BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Bush Overstepped His Authority At Guantanamo
BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Bush Overstepped His Authority At Guantanamo
In a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Roberts abstaining), the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush did not have authority to set up military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, finding the “military commissions” illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The opinion of the Court, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, declares that “the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.”
UPDATE I: The AP has more: “The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.”
UPDATE II: SCOTUSBlog has the voting breakdown: “The main opinion [was] written by Justice John Paul Stevens. That opinion was supported in full by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote separately, in an opinion partly joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter…Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the dissenters, each wrote an opinion.” Read the opinions (pdf).
UPDATE III: From SCOTUSBlog: “The Court appears to have held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons ’shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,’ and that ‘[t]o this end,’ certain specified acts ‘are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever’—including ‘cruel treatment and torture,’ and ‘outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.’ This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. … This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful.”
UPDATE IV: “Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent and took the unusual step of reading part of it from the bench something he had never done before in his 15 years. He said the court’s decision would ’sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.’” Justice Breyer responded in the opinion that Bush should consult with Congress to receive specific authority, and doing so, would strengthen the nation’s ability to deals with threats:
Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in thosedemocratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Deleted by admin
June 29th, 2006 at 10:23 amSweeeet.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:24 amWell, it’s about time. I can’t wait to see the Repug spin on this, “damn those activist judges”.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:24 amThink George’ll blow off the Supremes too? Will that finally rise above lying under oath about a blowjob?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:25 amBush overstepped his authority. That’s an abuse of power he stole in 2000. He stole it fair and square so he can abuse it any way he wants. Nya nya.
Goper’s Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
June 29th, 2006 at 10:25 amThis is the case that Roberts ruled on at a lower court, right? Good for him, abstaining.
At least one of these conservative justices isn’t ethically challenged, unlike Scalia and Alito.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:26 amWTF.
There are 3 morons on SCOTUS who think Dictatorship is OK. Come to think of it, thats only 3. I was thinking a good majority would be for it.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:27 amDeleted by admin
June 29th, 2006 at 10:28 amI THINK I’M GOING TO FAINT.
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES!
June 29th, 2006 at 10:29 am#1 We don’t really know if the detainees are terrorists, do we? No trial, no nothing. What are we fighting terrists for? I thought it was to save our way of life. I guess when they come for you it will be ok since all the rest of us will be locked up as well. Who will speak out for you?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:29 am#6 - see #7.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:30 am#7 - Don’t be scared.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:31 am#7,
> I hope you and your family are victims of a terrorist attack executed by a
> Gitmo detainee
What makes you think so? US have freed hundreds from Gitmo so far and have you seen the attacks? Although they have full right to do so as they were detained for no fucking reason. If they were terrorists why do you think the govt is not putting them for trial?
So what you are saying is its ok for some other country (say Iran) to put you in some cell somewhere because they *think* you are a terrorist. Good going.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:32 amIgnorant Conservative Terrorist Magnet = President George Bush
June 29th, 2006 at 10:33 am#9 = “I don’t think we deserve liberty anyway, especially since it guarantees freedom of attack”
Sheesh!
June 29th, 2006 at 10:35 amSo, what does this mean exactly?
Do the detainees now go to federal court for a trial instead of military?
Do they get sent back to whatever country they were taken from?
Do they stay in Gitmo until someone figures out what to do with them?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:36 amThe only person who deserves ‘Club Gitmo’
June 29th, 2006 at 10:36 amresidency is Druggie Limpblow
Maybe there is hope for us all. I suspect this decision shocked the Bushistas as well.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:37 amPay no heed to the idiot wishing violence on others. Just another troll. Couln’t be more worthless in this world.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:38 amIts worth noting that SCOTUS is now 7-2 Republican to Democrat. Its time for mutiny.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:38 amWhat??? The Court actually knows how to OPPOSE the Administration?
What’s next? Checks and Balances??????
June 29th, 2006 at 10:40 amWell, I’m glad one branch of the government, still believes in Democracy, and that Gestapo practices are wrong.
I only thing left now is to Shut down the Gulag
And to all of you right wingnuts, I say:
Bring those terrorists before a judge and give them their God given right to an attorney, due process, access to witnesses, and all rights afforded to others.
Just because they are suspected terrorists, doesn’t mean that they deserve cruel and unusual punishment.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:42 amAmazing that the court bothered to ‘check’ the president - won’t be much more of that if Bush gets to appoint anyone else…
June 29th, 2006 at 10:42 amThe judges have ruled, and now it is time to carry those rulings into action. The prison must close and those who ordered it opened must stand trial.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:43 amLooks like even the Supreme Court is distancing itself from the Bush Regime. Wonder if he cares about those number?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:43 amBut I thought Judge Roberts was NOT a Bush lacky. HE can’t even be bothered to make an opinion? Did he even show up or did he just stay at home and cry about a stomach ache?
If he can’t even make an opinion then Roberts is more in Bush’s pocket than any Republican judge yet.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:43 amFor the troll here:
I prefer to take my chances against terrorists than to be “protected” by the Bush Admin.
Unless, of course, someone steps forward to “protect” me from the “protectors.”
June 29th, 2006 at 10:44 am#7 - TSL
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
This simple phrase holds just as true today as it did when FDR spoke it in his inaugural address. Just shy of 4000 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks over the past 20 years (the grand majority of them, as I’m sure you’re aware of, in a single attack on 9/11). This is, approximately, the same number of Americans that are killed each and every day from smoking related illnesses and doesn’t even come close to the statistic for automobile accidents. In point of fact, the likelyhood that you (or any American) will be involved in a terrorist attack is something like 1 in 900,000. Why then are those of you on the right so willing to give up the rights and freedoms that make this once-great nation what it is to “protect” yourself from something that is, statistically, completely improbable that you will ever face? You decry us for wanting our government to operate within the bounds of the law by trying to derail the conversation by claiming that we somehow support the vicious animals who use the tactic of terror to make their point. This is complete and utter horseshit! I have not seen a single liberal on this website claim to want to do anything but hunt down the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. The ONLY difference between us and you (and those of your ilk) is that we think that it should be done within the bounds of the law. If our government does not operate within the law then what is to stop anarchy from reigning? As was said by a very wise man who knew a thing or two about our government, “We are either a nation of laws or we are a nation of men”. I, for one, agree with his sentiment: we need to be a nation of laws in order for our way of life to be preserved.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:46 amThis ruling will be used to replace John Paul Stevens with a hard right justice. Stevens is retiring tomorrow.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 29, 2006 @ 10:28 am
Source please?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:47 amYou should be happy about this. I hope you are a victim of someone detained at Gitmo.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 29, 2006 @ 10:23 am
Why thank you, Terry. Wishing violence on others is exactly what Jesus would do.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:48 amAny surprises to who dissended? A few more years and they’ll have the SC in their pocket as well.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:48 amRosencrantz - Calm down buddy. He ruled on this case while on the DC circuit so he is ethically bound to recuse himself.
Has nothing to do with being in anyone’s pocket.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:48 amMy only problem with this? There are three (or four) justices on the Supreme Court who hate America, and should resign for supporing this criminal action, this trashing of the Geneva Convention, this repudiation of everything America has stood for under a rule of law. They are unworthy to serve on this court. Why does nearly half the SCOTUS hate America so?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:48 am#22 -
Not to defend him but, I believe Chief Justice Roberts abstained because he had already heard this case (or a very similar case) on a lesser court (before being appointed to the Supremes).
June 29th, 2006 at 10:49 am#24, Great Post!
‘Fear is the mindkiller’
-Frank Herbert / Dune
Breathe in Freedom,
Breath out Fear
I’d rather die by someone else’s hand
June 29th, 2006 at 10:50 amthan live my life in fear of what may happen
-Zimzone
This ruling will be used to replace John Paul Stevens with a hard right justice. Stevens is retiring tomorrow.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 29, 2006 @ 10:28 am
Source please?
Comment by oxillini
Source??? Hahah they will just pull out the bible and their copy of bible code software and find it somewhere…
June 29th, 2006 at 10:51 amWHO’S GOING TO ENFORCE THIS?? HUH? WHO??
That’s right–NOBODY. Congress won’t, certainly not the DoD or the Pentagon.
EMPTY RULING, IMO.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:51 am#24
Let me get this straight - you would rather let these guys go at Gitmo so they can go back to their own country to plan an even more horrorific act against the U.S. like a dirty bomb or worse, possibly killing millions just so these terrorists can have rights? They don’t play by any rules of engagement but we have to because of the left idiots in this country.
#25 Have also heard this rumor - must be driving the left crazy by now.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:54 amMy only problem with this? There are three (or four) justices on the Supreme Court who hate America, and should resign for supporing this criminal action, this trashing of the Geneva Convention, this repudiation of everything America has stood for under a rule of law. They are unworthy to serve on this court. Why does nearly half the SCOTUS hate America so?
And those justices who seek to make laws based on foreign law love this country and deserve to be on the court?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:59 amSo why should W start obeying the law now? If he can openly defy the laws Congress passes, then he surely can defy the Supremes. I mean, what they gonna do, sue him? Geeze, this is just so funny. “Please take me across the river Mr. Frog, I PROMISE not to sting you.” Dude, we been coup’d. Support the troops, keep ‘em in Iraq forever. Please fill out the 4 page form and submit it to the NSA to ensure your privacy. Reading the NYT is treason.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:00 amDefinitely 5-4: “Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.”
Too close for comfort in my opinion.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:02 amNow isn’t that interesting. I thought Roberts was a Bush patsy that would do as he was told. Guess not. I find the ruling interesting, but I’m going to have to do some reading at less biased sources than Think Progress.
If the ruling is as Think Progress describes it, what does that mean for the prisoners at Guantanamo? Where will they be tried? How? Or will they just be released?
Rosencrantz,
If he can’t even make an opinion then Roberts is more in Bush’s pocket than any Republican judge yet.
Man, I can’t even follow you into that rabbit hole. So Roberts, by not voting, is deep in Bush’s pocket? As opposed to, you know, voting FOR it? What planet do you live on?
The sheer illogical nature of your statement is astounding.
So for you, Alito and the other conservative judges who actually voted with Bush are actually less in Bush’s pocket than the conservative judge who did not?
Wow, just wow.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:03 am#25 Have also heard this rumor - must be driving the left crazy by now.
Comment by Randy — June 29, 2006 @ 10:54 am
Again, source please?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:04 amAttention, trolls blinded by the right:
June 29th, 2006 at 11:04 amHad Dumbya followed due process, he might be able to try and convict those held at Gitmo. Since he didn’t, they’ll likely be set free, not because of the left, but because GEORGE IS AN IDIOT who believes a terrorist attack which happened ON HIS WATCH allows him to skirt the law.
Stupid is as stupid does.
BREAKING NEWS !!! Bush replaces John Paul Stevens with Harriet Meirs. “During wartime ” Bush declares. ” The president has the power to do whatever is necessary to protect the american people.” 2008 elections now in doubt.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:06 amSeixon, et al -
Please stop discussing the Chief Justice’s recusal as anything more than required by the ethical guidelines of the SCOTUS. He didn’t vote here because he had already heard the case and issued a judgment.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:06 amIf you let most of these Gitmo detainees out , taxis will be driven, fields will be ploughed, shops will be re-opened, shudder to think of it.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:07 amGet off your asses Repukes and enforce our immigration laws,secure our borders supplied known terrorists who have attacked us. You idiots can’t even do that.
IMO: He’ll just ignore it or do Rendition…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:07 amTake your meds randi, you obviously forgot ‘em this am.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:09 amI always find it interesting that the Conservatives in this country are so willing to piss on the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the citizens from terrorists. What are we protecting, exactly, if not our freedoms? Of course, these are the same guys who failed to protect us from Osama Bin Laden despite overt warnings prior to the 9/11 attacks.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:10 amI’m sure Gonzalez and Cheney are working on how this is bad for America. Maybe they can whip up some more activist judge sentiment.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:13 amConservatives that claim Bush hasn’t broken any laws need look no further than this ruling.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:15 am#32- Punchy is right. Bush is a dictator and he believes he is above the law, who are 5 judges to tell him what to do?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:18 amTwo Wolves - A Cherokee Tale
An elder cherokee was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, “A fight is going on inside me. It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.
One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.
This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too.”
The children thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”
The old cherokee simply replied,”The one you feed.”
June 29th, 2006 at 11:18 amBush is thinking:
June 29th, 2006 at 11:20 am“Damn, now we’re gonna havetuh fly all them there prizners tuh easturn europe.”
I thought Roberts was a Bush patsy that would do as he was told. Guess not.
Seixon– Roberts recused himself from the case.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:20 amThe luster, sheen, peel, rind and hide is coming off the entire Bushco neo-con administration.
This SCOTUS rulling not only knocked Bush and his Justice Department, it knocked congress for the laws it has been writing and jabbed the Senate Judiciary for its lack of oversight.
It slapped everyone sideways. Now watch Bush come out and claim victory over the court.
This ruling says exactly what all of the progressive blogs have been saying for the past 5 years - that this administration has gone hog wild, disregarding the Geneva Conventions, passing neo-con laws, and no oversight whatsoever.
Watch the Bush administration now. They will trash the co-equal branch of government and turn the whole thing into a political arguement, but their numbers will continue to evaporate.
How exasperating this must be for them, and it could not happen to a worse bunch of people.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:20 amStop in the name of love…….the supremes
June 29th, 2006 at 11:21 amMan that Karl Rove is good, real good
First he gets the New York Times, a paper who held off on reporting news detrimental to the Bush Ministry and it’s re-crowning,and was rah rah for the war, and had a worshipper (Judith Miller) in the congregation, to print a story that was sure to piss the Repuppetcans the hell off and rally the base.
I mean Mr. Bush wasn’t pissed at who outed Ms. Plame, or who let that gay-assed Jeff Gannon-Guckert in the back door er room and let him spend the night. He didn’t seem that pissed watching all those fellow Americans walking away from New Orleans as if the apocalypse had come he played “Oh Happy Day” on a guitar.
But he was pissed off about this?
Even though he said he was gonna do this a million times on tv!!
And now Mr. Rove gets the Supreme Court to rule against Mr. Bush to try and show that the SCOTUS has it’s own mind?!?!?!?!?!
Damn, Karl Rove is GOOD
And the people are gonna fall for it as usual, and we here all know it. Don’t be fooled by this B.S. just is pure theater. Something big is coming.
Be prepared
RIP
June 29th, 2006 at 11:24 amSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 Inf (Stryker)
KIA 03 Feb 06
Mosul, Iraq
Chase,
Hey, I was just trying to clue in a clueless person.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:25 amJust a note - you missed the part of the ruling where the Justices did say that the captives in Guantanamo could be kept in prison until the end of the conflict - which is in keeping with the Geneva Conventions. So now the prisoners are “officially” prisoners of war, and subject to the rights granted there, but that also means they can be held indefinitely without charges. So, it’s a slap to the administration about their plans to bring the captives to trial, but it now gives them further legal ground to hold those prisoners forever.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:25 am48 - that’s good. Thanks.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:27 am#26 / gmnotyet said “Why thank you, Terry. Wishing violence on others is exactly what Jesus would do.”
Nice. Thank you. These right-wing extremists hide their lack of respect for humanity, their ethnocentrism and homophobia, behind a veil of religion. All must be reminded of their hypocrisy.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:28 amThe old cherokee simply replied,â€The one you feed.â€
Comment by madashell — June 29, 2006 @ 11:18 am
I LOVE this story madashell. You come up with some great stuff. I will have to pass this along to others. Thanks!
June 29th, 2006 at 11:31 amKindness and unbelievable - you are so welcome…and thank you!
June 29th, 2006 at 11:34 amAs prisoners of war, they gain different legal rights. Bush and his admin has been pushing the we don’t have to treat them like POW’s because they aint POW’s. Now they are, and will have to be treated as POW’s.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:35 amSince the Supreme Court has ruled that these military tribunerals are illegal, then any officer at Guantanamo who continue to implement them from now on is following an illegal order, right?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:36 amChase:
I wasn’t aware that Roberts had already made a ruling, or whatever, on the matter in the past. I just thought he was too afraid of Bush to do the right thing and oppose him.
Seixon:
I fail to see how you admitting that many right-wing appointed judges are in the pocket of the Admin is “clueing” me in.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:38 amJunior & his Uncle Dick will soon be telling us that this ruling is harmful to the United States and that it makes it harder for them to personally, with their bare hands, protect the people of the United States during their war on terrah.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:44 am#34. You folks crack me up. Really.
Thanks Randy, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all week. “Foreign laws”! Those pesky Swiss! Always shoving their Conventions down our throats! Priceless.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:46 amRight, You are correct. While the Court did hold that the U.S. may not use military tribunals in conducting a criminal prosecution of the captured terrorist, the Court also specifically held the government still retains the right to detain the captured terrorists until there is a cessation of hostilities. So, Hamdan is not going anywhere…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:48 amHey, I was just trying to clue in a clueless person.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Wow sEXXON, you were right! You do have a sense of humor. This is just the only time I’ve ever seen you use it. Unless all that solar warming spoofing was just satire as well? In which case, then you are hysterical.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:48 amAlways shoving their Conventions down our throats! Priceless.
Comment by Stoat — June 29, 2006 @ 11:46 am
No shoving. We willingly swallowed… (Sorry, but your analogy :)
June 29th, 2006 at 11:51 amInterestingly, Justice Breyer points the way by which the administration can not only get the military tribunals back up and running, but it can make some political points:
“Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.”
So, the President should go to Congress and ask for the authority to establish military tribunals for use in the prosecution of captured Al Qaeda terrorists. This would put the Democrats in a real box. I sincerely doubt many Democrats would want to be seen as voting against prosecuting Al Qaeda.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:54 amAnd those justices who seek to make laws based on foreign law love this country and deserve to be on the court?
Comment by Randy
1) America has ALWAYS based its laws on the gains of the people of the past in England from things like the Magna Carta.
2) And using EXAMPLES from other successes is NOT inviolation of anything .. it is a common sense way to make better decisions. This is how science and engineering works… if you find a system that works then you LEARN from it … all you Rush idiots are doing is trying to make it look like America is giving up its soveriengty… Are you saying that all science ever conceived in a foreign country should be off limits to American scientists? What EXACTLY is your point?
?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:58 amInteresting predicament for the entire federal government, because the ball seems to be back in Congress’s court, and I am certain in an election year that NONE of them want to look as if they aren’t doing everything they can to protect the nation. We will see if the Dems rhetoric will match their actions prior to an election.
Everything will work itself out eventually. Either America get tough enough to face foreign agreesion, or the foreign agressors will prevail, either way, we will be governed by those with both the capability and the will to be strongest.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pmDubya Dunce Decider is going to go ballistic about this today, because he believes he owns the Supreme Court Justices > he is going to call his daddy Bush Senior to send his Mafia thugs to the court to threaten them to kneal to his emperor fool son, or they sleep with the fishes > lol.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pmAmnesty International has released its statement in response to this decision: “Amnesty International to the Bush Administration: Game Over Due to Supreme Court Ruling on Military Commissions”
June 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pmhttp://www.amnestyusa.org/ news/ document.do?id=ENGUSA20060629001
Chase,
Hey, I was just trying to clue in a clueless person.
Comment by Seixon
What part of your sensitive ego required you to even post this?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:06 pmEverything will work itself out eventually. Either America get tough enough to face foreign agreesion, or the foreign agressors will prevail, either way, we will be governed by those with both the capability and the will to be strongest.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
But America does not have the will to go after the Saudi 911 terrorism organizations so how will this ever occur? And what do you mean tough enough? Are you saying that when someone is trying to engineer a solution they just got to be tough? What about brains? Shouldnt you be relying on smarts not “toughness”? Didnt toughness die out with the sword and shield? “Toughness” did not win WWII … brains did. “Toughness” did not lose Vietnam … lack of brains did.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#80, Gerald,
Out of curiosity, do you consider two nuclear strikes on Japan as being tough or being smart?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pmRosencrantz,
I fail to see how you admitting that many right-wing appointed judges are in the pocket of the Admin is “clueing†me in.
They’re not in anyone’s pocket. They have minds and opinions of their own. The fact that you think a person who recuses himself from a case and doesn’t vote in favor of the president is more in his pocket than the ones who actually voted in his favor is mind-boggling.
unbelievable,
Unless all that solar warming spoofing was just satire as well? In which case, then you are hysterical.
As for the “spoofing”, you might want to have a chat with the scientists behind the research on it. I’m not so sure they’d appreciate you calling their work a “spoof”, but you always did love science didn’t you?
Gerald,
What part of your sensitive ego required you to even post this?
Well, Larry Johnson once told me that I have a latent homosexual man crush for Bush, so maybe that’s the one…
catnip,
Amnesty International to the Bush Administration: Game Over Due to Supreme Court Ruling on Military Commissions
Game over? I wouldn’t be so sure if I were them. Bush is going to go to Congress and these terrorists will get themselves military tribunals or something similar. Just wait for it.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:21 pmInterestingly, ever since 9/11, much of the left has been braying that America’s civil rights are being destroyed and our constitutional rights taken away and that captured terrorists have been deprived of due process…And yet, today we have seen the Supreme Court of the United States issue its fourth decision on issues involving the War on Terror (Padilla, Hamdi, Rasul, and now Hamdan)…That means that these detainees have been represented by counsel, have had their cases heard at the district court, appellate court, and finally the Supreme Court level. That is called due process. Whether or not you agree with any or all of these SCOTUS decisions, it is a great testament to this country that even during a time we are fighting an enemy that thinks nothing of slaughtering 3,000 innocent people in a single morning the U.S. protects the rights of all, including its enemies. Today’s decision, along with the others, are a powerful demonstration that the breathless cries by many on the left that our civil liberties are being destroyed are absurd and have no basis in fact.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#24 green917
I disagree.. it is ironic you speak of statistics and probabilities… terrorists only need to be right once to kill thousands to their 19 on our soil.
As far as our freedoms of that make this country great and statistics… your more likely to drown in you backyard pool than by a gun in your home… yet some on the left take the right to protect yourself away… as we prepare for our independence day…meanwhile those cities that violate the 2nd have the worse violent crime rates… I live in Chicago and we can’t even carry mace for godsake….
I can’t wait to see the subpeona for Bin Laden now….. and everyoneelse who doesn’t belongs to a country, nor follows the geneva convention, who kills indescriminently…
I don’t think the libs support the terrorists whatsoever… I just don’t think you all realize the nature of these animals… They relish our weakness in the face of blood Canada, Spain, Russia, UK and on. you are more consumed in your hatred of President Bush, you pray for his failure over anything else.
To believe the framers wanted people who have sworn allegiance to destroy the infidel and spread extreme islam world wide to share the same judicial rights as we do is is ridiculous.
FDR, his speech came after Chamberlain declared he had a deal with Hitler not to attack .. (so did Clinton have similar agreements with Kim Jung and Arafat)
after watching the nazi storm build killing millions and controlling much of europe…
after the league of nations accused us of being too isolationist in world affairs…
after we preparing for Christmas… er ‘holiday’ celebrations and watched in horror as the Japanese “get it right once” and attack and kill thousands of soldiers as weren’t at war….
before (and what you would all think today as a bungled war plan) storming a beach head on into munition fire… eventually costing millions upon millions of lives when it ended… all because we chose to hold the policies we id at the time..
And as far as following the law… Clinton inacted telecommunication intelligence, FDR used it himself… He even encamped Japanese citizens,
Yet i wait to see the violations of our liberties being taken place by wire tapping and financial transactions that the 9/11 commission recomended that Bush is using… instead they are theories of violations that don’t exists… and the congressionsal commities didn’t see either. Yet the Canadian terrorists were caught in the very ways… we caught the Bali bomber in the same way….. If you are financing or calling Al Quaeda, the government should know about it. If they want to check me out… I am all for it… by all means I have nothing to hide… the constitution is not a suicide pact…
there is a reason the framers allowed for the Excutive powers… to sit and wait for political infighting while national security is at stake is ridiculous…
I whole heartedly agree we are a nation of laws as you do… but much of that is protected rights of American citizens not foreign. If you feel your personal civil rights are violated… file for it… as your rights as a citizen allows to you… but if you are foreign and plan against us and or our allies, nor do you belong to any country… why do you deserve the same? None the less we put these issues before the supreme court. So much for civil liberties being violated.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pm#83, Exley,
Just a clarification, liberals are stating that BUSH is denying Americans their civil liberties, not the whole of the federal government.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:41 pmgood stuff Exley… you said it before I could
June 29th, 2006 at 12:41 pmComment by joneser
USSR only needs to shoot one nuke into NY and millions die… but that didnt turn America into a dictatorship…
June 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#87, Gerald,
Please answer my question in #81 -
Do you consider two nuclear strikes on Japan as being smart or being tough?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pmSo much for Alito’s opinion that noone is above the law.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pmInterestingly, ever since 9/11, much of the left has been braying that America’s civil rights are being destroyed and our constitutional rights taken away and that captured terrorists have been deprived of due process…And yet, today we have seen the Supreme Court of the United States issue its fourth decision on issues involving the War on Terror (Padilla, Hamdi, Rasul, and now Hamdan)…That means that these detainees have been represented by counsel, have had their cases heard at the district court, appellate court, and finally the Supreme Court level. That is called due process. Whether or not you agree with any or all of these SCOTUS decisions, it is a great testament to this country that even during a time we are fighting an enemy that thinks nothing of slaughtering 3,000 innocent people in a single morning the U.S. protects the rights of all, including its enemies. Today’s decision, along with the others, are a powerful demonstration that the breathless cries by many on the left that our civil liberties are being destroyed are absurd and have no basis in fact.
Comment by Exley
And BushCo has fought it ALL at every step. They tried to get court cases dismissed when they thought they were going to lose. They tried to get Congress to pass laws to protect them from breaking the law. They tried to declare that the Congress and the Courts have no say in their actions…. The ONLY reason this decision occured is because the NeoCons have not yet succeeded in their plans to take over America.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pmI will answer your question exley. I will most likely be in the minority as far as liberal views go but here it is.
given the overall potential distaster that a full scale invasion of the japanese homeland could have been. I agree 100% with the decision to drop the first bomb. I disagree however with the decision to drop the second bomb. the point had been made, the japense were ready to surrender.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pmThank you, Joneser.
And, yes, Jason, I undertsand that…But the fact that these court reviews have taken place means that the President is, of course, not blocking or destroying due process. Our system of government is functioning as it should and as it was envisioned (Again, regardless of whether you agree with any or all of the decisions)….I am simply saying that I hope we have all heard the last of the hyperbolic and silly “Our civil liberties are being destroyed!” rhetoric….As we can all see, that is simply not the case. Not even close.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pmNothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.
OK, so why doesn’t he? Gee, I wonder why?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pm.
#87, Gerald,
Please answer my question in #81 -
Do you consider two nuclear strikes on Japan as being smart or being tough?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
I think it was well thought out. I think it had very little to do with winning the war and everything to do with the holding back the coming Russian horde that was headed for Japan and to make clear to Stalin that any further movement in Europe was going to be a bad move for him any time in the near future.
You want to see tough? Watch the movie “The Fog of War” and pay close attention to how many Japanese cities were fire bombed to the ground BEFORE the nukes were droped… I think it was like 60 some…. THAT was tough… but it did not end the war.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmI disagree however with the decision to drop the second bomb. the point had been made, the japense were ready to surrender.
Krazny, there was no political descision taken to drop the second bomb. The nuke bomber wing was run like any other (albeit with much greater secrecy). As bombs came available, and as weather permitted, a prioritized list of targest was going to get it.
That’s all.
The idea that Truman was trying to scare the shit out of the Russians by vaporizing Nagasaki is an urban myth.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:52 pm.
The idea that Truman was trying to scare the shit out of the Russians by vaporizing Nagasaki is an urban myth.
.
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
http://www.colorado.edu/ AmStudies/ lewis/ 2010/ atomic.htm
June 29th, 2006 at 12:56 pmHello Krazny….Just to clarify, that was Jason M. Hendler who asked the atomic bomb question, not me. No big deal. Just thought I’d clear that up.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#94, Gerald,
… so I am inferring from your answer that you believe that two nuclear strikes on Japan to end WWII was NOT being tough, it was just being smart, and that Japan rationally accepted the superiority of our political philosophies and culture, as proven in the mushroom clouds, and surrendered …
Being strongest is all the smarts you need when dealing with an aggressive foe, who will relentlessly attack you until you forcibly suppress their ability to attack you.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#90…Gerald…The Bush administration did not “fight” it. They litigated these legal and constitutional questions in the courts and turned to the democratically -elected Congress to resolve other issues. And in doing so, the administration won some and they lost some…That is how due process, an adversarial court system, and a republican (small “r”) form of government works. Again, it just shows the silliness of the “We’re losing our civil rights” canard.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmsorry Exley. did you re-ask the question then? or am I confused?
Not that it is important.
Grand Moff I thought both decisions to use nuclear arms were cleared by the president. If what you say is correct then the decision to bomb Nagasaki had already been made, and the Army Air Force was carrying out existing orders?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmJason
The bomb was the both, but ultimately not what won the war. The alternative would have taken longer, been far “tougher” and generally more problematic, but the war would have been won by the allies. As most historians put it, the bomb just ended the war, radar won it.
The superior supply chains, communications, and technology of the rest of the world is what crushed Germany, not some mythical “Toughness.”
June 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pm#95, Grand Moff Texan,
The intent of the two nuclear strikes against Japan was to defeat Japan without having to lose an estimated million American lives (not my estimate, it was Truman’s).
Any other ramifications of those strikes - deterring Soviet or later Chinese aggression, was just a bonus for being the STRONGEST nation in the world, not the SMARTEST.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:05 pmBeing strongest is all the smarts you need when dealing with an aggressive foe, who will relentlessly attack you until you forcibly suppress their ability to attack you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
That is only true if you are willing to commit genocide… for proof see Israel. They could EASILY win that war… they have the “toughness” to do it… they dont win because they are 1) unwilling to commit genocide and 2) are not smart enough to win it any other way.
#94, Gerald,
… so I am inferring from your answer that you believe that two nuclear strikes on Japan to end WWII was NOT being tough, it was just being smart, and that Japan rationally accepted the superiority of our political philosophies and culture, as proven in the mushroom clouds, and surrendered …
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
The Japanese emporer wanted to end the war MUCH earlier… it was his military counsel that basically commited a coup against their own government that let the war drag on and on. Destroying 60 cities vs 2? Nah the two nukes was not THAT tough. Japan was in the midst of an internal struggle. The nukes did not convince them to accept our political superiority. The Japanese millitary councel simply was no longer able to argue that they could survive relentless bombing AND the coming Russian army which was not worried about their own people enough to try to win via bombing … when the Russians arrived there was going to be a “rape of nanking” in Japan…. there simply was no longer any hope and the emporer got his way.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#90…Gerald…The Bush administration did not “fight†it. They litigated these legal and constitutional questions in the courts and turned to the democratically -elected Congress to resolve other issues. And in doing so, the administration won some and they lost some…That is how due process, an adversarial court system, and a republican (small “râ€) form of government works. Again, it just shows the silliness of the “We’re losing our civil rights†canard.
Comment by Exley
So when a football team tries to win by cheating and manipulation of the judges and changing of the rules in their favor mid-game that should not be considered a violation of the entire system? And if they are willing to do that what else are they willing to do? Your argument has yet to convince me. Those actions were not actions of people wanting to win within the boundaries of respect for the system. Those were actions of people that want to win even if that means undermining the system. Is that not true? They violated the spirit of the law and the system and purposefully tried to make it look like they were doing it within the law… it is like how MOST people do not have respect for rich people that try to get out of taxes by fiddling with the rules to skirt their duty. NO LOOP HOLES… you know what I mean… people dont like loop holes… except criminals.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#101, Bruce,
OMG, if I hear another egghead pat themselves on the back for WWII, I am going to puke. Next we will here that eggheads somehow won the Civil War and freed the slaves.
All the radar, supply chains, communications, code-breaking, etc. aren’t worth a damn without the toughness to “press the button” and do all you can to crush an enemy’s capability and willingness to fight you.
Japan’s leader is in the US today, talking about how Japan was thought to be a culture unsuited to Democracy, yet 60 years later, they are a constitutionally pacifistic democracy with a very strong economy. In 60 years, Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the same position, if not greater, because unlike Japan, they actually have great natural resources.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pmI will be sending the five justices my Rand-McNally world map. I hope they can point out the nation-state of Talibanistan. I found the other “- stans” and wonderd if the leader/mullahs of the Taliban perhaps had adopted a different suffix - Talibania, maybe??? The Geneva Convention sets forth important rules for treatment of POW’s and enemy combatants - I know progressiive posters and all Americans appreciate the fine treatment our soldiers and Marines have received at the hands of the enemy. But the good news is the military tribunals which Hamdan and his co-horts will be subject to will be EXCEEDINGLY more merciful than the tribunals our service-people have been forced to endure.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pmAny other ramifications of those strikes - deterring Soviet or later Chinese aggression, was just a bonus for being the STRONGEST nation in the world, not the SMARTEST.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Wow you need to learn ALOT more about WWII and well science in general. You see body builders did not build the bomb.. nerds did. The tough soldiers on the beaches of normandy would have simply been hamburger if it was not for all the planing, deceptions, inventions (landing craft/crickets/radar), war history study, etc… that went into DDay… you surely know this right?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pmJason
Smart doesn’t mean rolling over and taking it, it means knowing when to get tough. Oh, and all the toughness in the world won’t mean jack squat if your enemy has more guns, better communications, and knows precisely what you are being ordered to do while you don’t share that advantage.
To just further hurt your argument, do you know why more Japanese soldiers died then American ones? It seems the Japanese were tough enough to leave their wounded to die, while the Americans actually tried to rescue their wounded.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:19 pmGerald,
“So when a football team tries to win by cheating and manipulation of the judges and changing of the rules in their favor mid-game that should not be considered a violation of the entire system?
Your analogy doesn’t work. At its most basic, the American justice system is adversarial in nature. That means, two sides represented by counsel make their legal arguments, backed by evidence, case law, statutory and constitutional interepretations, make their arguments before a neutral party, be it a jury, or judge or panel of judges, who considers all the arguments and renders a decison by which one side wins and one side loses. These arguments are not “cheating” or “manipulating judges.” It is litigation.
That is exactly what took place here. You can say that you did not like the administration’s positions. But that is a substantive disagreement. Due process was observed and exercised. And the result is that in some cases the courts ruled in favor of the administration and in other case, the court took the opposing view.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:19 pmIn 60 years, Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the same position, if not greater, because unlike Japan, they actually have great natural resources.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
But unlike in WWII where we were justified in our actions 60 years from now America will still be unjustified murderers of Iraqis and wimps for not taking out the 911 Saudis.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmComment by mighty aphrodite
Then maybe Bush should not have started a war based on lies? Hmmm?
And it is immoral to try to justify being unAmerican because some foreigners are also willing to act unAmerican. If that is the way we judge ourselves well ..then we could do what Hitler did and it would be OK…..
June 29th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#107, Gerald,
I am not talking in terms of what Americans did to win, but what it took to make a relentless aggressor stop attacking us. Relentless attackers are not impressed with your intelligent arguments. They only respond to force. If we applied our intelligence to increase the force we brought to bear on an enemy, that is being tough.
I used to work for defense companies, so I understand perfectly well the role engineering and science plays in increasing our military capability, but if we don’t apply that capability against an enemy to completely crush their capability and willingness to attack us, then that increased capability is worthless. The hand you hold is only as strong as the highest card you are willing to play. I will hit you with the whole deck, the two jokers, the instruction card and the box they came in.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThese arguments are not “cheating†or “manipulating judges.†It is litigation.
That is exactly what took place here. You can say that you did not like the administration’s positions. But that is a substantive disagreement. Due process was observed and exercised. And the result is that in some cases the courts ruled in favor of the administration and in other case, the court took the opposing view.
Comment by Exley
In THIS case you are correct. However you did not say THIS case. You said broadly across all that Bush has done no civil rights has been stomped apon. When in fact the Bush admin has TRIED to do things like have court cases transfered to other jurisdictions when they saw that the case was about to be lost… and the court admonished them for this action… just look at the so called “patriot” act. Look at the attempts to remove the seperation of church and state. OVER ALL this admin has been following the wishes of people who are unwilling to do things the “hard way” for the sake of being honest… instead they want to use force and deceit… and in the end this is no different than what the nazis did… which is what makes them LOOK very dangerous… maybe if we say nothing this will all pass away and we will have been all wrong about the intentions of the NeoCons/Reichwingers… but I doubt it.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:28 pmI am not talking in terms of what Americans did to win, but what it took to make a relentless aggressor stop attacking us. Relentless attackers are not impressed with your intelligent arguments. They only respond to force. If we applied our intelligence to increase the force we brought to bear on an enemy, that is being tough.
I used to work for defense companies, so I understand perfectly well the role engineering and science plays in increasing our military capability, but if we don’t apply that capability against an enemy to completely crush their capability and willingness to attack us, then that increased capability is worthless. The hand you hold is only as strong as the highest card you are willing to play. I will hit you with the whole deck, the two jokers, the instruction card and the box they came in.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
That is NOT being tough… it is cold calculating reasoning … it is an equation of what it takes to win. TOUGH is a GREEN MEAN KILLING MACHINE running out into a rain of bullets and coming back with a scalp…. soon we wont need humans for fighting at all… then what will that mean? We are no longer going to win wars? Just because we can send out robots to win our wars does not make us less able to win… quite the contrary. We will be MORE likely to win and NOT because of toughness…. surely you can see this right?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:31 pmIf we applied our intelligence to increase the force we brought to bear on an enemy, that is being tough.
Comment by Jason
Would you please show me where is that intelligence, from who does it emerge? Your concept of intelligence is a sledgehammer.
if we don’t apply that capability against an enemy to completely crush their capability and willingness to attack us
Please, show me an iraqi attacking you or relentless iraqi attackers.
I used to work for defense companies
June 29th, 2006 at 1:33 pmYou came home and told your family: Guys, I made another bomb.
And all hugged each other thinking: we are safer now.
Will W now disband the Supreme Court due to its reckless insolence? Will W be charged with something for breaking the law? Probably not. He’ll ignore this as he has done every law and ruling he doesn’t approve of.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pmBrand new SSA: Editorial. Rush gets nabbed again:
Only on SSA
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
#114, Gerald,
At that point, as in WWII, our political leaders will need to be tough enough to command whatever forces we have to bring to bear whatever weapons we have to completely crush an enemy’s capability and willingness to attack us. Amazingly, there are few Democrats who are tough enough to make those “cold, calculated” decisions, and if they ever find their way back to power, America will fall to its enemies, who will fly airplanes into office towers and bomb embassies - see the difference?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler
Read up on military history … for gods sake read SunTsu’s The Art of War.
He who intelligently applys the use of force is the winner ALMOST 100% of the time…
It is because of this TRUTH that I still wonder sometimes if maybe the NeoCons are doing the right thing and we just dont know it….
DECEPTION – How to keep your intentions secret from opponents
I just dont believe right wingers know enough about things such as SunTzu to even really be that smart of an adversary… I think their intentions are spelled out on the PNAC sight and are not hidden at all except from the American public.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pmJason
Strategy is actually just as, if not even more important then a willingness to use your maximum force on an opponent.
Take Vietnam. America showed no compunction to “Bombing them back into the stone age.” It wiped out entire villages, it was fighting a frigging war.
And it lost.
This is because America was wasting its time trying to bomb Vietnam into the stone age, while not paying attention to what the enemy was doing to fight back. Underground tunnels, using forests for cover, and the Vietnamese willingness to die in great numbers, all made America’s strategy worthless.
It is no good, aiming a million dollar rocket at the wrong target, you have to be willing to think before you strike if you want to win. The Vietnamese strategy was not an element of toughness, it was an element of intellegence mixed with toughness.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#114, Gerald,
At that point, as in WWII, our political leaders will need to be tough enough to command whatever forces we have to bring to bear whatever weapons we have to completely crush an enemy’s capability and willingness to attack us. Amazingly, there are few Democrats who are tough enough to make those “cold, calculated†decisions, and if they ever find their way back to power, America will fall to its enemies, who will fly airplanes into office towers and bomb embassies - see the difference?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
You have been listening to Bushes and/or your preachers talk about “hard work” and “toughness” way too much. Pressing a button is not tough… it is a decision …
And WWII was won by the democrats NOT republicans… you are starting to look silly now.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:40 pmSpeaking of getting “tough” with our enemies, good news from Afghanistan today:
Nearly 150 rebels killed in Afghanistan
From correspondents in Kabul
June 23, 2006 10:00
Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + -
THE Afghan defence ministry announced that 149 rebels had been killed in the past two weeks as part of the biggest anti-Taliban operation since the hardliners were removed from power in 2001.
The coalition said it estimated 65 were killed in battles on Friday alone, although the army put the toll at about 45. Another 61 have been arrested in the past fortnight during Operation Mountain Thrust, defence ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi told reporters
Mountain Thrust involves forces from Britain, Canada and the United States, among other nations, as well as around 3,000 soldiers from Afghanistan’s fledgling army.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:43 pm#118, Gerald,
Sun Zsu tells you that once engaged in a fight, then, if you have the superior forces, attack and pursue your enemies until you have crushed their capability and willingness to fight you. Sun Zsu doesn’t advise applying 14 years of economic sanctions and no-fly zones.
Again, let me make this clear - intelligence alone doesn’t crush your enemy’s capability and willingness to fight you, it is the relentless unabated application of all your force, which comes from being tough enough to do such a ruthless thing. Intelligence only increases the amount of force you bring to bear, it doesn’t give you the toughness to push the button.
As for deception, Democrats have applied that type of “intelligence” for decades, and the toughness of Republicans helped them endure and eventually displace Democrats, while keeping their intentions perfectly transparent. What does Sun Tsu have to say about that?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#119, Bruce,
Vietnam was lost because the American public lost its nerve - its toughness - and demanded that we leave. Toughness applies to the willingness to fight, not the capability, for which intelligence is a factor.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:51 pmJustice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent
June 29th, 2006 at 1:51 pm=============================
Of course he did.
I think Jason’s question re: “smart” vs “strong” is exactly what is wrong with our society right now. We phrase things in either-or terms, denying ourselves the possibility of both being right/good or wrong/harmful. Winning a war requires being smart and strong. Winning a peace requires being smart and strong. Fighting terrorism requires being smart and strong. Fighting terrorism means maintaining our civil rights and being vigilant. Whenever either-or questions are asked, we should be careful about getting sucked into answering.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pmAttention, trolls blinded by the right:
Had Dumbya followed due process, he might be able to try and convict those held at Gitmo. Since he didn’t, they’ll likely be set free, not because of the left, but because GEORGE IS AN IDIOT who believes a terrorist attack which happened ON HIS WATCH allows him to skirt the law.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Comment by DieNowForPeace
June 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pm=======================
Worth repeating.
Vietnam was lost because the American public lost its nerve - its toughness
June 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pmComment BY Jason
Buddy, you would not know what the hell is toughness, unless you were vietnamese or a russian in Stalingrad, just mention some…they were fighting for freedom from an invading army. When was US invaded by another´s country army? Maybe Pancho Villa when he attacked americans under Woodrow Wilson´s administration. You have never fought for freedom. You cant name one time. Period.
Juan C.
The War of 1812.
December 7, 1941
September 11, 2001.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#111 - “Then maybe Bush should not have started a war based on lies? Hmmm?”
Comment by Gerald Gibson
*****Gerald….Zzzzzz….zzzzzz….zzzzz.
No Cerald - I don’t want prisoners tortured or killed. (Now the ones who have been released and were found back on the battlefield - I won’t loose much sleep if they should meet Allah.) I want them to get three meals a day (in accordance to their religious dietary laws) clean cloths, fresh underwear (both new experiences for them?) a copy of the Koran/Quran, a set of checkers/chess, etc. OH…..they DO GET those things????? Who knew?
I’ll not waste more of my valuable time REPEATING for the umpteenth time the definition of lie. Sadly, you apparently are TOO stupid, old or senile to retain much info. You can’t teach an dog new tricks….
June 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#125, PLC,
It was Gerald who first termed it in either / or terms, which caused me to ask the question:
Was two nuclear strikes on Japan to end WWII being smart or being tough?
If we are failing in the War on Terror, it is because the liberals and media are undermining our efforts to conduct the war and bringing to bear every method available, until the enemy is crushed.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:01 pmExley
9/11 though an opening volley, was not followd by Osama declaring the rubble his territory, so I don’t think it counts, though it was an intrusion or encroachment.
Otherwise, your rebuttal is fair enough.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:07 pmJuan C,
Also, April 25, 1846
June 29th, 2006 at 2:09 pmBruce,
Your points are well taken. I included 9/11 because of the sheer amount of carnage inflicted (even greater than Pearl Harbor).
June 29th, 2006 at 2:12 pmDecember 7. So Japanese forces flew all the way to Hawaii to stay there and conquer…US? It was an attack, I agree. No, still no fight for freedom.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pmWar of 1812. You mean where you were trying to seize Canada?
Against Mexico? Ha ha ha. Yeah, you were under a real threat there.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pmAnyway, I have to agree with you in Pear Harbor, I have to say.
But 9/11…come on, buddy.
Remember how many invasions US suffered (according to you) you post? Now, lets see…about US invading other countries:
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners’ strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
and for the sake of other bloggers, I stop here…but we are in 2006 and I stop at 1895. BTW, how do you think Pearl Harbor was there in the first place? mmmm…get you thinking, right?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pmYes, Juan C, I know your rather bizarre theories about 9/11. But as for the Mexican War, it is quite possible that Mexico could have occupied and taken Texas back if not confronted military. That would have had a major impact on U.S. security…
But talking about the Mexican War? We are getting really far afield here…I don’t think anyone else here would want to see us clog up the thread with a dicussion of a conflict taht took place 160 years ago.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pmMexicans lived already there. Remember it was mexican territory?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pmOK. We discuss this no more. The point here is that you dont have to whine a thing whenever you are in trouble since you are the greatest troublemakers in history (well, maybe Great Britain competes with you, but you are making big progress)
Dont mind my theories about 9/11. I wont post again about it. Everybody is very sensitive about it.
130
June 29th, 2006 at 2:42 pmThank you for confirming my point. Liberals are not against a lot of the tactics being used by the Bush administration to fight terrorism. Use them properly and maintain civil liberties and the values of this country at the same time. Otherwise, we might win against terrorism and lose the foundation of our country. It’s not “you’re with us or your against us” (a prime example of the either-or thinking). My response to Bush on this would be “it’s OK to be against them if you aren’t also against our values”. Provide hearings for detainees at Gitmo, get court orders for wiretaps and other electronic surveillance, etc. which mainitain the rule of law and order.
You americans now have a bunch of war criminals for a government.
We Germans had that too in our history, some 70 years ago.
Those guys were trialed and mostly shot dead in Nuremburg.
Where and when will you, the american people, convict and sentence Bush & Co.?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pmSame shit, different assholes, you know!
We are trying Hans, we really are.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pmYeah Hans,
I’ve said it before and i will say it again…
Hitler was anti-smoking and animal slaughter, did that say anything about you guys had some insurgents yourselves after the WWII also… they were shot on sight where ever they were found…. we also kept troops there (still do) and rebuilt your infrastructure… and today we have President Shroeder and you aren’t allowed to utter the words Nazi in your country without getting arrested. Hooray!!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pm142
June 29th, 2006 at 2:59 pmAnd the BAD ANALOGY AWARD goes to joneser. Please, let’s also remember that Hitler wore pants, had a moustache, had sex with a female, was reported to be very kind to children, and used the Bible and Christianity to support his policies. All those “leftist” ideas he had, how tragic.
i forgot about that Berlin Wall thing too
June 29th, 2006 at 3:01 pmumm It wa sa joke… and hey at any rate I am not here to talk about the nuances of one Adlof Hitler… nor the week analogies on the left to compare Bush to be the same… And FYI Hitler was anti-Christian
June 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pmDear Hans - Thank you for participating in Think Progress. It is so GOOD to know that your history teachers in Germany are as poor as some of the history teachers in the US. I don’t recall the terror incident that led Germany to implement a state of emergency, the inhuman Nuremberg Laws, invade Poland in September 1939. We certainly appreciate the fact that we have been able to reconcile our differences…