with the evidence and command interference and acts like Murtha's tainting the investigation if it comes to even that.

In the meantime, let's get porker Murtha on that spit.

PeterUK

"In the meantime, let's get porker Murtha on that spit."

From what contact I have had with it,it sounds like the onset of Alzheimers.They seem perfectly normal,then suddenly out of the blue comes a weirdly disconnected statement.

PeterUK

For example,

"REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.

REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes."

Larry

One of the first strikes in OIF was by a B-2 launched from Whiteman AFB, MO. I believe it recovered back home, too. That doesn't mean we should fight wars from over the horizon. Just wanted peeps to know who weren't aware of this amazing feat.

Pofarmer

Yes Larry. We have what, seven of them now?

They are an awesome weapon, but no substitute for boots and artillery and air support in theatre.

sbw

I was reminded of this blog comment, from Belmont Club blog entry on the Ghost of A. Q. Khan, after reading Obama's latest re-write of history.

[chachapoya said...]
"It seems beyond obvious the best defense against that is law enforcement, intelligence and local security measures."

Let's see, just what did Clinton's best defense give us. Did it gave us the head of bin Laden when it was offered by the Sudan. He declared war on us, he was tracked, located and offered, but Clinton's justice department didn't think they had legal justification to try him in court. Did it stop the attacks on US assets around the world? The comments coming from AQ after Clinton's 'best defense' were that the US was a paper tiger that would fold it's tent and retreat at the first sign of difficulty. (sound familiar?)

I'll stick with the overwhelming force, myself.

Obama does represent the generation for whom history begins at sunrise.

narciso

Murtha dates himself with that example, Okinawa; formerly the Marine training base
hasn't seen action, since North was stationed there in the mid 70s. The next question should have been, where do you go Senator when they start targeting these bases in Quatar & Bahrain.

I'm sorry I can't get around how Richard' The Pooh" Danzig's comment hasn't gotten
more attention. I saw the rebroadcast on CSPAN and when he started talking about
"Iraq has made us unsafe" I tuned out. I never expected he would saysomething so gobsmackingly stupid. Kerry and Clarke's insistance of giving Osama Bin Laden, due process rights. (Maybe he could cross examine the victim's families, so he could see what their greif was, and why the govt should bear the brunt of it)Now Danzig, supposedly is with the sensible CNAS not the fully Kumbaya, Soros CAP. Do they really think us this stupid; or do they not care what they sound like? That New Yorker
piece by Boyer, which posits 'dain bramage'
as a possible reason for Olbermann's behavior is iluminating and disturbing; the latter because the damage he can cause to NBC News, and let's face it the nation's median IQ. We've seen how he's forced the
once seemingly sensible Dan Abrams into Kos
TV; without any consequences.

Aaron

I have two questions. Here's 1.

1. How much of the "5 years in detention without a trial" is due the constant legal challenges and the slowness of lawyers to come up with the tribunal system in the first place, i.e. are the actual legal rulings part of the reason these guys are not seeing trials faster?

(Note that many have been released already - so who's left probably do need to be tried.)

Aaron

Question 2.

In the great book "The Interrogators" the author talks about two Arab males caught trying to enter Afghanistan in 2002 wearing Burkas. (IIRC)

So, how would the "law enforcement / trials in the US legal system" school handle such a case? I believe the two men were Egyptian and Sudanese respectively (could be wrong though)

I want to see case examples where they explain their argument and show how it would be just as effective as detaining such individuals until deemed safe or trying them in military tribunals.

Larry

Posted by: Pofarmer | June 17, 2008 at 07:57 PM Right on, Bro. I'm an Air Force retiree, but I know boots win wars.

Ralph L

I assume ANWR is federal property.

narciso

For what it's worth, here's the McClatchy piece on we're building terrorists at Gitmo:
http://www.miamiherald.com/newsletters/five_min/story/572714.html> the evidence is very weak, on that score. Even the usually agreeable commenters didn't buy it.
The fact that the lead reporter, Tom
Lasseter,had downplayed the likely success of the surge, and had made the Second Fallujah campaign seem pointless. His foreign editor, Roy Gutman, was one of those who penned those Reagan's war pieces about the Contras, which he compiled into a book; Banana Diplomacy, which assumed the Sandinistas were misunderstood and of course driven into the arms of the Soviets by American support of the Contras; see presumptions haven't changed in 20 years.

Emphasis

For the following reasons, I question the Supreme Court opinion on Boumoudiene.

1.- As I understand it under the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war can not be turned over to civil authorities, as a mater of fact to do so constitute a war crime. They fall under military law. On the other hand if you are an unlawful combatant you may be summarily shot under accepted international law and custom. The decision would appear to reverse the latter part of the above and provide unlawful combatants with more rights and protection than a lawful combatant.

2.- Many feel that the reason for the decision is that there is no mechanism to evaluate the reasons and need to keep someone in Guantanamo. In reality, according to Wikipedia there had been 759 detainees at Guantanamo as of 5/15/06, but as of May 2008 there were only approximately 270, so a mechanism has been in place and working to evaluate the need to keep them there. Many of them have been sent back to their countries of origin and at least 30 of them have been killed or captured again while attacking our troops or allies.

3.- Many feel that the reason of the decision is the protection of our individual rights, but as I understand it the President can’t authorize your detention without judicial review unless he declares martial law under the Insurrection Act of 1807, or Congress declares war and authorizes the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Instead this decision grants constitutional rights to non-citizens who commit acts outside the jurisdiction of the United States. This is something new because to the best of my knowledge the Constitution does not apply to foreigners. It also begs the question that if they are to be treated as US Citizens should they then be subject to the provisions of the Insurrection act of 1807?

4.- Will the fact of this decision affect the possibility of obtaining human intelligence. For example will the facts surrounding the events leading to his capture be available to the defense so that the terrorist can then find out how and who assisted in locating and capturing him? Will this chill the cooperation of potential assets? It would me.

5.- Where is the common sense(I emphasize common sense) reconciliation of Johnson v. Eisentrager with this case? In Eisentrager the Court held that nonresident enemy aliens have no right to seek relief in the federal courts in wartime.

Though I understand the reason why most if not all of those appointed to the Supreme Court are lawyers, I am beginning to question if this is an appropriate result, specially when you take into consideration that the framers of the Constitution did not place the requirement of a law degree on the Document when they had the opportunity to do so. It might have been that they thought that other trades and professions should also be represented. That those that day after day have to come up with practical common sense solutions to the challenges they face, should sit side by side with those that are trained to use their mind to gain advantage in favor of those they represent. That the judgment of those that get their hands dirty in the day to day of world reality, would complement that of those that are comfortable arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My conclusion is that this is a very arrogant decision by people that have allowed their emotions to overcome their responsibility to the nation.

PeterUK

What is all this coy carp about trying prisoners of war? Prisoners of war are only tried if the are accused of war crimes,otherwise they are incarcerated for the duration. The only way to get release is to abjure fighting.Since the current prisoners are permitted to lie giving their word to do so is worthless.

Rick Ballard

Bush Energy Proposal

Nice and partisan with clearly drawn lines. The Watermelons are going to have conniption fits followed by heart attacks.

Hopefully, anyway.

McCain has already performed his pivot on coastal drilling. Any bets as to when the wisdom of opening ANWAR will penetrate the massive bone mass protecting his kernel of intellect?

I'll go with "as soon as polling shows it to be safe".

cathyf
Prisoners of war are only tried if the are accused of war crimes,otherwise they are incarcerated for the duration.
Hypothetically, a prisoner on trial for war crimes could argue that he is a lawful-combatant POW rather than and unlawful combatant, and prevail at the trial. In that case, the prisoner would turn into a POW, entitled to full POW privileges under the Geneva Convention (during his incarderation for the duration.)
bad

(during his incarderation for the duration.)

Cathyf, does that mean that as long as the US is waging a war on terror, any act of terror throughout the world means the war is continuing, making the duration practically infinite?

PeterUK

"In that case, the prisoner would turn into a POW, entitled to full POW privileges under the Geneva Convention (during his incarderation for the duration.)"

Better off a war criminal,hang around the Hague forever eating good food,meeting left wing celebrities.Prisoner of war,food parcels and visits from the Red Cross.

narciso

It will last as long as they continue the war against us, or we acquiesce; which is the Obama alternative. However, as Spain as showed, a truce, hudna, like that entered
into after March 2005; doesn't apply to both parties. Beside the legal issues that have been covered before; Boumedienne shouldn't cover the likes of KSM, Zubeydah,
Al Nashiri; as they actually committed acts of war against us (notably September 11th
and the USS Cole)from those like Boumedienne
& even Quahtani, who didn't catch up to Flight 93, likely making the Capitol Building a funeral pyre. Others have pointed
out, how under a criminal system; detainees
would have the presumption of innocence including Osama Bin Laden. Affirmative defenses based on Islamic law have been offered in the UK, Italy and Yemen; with varying degrees of success. The recent release of Abu Quatada in the UK offers little assurance.

clarice

PUK, that's what I like about you. Pragmatic. I'm picturing myself eating steak, pomme frites,mussels, drinking beer, swigging down chocolate in the latest Parisian version of an hijab----very stylish..Maybe in saffron with some Hermes accessories in tangerine and gold.

PeterUK

Clarice,Yes,with the added cachet of war criminal a jihadi, or in this case jihadess has reached the pinnacle of achievement,this is what you were trained for.The best liberal lawyers bust a gut to represent you.Poor POW,just gets "Dear Abdul why didn't the jacket I made you go off,did you chicken out? I am seeing another martyr", letters from home

PeterUK

"The recent release of Abu Quatada in the UK offers little assurance."

That is one of the wonders of the European Convention on Human Rights,the Nu Labour Toon government passed into law.They keep passing legislation to prevent terrorism and the judges have to point out that that the are contrvening the Human Rights Act.All very Wyle E Coyote,without being so heroically endearing.

clarice

Abu Quatada...Is that from the Lion King?

PeterUK

Abu Qatada. Less "Lion King",more "King Rat".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame