Private Collection

Powered by TypePad

« Just Say "No". Or "Yes". Or "Wait For It" | Main | The Day The Music Died »

June 12, 2008

Comments

sbw

I object to reporting this as a stinging defeat for the Bush administration when the administration was simply trying to find its way in waters not navigated since WWII, and using the maps used at that time.

bad

I'm in favor of Cheney hunting with various supremes.

Danube of Thought

SBW, I don't think the waters navigated in WWII were quite the same as these. But to the extent they are the same, I would note that the Constitution hasn't changed one iota since then (except for amendments having no bearing at all on the issues presented by this case).

What we are seeing these days--and it's not exactly new--are courts telling us that the US Consstitution means things that no one reading the document itself, or the prior cases interpreting it, could ever have anticipated. In California's recent same-sex marriage case, the state supreme court did the same thing with respect to the state constitution.

When I consider that such questions are being decided by the likes of the terminally strange David Souter, I shudder--and then I come damn close to exploding. He was, you may recall, Senator Warren Rudman's precious gift to America. Rudman (a close ally of John McCain) was the prototypical moderate Republican.

bad

It passed by 64-35, a resoundingly bipartisan margin in other contexts but not bipartisan enough to have attracted Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, or Kerry.

The aforementioned senators all have a nutroots base that has to be appeased before thay can win the democrats presidential nomination. But perhaps I do them an injustice and they voted "nay" because they thought the bill conveyed too many rights to the detainees.

 Ann

I heart Scalia. From NRO today:

Make Me President of the Scalia Fan-Club [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From the decision today: After describing a passage from the last round of GTMO cases, where the court had said that the president has to consult with Congress on how to deal with the detainees, he writes: "Turns out they were just kidding."

Terry Gain

There is nothing quite so arrogant as the liberal mind.

Terry Gain

I object to reporting this as a stinging defeat for the Bush administration when the administration was simply trying to find its way in waters not navigated since WWII, and using the maps used at that time. sbw

Well said. It's a stinging defeat for common sense.

BobS

...is back. Hello all. I'm alarmed by this one and am unusually taken by Scalia's disent. We shall see.

PeterUK

Reciprocity?

RichatUF


fixed

dking

Can't wait for the ACLU and many other far left litigators defend terrorist rights and arguing that sentencing them to death is cruel and unusual punishment.

How many billions will Saudi Arabia will spend to defend them in court?

Sara

In listening to some of the TV commentary, they seem to believe this only applies to the 300 or so at Gitmo, but it is much more far reaching. At one of the legal blogs I stopped at today, when compiling a link/commentary list for Pal2Pal, one attorney said that to fail to give Miranda warnings to enemy combatants could open up the soldier to charges of unlawful detainment and kidnapping. That seems alittle extreme, but knowing the crazies on the left, I believe someone would make those charges and some lefty judge would uphold them.

MayBee

O/T, but this is from Jake Tapper today:

Obama said, "when I was your age, I thought life was all about me. And how do make my way in the world and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want. And right now life for me revolves around those two girls. And I think about what kind of a place am I leaving them."

And with that, came the able pivot.

"Michelle and I have been incredibly blessed," Obama said. "As long as God's looking over, my girls are going to be OK." They go to "great schools, will be able to afford college, are in good health and will be well cared for if they ever get sick.

But the country and the world they're living in, Obama said, needs work.

"Are they living in a county where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day?" Obama asked. "Are they living in a county that is still divided by race?

"Are they living in a country where because they’re girls they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do?

"Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate with other countries as effectively as we should?

Hated because we don't cooperate with other countries? Hated around the world?
This is the guy that wants to be our president? He sounds like he's been hanging around ex-terrorists and America-hating pastors.

Hans Niemand

"How many billions will Saudi Arabia will spend to defend them in court?" -dking

Well, I suppose that's one way address the trade imbalance.

Congress should just end the Court's jurisdiction over wartime activities not involving U. S. citizens.


narciso

I know this is repetitive; but here were the two post I did on the subject:

You know what makes this decision, even more galling; is how it ignores the law.
it cites a case involving Spanish sailors in 1779;(citizens of a recognized foreign
military force) but ignores or dismisses ex parte Merryman, Milligan, Eisentrager, Quirin; or any case this is on point. Scalia's dissent, is not only pertinent on the law, but actually cites current examples like the Kuwaiti Al Ajmi's attack in Mosul. This was someone who he points out, was cleared of CSRT; and certified by the likes of Thomas Wilner. Who had the gall to seemingly to justify the attack, by an arm he broke at Gitmo. I thought Hamdi and Hamdan were bad, but this is asperverse as Plessy v. Ferguson, it may have as great a future implications as Dred Scott, to future Domestic tranquility; certainly as much as Roe. McCarry's 'Better Angels' predicted this as well; with the Two Supreme Court justices killed by the Eye of Gaza; only in this case, Scalia and Thomas would be the likely targets for being so forthright with the facts and the law.
Posted by: narciso | June 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Seeing as this whole situation originated in Bosnia; just ship 'em back there. Or back to Tunisia; it doesn't make too much of a difference at this point. This doesn't solve the larger problem posed by the travesty of Boumedienne; but it is in accordance with Munaf; trial by an Iraqi court. They will likely pop up again, in Chechnya, Iraq, or if fate has anything to do with it; Washington D.C.
Posted by: narciso | June 12, 2008 at 01:52

Now since I posted these points, I saw an interview with Cully Stimson, the former Defense point man on the detainees, who was virtually blacklisted for his pointing out
how the corporate bar (Wilner, Margolis, Willett) had taken up the defense of those
who would kill their associates and their
families. He took it more in stride,
something recent precedent offers no assurances on. Som my comment might have seemed intemperate, probably too realistic.


BobS

Sarah: Like just about everything else, I cannot believe that McCain isn't trying to seperate himself from Obama on this. Alto say is that he would not nominate judges like Kennedy, Ginsberg et al

clarice

Charles Krauthammer said tonight this was the first wartime measure of this nature in which the Court had overriden the joint wisdom of the WH AND the Congress.

Of course, Congress could just set in motion the moves for a Constitutional amendment at this point.

In practical terms this may drag out resolution of these cases even longer..with luck most of these prisoners will die in Gitmo before their cases are heard...or the majority judges will die by the time the next issue about these matters comes up on a cert petition.


dking

I seriously need to proofread my posts. Spelling's probably going to go next.

HoosierHoops

great points clarice...
you're the best

BobS

H/T to Clarice...the conservative voice of assurance.

BobS

All while I am watching Kathy Griffin on BRAVO.

 Ann

Clarice,

(Then again:)

Of course, we could have another terrorist attack which could just set in motion the moves for the American public to start screaming "connect the dots" again.

In practical terms we could all be dead before these matters come up on a cert petition.

dking

Lindsey Graham blasted the ruling and is calling for a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4176821.shtml

(Sorry I slept through the class on embedding links in a post.)

I always felt Lindsey Graham was pushing for more legal rights for detainees than I cared for.

BobS

dking.....listening to Graham is like listening to McCain

BobS

Lindsey (Too clever by half) Graham

clarice

Good for Graham--it's a great election issue--Congress voted for this system, will they fight for what's right?

BumperStickerist

Philadelphia's NPR station had a program on this morning about the Articles of Bush's Impreachment submitted by Congressman Mighty Mouse.

The two guests were -- ta da !!! - both Democrats. The more extreme of the two kept mischaracterizing the recent Senate report, referred to the "Bush Cabal" repeatedly, and otherwise just used the "...c'mon ... Boooosh is guilty of *something* ..." line of reasoning.

The other guest was a law prof/author - but a self-proclaimed democrat - and while he didn't agree whole-heartedly with the other guest, the gist was "Well, yeah - but whatyagonnado?"

The host, Marti Moss-Cowain, just sort of uh-huh'ed her way through the interview.

I'm half tempted to call the next show and refer repeatedly to the Obama Junta and see if that gets any response.

-

BobS

Sorry, Gang. I'm not a Obamican. Just dont like the nuance of issues.

invernessie

Well, the Supreme 5 can look back on a job well done when the law of unintended consequences drives an increase in dead tangos and fewer detainees in the future.

Paperwork reduction! Less habeus corpus, more extreme prejudice. Why keep detainees around to cause trouble in the future. We've already seen what has happened with released detainees.

Elliott

Thank you, MayBee, for the Tapper story:

"Are they living in a country where because they’re girls they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do?"

Doesn't he have the judgment to answer questions like this, especially since he is not only the father of two daughters but also a quondam resident of Indonesia and opponent of Hillary Clinton? It did not appear from the Tapper report that an answer was forthcoming.

More from Tapper, "Tonight it's the Meaning of Life":

"My question is: what does life mean to you?" the young man asked.

"Oh goodness," Obama said, a bit taken aback. "What does life mean to me?"

He stammered a bit as he contemplated the enormity of the query.

"Well, uh, I, uh…"

It's nice to see our recent analysis of Obama's rhetoric so thoroughly confirmed. However, if he was going to insist on responding to that question with many of his own, he could have at least thrown in "Is life just a game where we make up the rules while searching for something to say?"

And now I eagerly await his answer to "Mr. James Joyce, now where would you put him?"

Sue

How is a 5-4 decision a stinging defeat? It sounds like a split decision to me.

bad

Are they living in a country where because they’re girls they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do?

"Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate with other countries as effectively as we should?

Are they living in a country where they are exposed to racist hatred from my good friends pulpit because as a parent, I wasn't smart enough to shield them from such blatant bigotry.

PaulL

Yes, it's a huge power grab by 5/9 of the Court. But what does the MSM care? They'd like everything in the country to be decided this way.

No one in the MSM is going to call Obama on being for Detainee Treatment Act before he was against it.

Sara

OT, but I think this will please many here and surprise a few others:

Via Newsbusters:

Here is a study that is sure to blow some minds.

Any list of the best places to work is sure to include cool favorites like Google. The U.S. military? The sacrifices and risks required of its members seem to make it an unlikely pick. But new research suggests that it may well belong on such a list, particularly for minorities and women. The members of those two demographics in the military consistently rate their jobs as more satisfying than white males do, according to new research in this month’s American Sociological Review. Much like Manning’s military experience, the study of over 30,000 active duty personnel suggests that the armed forces‘ social hierarchy-explicitly based on rank-overrides many of the racial or gender biases in civil society, which tend to act as barriers for women and minorities in career advancement.

“Whites are far and away the least satisfied [in the military],” says Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts and the study author. “Black females tend to be the most satisfied. It’s a direct opposite and complete reversal of what we know about civilian job satisfaction.”

In civilian society African-Americans generally express higher dissatisfaction with their jobs than their white counterparts and are less committed. But Lundquist’s study of 30,000 active-duty personnel found that those norms are largely flipped in the military. She looked at five measurements of career satisfaction, including overall quality of life and opportunities for advancement, and found African-American women to be the most positive and satisfied with their jobs, followed by African-American men, Latinas, Latinos and white women. White men are the least satisfied with their military careers, rating their satisfaction and overall happiness with their jobs much lower.

“It’s not that the military environment treats white males less fairly; it’s simply that, compared to their peers in civilian society, white males lose many of the advantages that they had,” Lundquist says. “There’s a relative deprivation when you compare to satisfaction of peers outside of the military.”

The same leveling effect among ethnic minorities also occurred across genders, although that was a bit more challenging to explain. A third of the women in the military say they have been sexually harassed, according to a recent Pentagon survey, and women in male-dominated specialties consistently rank their job satisfaction lower than those largely occupied by women. But female job satisfaction ratings seemed largely unaffected by these factors. Among each ethnicity that Lundquist studied, the women consistently had higher levels of job satisfaction than the males.

Publius

A summary of the opinion states that "If Congress, wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows -- when the country faces rebellion or invasion."

OK, let's start a rebellion. Bush can then do what he wants to with the detainees, while we at the same time, can tell both parties we reject, and will not accept, their choices. We therefore declare all current campaign laws null and void, and demand that an atlernative candidate be placed into consideration as our minimun demand before we will enter into negotiations for a cessation of hostilities. I nominate Janice Rogers Brown as our alternative candidate. I think this choice has the best chance of garnering support from all factions.

vnjagvet

I think it is ridiculous that the Fab 5 believe they know more about due process for assorted terrorists, saboteurs and others bent on espionage of all kinds against our nation than did four of the Court's most renowned civil libitarians Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, and their colleagues, Harlan Fiske Stone, Owen J. Roberts, Wiley Rutledge, Stanley Reed and Frank Murphy.

That was the unanimous court which decided ex parte Quirin.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

For those of you that are Fox E.D. Hill fans, read this:

POLITICALLY CORRECT FOX NEWS FIRES E.D.HILL

Apparently they didn't like the way she described the Obamas knuckle knocking at his victory speech on her program the next day.

Topsecretk9

I noticed that Emptyhead said the Rule Of Law prevailed. So much for her agitations we were living in a fascist state all this time. Gotta love leftist propaganda.

Topsecretk9

Sara

My democrat Mom is gonna be pissed, She LOVES E.D, Hill.

Publius

Politically correct Fox News Fires E. D. Hill

We laughed during Operation Chaos. Now we too will feel the Clinton's pain and frustration.

Foo Bar

In a big win for the party of Civil Rights for Terrorists

TM, I know you think "Civil Rights for Terrorists" is hilarious, but it's just not appropriate- even for the sake of humorously mocking the opposing position- when the issue is habeas corpus and the question is about the procedures necessary to confirm whether or not the detainees really are terrorists.

I don't doubt that the majority of detainees really are enemies of the United States, but these guys were not all caught on the battlefield in the act of attacking our soldiers, and there's a good chance we've made a few mistakes. Now, if you want to argue that this Supreme Court decision was wrong, that the Constitution does not require affording the detainees access to U.S. courts, that we can't afford to provide that when our national security is at stake, etc.- fine, go right ahead; give it your best shot. "Civil Rights for Terrorists" begs the question, though, and it conveys a misleading impression about the nature of the debate.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

She isn't alone TSK9. Hill was one of the only on air personalities at Fox that actually has a brain and researches issues before talking about them, while looking good too. The rest make up what I call the Barbie and Ken stupid and shallow show. And they keep Shep "I'm too stupid for my suit" Smith, which adds insult to injury.

Thomas Jackson

Hmmm guess this means a strict enforcement of Article IV of the Geneva Conventionand that all detentions of surrendering terrorists are handled by our allies who are not bound by the Supremely Senile One's fantasies.

Its good to know Americans now are reduced to the smae level of protections as those we give to terrorists. The only thing standing between the average man and justice is the legal system.

MayBee

I hope that ED Hill at least wrote that line, and didn't just read it.
It was a ridiculous thing to say. I'm surprised she's fired as opposed to getting a David Schuster-esque probation, but still.
Asking if the presidential nominee and his wife did a 'terrorist fist bump' (which doesn't exist) is jut out of line.

FooBar- Civil Rights for Mostly Terrorists,
Civil Rights for Likely Terrorists,
Civil Rights for Assumed Terrorists

are any of those better?

Sara

I found the whole knuckle bumping thing tacky and immature and rather street thuggish to start with, so I don't think Hill could say anything to do justice to how stupid it made the the Bambis look.

Topsecretk9

Civil Rights for Likely Terrorists,


Would anyone have believed a dude detained in an airport because he had a office supply in his backpack made him a terrorist September 10th? Or suspect at all?

JM Hanes

Foo Bar:

""Civil Rights for Terrorists" begs the question, though, and it conveys a misleading impression about the nature of the debate."

Maybe you haven't read the dissents yet. As for "just not appropriate," I'd love to see the official list of mockery no-go zones. Shoot, Tom might even be persuaded to post it as a public service, because, clearly, we all need to start taking ourselves more seriously.

DubiousD

I second Clarice's calls for a constitutional amendment, but would we be able to scrounge up the votes?

Topsecretk9

JHM

What I find ironic, is this come on the heels of reports that the a-holes we've released go on to do the very thing they were detained and prevented form doing. Kill.

Democrats realize what they agitated for. That's why they voted and funded George Bush's war.

They wanted George Bush to do what they never could and remain the union people party, never-the-less they desperately wanted Saddam "off the table"

Topsecretk9

I have a brilliant solution for all this.

Bush should announce that he is releasing the detainees in San Francisco (DI FI and Barbara would be happy no?), so that they have full access to SF, their US courts and the 9th circus.

McCain would take California.

Topsecretk9

JHM

What I find ironic, is this come on the heels of reports that the a-holes we've released go on to do the very thing they were detained and prevented form doing. Kill.

Democrats realize what they agitated for. That's why they voted and funded George Bush's war.

They wanted George Bush to do what they never could and remain the union people party, never-the-less they desperately wanted Saddam "off the table"

Topsecretk9

Bush should announce that he is releasing the detainees in San Francisco (DI FI and Barbara would be happy no?),

My San Francisco idea has legs:


May 03, 2007
Senator Feinstein Seeks to Close Gitmo

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a very important piece of legislation on Monday to close the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year of the bill's enactment. The Senator noted that "Guantanamo Bay has become a lightning rod for international condemnation...This has greatly damaged the nation's credibility around the world. Rather than make the United States safer, the image projected by this facility puts us at greater risk. The time has come to close it down."

While I applaud Sen. Feinstein for this move, one piece of the bill gave me pause. She lists a range of different ways to process the detainees and includes this one:
"The detainees' home nations or a third-party government for further processing; there must be assurances that detainees will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a manner against international law."

While this sounds good in theory we have seen that diplomatic assurances do not work.
My question to the Senator is "How will you ensure that individuals sent home will not be tortured?"

"How will you ensure that individuals sent home will not be tortured?"

Good (revealing) question? One way is to air drop the effers into San Francisco no?


Here isDI FI's proposed bill

Take them home Diane! Talk about domestic diplomatic crisis.

Topsecretk9

In reading DI-FI's release proposal to return detainees into there native lands with UPMOST ASSURANCE FROM LYING LIARS THAT LIE, who torture like it's taking out the garbage, they won't touture? I have now come to believe the democrats chief adversity to GITMO detainess is what the detainees might reveal about the democrat party, their dealings and funding

Exhibit 567,987, B


Ecuador: Dodd offered to probe FARC raid

A top Ecuadorean official said Wednesday that U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd offered to investigate whether Colombia used a U.S. plane to raid a guerrilla encampment in Ecuador's jungle -- but a spokesman for Dodd denied that he said any such thing.

Security Minister Gustavo Larrea told Teleamazonas TV that Ecuador has determined Colombia does not have the technology to carry out the attack, which killed a top leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and 24 other people this spring.

Larrea said he suspects a third party -- such as "mercenaries" or "some official" from the U.S. -- was involved.

He also said that during a recent meeting with Dodd, the powerful Connecticut senator "offered to open an investigation to determine if a U.S. airplane was used in the operation."

But Dodd's spokesman told The Associated Press that although the senator met with Larrea and other officials in May while in Quito for a regional security forum, he said no such thing.

OF COURSE Dodd denies helping FARC, yesssss, of course he does.

Jane

So apparently there were other friends of Angelo taking care of by Countrywide.

One of them was the head of the banking committee - Chris Dodd, who apparently won't be investigating Countrywide anytime soon.

Oh and Good Morning everyone!

clarice

Dodd is truly his father's son--with a large dash of red stuff tossed in, Jane/ Good Morning!!

Jane

I've decided to call my "movement" "perqbusters" Do you like it?

sbw

NPR and USA Today reported that, on meeting Pope Benedict in his private garden, Bush said, " "Your eminence, you're looking good."

Love the eloquence! The clarity. The positive way he gets to the point.

PeterUK

""My question is: what does life mean to you?" the young man asked.".

This shows Obama to be a very poor politician,any pol worth their salt could have turned this around,good one could have scored points.

"This is not about me,young man,this is about you..the American People".

clarice

I like it, Jane..I think it'd catch on.

Foo Bar

FooBar- Civil Rights for Mostly Terrorists,
Civil Rights for Likely Terrorists,
Civil Rights for Assumed Terrorists

Any of the above would certainly be preferable, but unfortunately none of them make the Democrats look as ridiculous as "Civil Rights for Terrorists".

As for "just not appropriate," I'd love to see the official list of mockery no-go zones.

Mockery on most topics, including this one, is fine so long as it doesn't convery a seriously inaccurate impression about the issue at hand. For instance, "Democrats care more about preventing a handful of wrongful detentions than about preventing another large-scale terrorist attack on our homeland" would be something I wouldn't agree with, but it wouldn't be objectionable in the same way that "civil rights for terrorists" is. I don't concede that Democrats care more about the former than the latter, but that kind of charge at least captures the issue being debated and its associated tradeoffs.

Barry

FB, if it's not "civil rights for terrorists", what is it?

Tomf

To save the country we must first destroy it.

Obama cometh.

centralcal

I see claims that Jon Meacham,editor of Newsweek is auditioning for the spot vacated by Downie at the Washington Post. If he gets it, that should put the final nail in the WaPo's credibility coffin!

kim

I smell doubt at the WaPo. They've been a little critical of Obama, lately.
==================================

MayBee

FooBar- if there are terrorists at Guantanamo, and there are, Civil Rights for Terrorists is completely accurate (and more fun!).
Do you go around the left blogs saying
Bush didn't lie!
Don't call Guantanamo a Gulag!
Do you remind the left blogs how many people in Guantanamo probably really are quite dangerous?
Or is it just TM you must keep in line?

bio mom

Fox News likes its gals to be beauties. ED Hill was such for quite a while. But her multiple births and maturity makes her a very attractive woman but one approaching middle age. That is not allowed at Fox News for females. I say this with deep regret. I am sure it was a big factor in her loss of her program. A convenient excuse for them.

sbw: I will really miss President Bush when he leaves office

Sue

and there's a good chance we've made a few mistakes.

Didn't that get addressed in the legislation passed by a majority of Congress? With the executive and legislative working together as instructed by the courts? In the words of Scalia, they were just kidding.

And it seems odd to me that our own troops do not have access to civilian courts but terrorists do. The military justice system is good enough for thee but not for me?

Sue

MayBee,

Or is it just TM you must keep in line?

Rhetorical, right?

Danube of Thought

How about "unprecedented civil rights for foreign nationals seized and held on foreign soil and determined by congressionally-authorized review tribunals to be unlawful enemy combatants?"

Strikes me that "terrorists" is an exquisitely fair shorthand for everything after the first four words.

There'll be no constitutional amendment, and I doubt the current congress would even pass the legislation the Court just tossed.

MarkO

Does this make it more likely that instead of being detained in combat they will be shot?

Rick Ballard

"Does this make it more likely that instead of being detained in combat they will be shot?"

I doubt it - The Soldier of the Future will be accompanied by a Democrat ACLU attorney who will have final say on whether the trigger can be pulled. In the event that a terrorist is actually wounded or killed, the Democrat ACLU attorney will immediately file a tort suit for damages and/or wrongful death.

Unless Obama is elected. In that happy instance, there will be no need for Democrats to provide cover for terrorist allies because Obama will have already surrendered to them.

See? It all works out in the end.

Danube of Thought

"It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution."
--Justice Anthony Kennedy

No shit, Tony.

Danube of Thought

"The category of prisoner comparable to these detainees are not the Eisentrager criminal defendants, but the more than 400,000 prisoners of war detained in the United States alone during World War II. Not a single one was accorded the right to have his detention validated by a habeas corpus action in federal court—and that despite the fact that they were present on U. S. soil."
--Scalia in dissent

What has occurred here is the granting of unprecedented rights to wartime prisoners precisely because they do not abide by the laws and customs of war, and because they act not on behalf of any nation-state but instead on behalf of an extra-national organization dedicated to the murder of civilians. If they wore uniforms and served in a lawfully constituted army, no one would be so insane as to argue that they had the right of habeas corpus.

The Court is treating radical Islamic jihadism as a crime wave instead of as a war. It is absolute madness.

Rick Ballard

The Great Muddler could use this as an opportunity to emphasize his intention to appoint justices of the Roberts/Alito stamp.

That assumes the ability to think though. Sorry for making an assertion without evidence.

Bill in AZ

Does this make it more likely that instead of being detained in combat they will be shot?
No - our soldiers are pros...

Now, some of the alphabet agencies that operate in various areas... who would know other than by a statistically measurable decrease in flow

Bill in AZ

He should, Rick, in fact I think I saw something where he actually came out and muddled towards saying something like that.

But McMuddle with tourettes syndrome and his staff will more likely use it as an opportunity to McDistance him from something. Can't wait to see what.

PeterUK

I don't often agree with Foobar,but in this case he is right.
"Democrats care more about preventing a handful of wrongful detentions than about preventing another large-scale terrorist attack on our homeland"

Danube of Thought

Except that FooBar says that "Democrats care more about preventing a handful of wrongful detentions than about preventing another large-scale terrorist attack on our homeland" is something he wouldn't agree with--of course.

kim

His argument would be, if I may be so presumptive, is that by giving terrorists these rights, we'll diminish their resentment of 'America the Beautiful' and hence rendered them peaceable. He would be speaking of people who torture routinely and sneer at our rule of law.
=================================

PeterUK

Seems like a Freudian slip on Foobar's behalf.A real liberal would never even think thoughts like that. Too much JOM time.

Danube of Thought

"...and there's a good chance we've made a few mistakes."

Not really. Each and every one of those detainees has had a hearing before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which determined on the evidence presented that the detainee was in fact an unlawful enemy combatant. Each detainee who disputed that determination had the right to appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Why this process is more likely to yield mistakes than would a habeas hearing before your average district judge is a mystery to me.

Patton

I think the Congress and the President should take the Supreme Court on their word that illegal enemy combatant terrorists should have rights and access to the courts.

To institute such rights, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the military legal system is not capable of securing
the, previously non-existent rights of these illegal combatants. So Congress should make the Judiciary do it, they want the job soooo bad, GIVE IT TO THEM.


Congress should create a system of Judiciary courts on the Global War On Terror battlefield. There should be Judiciary judges in the battle zone who could immediately hear cases of illegal combatants to insure their petitions are immediately heard by the court…no sense delaying their rights.

Congress should require each circuit court judge perform one year tour in the war zone and one Supreme Court justice will be deployed to a forward camp in Iraq to oversee the court operations in theater. The President will pick an SC Justice to deploy to oversee judicial operations. This is the only way to quickly provide the Islamists access to our court system.

Any judge refusing to serve his/her year on the battlefield will automatically forfeit their Judgeship.

If the Judiciary wants to take over military activities in wartime, give them the job, let them deploy, let them wear the
flack jacket and sleep in the dirt, and dodge bullets and car bombs, etc.

Congress has the power to give the Supreme Court what they want, hearings for Islamic terrorists caught on the battlefield. So put the judges on the battlefield and let them rule.

I would suggest President Bush select Justice Kennedy for the first deployment.

clarice

Excellent suggestion..Let Souter and Ginsberg be the first deployed.

JM Hanes

Foo Bar:

"Mockery on most topics, including this one, is fine so long as it doesn't convery a seriously inaccurate impression about the issue at hand."

Mockery without the sting? You might have a real future in Canada.

The New York Times is peddling a series of articles on American Legal Exceptionalism. Fellow cynics won't be surprised to hear that the most recent addition, "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech," was originally headlined "Out of Step with Allies, U.S Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech" -- disappearing said sentiment speak volumes. The Litpak URL amusingly survived the vetting though: www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.

Patton

Oabam and his mouthpiece MSNBC likes to tie McCain to Bush. They both said that McCain and Bush having the same opinion of the SC decision was perfectly appropriate for Obama and MSNBC to say McCain was tying himself to Bushs policy.

However Obama and MSNBC both missed the fact that Obama and Al Queda both supported the SC decision...but MSNBC never stated Obama was tying himself to Al Quedas' position.

Soylent Red

I have some questions for you legal-types...

I have this idea that this whole opinion is fundamentally tied to the "membership has its privileges" argument I have been making since forever regarding illegal immigrants and the provision of basic services. I.e., in order to get the goodies that go along with being an American citizen, you have to actually be and American citizen.

So, relevant to the decision, by what precedent or statute do foreign nationals automatically get rights of US citizens, even when on US soil (which I still contend Guantanamo is not)?

Further, and more to the point in this case, does the assignment of Constitutional rights also suggest the assignment of Constitutional restrictions? The reason I ask is that the Gitmo detainees seem to be getting all of the rights, without incurring the risk of being charged with, as a citizen would for similar activities, treason. Treason, by its definition, would be a simple matter to prove in most of their cases and bears a capital punishment.

Or, I could just be talking out of my fourth point of contact...

kim

Oh, you're good. For me it was always second point.
=========================

kim

Why, isn't being deliberately out of step insubordinate? Can't have that.
============================

GMax

I am told MCCain has called the Supreme Court decision wrong. That is much better than I expected from him.

At the Townhall he pointed out how good justices the Cheif Justice and Alito were, and pointed out who had voted against them and how unprecedented it was to treat qualified judicial nominees in this manner.

kim

Right, SR, the Supreme Court just increased the assymetry of the struggle.
=========================

Soylent Red

just increased the assymetry of the struggle.

Job security for me, I suppose.

Patrick R. Sullivan

No one, except Scalia, seems to have realized what this decision really is; a declaration that the judiciary is the top dog in government.

Bush, McCain and Obama clearly don't get it.

HoosierHoops

So, relevant to the decision, by what precedent or statute do foreign nationals automatically get rights of US citizens, even when on US soil (which I still contend Guantanamo is not)?

hi red..good to see you..
Isn't McCain considered an american because he was born in panama on a US Base?
Isn't Gitmo a US Base? Would that not also be considered US soil?
I dunno just wondered if anyone knows how that goes in law.. I'll bet one share of google stock that clarice knows the answer.
( 500 bucks a share is just asking for it..Someday there is going to be some pissed off people when it's value corrects to its real value..I'll google it and let u know)
/ Waiting for the boys to come by and we head up to michigan for the NASCAR race.
8 guys in a bus..Wish me luck :)

JM Hanes

Soylent:

Issues of sovereignty across the board will continue to become increasingly compelling. The invasion of Iraq is just one obvious manifestation of the rethinking that ongoing globalization requires, and even a surprising number of anti-war ativists don't seem unalterably opposed to humanitarian invasions when the subject is Burma or Darfur.

On other fronts, however, I'm actually far less worried about expanding American protections to non-citizens than I am about signing onto the International Crimminal Court, whose ambiguous, self-defining, unchecked mandate would supersede our own Constitution. It's the ultimate test of whether or not that document is, in fact, a suicide pact. If treaties take precedence over all else, upon what basis do you mount a constitutional challenge to a Preseident & Congress who commit to a compact which effectively abrogates the constitutional rights of American citizens?

PeterUK

This isn't about conferring rights on terrorists,the main thrust is to make war impossible.Liberals have been endeavouring to make conflict illegal for decades.
Unfortunately,it won't prevent war,it will simply make them unwinnable by Western nations.

glasater

Very good point, JMH @1:58 and very clearly stated.

clarice

Seeing as all that mcCain has to commend himself to most of us is judicial appointmnets and defense if he hadn't spoken out on this case, I suppose he'd have Joe Lieberman and Cindy's votes. Period.

Danube of Thought

There was a statute in effect at the time McCain was born that specifically provided that infants born at the US base in Panama were to be deemed natural-born US citizens.

Gitmo is leased from Cuba; the US pays some nominal rent, and I believe has done so since the conclusion of the Spanish-American War.

PeterUK

OT,but on the subject of supra-national treaties.The Irish say NO to the Treaty of Lisbon.The Treaty,a warmed over version of the Constitution rejected by Holland and France,has been rejected by the only country allowed by their government to vote on the Treaty.

Danube of Thought

Soylent, the quote from Kennedy I pasted above provides the anwer to your question:

"It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution."

Until yesterday, there was no precedent for extending those rights to such people. The Court just made one up.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame