Congressional Authorization of Bush’s Military Commissions Is Not Enough
Congressional Authorization of Bush’s Military Commissions Is Not Enough
Justice Breyer stated in today’s Hamdan opinion, “Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.†Reacting to Breyer, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Fox, “The court is telling us that tribunals would be okay if you have the Congress’ blessing.”
President Bush seems to be quickly embracing the idea.
As I understand, a senator has already been on TV — I haven’t seen it. I haven’t heard what he said, but they briefed me and said he wants to devise law in conformity with the case that would enable us to use a military tribunal to hold these people to account. And if that’s the case, we’ll work with him.
But if Bush truly wants to devise law in conformity with the opinion, the military commissions will need to undergo significant changes. Mere congressional authorization of the military commission that the Bush administration has conceived will not be enough to pass the legal test. Today’s Supreme Court opinion makes clear that a congressionally-authorized military commission would need to comply with Geneva Conventions, particularly Common Article 3. From the opinion:
Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.â€
…
The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines “‘regularly constituted’†tribunals to include “ordinary military courts†and “definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals.
…
Common Article 3 obviously tolerates a great degree of flexibility in trying individuals captured during armed conflict; its requirements are general ones, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems. But requirements they are nonetheless. The commission that the President has convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements.
In other words, Bush’s military commissions need more than a rubber-stamp from Congress.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald notes that Congress could decide to abrogate the Geneva Convention or exempt its application with respect to the military commissions. It would be an extraordinary step, but with this Congress, anything is possible.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
165 Responses to “Congressional Authorization of Bush’s Military Commissions Is Not Enough”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Crack that whip!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmDon't you just love how Bush keeps trying to change the rules of the game after the fact to exhonerate himself from prior violations?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:53 pmGlad Senator Graham took time to read the opinion carefully before spinning.
Congratulations, Senator, for being first in line for Sit and Spin at Fox.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI am sending my Rand-McNally world map over to the five Justices. Perhaps they would be so kind as to point out the nation-state of Talabanistan for me. I looked and looked - I found Aghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan Khazikstan - but no Talibanistan. Who knew???
June 29th, 2006 at 12:58 pmBush does not even bother with the GOP rubber-stamp Congress any more > he does whatever he wants and plans on attacking Iran by October, and the Congress will be notified after he has launched the attack > if they complain, then he probably might declare Martial Law, and the Congress abolished too?!
June 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThis is going to be interesting to follow...if the SCOTUS is going to start invoking the Geneva Convention in regards to the legality of tribunals, how exactly is it going to avoid invoking it in regards to the incarceration on the 'enemy combatants' in general, and their torture in particular? And if this does in fact happen, will the current administration be held accountable for past violations of said convention? After all, they are the ones who want the NYT held accountable for 'treason', even though they didn't reveal any information that wasn't already in the public domain. Sauce for the goose and all that...
Interesting stuff...one can only hope that another distraction like the apprehension of another 'terrrorist cell' like those allegedly found in Toronto and Miami, or the slaying of another 'Al-Quada leader' doesn't happen to convinently draw our focus from this issue. Here's to hoping...
June 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmFaiz,
Seriously though, tell us how you really feel. It almost sounds like you don't want Congress to authorize military tribunals for these guys.
unbelievable,
Don’t you just love how Bush keeps trying to change the rules of the game after the fact to exhonerate himself from prior violations?
You mean how NATO forces got a resolution passed in the Security Council after illegally circumventing the Security Council by bombing Kosovo?
In a time of war, you do what you think is right at the time and if it turns out not to be, the checks and balances of government will deal with it. In the end, this ruling only means that these tribunals were illegal due to technicalities, not the overall process of detaining and trying to prosecute them.
The ruling is one on form, not on substance.
In a democracy, there is always room for debate on how to go about something, and in this case, the Bush administration chose a way of doing things the Supreme Court found to be wrong. Thus the Bush administration will now go to Congress to see if they will pass a law to authorize the prosecution of these detainees by some other means rather than putting them through the US Court system.
We can't cripple our armed forces by having them fly home to the US to testify against people who tried to kill them. Apparently there is a way to try these detainees under the military code, so that is probably what will happen.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pmLook I know that that the Taliban and Al Queda are some very vicious guys who will kill men waomen and children as quick as a GI?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:07 pmWhat this opinion does is confuse the common foot soldier? Will he more or less inclined to take prisoners, or kill off wounded?
Jay,
Bush does not even bother with the GOP rubber-stamp Congress any more > he does whatever he wants and plans on attacking Iran by October, and the Congress will be notified after he has launched the attack > if they complain, then he probably might declare Martial Law, and the Congress abolished too?!
Yeah, we heard Bush was going to attack Iran last June. Ooops, didn't happen. I'm sure they'll be right this time though, Mr. Leopold. Bush got authorization on Iraq from Congress, why would he skip it with Iran? Your partisan nonsense is pretty tiring since it is so easily debunked by facts and history.
Yes, Bush might do all sorts of things, even eat babies! He's an evil fascist, ya hear! Zzzz...
June 29th, 2006 at 1:08 pmSeixon > war was never declared on Iraq > the Congress authorized a police action basically, so Bush has overstepped his authority! Iraq has basically been illegally occupied by the Bush Regime! The House and Senate should have carded Bush on this already, and yanked all funding for his fiasco in Iraq, but they are too afraid to do anything about it now!
June 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pmGeorge (Seixon),
From Marty Lederman at Georgetown Law:
Spin all you like.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pmPost 9 Seixon > your partisanship towards Bush is showing! Bush intends to attack Iran before the November elections, but after he does it you will probably do everything to justify it on TP threads! Dubya is a fascist, but he does not eat babies that I know of > lol.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:17 pmI think what's most destructive to humanity, more than even terrorists, is WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:17 pmIf Bush did eat babies, Seixon would be here defending him.
THOSE BABIES DESERVED TO BE EATEN!!! THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT, LOOKING ALL PLUMP AND JUICY LIKE THAT! I MIGHT EAT ONE MYSELF!
Seriously here, the issue is that eveyone at Guatanamo is called a terrorist by the Bush administration, when we don't know that to be a fact at all. They've had no opportunity to defend themselves or explain their actions. If they were fighting with the Taliban and captured on the battlefield they clearly deserve to be treated as POW's. What's so hard to understand about that? If they are considered terrorists they should be given a trial. Holding people indefinitely without any legal recourse is about as unAmerican as you can get. But Bush supporters have decided the basic principles of our democracy aren't worth defending anymore, and that loyalty to the party is more important. And they call us traitors.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmBush regarded the Taliban as the ruling government of Afghanistan...at least back in 2001 when he was funneling miillions of dollars to them to sit on the poppy fields and help secure the Unocal pipeline deal.
Then again, our European allies were informed months ahead that we planned to invade Afghanistan in October 2001 (once we got tired of treating with them) , so maybe Bush was just pretending.
Oh, well...bottom line is that we're ALL "enemy combatants" in Bush's book -- foreigners and citizens alike. The overall objective is to ensure that no one, at any time, has legal standing to challenge our lawless, treaty-trashing government.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmI am sending my Rand-McNally world map over to the five Justices.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Hello, aphrodite!!! Well, for once I agree with you. Really.
But it just goes to show you how chickenshit those rightwing, republican appointed, activist judges can be. I mean, makes you wonder just how many judges the republicans need to appoint to the Supreme Court until they finally get it right, huh?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#18
How about one more and it will happen on Bush's watch.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pmReply to #4:
mighty aphrodite wrote:
Perhaps you should ask Dubya & Company where 'Talabanistan' is...they seem to have a good idea, seeing as how they've seen fit to sacrifice the lives of over 2500 of our troops there.
(Hint: Dubya spells it I-R-A-Q.)
June 29th, 2006 at 1:28 pmI don't think I get the difference between human beings fighting because a "state" ordered them to fight and human beings fighting for any other reason. Or even just being suspected of fighting. I get the "legal" distinction, I don't get the ethical distinction. People don't stop being human beings because there is no state telling them to fight. The POW conventions are about treatment of human beings, not just extensions of some state.
Jake
June 29th, 2006 at 1:45 pmComment by Seixon
Quit trying to spin all this into some people some where want the people who REALLY are part of Al Qeada from being punished.
The fact of the matter is WAR or NO WAR any American government that acts outside the bounds of the Consitution COULD be trying to destroy America... and why let that happen?
If what you said about NATO is true well ... why didnt the right wingers speak up? This is the first I have heard of it... if it is true that sounds like Clinton has some explaining to do.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:49 pmComment by Seixon
You dont need conspiracy theories... his actions are RECORDED on tape. He has admited to many things. His allegence to the Saudis and religious fundamentalists in this country are OPEN facts.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pmGerald,
The fact of the matter is WAR or NO WAR any American government that acts outside the bounds of the Consitution COULD be trying to destroy America… and why let that happen?
Again, the Constitution has nothing to do with this case, as it was the military code and the Geneva Conventions that were violated by this, in the Court's opinion. If Bush violated the Constitution in pursuing terrorists, I wouldn't take that as a sign that he was out to destroy America, rather defend it, but thanks for showing your completely partisan colors on the issue.
In the end, you still haven't understood that the Constitution isn't involved in this at all.
If what you said about NATO is true well … why didnt the right wingers speak up? This is the first I have heard of it… if it is true that sounds like Clinton has some explaining to do.
The Republicans didn't speak up primarily because they, unlike the Democrats under Bush, knew that it was the right thing to do and thus didn't play party politics with a decision they all agreed with. The Democrats under Bush, however, turned Iraq into party politics even though they too agreed to give Bush the authority to do it. That is one large reason I have left the Democratic party and consider myself an Independent. The entire "Bush lied us into war" was the biggest fraud ever, the Democrats were simply lying to cover their own asses for being just as certain about the Iraq intelligence as Bush was, reaching back as far as the Clinton administration.
You don't play dishonest party politics like that while you're at war, it's disgraceful.
And yes, Russia vetoed the UN from involving itself in Kosovo, but NATO went in anyways, not unlike what Bush did in Iraq.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pmHow can I sleep at night knowing that terr-ists can now hide in my closets & behead my entire family?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSpin all you want George (aka Seixon), but
Congress will probably pass some law that does basically the same thing they’ve already been doing-Seixon
is not going to happen, not if "basically" means still violating Article 3 of Geneva.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pmGerald,
You dont need conspiracy theories… his actions are RECORDED on tape. He has admited to many things. His allegence to the Saudis and religious fundamentalists in this country are OPEN facts.
Yes, and his previous actions are completely contradictory to everything that Randal is alleging will happen. His allegiance to the Saudis isn't any secret, you're right, because that's how the USA has been for the past many decades. It has nothing to do with Bush. Of course, hopelessly partisan people such as yourself can't understand how something could not have to be about Bush. To you, everything is about Bush. Apparently history started in 2001. That the US has had a tight relationship with Saudi Arabia for decades is conveniently forgotten.
Rumors that Bush will invade Iran are, and have been, exactly that, rumors. Idle speculation. The speculators were wrong last year, and I'm confident that they will be wrong again. Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson's buddy, speculated that Bush would fire Fitzgerald back in October when Libby was about to get indicted. Did that happen? Nope.
All of these are examples of deranged Bush-haters making up shit about him because they are blinded by partisanship and propaganda. It's so lame and unnecessary, it wastes so much time that could be spent on doing constructive things.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:06 pmSeixon > would you please explain to everyone on this thread, that you now claim to be a Norwegian citizen, but on other past threads you claimed to be an American citizen living in Norway going to college? You also claimed to vote for Gore in 2000, and Nader in 2004, but that would be impossible to do as a Norwegian citizen, or did you vote illegally in the US? Explain the discrepancy Seixon or I am going to turn your name over to the FBI and Interpol for being a possible felon hiding in Norway? I do not know what kind of game you are playing on here? I am twice your age and have been involved in politics for years longer than you bud!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:08 pmDear Mr. Randall:
RE: Your comment - "Bush does not even bother with the GOP rubber-stamp Congress any more > he does whatever he wants and plans on attacking Iran by October, and the Congress will be notified after he has launched the attack > if they complain, then he probably might declare Martial Law, and the Congress abolished too?!"
Perhaps our little friend, Attorney General Gonzalez will simply declare the US Supreme Court to be "quaint," much as he did with the entire Geneva Conventions?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:13 pmDrSinker,
Can you please address me only as I sign my name here? Thanks.
I'm not spinning anything. The SCOTUS opinion says directly that Congress should be consulted to pass a law authorizing something similar.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pmYou were sounding all rational and shit, until you typed this:
We can’t cripple our armed forces by having them fly home to the US to testify against people who tried to kill them. Apparently there is a way to try these detainees under the military code, so that is probably what will happen.
Comment by Seixon
Perhaps you didn't know, but today we have these things called s-a-t-a-l-l-i-t-e-s, that transmit things - like testimony. For another fun fact, YOUR POSTINGS are also being transmitted by satallite!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pmWow, my spelling's terrible; but I'm talking about those expensive, shiny things we keep putting into orbit - you know what I mean?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:18 pmMrBlueSky,
Perhaps our little friend, Attorney General Gonzalez will simply declare the US Supreme Court to be “quaint,†much as he did with the entire Geneva Conventions?
Good job taking AG Gonzalez out of context. The DNC would be proud.
Randal,
You don't get out much do you? Instead of literally criminalizing me as you read my comments, try to be rational and think of alternate explanations. You have just proven that, instead of politely asking about something you can't understand, you allege I am a convicted felon on the run, that I have voted illegally, and that I lied earlier.
None of those is the case, yet you, in your zeal to make me "evil" in any way you can, chose that route.
Let's see how smart you are. Come up with another answer to your concerns that addresses the fact that I voted legally by absentee ballot in 2004, voted legally within the USA in 2000, and am a Norwegian citizen.
Since you were so rude and alleged completely false things about me, I won't warrant it with a response. Let's see if you can figure it out, smear-monger.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pmMA,
June 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pmMaybe I am missing something but maybe the reason there is no Talibanstan is because the Taliban was the ruling party of Afganistan. When I look at a map I don't expect to see Republicanstan or Democratia either. What is the point you are trying to make? That some group of people that we have in our jails shouldn't be treated humanely because they're group was called by a certain name?
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald notes that Congress could decide to abrogate the Geneva Convention or exempt its application - - Why not? With Kyoto we ignored emissions; with Geneva we'll deny admissions.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pmI’m not spinning anything. The SCOTUS opinion says directly that Congress should be consulted to pass a law authorizing something similar.-Seixon
So your contention is that Congress will pass a law allowing the admin to violate Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. That would be interesting.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pmLet’s see how smart you are. Come up with another answer to your concerns that addresses the fact that I voted legally by absentee ballot in 2004, voted legally within the USA in 2000, and am a Norwegian citizen.
Comment by Seixon
Let me guess; like herr Rove, you have dual citizenship?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pmBarfly,
Perhaps you didn’t know, but today we have these things called s-a-t-a-l-l-i-t-e-s, that transmit things - like testimony. For another fun fact, YOUR POSTINGS are also being transmitted by satallite!
You mean satellites? Testimony by satellite, well that's the first time I've ever heard of that. If you could spell, then maybe I would give that some thought. Can you show them ever doing satellite testimony before?
My postings are being transmitted by satellite? No they're not.
(Oh, and before you respond, I might add that I have a degree in computers...)
June 29th, 2006 at 2:26 pmThe Reich-wing fights back.
As Greenwald noted, the United States could withdraw from the Geneva Convention and any other treaty obligations which might possibly apply.
Congress can act to specifically strip all federal jurisdiction away from all people, foreign or U.S. citizens, held by the United States Government and labled "enemy combatants." For that matter, the Supreme Court could be reduced to only one Justice.
These next few days will be interesting, to say the least. How far down the road to totalitarianism will the current Party in Power go in reaction to this ruling? Time will tell.
But for now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the foreign citizens held at Guantanamo do have rights under our Constitution.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pmDrSinker,
So your contention is that Congress will pass a law allowing the admin to violate Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. That would be interesting.
Seems Mr. Greenwald has surmised exactly this. You going to come down from the ivory tower now?
Barfly,
Let me guess; like herr Rove, you have dual citizenship?
Ah, and I was quickly thinking you were completely incompetent. Rove has that? I don't think he does. In fact, Im almost certain of it. I wish you'd led Randal try to figure it out though.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:29 pmI might add that I have a degree in computers - Seixon
A degree...in "computers"? You mean computer science? Perhaps this is a Norwegian thing, but I don't think we give a degree in "computers" over here, except perhaps by mail-order.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:31 pmYou've never heard of satellite (my bad) hook-up? When children are to testify, and cannot be in court because it would be too damaging to thieir young psyches, do they not have such linkages? Or how about testimony from a hospital bed? Your technical expertise ain't that great if you didn't know that . . .
June 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pmLOL Seixon > you have to be an American citizen to vote in US elections, even by absentee ballots! You now claim to be Norwegian, so either you voted fraudulently as an American citizen, or you just became a Norwegian citizen recently, which begs the question of WHY you forfeited American Citizenship for Norwegian, but post on TP threads defending the Bush Regime? Since you like Bush, then WHY are you now a Norwegian citizen trying to shield your identity and location in Norway? Your explanations are NOT adding up on here Seixon, so that is the only reason I even bother to post about you on here! Your actions are sinister on here and you are hiding who you really are on here and who you really work for too! Enough said!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSeems Mr. Greenwald has surmised exactly this.-Seixon
That we're going to withdraw from Geneva? I don't see it happening. It would force the admin to admit that Geneva applies in the first place (they haven't done so consistently), and withdrawing would not go over well here.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:34 pmAh, and I was quickly thinking you were completely incompetent. Rove has that? I don’t think he does. In fact, Im almost certain of it. I wish you’d led Randal try to figure it out though.
Comment by Seixon — June 29
A "degree in computers" and you coulnd't Google "Rove Dual citizenship?"
Best one today!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmSeixon > only American/Israelis can claim duel citizenship to vote in the United States! If you are Norwegian, you have in fact pledged your loyalty to another nation and are exempted from voting in American elections! Stay in Norway and never come back here ever again > you are not an American citizen > PERIOD. Shame on you for posting on here!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:39 pmwhy take 4 years to work this out
June 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pmFortunately for the President, the terrorist-jihadists in Guantanamo Bay are not afforded protection by the Geneva Convention. Only real soldiers who wear actual uniforms, who are fighting in the service of a sorvereign nation are afforded protection by the Geneva Convention. As soon as Congress passes some legislation in regards to holding special tribunals, all those bastards down there will be summarily tried, convicted, and hopefully executed.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pmBUsh will work hard with congress to make sure laws are passed that make this a matter of proper law.
Then Bush will be able to make a top secret signing statement saying the law doesn't apply to him.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pm“(Oh, and before you respond, I might add that I have a degree in computers…) Comment by Seixonâ€
I suspect we'll find out this comment is simular to the one made by the guy claiming to own a 'Fleetwood'. He's trying to get folks to believe he's got a Cadillac, but you find out he's really talking about his mobile home.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:51 pmReply to #41:
Sexion said:
And you would be almost certainly wrong. Clicky clicky.
From the above linked article:
And here's another interesting fact from the same article:
June 29th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
In Scotland from being charged to your trial date must not exceed 101 days or your freed and charges thrown out
Also you must be charged with a crime within 6 hours from being arrested or released
I have no idea why these guys are being held for four years all they are doing is protecting their country, none of them had anything to do with the events of 911
June 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pm#55-
Okay. Forget the uniforms. Instead, we'll treat the jihadists the way you are supposed to treat enemies on the battlefield who don civilian attire. We'll treat them as spies and summarily execute them. Is that the type of protection you are refering to?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pmSo Seixon, let's put this in context. You voted in 2000 (probably for Bush), and, ashamed of your bad choice, you moved to Norway. There you read so much online that enraged you about the left that you voted again for Bush, this time to spite those America (which you abandoned)-hating liberals. You maintain dual citizenship because you want to hedge you bets. In case America really becomes a dictatorship, you can distance yourself by claiming to be Norwegian, while still being able to visit your American relatives.
The only difference between you and Karl is he will ride between countries in style with "heads of state", while you will be forced to skulk (Norwegian word?) about. As one of them "dirty furriners," you'll be afraid to let it be known that you aren't really "murkin."
June 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pmThe Congress would not withdraw from Geneva, but make an exception to it - Seixon.
Want to bet on it? Loser stops posting here.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pmSeixon > you have been exposed as a PAID GOP/Karl Rove agent on this blog, so nobody gives a damn what your 24 year old self claims on here from Norway! Somebody your age should be enjoying life, finding romance, and not posting sludge on blogs to defend the fascist Bush Regime! I feel sorry for you because you are just a Norwegian Rush Limbaugh!
I have NO intention to say another word to a proven liar like you Seixon! Shame on you bud!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:59 pmThey are being held just to show the world how evil America can be, To stop future terrorist, But as we all know Terrorists are the some of the most intelligent people on earth, they have to be clever to avoid being caught and most of the times they are fighting goverments home or foreign policies - They are more freedom fighters in my view
June 29th, 2006 at 3:01 pmI suspect we’ll find out this comment is simular to the one made by the guy claiming to own a ‘Fleetwood’. He’s trying to get folks to believe he’s got a Cadillac, but you find out he’s really talking about his mobile home.
Comment by Quadrajet — June 29, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
That's funny. I'm guessing sEXXON actually lives in fantasyland.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:01 pmWardawg: "...the way you are supposed to treat enemies on the battlefield..." - - The battlefield? Yes, I miss the clarity of previous conflicts too. Dude, where's your 21st century?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#63-
Dude, what do you mean by war criminal? That is the appropriate treatment for individuals who are captured as spies on the battlefield. It is in the Law of Land Warfare. Read up on it. I think the world should give the United States some credit for treating these terrorists as well as we are. We could legally execute every single one of them.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pmYou got yourself a big old CAT 5 cable going from Norway to the Think Progress server?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:05 pmYou got yourself a big old CAT 5 cable going from Norway to the Think Progress server?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — June 29, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Hilarious!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pmPost 54 TripMaster > I have never heard of Rove being a former German citizen, but since Arnold in California was Austrian, then the Rover could be German too?! Arnold to run for office had to renounce his Austrian citizenship and become an American citizen legally! Like everything else, the Bush Regime is allowing foreigners to skirt citizenship laws, which is another outrage!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#66-
Yes, they were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan. If you are inferring that we should create special rules for these pieces of jihadist crap, then you people need to stop refering to the Geneva Convention when defending them. You can't have it both ways.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pm71 watch road to guantanamo the film, most were NOT rounded up on battlefileds But sold for cash sitting in hotels ( tourists basically) nothing what so ever to do with the fighting
June 29th, 2006 at 3:15 pmDoodle Bug,
Not to mention that these people WERE NOT rounded up by AMerican or Coalition forces, but were taken prisoner by mercenaries.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pmBarfly,
You are now continuing with strawmen. Of course I’ve heard of satellite hook-up, just not for legal proceedings. Especially military legal proceedings…
Television. Watch some. Start with JAG.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#72-
That is b.s. While I'm at it, maybe I'll watch Farenheit 911 also, so I can get the REAL story on Bush, the Iraq war, etc.! Whatever. Road to Gitmo is just another propaganist load of crap.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:19 pmWardawg,
Wouldn't want to get any new points of view now would ya.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI would suggest porn for Seixon, might help move his obsession to something else.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pmWardawg,
Perhaps it is you who needs to read up on the Law of land Warfare. Summary execution of spies is most certainly not allowed, and the definition of 'spies' is quite specific.
In the interest of clarity, here is the relevant section, from Chapter 3, Section 2:
As you can clearly see, there is no provision for 'summary execution', even if the combatants you are referring to can honestly be classified as 'spies.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pm#73-
Were there prisioners taken to Gitmo that are not terrorists? Of course. But those people were released long ago. The guys left at Gitmo are the worst of the worst. As soon as the war tribunals actually happen, the evidence will show exactly who these terrorists are.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pmHow do you know that? Because Bush told you so? That would also be propaganda, until it is proven to be true.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThat is b.s. While I’m at it, maybe I’ll watch Farenheit 911 also, so I can get the REAL story on Bush, the Iraq war, etc.! Whatever. Road to Gitmo is just another propaganist load of crap.
Comment by Wardawg
Since you're posting a pro-Bush message here, instead of serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, shouldn't you change your name to "war pimp?"
I mean, someone might get the mistaken impression that you actually want to fight and not just type out your hatred of others.
Enlist, brave lad.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:28 pmModerated by Admin.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:28 pmSpudge,
How do you know that? Because Bush told you so? That would also be propaganda, until it is proven to be true.
Common sense really. Why else would our troops round up these people? For fun? I don't think negatively of the troops, so I assume they rounded up those individuals for a reason. Now as with any criminal investigation, sometimes they get the wrong person. I'm more than satisfied with reasoning that most of the people at Gitmo are dangerous people.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:31 pmSeixon. Google. Can't.
Har, har, har, har.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmYou are a PROVEN liar Seixon > enough said! You will be ignored by me henceforth, and I suggest that everyone else on here ignores you as well! I hope the GOP pay is worth your soul > shame on you!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmYou have a degree to use the equipment that my compaany makes. Whoopty freaking doo. I laugh at your "computer degree"
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmAre you too stupid to read? Look at post number 73. These people were NOT rounded up by US or Coalition forces. They were captured by mercenaries.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:34 pmNeither do I. They are only following orders. In fact, you are a blow hard that is trying to imply that I do think negatively of the troops and for that, you can go fvck yourself. I served in the US Army, something you haven't done. I support the troops and want them out of harms way you jerk.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pmPost 89 Spudge > Norway Guy hangs out in Europe which also shields him from serving in our US military services, but he backs Bush 100% on his illegal occupation of Iraq! He is nuts!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:41 pmI’m more than satisfied with reasoning that most of the people at Gitmo are dangerous people.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
But not too hot on reasoning that most who were wrongly held would be great recruiters for jihadists - if they were ever released. More so than if any guilty were accidently released. Or is the concept of moral outrage foreign to you? Losing the moral "high ground" will spawn more terrorists. Are our troops better off, or worse off, now that the Muslim world has learned of the acts we committed at Abu Ghraib?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:41 pmI’m more than satisfied with reasoning that most of the people at Gitmo are dangerous people.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Yeah that is real non-partisan of you.
Shit give these people trials, find them guilty or not guilty send them home or keep them as necessary. It's not that difficult.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#82-
I'm in the military, bunghole. I'm currently on leave, and have been to Iraq.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:51 pmLast word Norway Boy > You have claimed you are Norwegian on here, so if our military tries to draft you all you have to say > "I am a Norwegian citizen" > end of story of you being drafted!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#98-
Actually, foreign nationals are permitted to serve in the US Military.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:58 pmUmm after four years of detention, how much intel could any of them have? Seriously how much information could they give to US intel?
I especially like the according to you wer are holding them in custody to protect them? Wow who knew. You are right not everthing is black and white. But this seems to me to be pretty straight forward. If they are guilty of crimes then detain them if they are not then release them.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pmPost 99 > foreign nationals can do so IF they want to serve! He is living in Norway and can refuse to serve in our military by claiming he is a de-facto Norwegian citizen!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pmKrazny-
Once the trials start, and all the evidence is put forth, I'm quite sure you'll be convinced of these animal's guilt of crimes against the United States. Our government would surely not detain these people in a high-profile prision for years, only to lose the case against them in court.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pmNo I am not pretending to the reason they are there. I am saying if there is proof, put them on trial. If they are guilty detain them if not release them. I am not making any assumptions at all about our armed forces. They are not the ones making decisions on who to detain and who not too. Our government is making those decisions.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pmNorway Boy > you are a 24 year old certified idiot > I am twice your age and have traveled all over the world, plus worked/lived in 2 other nations in my life as well! I have never seen in my life someone so arrogant as yourself! You think because you live and went to college in Norway, that you are special, but believe me you are acting like a crazy lunatic on here!
Go get married and start a family, if you can find a female/male who can stand your nasty vindictive personality > lol. Now bug off boy in Norway land!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pmKrazny-
The reason we have not been able to put them trial is because flaming liberals like you have delayed the process. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, and the Congress knows what it has to do, we'll get the law passed and finally hold the trial. This all could have been over a long time ago if the libs hadn't prevented it.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:14 pmI hope that you are correct wardawg, otherwise government has some 'splaining to do.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:15 pmNorway Boy > ignore me and I will do the same to you! End of discussion!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:17 pm#108-
I hope I'm right too, so all those terrorist mutts can take a dirt nap.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:17 pmReply to #97:
OK sorry. I am partisan. I am partisan on behalf of our troops, and I put my faith in them that they would not purposely detain innocent people, nor keep them any longer than necessary.
Oh God...here we go. I can almost hear the haunting strains of "Glory Alleluia" in the background.
Why exactly is it, Seixon, that whenever a conservative is drawn into a debate, he/she feels compelled to mindlessly mouth the 'support our troops' talking points in a shameless attempt to gain the moral high ground? Your implication is that a) Krazny is 'against our troops' (and probably eats babies on the side), and b) the decisions to detain these individuals was made by 'our troops', and therefore is above reproach.
Both implications are disingenuous and malicious, and rather dramatically reveal your right-wing-shill identity you're trying so valiantly to conceal with your 'American/Norwegian dual-citizenship' nonsense.
Well, except for the whole gathering of intelligence bit. Oh, and many of these guys can’t be sent back to their home country because they’ll probably get killed or tortured by their own government. I guess everything is so simple for you guys, even things that are complex and where there exist many factors and considerations.
So your solution is to keep them in a hole, forget they're human beings, and assume every one is guilty.
War is sooo much easier when you can de-humanize the enemy, isn't it? Heck....if you do it well enough, you can imprision, torture, and kill them without even having to declare war!
Looks like things are pretty damn simple for you, too.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:20 pmArticle VI of the US Constitution (not the sixth amendment but the sixth article of the Constitution itself) says that all treaties ratified by the Senate have equal standing with the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land.â€
Article VI middle paragraph follows
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Geneva Conventions are in fact ratified treaties. So even if Congress passes a statute going against Geneva would be unconstitutional under Article VI.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:25 pmWardawg, you're wrong. Bush admin. has actively tried to PREVENT these people from going to trial and you know it damn well.
Some of these people were rounded up due to tips given by fellow Afghans who had a grudge to pick with them. That is well known.
Do you just want to kill for the sake of killing? What about the rule of law?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm#111-
Actually, yes, war is whole lot easier when you de-humanize the enemy. Warriors have been de-humanizing their enemies since the dawn of armed conflict. We do it all the time in the military.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm[...] Think Progress posted this - [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#116-
Bush wanted to prevent the trials from going forward? Really. Then who started the lawsuit that was just decided by the Supreme Court? Karl Rove? C'mon. Get serious.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:30 pmNorway Boy > I repeat you are 24 damn years old > people older than you know more about the world in their tiny index finger, than you know for your entire life! You have been caught in lies by dozens of posters on here, so give up your rants opn TP threads! No wonder you have been banned by DailyKos and other blog sites! You are rude, obnoxious, and completely goofy on here, so now cut the crap or tell Karl Rove you want another blog assignment! I have no intention to converse with you any further on here!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#114-
Congress is not going to pass any law that violates the Geneva Convention. Screw the Geneva convention. It has nothing to do with Gitmo, because the terrorists ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Congress will pass a law that deals specifically with the Supreme Court ruling.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pm#35 - "Maybe I am missing something but maybe the reason there is no Talibanstan is because the Taliban was the ruling party of Afganistan." comment by Dlet
****I apologize - for prisoners on the field of battle due POW status and trial by military tribunal the much beloved Geneva Convention states, they must belong to a nation-state and abide by the "rules of war". Apparently, Al Qaeda and their co-horts at the Taliban didn't get the memo.....
June 29th, 2006 at 4:34 pmJay-
Why don't go find Silent Bob, run off, and let us do some real debating here? Seixon seems like an articulate, intelligent person. He is the only person besides myself who is putting forth logical arguements and evidence. Get a grip, and get lost.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pmLook, I don’t think I can reason with someone who believes whatever they find on the internet.
So far, I've seen no evidence of any reasoning ability from you, so the above statement is probably correct, your rather predictablead homenim attacks notwithstanding.
Let’s just leave it at that.
No, let's not. If you can't hold your own in an argument, at least be man enough to admit it, instead of tossing out a baseless insult and running away.
Most of what you said is completely fraudulent
Interesting that you don't even try to list my 'fradulent claims', much less refute them. You're going to have to do much better than that, I'm afraid.
and I won’t even give it a response.
Translation: I can't debate him, so I'll shut my eyes real tight and pretend he's not there.
All you’re trying to do is demonize me, and I’m not having anything of it.
And this coming from the person who tried to insinuate that his opponent was 'against our troops'. Pot, meet kettle.
If you're uncomfortable being 'demonized', Seixon, you might want to take a good hard look at the company you're keeping.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:44 pm#132-
Sorry, but terrorists don't count. They are the lowest of the low. They have no honor, and to apply the Geneva Convention to them would be to disgrace all those who have fought with honor while abiding by its laws. THESE ANIMALS DESERVE NOTHING BUT A SINGLE BULLET IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pmDeclare Supreme Court Justices Enemy Combatants ...
Although I have not actually read the entire Constitution, I believe that in the Article that gives the President the power to designate enemy combatants there is nothing that explicitly protects members of the Supreme Court from being declared enemy c...
June 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pmReply to #132:
Act like it.
That might be asking quite a bit, given the fact that Wardawg's role models have such a rich history of violating our nation's international obligations. Here's a partial list, courtesy of motherearth.org:
June 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I never said I was second guessing the troops. Frankly the troops did not make the decision to send these guys to guantanamo. I don't know who did, but I doubt it was a lance corporal in a marine platoon. I am willing to bet the decision would either come from military high command, or the Bush administration i.e. Rumsfeld.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#135-
Yes, I think killing all the terrorists is what we both want and need. I mean, really, what do you want to do? Hold hands with them and sing Kum-ba-ya? Just leave the fighting up to me, okay? You go to sleep at night, and you sleep well, knowing that people like me are out here, ready to kick-ass on YOUR behalf.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:07 pmYou go to sleep at night, and you sleep well, knowing that people like me are out here, ready to kick-ass on YOUR behalf.
Comment by Wardawg — June 29, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
I appreciate your concern, but if you are doing this for me...please stop. It does not make me sleep better at night knowing people like you are out there. You are the kind of person who gives me nightmares. You are the kind of person that makes me realize that something like what happend on 9/11 will happen again.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#142-
What happened on 9:11 will never happen again, as long as the Republicans stay in power, and the New York Times stops publishing national security secrets.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:14 pmReply to #135:
Wardawg, you probably shouldn't try to paraphrase Colonel Jessup from A Few Good Men as support for your argument...for two reasons:
1.) Colonel Jessup (as played by Jack Nicholson) made the point far better than you,
- and -
2.) It was still obvious that he was wrong.
What's next? Will you threaten to 'rip the eyes out of our heads and piss in our dead skulls' if we fail to agree with you?
June 29th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#144-
Actually, I was paraphrasing a quote by George Orwell, you fool.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:18 pm#144-
The actual Orwellian quote is:
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell
Sleep well, Monkeyboy.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:22 pmWardawg: "I’m in the military, bunghole. I’m currently on leave, and have been to Iraq." - - Sure thing, Frank Burns.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:23 pmWhat happened on 9:11 will never happen again, as long as the Republicans stay in power, and the New York Times stops publishing national security secrets.
Comment by Wardawg — June 29, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
We have a greater liklihood of tjis happening with republicans in power. You are not a wardawg but a warmonger. With the terrorists continuing to "wreak havock (sp?)" (Ms. "I am such an idiot Rice") in Iraq, you neocons want to face off in a war with Iran. You will never learn!
June 29th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#149-
So what are saying, Jules? That you actually WANT the Islamafascists in Iran to obtain a nuke?
June 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pmSo what are saying, Jules? That you actually WANT the Islamafascists in Iran to obtain a nuke?
Comment by Wardawg — June 29, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
I would much prefer no country had nukes. However, failing that, I would like to have a president who knows how to use, and can pronounce diplomacy.
Who is going to fight this war? We do not have enough troops for Iraq and Afganistan as it is without sending people over there three, four, five times. Are you suggesting a draft? Can the twins be the first to go? Because they will have to before my daughter would ever go fight this rich man's war!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#152-
Actually, if it were not for the left-wing, pinko spies who worked on the Manhattan Project, and who disclosed the original nuclear technology to the Russians, who then subsequently gave nuclear technology to the Iranians, then we wouldn't have this little problem of a rogue nation, whose president publicly called for wiping out Israel, possessing a nuke. Got it? Go find Cindy Sheehan and burn a flag already, will ya?
June 29th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#131 - Dear bLIAR Ryanne - Read Article 2 & 3 of the Geneva Convention - the difference in bullets or bombs fired by soldiers and enemy combatants is not noticeable - BUT their status, upon capture or surrender is. They may both be held until the end of hostilities and are not guilty of any crime simply through participation in a war GOVERNED by the rules of war - (you didn't send that tidbit to your friends, I see.) And I would say since these hostilities look to last a while, Mr. Hamdan might want to get comfortable....
June 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pmAnd that’s the G-rated, sugar-coated version.
Comment by unbelievable — June 29, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
I know....the things we would want to say at times!!!
Seriously, is this Norway guy like 12? I had sophmores who had better arguements then he can muster.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:44 pm#153-
I'm sorry to see that neither you or your daughter have the spine to finish the job we've started in Iraq. That's okay, don't worry. My fellow grunts and I will finish the job. 20 years from now, when your daughter is living a nice, terror-free world, and you are most likely dead, tell her to look me up. I'll accept her eternal gratitude.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:50 pmReply to #133:
Wow...where to begin? So many words, and so little substance...
I’m sorry, but someone who believes completely fabricated nonsense about Karl Rove is not someone I would consider speaking with on any subject. It shows you have no capacity for rational, critical, or sane thought.
If you have some sort of evidence that Karl Rove is not a dual citizen, kindly post a link. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourelf. At least I backed up my assertions.
Also, please stop trying to cite the Rove thing as some sort of justification for you to sidestep the rest of my points. Such a desperate move on your part only cheapens you further.
1. I’m not a conservative, and will not speak on behalf of conservatives.
If it walks like a duck, etc., etc.. You're not fooling anyone, and you're embarassing yourself.
2. The subject matter was directly related to confidence in the troops, so expressing this was completely within the issue being discussed and not some sort of tangent.
Again, you're trying to make this about 'the troops' (I can still hear that music). This is about the people giving the orders...not the ones taking them.
3. I said nothing about Krazyn eating babies, but asked him why he does not put faith in our troops to do the right thing.
The 'eating babies' line was in reference to one of your earlier posts, Seixon (#9). In case you've forgotten, here's the relevant passage:
Yes, Bush might do all sorts of things, even eat babies! He’s an evil fascist, ya hear! Zzzz…
Funny how when you do it, it's OK, though... Pot, I believe you and kettle have already met.
4. In the end, it really is their decision. Soldiers can deny an illegal order. In fact, that’s what they’re supposed to do.
God, you're pathetic. You absolve the leaders of responsibility and place it on the shoulders of the enlisted men in the same breath. Such is the warped fantasy world of the neocon.
1. Guantanamo is hardly a “holeâ€.
You might be able to fool yourself, Seixon, but fortunately, we're capable of judging for ourselves, and there is ample evidence to consider.
2. Giving people Korans, feeding them, giving them exercise, I don’t think that’s congruent with “forgetting their human beingsâ€.
Perhaps I misspoke. I don't know anyone who would treat animals so badly...but then again, I try not to associate with torturers. (Speaking of which, did you know that your beloved leader Dubya used to torture animals as a child? Rather telling, don't you think?)
3. People arrested under suspicion of guilt and held there all the time at peace time. Why doesn’t the same apply to war? In fact, the Geneva Conventions explicitly allow for detaining enemy combatants until fighting ceases.
Point me to the Geneva Convention resolutions regarding torture, and explain to us how the treatment in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is
reconcilable with that, and then, MABYE, you can preach to me about how the Geneva Convention 'explicitly allows for detaining enemy combatants until fighting ceases'. Until then, do yourself a favor and stop talking....your hypocrisy is showing.
What was that about being malicious?
Sorry if you find the facts 'malicious'...but unless you can point to an untruth in anything I've said (which, so far, you've failed rather spectacularly to do), perhaps that's an issue you should take up with your masters, not me.
Only when you put words in my mouth, just like most people around here do.
Yes, of course....that must be it. I 'put words in your mouth'...and somehow, I put them in your posts, as well. Apparently, I'm some kind of computer wizard, even though you'rethe one with the 'degree in computers'.
I don't know how much whatever idiot right-wing establishment is paying you to shill for the Right, but they really ought to stop payment on the check. Ann Coulter makes more sense than you.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:57 pmA few days ago someone was arguing vehemeantly that the prisoners in Guantanamo had no rights. I thought it minght be interesting to recap the dialogue:
I have a BS in Intl Relations and I am currently working on my MA in the same field. …
Comment by pjh — June 18, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
A detainee has no right to a lawyer, period. The fact that he had representation means we were offording him a right we didn’t have to.
In regards to water boarding, not only is it rarely used, if at all, but it is not defined by the lawyers as torture, and hence, as illegal. …
Comment by pjh — June 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
They do not fall into the category of ‘Prisoners of War’, and hence, do not have those rights. Technically they are “enemy combatentsâ€, and thus we can hold them WITHOUT charges for the duration of the war.
They were found by a military tribunel to be be quilty. Thus, they had their legal representation. And many do not fall into the category of POWs, they are ‘enemy combatents’, and thus do not have the rights of a POW.
Comment by pjh — June 18, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
And the constitution doesn’t apply to them as they are not US citizens and they are not on US soil.
Comment by pjh — June 18, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
BnF - Says who? give cites to relevant portions of the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Human Rights.
Pjh - I did cite them, look above. Just because I didn’t cite the UN Charter of the ICHR, doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist. I cited the Hague Convention and Protocol One to the Geneva Convention plus the ICRC.
BnF - You have facts to back this assertion up? How many International Rights observers have been allowed into the detention centers to observe interrogations? Have all interrogations been observed by independent neutral observers, including the “secret renditions†we have heard about?
Actually members of the ICRC are permitted into Bagram and Gitmo. And there is no requirement that interrogations be conducted with neutral observers. Obviously, based on the points you raise, you have no clue what you are talking about.
BnF - So, what is the definition of torture, under International Law. And if you hire a lawyer to give a different definition, does that make it ok?
Pjh - This is a legal issue, and thus far it has been deemed to not be torture. If it is redefined it means nothing as at the time it was legal. … To be a law, per international law, the law has to be enforced. If it is not enforced, than, per international law, it is not a law. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But I have had a lot of instruction on the ‘Law of Land Warfare.’
***
And the very fact that their is a legal debate over the issue proves that we are a country of laws and ethics.
Comment by pjh — June 18, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Others have handled your innane arguments adequately. Just remember, your arguments in support of this Administration’s actions could just as easily be given to justify killing thousands of Americans. Will you agree to the validity of those arguments? Will you agree that the deaths of thousands of Americans is justified in the same way this Administration justifies the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanistanis?
If not, then you are damned by your own words.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 18, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
Briseadh na Faire;
No you lost the argument. Your arguments clearly showed you have little grasp of the issue at home. Talking about lack of access to officials of orgs like the ICRC or ‘impartial’ observers of interrogations show you don’t know the laws around the issue.
… You attempted to make an educated argument. You failed. You were cursed by a lack of knowledge on the given issue, and a reliance on concepts that you state are set-in-stone, yet are still very nebullous and the subject of current debate. I mean look at your last post and my reply. I used LAW, both local and international to demolish your arguments, and you respond by stating that you won the argument, and my comments are inane. You make legal claims of rights, I tell you that you are mistaken, and cite references, and you claim victory. You make statements of reality, I refute your claims completely, cite references AND first hand accounts, and you claim victory.
That ain’t gonna work in the courtroom and it ain’t going to work here.
Comment by pjh — June 18, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
The Supreme Court ruling did nopt grant them all the rights of the Constitution, it simply granted them the right to Habius Corpus. Currently they may petition a judge for Habius Corpus, and there case is handled by a tribunel of three officers. In regards to rights above and beyond that, they don’t have any. There is currently a case in the Supreme Court to further define their rights. So quit playing with reality.
Comment by pjh — June 19, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
These are precisely the issues before the Supreme Court right now. So as of now, they do not have those rights, and their right to due process is the military tribunel of three officers. And it will remain so until the Supreme Court changes the rules.
Comment by pjh — June 19, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
Just because the Supreme Court granted them a right to habius corpus does not mean they have Constitutional Rights. People in England have a right to Habius Corpus, but they are not Constitutional Rights. So you are saying the Supreme Court granted them some rights but not others? They’re either covered or they are not, there is no in-between when it comes to the Constitution.
Comment by pjh — June 20, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Argue with the Supreme Court decision itself;
Because subsequent decisions of this Court have filled the statutory gap that had occasioned Eisentrager’s resort to “fundamentals,†persons detained outside the territorial jurisdiction of any federal district court no longer need rely on the Constitution as the source of their right to federal habeas review. …
This is the majority opinion in Rasul vs. Bush.
***
Clearly, their right to Habius Corpus does not reside in the Constitution, but in Common Law recognized by the Judiciary act of 1789.
You should study a bit more, or become a para-legal.
Comment by pjh — June 22, 2006 @ 12:19 am
perhaps you could explain how the case was decided by the Supreme Court if Rasul lacked standing? There doesn’t seem to be a statutory grant of standing. Was it perhaps Article III standing?
And, once the jurisdictional issue of Habeus Corpus was decided, and the case remanded, are you arguing that the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment did not attach? Or the 6th Amendment right to counsel?
And how is it that he had counsel in the first place? Maybe because of the 5th Amendment right to counsel?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 22, 2006 @ 5:12 am
pjh???
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 23, 2006 @ 10:35 am
And so today, the Supreme Court has decided that they do, in fact, have rights under the Constitution.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:01 pmWardawg,
June 29th, 2006 at 6:01 pmHow's that 3rd grade education working for you? Get ready to go back to your cave, your 15 minutes of fame are about to end.
Warmonger - as I previousl stated - you are not doing this for me...and if you are please stop.
You are brainwashed into believing you are actually making the world a better place. You are not. You are not making the world safe for me and I would never trust you to make the world safe for my daughter.
However, you glossed over the point entirely. Why is it OK for my daughter to go fight in a war for oil but Chimpys daughters can stay in the USS and party?
June 29th, 2006 at 6:02 pmOf course a pathological liar would give the same response wouldn’t they?
Comment by Quadrajet — June 29, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
That is too freaking funny!!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:09 pmFor Sanity purposes, I think Seixon needs to get another hobby, like huffing, or something less destructive then being a complet dick on this message board. Seriously man take some time off, get a drink, relax. you are being and uber freak.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:12 pm"Anyone can see that you’re the liar here. No one is defending you. Everyone knows you lied. Everyone knows you’re trying to cover it up. Everyone knows you’re a disgraceful liar, smear artist, and hackjob. - Comment by Seixon"
Sexion, will you permit me to use this on a sign at the Libby trial?
June 29th, 2006 at 6:19 pmSeriously, is this Norway guy like 12? I had sophmores who had better arguements then he can muster.
Comment by Jules — June 29, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
College in Norway must not require thinking. My five year old niece makes better arguments for the existence of flying invisible unicorns that talk to her...
June 29th, 2006 at 6:20 pmunbelievable
Norway couldn't get into a university in the good ole US so he had to find a country that had colleges that accepted individuals who have such limited intellectual capacity that they argue a point with "I know you are but what am I?"
June 29th, 2006 at 6:24 pmI think Seixon is cracking up. Its after midnight in his time zone. He has spent his entire evening yelling at everyone here. I am sorry but if I was single, living in norway, and could stay up late, I would either be out, watching a movie, or playing online games.
-Don't get me wrong I like this forum, but I largely do this because I am bored at work.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:27 pmWe think transvestite who cleans toilets in a courtroom with four hamsters and a very powerful “back massagerâ€
Comment by unbelievable — June 29, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Mustn't be a very good "back massager" as he/she is always so bitchy!!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:28 pmOf course a pathological liar would give the same response wouldn’t they?
Comment by Quadrajet — June 29, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Seems like he should stick with the knock knock jokes, eh? You're so funny!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:28 pm“I know you are but what am I?â€
Comment by Jules — June 29, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
My niece has out grown that one as well... :) Perhaps sEXXON will too in a few years when he sprouts manly hairs...? Nah.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pm#171 - now that's funny UB.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pmThis is getting sad really. Even warmonger left. Grow up Norway and get some friends. Go out, meet a girl, or boy if that is what you want. Get a life!!
Krazny - you are right on. If I were that young again I would be out playing hopscotch with the other girls in pigtails!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pmThanks Strapon. This from a guy who posts 30 page responses to bury everyone else.
Listen up.
Tony Snow this morning challenged a press reporter to summarize the ruling today.
He also added that "he didn't think any person could do that".
Well here SnowJob. Let me help.
The ruling itself actually did it for you.
From the Ruling;
The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground:
Congress has not issued the Executive a “blank check.â€
June 29th, 2006 at 6:33 pmMustn’t be a very good “back massager†as he/she is always so bitchy!!
Comment by Jules — June 29, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
hee hee :)
Damn near sprained my scroll wheel rolling past sEXXON's latest rant. It's funny to just read the responses he gets and skip his posts entirely.
Well, I'm off for now... enjoy your evening everyone. Especially sEXXON the Conservative. You need it most dude!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:35 pmNight UB have fun.
Jules, if I was 24 again. I can tell you I would not be spending my evenings doing this. especially if I lived in a country like Norway. The down side being I don't remember 24 that much, it was kind of blurry.
=)
June 29th, 2006 at 6:38 pmKrazny - I guess that is also the downside to being 24 - you think you are all grown up but you're still stupid!!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:42 pm"You people are sick." Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
....and yet you spend all day here. You're right Seixon, we're the sick ones.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:48 pmSeixon,
Please, please give it a rest. You are wrapping far to much of your personal identity, and ego into this blog. Please go get some sleep, have a drink, do something other then this. Please for you sanity go relax. you are way wound up. guess what, this is the world. Noone is going to believe in your native genius. That is how shit works in the real world. you complain that we don't share your conservative traits, umm well this is a progressive/liberal blog. If you want those who share conservative traits head over poweline or redstate. I am sorry we displease you, but not everyone will automatically bow down and worship you.
Please get some rest, stay off the board for a day or two until you can clear you head a bit, and relax. Get out, meet a nice girl/boy, go hiking/ or rafting, enjoy your life.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:52 pmHey cheerleader, like, totally, like, can you like, say like something like of substance like? Like that would be like totally awesome. Hee hee.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
Right after you kiddo!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:56 pmYou’re all too chickenshit to debate me
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
I'm your Huckleberry.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:56 pm"Larry Johnson, at the “ripe†age of 51, emails me with personal attacks such as me having a sexual infatuation with Bush, that I need to take medications, and that I’m a caveman. Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 6:48 pm"
I don't have any idea who Larry Johnson is, and I can't comment on the sexual infatuation or caveman issues because, well, I don't have time to read all your BS, but I'm beginning to see where the 'need to take medications' might come from. Take Krazny's advice and relax Seixon.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:01 pmNorway - why do you care what anyone else thinks about you? I think it's funny that you call me a cheerleader. I probably am. But so what. If you do not think a comment is applicable or you find offense, skip it. Do not allow yourself to be upset by people you do not even know.
I for one know nothing about you except for what I have read on this thread. But you know what? I will forget about 50% of that by tomorrow because I have a job and a family to think about.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:27 pmOK Norway, I guess you won't be coming back have a good life.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pmYou’re all too chickenshit to debate me
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
The word you mean is 'mature', we're all too mature to 'debate' you. There is no debate with you Seixon. You aren't interested in debate. You're interested in being right no matter what. And you don't even know what you're talking about 90% of thetime. You change the rules, pouting, making up things, twisting the facts, and all other sorts of dirty tricks. you're a poor sport and no one really sees a need to waste time on your temper tantrums.
But, lemme guess, everything is wrong except you.
I agree with Krazny, Quadrajet and Jules. You're too young to be spending your life in here trying to convince a bunch of middle-aged people that you know better. You'll understand one day when you get to be our ages. Life is short. Enjoy it while you have the nergy and don't mind sleeping on the floor of an airport station or ferry (I know, I have done it). Cause some day it will be too late and you'll be standing there with your kidneys in a bag and a case of pills and you won't be able to go anywhere that's not less than 20 yards from a toilet.
Life is short. Make the most of it.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:38 pmUPDATE: Glenn Greenwald notes that Congress could decide to abrogate the Geneva Convention or exempt its application with respect to the military commissions. It would be an extraordinary step, but with this Congress, anything is possible.
good gawd! i hope he/we haven't given them any ideas!
June 29th, 2006 at 9:39 pmgood advice, un!
June 29th, 2006 at 9:42 pmWell, well, it appears our small minded 'friends' have left whatever scrap of sanity that they once posessed far behind today. Probably because they know they can't blame us for this one, and they cannot undo it, either. But they are MAD, MAD I tell you! Like dumping salt on a slug.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:45 pmWardawg quotes Orwell. Oh, if it weren't so scary it would be the funniest post ever.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:47 pmBet on what? I don’t think the Congress will repeal the Gevena Convention, no. Is that what you want to bet on? If so, you’re on. - Seixon
You claimed they'd make an exception to Geneva. That's the bet - I don't think Congress will pass an exception to Geneva that allows the admin to, as you suggested, continue doing basically what they have been doing.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:21 pmWhat you’ve just done right there is more fascist than anything I have done in my whole life. Way to set an example. You painted me as a racist, a rich person, a Nazi, and a fascist without anything to substantiate any of it.
I haven’t said anything at all about you. What does that tell you?
You don’t know anything about me, yet you are smearing me because you don’t like my opinions. That’s in a fascist vein, so go suck on your own hypocrisy.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
I stand by my post. I have read yours. You support a government by and for big business. That makes you a fascist. I did not say you were of the SS brand and supported death camps. You defend this adminastration and like O'rielly sometimes take a small exception to it( that seems to make you feel Fair and balanced). Your inane attack on global warming...all you do is parse words. You either are paid to refute it or are replublican hack. Any FAIR minded person can read the availabe data and conclude that 1) the earth is currently warming 2) that mankind thru the buring of fuels is partial responsible because it releases co2(a green house emission). NO ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH. Your hated of Al Gore reveals you. To thine own self be true. You chose the womb to be born in and those that picked wombs in Darfur or Ghana deserve what they picked. Iam sure you feel that if you were born black in Africa you would still be just were you are today, Right?
June 30th, 2006 at 12:41 amWhat you’ve just done right there is more fascist than anything I have done in my whole life. Way to set an example. You painted me as a racist, a rich person, a Nazi, and a fascist without anything to substantiate any of it.
I haven’t said anything at all about you. What does that tell you?
You don’t know anything about me, yet you are smearing me because you don’t like my opinions. That’s in a fascist vein, so go suck on your own hypocrisy.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
Never said rich, never said racist, never said Nazi... however, did say fascist and born "Well off" that is not rich. So, if you were born poor and have worked your way up the finacial and social ladder tell me how you did it. Also, and any serious impairments. I have a brother seriously injured in a car accident with a head wound. If I didn't have the means to support him he would of died a long time ago--there but for the grace of God go I. That is what seperates us from you pukes. and don't kid yourself you are a selfless puke. I know you don't like that but, that is what you and your kind are; i.e see dick chaney.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:04 amYou don’t know anything about me, yet you are smearing me because you don’t like my opinions. That’s in a fascist vein, so go suck on your own hypocrisy.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
Yes, I don't like some of your opinions but, that is not fascist that is freedom of speech. Your a fascist because you support a government that wants to suppress that freedom. The government you support wants to have admendments to the constitution to ban; gay marriage, burning the flag, makeing English the official language of the US, placeing the ten commandments in all schools and government buildings, ban abortions, Dr, assited suicide,...etc..etc.. You know Norway Bob they call them the "Bill of rights". Your guy wants to change them to the Bill of what you can't do.You seem to respect brass talk but, wimp action. Classic rethug, cheap talk no action. You know I am sure Karl Rove would love to suit up and fight in Iraq but, he is got better things to do. You know he has to stop this "Global warming" nonsense. (I really don't give a crap about Rove but everyone on this blog hates the guy for some reason).
June 30th, 2006 at 1:36 amEveryone,
June 30th, 2006 at 1:47 amRegardless of what you may think of Seixon, let's not disparage the country of Norway, which, aside from being scenically beautiful, has one of the highest rates in the world for women holding positions of responsibility in various sectors, including government. (Don't forget Norway has had a woman prime minister.) When living in Japan, I got to know several Norwegians, including some in their country's foreign service. All were multilingual and liberal. The crown prince of Norway married a single mother--a woman who had fostered someone else's child; I can't imagine that happening with most other royal families around the world. How Seizon fitst into such a country, I don't know; I suppose it's because most Norwegians can accept diversity, or maybe most of his acquaintances don't know the side of him he presents on TP.
Seixon,
June 30th, 2006 at 2:46 amI assure you that I am intelligent and mature enough to make my own judgments that are not based on what other people here say about you. I will not resort to calling you all sorts of names and making accusations , but you have definitely not left a good impression on me--particularly in regard to Al Gore and global warming. I have neither the time nor energy right now (as I am recovering from bronchitis) to debate you on this issue. However, I have done my own reading; and as a professional translation/interpreter, I have also worked at conferences with some of the world's top scientists in related fields. Sorry, but I trust their knowledge and research more than the postings of a recent college graduate.
Now ithis is probably the one and only time I will address you.
Seixon,
What do you say? Do you take the bet?
June 30th, 2006 at 7:08 amGood Norwegian I will contact the King of Norway to let him know you want him and his family overthrown and exiled to Siberia I suppose? Have a nice day I am too busy to hang on here!
June 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pm[...] Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that all Congress needed to do was provide its “blessing” to Bush’s procedures. Many others, especially critics of the decision, have echoed Graham’s position. [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 5:40 pmPs. Seixon,
June 30th, 2006 at 7:45 pmI'm glad to hear you're for abolishing the royal family of Norway. I don't favor having royalty, either. However, if it were a choice between any of the Scandavian royal families and the Imperial Presidency Bush and especially Cheney are trying to create, I would take the former and even the UK's Queen Elizabeth any day.
# 217-Lora:
I can agree with that.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:07 am