BREAKING: Bush Administration Loses Major Terror Detention Case
BREAKING: Bush Administration Loses Major Terror Detention Case
In a “major setback” to President Bush’s terrorism detention policies, a federal appeals court ruled today that the administration “cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him.”
In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn’t strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.
It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.
Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master’s degree.
“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country,” the court panel said.
UPDATE: Read the full decision HERE. Human Rights First has an overview of the case.
UPDATE II: Via ACSBlog, SCOTUSBlog explains what comes next:
[T]he panel concluded, it would grant al-Marri habeas relief, though not immediate release. It said the government had accused him — though not with formal charges — of “grave crimes.” The case was returned to a federal judge in South Carolina with instructions to order the Pentagon to release al-Marri from military custody “within a reasonable period of time to be set by the District Court. The Government can transfer al-Marri to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings against him, hold him as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, or detain him for a limited time pursuant to the Patriot Act. But military detention of al-Marri must cease.”
UPDATE III: The New York Times calls the decision a “stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ah, so that’s what habeus corpus looks like!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThere is hope after all!!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmfinally, a good ruling. the MCA, as well as any other legislation this government decides to pass, does not have the power to strip rights from people.
period.
The Constitution doesn’t apply to Americans. It doesn’t apply to foreigners. It applies to the Federal Government, and there’s nothing in there that gives the feds this kind of power.
Some follow up reading:
“To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply?”
June 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/to_whom_does_the_bill_of_rights_apply
I’m shocked I tell you, simply shocked…….
The courts are starting to right the Constitution……
Maybe there is some small amount of hope for this country yet?????
June 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWe are witnessing the radical reemergence of basic standards of justice and human rights. Damn those activist judges that adhere to standards instead of executive will!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmNo kidding! (/sarcasm) I can’t believe how bad things have gotten when we are applauding 1200 year old logic in the 21st century.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmJeez, it’s about time somebody stood up to this would-be monarch, and in clear, concise, unambiguous language spelled out why the things he’s trying to do are un-American.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhat did this guy do wrong anyway?
June 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmwould have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country,†the court panel said.
Perhaps Brush can have the Constitution declared an enemy combatant.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmMy take is that we’ve been holding an innocent U.S. citizen in prison for the last five and a half years. Yes, I do believe this is not what the constitution had in mind.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmGood, but Bush will probably ignore the verdict and continue what he is doing anyways.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmDoesn’t matter. When gonzo appeals to the supreme court roberts and the posse will side with the junta.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pmB-b-b-b-but Bush used the magic words, “enemy combatant.”
Why does the Constitution hate America? If an incompetent president can’t imprison random people forever on his drunken say-so, the terrorists win!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pm.
Bush and Cheney and others should be made to pay out of their own pockets the upcoming false arrest/impisonment civil lawsuit settlement/award.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThis is the first time I’ve heard a federal court cite the constitution in quite some time. Did they just find it in their archives?
June 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pmGood, but Bush will probably ignore the verdict and continue what he is doing anyways.
Comment by Jay Randal
My thoughts too. Couldn’t he send this to his stacked Supreme Court?
June 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pmSo, moving somewhere, a day before 911, and committing credit card fraud, make you a terrorist.
For f*cks sake.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pm2-1?!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pmYou know. I have ZERO problems with the government detaining and prosecuting suspected terrorists. That’s their damn job. However, this holding them without charging them while maintaining that they’re far too dangerous to have access to lawyers is what angers me. If they’re bad guys, charge them with a crime. What’s so difficult about that?
June 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pm“Doesn’t matter. When gonzo appeals to the supreme court roberts and the posse will side with the junta.
Comment by klyde — June 11, 2007 @ 1:43 pm”
I’m not so sure about that.
Yes they would do that for Abortion or something like that, because it is not in the Constitution. However, this is clearly covered by the Constitution. So I don’t think that the Supreme Courts will override the decission.
I could be wrong, but I have seen lately that if it is covered by the Constitution the SC usually follows the Constitution.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pmthe courts are starting to hold up their end of the constitution and separation of powers… hooray…!
And, yes, I DO take it personally
June 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pmSomeone should rein in these activist judges before they’ll cause another 9/11.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThat’s pretty good, especially coming out of the 4th Circuit, which is frequently seen as the most DOJ-friendly appellate court in the land.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pmBUSH LOSING THE OIL TOO
Federation claims tactical victory as negotiations resume and Ministry of Oil is reprimanded
——————————
Solidarity Letter from the Italian Chemical, Energy and Manufacturing Trade Union Federation
————————————–
Naftana – UK Support Committee for the IFOU
——————————————————
http://www.basraoilunion.org/
June 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pm“What did this guy do wrong anyway?”
Not a damn thing.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pmI can just see Cheney out behind the WH now kicking Barney!!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pmOnce again, the Bush/Cheney junta can’t kick a duck in the ass unless they stand on a brick – and all too often they miss the mark anyway.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSomeone should rein in these activist judges before they’ll cause another 9/11.
Comment by MAF54
Out on parole, I see.. either that, or back from vacation. Probably one and the same as far as your concerned. Wait, wait, let me say it… you’re a changed man. Dr Holsinger’s aversion therapy worked! You’re turning over a new PAGE!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pmHEY GUYS, CAN WE MAKE A PACT, WITH EACH OTHER, TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE TROLLS FROM NOW ON?
JUST ACT AS IF THEY DON’T EVEN EXIST.
THEY SHOULD DISAPPEAR JUST AFTER A WHILE, IF NOT FED.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pmNOW LISTEN DUDE………
as many times a bush and his crony’s have designed their make believe
constitution, it’s about time there’s finally some REAL justice
literally bush LIES so many times, i’ve lost the patience of following his
mess AND the 109th cesspool, which now the real hoodlums are coming
to light.
Gonzales is a disaster DUDE, same with frist, cummingham, delay…..
THERE’S JUST TO FRIGGIN MANY OF THEM……… all of them should be
thrown in the slammer dude.
oh my…. couldn’t have that… that is why the system is RIGGED dude
DUDE…. THAT IS WHY 75 – 85% OF WE THE PEOPLE DISAPPROVE, DUDE
as i have stated – -
we the working class put up with receiving far FAR superior service at
mcdonald’s, which is some of the worst quality food and clearly a third
rate dump, yet the american people find superior service AT mcdonald’s
and why is that dude
because of the cesspool of political corruption dude…. like rats, maggots
leeches, parasites dude… supposely i guess that’s serving the people
dude, like Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, all of them dude
and in reality dude… from those crony’s we get service equivalent to the
friggin GREASE PITS dude…. the friggin grease dumps
because of all the corruption that’s been going down dude
now jimbo dude ALWAYS
- speaks rock solid truth
- speaks rock solid integrity
dude… time to chill dude…. time to chill :)
June 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pmWhy does the Constitution hate the troops?
Why does the Constitution want the terrorists to win?
Clinton did it too.
That is all.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:55 pm29 sounds good to me I have been for ages they are attention seekers thats all
June 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pmSomeone should rein in these activist judges before they’ll cause another 9/11.
Comment by MAF54
Dumb!!!
Activist Judges=Judge that disagrees with holding human beings indefinitely without charge or evidence?
Hate to say it MAF54, you are hardly an American.
Didn’t the President say that we would not change the way we live our lives due to the terror attacks on us. That is exactly what weve done with his blessing. And obviously with yours. If the government has evidence that these guys are dangerous, then bring charges and have it out in court. We don’t have to release if you have evidence. If you don’t have evidence, and you are detaining people anyway, you are a tyrant!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pmBush has lost every single one of these cases so far… just shows you it doesn’t pay to go extra-legal in a democracy…
June 11th, 2007 at 1:58 pmMy take is that we’ve been holding an innocent U.S. citizen in prison for the last five and a half years. Yes, I do believe this is not what the constitution had in mind.
Too bad he’s not a citizen. This is why we need court reform.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pmhttp://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?location=US
he should be on this list
June 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pmOH AND WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT REGARDING THIS PARASITE
BUSH/CHENEY, FRIGGIN 100 BILLION DOLLARS PER FRIGGIN MONTH
OR QUARTER OR WHATEVER IT IS DUDE….
and that just ain’t prez, vice…. that spills into congress, who likes to
give their nice rich banking buddies the business, to put us into debt
forever dude…
FRIGGIN 9 TRILLION DEBT IN 25 YEARS!!!! AND SUPPOSEDLY IT’S REALLY
60 TRILLION…
that’s friggin $600,000 for every household in the U.S. !!!
dude…. bring on dracula, bring on the pork, bring on the $10,000 per plate,
bring on smoozin, crusin, scratchin me and scratchin you.
DUDE… we people ARE NOT getting served dude
DUDE… washington is bought out…..
SO…. the american people are happy with a dump called mcdonald’s
June 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pmand don’t give it much thought that from the born, whether it’s
$90,000 or $600,000 dude….. we get the friggin DUMP dude
If only they couldn’t appeal to the Supreme Court….
June 11th, 2007 at 2:02 pmhttp://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?location=US
read the stories of these US citizens in Jail its pathetic . the torture these guys have had is UNREAL and most are innocent
June 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmGiven that the Alito-pack doesn’t recuse themselves, the Supreme Court will take a huge dump on the 4th Circuit’s decision.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pmMy take is that we’ve been holding an innocent U.S. citizen in prison for the last five and a half years. Yes, I do believe this is not what the constitution had in mind.
Too bad he isn’t a citizen.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pmBUSH LOSING THE OIL TOO
Federation claims tactical victory as negotiations resume and Ministry of Oil is reprimanded
——————————
Solidarity Letter from the Italian Chemical, Energy and Manufacturing Trade Union Federation
————————————–
Naftana – UK Support Committee for the IFOU
——————————————————
http://www.basraoilunion.org/
————————————————————————————
Told you if Bush loses Iraqs Oil then expect an attack on Iran
June 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pmI don’t think Bush is going to honor this decision. $10 says this guy stays imprisoned, ruling be dammed.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhat did this guy do wrong anyway?
Comment by JPV
He is accused of planning wire fraud and was found with info in his computer on hydrogen cyanide.
If that’s enough to get you dropped in the oubliette, there are some compounds in Utah they should check out ….
June 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm.
“What did this guy do wrong anyway?â€
Not a damn thing.
Comment by Terry C – End Bush’s War Now! — June 11, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
That’s the whole point. The Bush admin doesn’t seem to want us to know. I might be willing to believe that a lot of the people locked up there are actually guilty, or at least we’d be right to be suspicious of them, IF they weren’t so interested in keeping these people out of the spotlight, but even if I wasn’t upset about anything else they’re doing, anytime the government doesn’t want me to know something, I know they’re doing something that is, if not actually illegal, at least unethical. If our justice system is good enough for a serial killer, or a rapist, or a child molester, then it should be good enough for a terrorist. Otherwise, what good is it?
June 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pmhttp://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1349
He was sentenced to 85 years.
Most legal experts say the government built its case on circumstances and tenuous associations. The group of Muslim men gathered together to play a popular recreational activity called ‘Paintball’; prosecutors charge that the Paintball was in fact military training.
THIS IS A WHITE AMERICAN
June 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pmhttp://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1302
HERE HE IS ====================
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, reportedly entered the USA legally with his wife and five children on 10 September 2001 to pursue post-graduate studies.
A student in Illinois, al-Marri was detained three months after the attacks on Washington and New York in 2001.
Before his arrest, the Qatari national was attending graduate school at Bradley University in Illinois. Originally, the government held him on a “material witness” warrant. Then it charged him with making false statements.
Less than a month before al-Marri’s trial, the government dropped its charges against him, and declared him an “enemy combatant.” He was then handed over to the military.
Al-Marri is now with the Navy in South Carolina, where he can be held indefinitely without charge and loses his right to legal representation.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pmAl-Marri should be released immediately, no question about it. He’s already done his time for any credit card fraud, and he’s not charged with anything else.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pmGood!
June 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pmThe Fourth Circuit “is widely regarded as the most ideologically conservative court in the federal appellate system.”
June 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pmm12-just shut up. Are YOU a citizen? I’m a citizen. Bush is a citizen-here, have a refresher course, on me:
cit·i·zen /ˈsɪtÉ™zÉ™n, -sÉ™n/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[sit-uh-zuhn, -suhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
3. an inhabitant, or denizen: The deer is a citizen of our woods.
4. a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc.
Eat your meatballs and shut up, please. I prefer to chat with people who actually make informed comments, but I’ve made a special exception for a “special” person like you.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm[Refresh]
June 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pmYesterday’s matchup between the Texas Rangers and Milwaukee Brewers pitted starting pitchers Bush vs. Padilla. I kid you not. Neither pitcher got a decision or lasted half the game.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm“Our so-called leaders speak
with words they try to jail ya
they subjugate the meek
but it’s the rhetoric of failure”
The Police, describing the Bush Administration almost 30 years ahead of time
June 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pmFor those of you busting on MAF54, remember they posted as
June 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pmComment by Zooey
The government can turn around and indict him on Shoplifting, hold him without bail.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pm#1 Ah, so that’s what habeus corpus looks like!
Indeed.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pm[Refresh]]
June 11th, 2007 at 2:17 pmOMG!
June 11th, 2007 at 2:17 pmderp-a derpa
June 11th, 2007 at 2:18 pmtest to see further posts
June 11th, 2007 at 2:18 pmhttp://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1302
HERE HE IS ON ABOVE LINK nothing about fraud ???
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, reportedly entered the USA legally with his wife and five children on 10 September 2001 to pursue post-graduate studies.
A student in Illinois, al-Marri was detained three months after the attacks on Washington and New York in 2001.
Before his arrest, the Qatari national was attending graduate school at Bradley University in Illinois. Originally, the government held him on a “material witness†warrant. Then it charged him with making false statements.
Less than a month before al-Marri’s trial, the government dropped its charges against him, and declared him an “enemy combatant.†He was then handed over to the military.
Al-Marri is now with the Navy in South Carolina, where he can be held indefinitely without charge and loses his right to legal representation.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm[[Refresh]]
June 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThis is what we get when we put people who don’t believe in law in charge of upholding the law. Katrina shows us what happens when we put people who don’t believe in government emergency management in charge of government emergency management.
and on and on and on.
Let’s learn for next time and pick people who care, eh?
June 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pmwhat is going on with TP???
June 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThen it charged him with making false statements.
sorry nothing about credit card fraud
June 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pm{refresh..]
June 11th, 2007 at 2:24 pmwhiteyfresh
Citizen has a very specific legal meaning in this context. He is a legal resident of America, not a citizen.
That said, speaking as a South African (In other words not an American):
If say South Africa took an American citizen, and threw him behind bars without trial, access to a lawyer, or basically any rights whatsoever, would you guys in America think it was wrong?
If so, and you are talking about activist judges on this case, let me be the first to call you what you are. Hypocrits.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThank You JPV for Joining the -
IGNORE THE TROLLS CLUB
Don’t Read A Trolls Post
Don’t Respond To A Trolls Post
Now if this happens enough the Trolls will have to post something other than crap that is meant to prey on your emotions, they bring nothing to the table but crap, now if they happen to post something that is Debatable, or is not a talking point or not a personal attack, then maybe they will do this more often, otherwise DO NOT EVEN READ THEIR STUPIDITY- perfect examples of crap posts are-
MAF54-Jake the Fake-Valiant Douche Bag-Mr. Pres-Pres Clinton
Those are the worst of the worst, they should be ignored totally.
IGNORE THE TROLLS – Debate good, Trolls bad
June 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pmMy only question is, who was the SOB who sided with the governmant on this?
June 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm-Refresh-
June 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThis is why you shoot them instead of catching them. It is a war after all. This is headed to the USSC where these lib judges will be overturned, again.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pmso which one of the 4 definitions of citizen dont apply here, Bruce? The only deer in the headlights I see is Bush…
June 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pmoh, yeah, the “activist judges” line AGAIN…
see post#33 by Crump’s Brother(excellent post, by the way, Crump…)
June 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm#51
Yes, I am a citizen. This islamic fundamentalist, however, is not.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pmOh, and I forgot two – Patrick 1″- M12 they are also a Troll Idiost with nothing but crap postings. Ignore them also.
IGNORE THE TROLLS- Debate good, Trolls bad
June 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pmhserfer
June 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pmuh,derp?
June 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pmIGNORE THE TROLLS- Debate good, Trolls bad
count me in
June 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pmAnyone notice that the 2 judges in the majority were Clinton appointees and the judge in dissent was George W. Bush’s appointment. We’ve got to elect a Democrat in ‘08 to save the judiciary from these republican appointments.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:43 pmFace It George:
According to you, we’re all tree-hugging liberals. Only because we think that everyone deserves basic human rights, such as a fair trial.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:44 pmThe government can turn around and indict him on Shoplifting, hold him without bail.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
You don’t get “indicted” for shoplifting, and you always get bail for shoplifting.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:45 pmm12-so the term “legal U.S. Resident” means absolutely nothing, in your opinion? I ask because this was also stated, and I don’t want to waste time on semantics.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:46 pm“Yes, I am a citizen. This islamic fundamentalist, however, is not.
Comment by m12 — June 11, 2007 @ 2:37 pm”
Please show me where in the Constitution this person does not have the same rights you or I do???
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
No where in there does it state that……. It does MANY times say “the people”!!!!
I do believe this man is a person, so I say he qualifies the parameters of the Constitution……
I don’t know why Republicans really hate the Constitution and what America was founded on???
June 11th, 2007 at 2:47 pmThis is headed to the USSC where these lib judges will be overturned, again.
Comment by Patrick1
“The Fourth is widely regarded as the most ideologically conservative court in the federal appellate system…” – Wikipedia
Welcome to the Republic of Stupidityâ„¢, Patrick1.
Take a moment and meet some of your fellow Stupidiansâ„¢. There’s CompTroller V-1, MAF54, michael12, Darryll, Jake, and of course, Mr. President. Make yourselves comfortable, boys. You’re going to be here a loooong time.
And don’t forget, here at the Republicâ„¢, we do give door prizes, every hr on the hr, so keep those snappy retorts coming!
June 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pmFor the latest news, legal documents, legislation and other essential materials about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and military tribunals, see:
June 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“The Torture Scandals Document Center.”
whiteyfresh
In the context presented the assumption would be you meant 1 & 2, which unfortunately exclude him.
While he has rights as a human being, which should be protected, he can’t vote and he doesn’t owe any loyalty to America. As such he loses out of certain duties and benefits that belonging to your nation would offer.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pmRemoveBush
Amendment 14.
That is about it on the constitutional rights given to citizens and not anybody else. (Well, apart from the presidency, which can only go to a born-in-America American.)
June 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pmRefresh
June 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pmCould it be that someone still believes in the Constitution?? Watch the Republic Party jackals brand this judge an “activist” judge because he did what the Constitution demands he do.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pmPlease show me where in the Constitution this person does not have the same rights you or I do???
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
No where in there does it state that……. It does MANY times say “the peopleâ€!!!!
I do believe this man is a person, so I say he qualifies the parameters of the Constitution……
I don’t know why Republicans really hate the Constitution and what America was founded on???
Do green carders have the right to vote?
June 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pmpersonally, I’m have trouble coming up with ‘benefits” right now…:)
also, see post #84-RemoveBush answers your question very nicely.
Zooey-***whew**what a day!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pmDoing fine. just biz-zay!!!
#85
The 4th circuit WAS a conservative court. Since then, several judges have retired.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmComment by The republic of Stupidity
Thanks, old guy. It looks as if your senile development is roaring along. You’ll be in tip-top senile condition to apply for Social Security in no time.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmI am not an attorney but I could have told you that this is unconstitutional years ago…go figure.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmBruce, you’re correct that he can’t vote and doesn’t owe any loyalty to the government of the USA. And he isn’t entitled to certain benefits that US citizens are.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:03 pmHowever, habeas corpus is not one of those benefits he is denied.
We’ve got to elect a Democrat in ‘08 to save the judiciary from these republican appointments.
Comment by william — June 11, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
What we’ve got to do is set our standards a little higher then either Republicans or the standard crop of Democrats we’ve been getting. A higher class of crap is still crap.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:03 pmthis is a good one:
Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, “where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
quotation marks in the middle are mine.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pmBruce, you’re correct that he can’t vote and doesn’t owe any loyalty to the government of the USA. And he isn’t entitled to certain benefits that US citizens are.
However, habeas corpus is not one of those benefits he is denied.
Sure it is.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:05 pmm12-stay on target…..stay….on…..target-we’re not talking about the right to vote, dipshit.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThe 4th circuit WAS a conservative court. Since then, several judges have retired.
Comment by m12
Uh, when did they retire? During the reign of George II? And, uh, who would have picked their replacements? Please elucidate for us.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pmm12
Nope. They do, however, get just about everything else.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pmThe 14th Amendment applies to all persons in this country — not just citizens.
Just sayin’
June 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pmZooey-***whew**what a day!!!
Doing fine. just biz-zay!!!
Comment by whiteyfresh
You’re doing a great job, whitey!
June 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“RemoveBush
Amendment 14.
That is about it on the constitutional rights given to citizens and not anybody else. (Well, apart from the presidency, which can only go to a born-in-America American.)
Comment by Bruce Gorton — June 11, 2007 @ 2:58 pm”
I guess you missed this…….
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Notice that it DOES NOT say Citizen….. It says PERSON!!!!
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pmRefresh…
June 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pm“The 4th circuit WAS a conservative court. Since then, several judges have retired.
Comment by m12 — June 11, 2007 ”
more comedy gold.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pmonly one judge, luttig, has retired during w.’s time in office, and the 4th still has a majority of republican-nominated judges.
“Do green carders have the right to vote?
Comment by m12 — June 11, 2007 @ 2:59 pm”
What does voting have to do with the rights granted under the Constitution????
It does not say “We the American People”…..
In many instances it does not mention nationality or citizenship in the Cosntitution. It only mentions it in very select places……
Sorry, but the Constitution does apply to ALL people living, or visiting, in the US. It does layout specific areas that ONLY an American Citizen gets certain added rights, but everyone gets the basic rights under the Constitution.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pmComment by The republic of Stupidity
Thanks, old guy. It looks as if your senile development is roaring along. You’ll be in tip-top senile condition to apply for Social Security in no time.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Oh, there, there, there, Li’l CT. Is it nap time? It’s snotty, mean-spirited comments like that that make you eligible for automatic citizenship in the Republicâ„¢.
Hell, Li’l CT… you don’t even have to know you’re a citizen to be one… that’s why it’s The Republic of Stupidityâ„¢!!! And why you are always welcome here.
Oh, you’re the one who was supporting Mr. President’s use of language like “Moslem shitteaters” yeterday. Gosh, you sure a class act, Li’l Feller.
Ooops! New hr and time for another door prize! And the winner…
CompTroller V-1!!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pmkenga
I wasn’t arguing that he doesn’t have any rights. I was arguing that he isn’t a citizen, as per the legal definition. I am just a bit of a nitpicker.
About all he doesn’t get is the vote, and I am not too sure about the right to bear arms.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:12 pmWhat about the right to arm bears?
June 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWhat does voting have to do with the rights granted under the Constitution????
It does not say “We the American Peopleâ€â€¦..
In many instances it does not mention nationality or citizenship in the Cosntitution. It only mentions it in very select places……
Sorry, but the Constitution does apply to ALL people living, or visiting, in the US. It does layout specific areas that ONLY an American Citizen gets certain added rights, but everyone gets the basic rights under the Constitution.
That was hardly the intent of the founding fathers when they drafted the document.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pmUh, when did they retire? During the reign of George II? And, uh, who would have picked their replacements? Please elucidate for us.
George II hasn’t picked their replacements yet. There are 5 vacancies out of 15 on the 4th circuit.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm“Sorry, but the Constitution does apply to ALL people living, or visiting, in the US.”
it’d be pretty funny it a bunch of guys from europe wrote a constitution that excluded all rights for other guys from, for example, europe.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pmm12
So I guess you really don’t mind when under their law, Islamic terrorists find American citizens guilty of being infidels and hence sentence them to death? After all, those American citizens aren’t protected by those Islamic laws, and those terrorists aren’t bound by American ones.
RemoveBush
Read article 2. Its basically the right to vote, which non-citizens don’t get.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pmRefreshing……
June 11th, 2007 at 3:18 pm“That was hardly the intent of the founding fathers when they drafted the document.
Comment by m12 — June 11, 2007 @ 3:16 pm”
Sure it was……
They were very bright and CAREFULLY drafted the Constitution. If that is what they meant, or “intended”, then they would have SPECIFICALLY stated that.
I love it when someone says that was not their intent when they went out of their way to be very clear on their intent.
Which was to give EVERYONE the basic rights when they came to this country. Otherwise, we would still have slavery…….
June 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pm# 91 – m12, you make EVERYTHING a matter of US and THEM.
You forget that on this thread YOU are the THEM (dumb, lying, mean-spirited, hate-filled, facist trolls).
Should you have the right to EXIST? No, but you do exist, and you have Constitutional rights. So do persons who are not citizens, but are in this country legally as residents. They can’t vote, but then neither can you, if you are a felon (and with your anti-everybody, sorry-a$$ed attitude, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were!).
I thank God that you are such a loser that you weren’t on the Court that properly applied the Constitution to a person YOU would deny rights to.
That is the subject of the thread. The Court properly applied the Constitution to an individual our current, lying, corrupt, criminal president and his cronies have DENIED rights to UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!
June 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pm.
#112. “hardly the intent…” Haha. I see you’re becoming an “activist” by reading things into the Constitution that aren’t in the plain language. Scalia may take you off his birthday card list.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pmSo I guess you really don’t mind when under their law, Islamic terrorists find American citizens guilty of being infidels and hence sentence them to death? After all, those American citizens aren’t protected by those Islamic laws, and those terrorists aren’t bound by American ones.
They already do that.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pm“About all he doesn’t get is the vote, and I am not too sure about the right to bear arms.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — June 11, 2007″
you better tell that to all ‘green card’ soldiers fighting in iraq:
“Today, according to the most recent statistics, there are roughly 30,000 non-citizens on active duty and another 11,000 in the reserves. They come from more than 200 countries, with notable contingents from Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and El Salvador. Several thousand are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
June 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pmComment by The republic of Stupidity
Yeah, Muslims are pretty cooky people. Of course, only cooky people support them. You support “that” group – the 25% living in the United States.
I don’t want your prize. The attached tax bill is quite loony.
Fart a little, old guy.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pmm12
Actually, it was. Otherwise they would have said American people. They used quite precise language in laying the whole thing out, and in a lot of cases it doesn’t even specify people, it instructs the government.
For example, Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Which I suspect just shot your whole argument about them not having the right to habeas corpus all to heck.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:22 pmClinton did appoint some liberal judges to the 4th Circuit, m12 knows that.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:22 pm“Read article 2. Its basically the right to vote, which non-citizens don’t get.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — June 11, 2007 @ 3:17 pm”
So what does that have to do with this man having basic rights under the Constitution?????
There are several places that specify only American Citizens get the added benefits of the Constitution. Why are you stuck on the benefits that ONLY American Citizens are granted?????
June 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pmThey were very bright and CAREFULLY drafted the Constitution. If that is what they meant, or “intendedâ€, then they would have SPECIFICALLY stated that.
I love it when someone says that was not their intent when they went out of their way to be very clear on their intent.
Which was to give EVERYONE the basic rights when they came to this country. Otherwise, we would still have slavery…….
They get basic rights when they become citizens. Look at clause 3 that you bolded:
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Newsflash: You have to be a citizen, not merely a person, to be a Senator at all. The terms are interchangable.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“You don’t get “indicted†for shoplifting, and you always get bail for shoplifting.”
-Comment by Zooey
This is a military tribunal, not your county courthouse. The administration needs something to file.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pmClinton did appoint some liberal judges to the 4th Circuit, m12 knows that.
This will be overturned when they do an en banc hearing. These chumps got lucky to get 2 Clinton liberals on their 3 judge panel.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pmpgw
There is nothing there taking away their right to bear arms, just nothing saying that the government can’t take it away without a constitutional amendment.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm“They get basic rights when they become citizens. Look at clause 3 that you bolded:
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Newsflash: You have to be a citizen, not merely a person, to be a Senator at all. The terms are interchangable.
Comment by m12 — June 11, 2007 @ 3:24 pm”
WRONG 100%
The ONLY person that MUST be a US BORN Citizen is the President.
Even in what you presented, there is NOTHING that states they must be a citizen….
Show me where it says THEY MUST BE A CITIZEN in that block!!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pmRemoveBush
I was arguing over the term citizen – not over whether he got any rights under the US Constitution. Only a total idiot would think that non-citizens had no rights.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThis is a military tribunal, not your county courthouse. The administration needs something to file.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
CT, per the decision by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, Al Marri is to be released from military detention.
Please don’t patronize me, or anyone, when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pm“RemoveBush
I was arguing over the term citizen – not over whether he got any rights under the US Constitution. Only a total idiot would think that non-citizens had no rights.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — June 11, 2007 @ 3:33 pm”
I gathered that to be the case, but some of your comments seemed a bit vague to me…..
Thanks for clarifying your stance.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:35 pm“Please don’t patronize me, or anyone, when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Comment by Zooey — June 11, 2007″
so are you saying aren’t federal shoplifting indictments?
June 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pmPoint taken, Zoeey.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmm12,
The Clinton liberalis effect has overtaken our benches, made our people less secure, and given more ammunition to people advocating for the release of CRIMINALS.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pmHell, that Judge Brinkema, appointed by Clinton (the one for Mousauwi, however it’s spelled), almost threw out his entire indictment. That foreign thug could have moved on my street had that Judge been a bit more loony that day.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:44 pmso are you saying aren’t federal shoplifting indictments?
Comment by pgw
There could be federal charges of shoplifting on a military post or federal property.
Al Marri is not charged with shoplifting anywhere, as far as I know.
Shoplifting is a misdemeanor. Indictments are for felony charges.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:45 pmCorrection to #138:
There could be federal charges of shoplifting [for a crime committed] on a military post or federal property.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:47 pmm12
Definition of “citizen”: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ”
Rights of citizens: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” (Note the specific mention of “citizen”)
Rights of all: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Note the absence of the word “citizen” and the use of “any person”.)
June 11th, 2007 at 3:47 pmLibetrolls…
June 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm. . . given more ammunition to people advocating for the release of CRIMINALS. Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
If Al-Marri is a criminal, then the solution is easy. He just needs to be charged with a crime. Is he a criminal or not??
June 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI don’t want your prize. The attached tax bill is quite loony.
Fart a little, old guy.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Oh there, there, Li’l Feller. W/ each shrill, mean-spirited and irrational comment, you once again prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you belong here. The Republic is proud to admit you as a Citizen in Good Standing.
As for the prize, geez, aren’t you even going to ask what it is? You’re the one who said anyone could post any sort of joke they wanted here. Aren’t you gettin’ a little snarky here?
June 11th, 2007 at 4:05 pmWhew. Bush can’t declare me an enemy combatant and take me out of my home and keep me in prison indefinitely. The government’s position was pretty scary, namely if Bush says I’m an enemy combatant, I am and I lose all protections under the Constitution. The decision is frightening but hopeful. This language (p.55) jumped out at me for it’s obvious simplicity…it is basic Constitutional Law that Bush rejects:
The core assumption underlying the Government’s position, notwithstanding Hamdi, Padilla, Quirin, Milligan, and Hamdan, seems to be that persons lawfully within this country, entitled to the protections of our Constitution, lose their civilian status and become “enemy combatants†if they have allegedly engaged in criminal conduct on behalf of an organization seeking to harm the United States. Of course, a person who commits a crime should be punished, but when a civilian protected by the Due Process Clause commits a crime he is subject to charge, trial, and punishment in a civilian court, not to seizure and confinement by military authorities.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pm“. . . given more ammunition to people advocating for the release of CRIMINALS.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
If Al-Marri is a criminal, then the solution is easy. He just needs to be charged with a crime. Is he a criminal or not??
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch. — June 11, 2007″
maybe he was referring to mike huckabee and wayne dumond.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pm[Refresh again]
June 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pmYa’ know, it’s been 6 years since 9-11. Did those “sleeper cells” not set their alarms? They must still be sleeping.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:13 pmComment by pgw
Maybe I was referring to rapists and murders whom you would love to award a shorter sentence (than Scooter Libby) to for the sake of “racial statistics.”
Thanks for your input, loon.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pmShoplifting is a misdemeanor. Indictments are for felony charges.
Comment by Zooey
This may be true in Idaho, but in Oregon the grand jury can and does return indictments for misdemeanors. I sat on the felony grand jury for 30 days once, but there are two other grand juries that handle misdemeanors. A misdemeanor complaint can also be issued.
I believe the difference here is that a felony indictment must be issued by a grand jury, but not a misdemeanor.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pmRefreshing again……….
June 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pm“Maybe I was referring to rapists and murders whom you would love to award a shorter sentence (than Scooter Libby) to for the sake of “racial statistics.â€
Thanks for your input, loon.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 11, 2007″
judges who adhere to the constitution make you awfully touchy. are you upset because your older, male buddy Scooter got convicted of a felony?
June 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pmRefresh….
June 11th, 2007 at 4:36 pmWRONG 100%
The ONLY person that MUST be a US BORN Citizen is the President.
Even in what you presented, there is NOTHING that states they must be a citizen….
Show me where it says THEY MUST BE A CITIZEN in that block!!!!
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Gotta be a citizen. Not US born, necessarily, but still a citizen.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pmRights of all: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.†(Note the absence of the word “citizen†and the use of “any personâ€.)
Note the words “within its jurisdiction”. By the laws of Congress, enemy combatants are outside the jurisdiction of the states and the US courts.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmIf Al-Marri is a criminal, then the solution is easy. He just needs to be charged with a crime. Is he a criminal or not??
If George Walker Bush is a criminal, then the solution is easy. He just needs to be charged with a crime. Is he a criminal or not?
Funny, the logic never works in the opposite direction.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pm…
June 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmThis may be true in Idaho, but in Oregon the grand jury can and does return indictments for misdemeanors. I sat on the felony grand jury for 30 days once, but there are two other grand juries that handle misdemeanors. A misdemeanor complaint can also be issued.
I believe the difference here is that a felony indictment must be issued by a grand jury, but not a misdemeanor.
Comment by gummitch
Really? That’s totally weird to have indictments for misdemeanors. We rarely have grand juries seated. Felonies are handled with preliminary hearings, unless it’s a big murder case, then there’s a grand jury.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:02 pmThe Constitution of the United States is a liberal document. It limits the power of the government, and grants “any powers not delegated to the United States…nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States or to the people”. The conservatives (like Alberto Gonzales) would have it interpreted differently – that any rights not specifically detailed in the Constitution as belonging to the people are prohibited to the people; and the government is under no restraints as to what powers it may exercise. A basic difference between the two philosophies…..
June 11th, 2007 at 5:05 pm…
June 11th, 2007 at 5:07 pmIf George Walker Bush is a criminal, then the solution is easy. He just needs to be charged with a crime. Is he a criminal or not? Funny, the logic never works in the opposite direction. — Comment by m12
Is George Bush being held in prison? No? Then it seems your argument is baseless. That’s the whole reason this case is in front of the court.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:10 pmDue process exists! Yes!
June 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm#11 ~ I’d wager you’re correct.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pmThe 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will become increasingly more centrist with any appointee having to be approved by Sens. John Warner and Jim Webb.
Yes, nation, you can once again thank Virginia and Webb for saving the constitution.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pmNewsflash: You have to be a citizen, not merely a person, to be a Senator at all. The terms are interchangable.
Comment by m12
So, what does this have to do with FAIR TRIAL???
Nothing…
By the way, TRAITOR Bush is a MURDERER coxucker PUNK who will
BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY with Saddam, Hitler and Osama.
ALL of whom were Bush family “business associates”.
Have a nice day!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pmComment by pgw
Rape and murder is also a felony, dimwit. Liberal judges aren’t so tough on that, dimwit. They don’t care, dimwit. Plenty of people convicted of a felony who get off easy, for violent crimes especially, because of liberal judges. Plenty of felons on the run, iberals aren’t looking for them, but you’re looking only for Libby. You know, that political motivation.
Liberals say that “racial statistics” should be a factor, for example, in sentencing even violent criminals. Liberals have their own dirtsheet. It’s only fair to take into account Libby’s otherwise clean history and U.S. Government service to award him a much lighter sentence.
By no means is your own ideology clean when it comes to justice. The Duke kids didn’t fare too well due to liberal, trial-by-media justice, did they? Sorry you didn’t get the result you wanted.
You shouldn’t worry too much about the treatment of dirty terrorists. The Government can determine some charges on them, hopefully soon.
June 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pmThe Government can determine some charges on them, hopefully soon.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Your rant is ridiculous, CT, but I wanted to address this part.
You don’t just pull charges out of the air — not legitimate ones. They have to be based on some fact and evidence, not wishful thinking.
Of course, I have no faith whatsoever that this government won’t do exactly as you advocate, but those charges will also be thrown out.
June 11th, 2007 at 6:42 pmRefresh!
June 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pmComment by Zooey
Unfortunately, Zoley, my rant is not ridiculous. You may have a sufficient rebuttal with the terrorist charges, but there is indeed liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the justice system. Many in the public know that.
June 11th, 2007 at 6:51 pmRefresh!!
June 11th, 2007 at 7:08 pmREFRESHERING
June 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pmREFRESHINIZING
June 11th, 2007 at 7:37 pmThese trolls irritate me.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pmMany in the public know that.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Name your f*cking strawmen, CT.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:15 pmThe dissenting judge, Henry E. Hudson, of Virginia, was a Bush nominee.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020123-21.html
Go figure.
June 11th, 2007 at 11:04 pmSo I guess you really don’t mind when under their law, Islamic terrorists find American citizens guilty of being infidels and hence sentence them to death? After all, those American citizens aren’t protected by those Islamic laws, and those terrorists aren’t bound by American ones.
They already do that.
Comment by m12 — June 11, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
———————-
You didn’t answer the question.
Do you support the actions of the terrorists as laid out in this hypothetical?
June 11th, 2007 at 11:36 pmtest
June 11th, 2007 at 11:41 pmHey admins! Your site is still f*cked up regarding problems posting/refreshing. When are you gonna fix it???
June 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pmrefresh
June 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pm[refresh]
June 12th, 2007 at 12:12 amThis guy may or may not be guilty of a crime, but he has a right to know what the charges are, and to have a fair trial. The Bush administration has been absolutely criminal in its handling of these cases, but that doesn’t mean that everyone held since September 11th is innocent. These prisoners should be tried in a court of law.
It’s so ironic how all these Republicans who were frothing at the mouth about “the rule of law” when it applied to Clinton lying about a blowjob are perfectly willing to look the other way when the basic foundations of our legal system are ignored in these cases. This ruling is a major step forward towards correcting the abuse of executive power by this administration.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:23 amWhat really gets me about Americans throwing around the word liberal like it is a four letter word that should get you a half million dollar fine on TV is that if you ask them what a liberal is, they have no idea. For your information a LIBERAL IS
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Do you really see anything wrong with being forward thinking, free from bigotry, tolerant? You have a problem with those ideals?
Open to new ideas? My god what a bizarre thought.
Conservatives on the other hand..
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Not much to them is there.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:35 amI think Ron Paul has set an example for us and I’ve noticed that what he is doing and saying is starting to rub off on other people as well – even news anchors are starting to show it.
Ron Paul, you truly are our nation’s hero!
June 12th, 2007 at 12:41 amIf Exley ever shows up again and blathers on about Quinlan, have him read this case.
The most disconcerting thing in the case is the dissent by a Bush appointee. He would grant Bush the authority to detain anyone indefinitely, just on Bush’s determination alone.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:53 amHe shall be released in a reasonable amount of time… He´s only been detained for 4 years without any formal charges, thats pretty reasonable, they can keep him in there for another year while they decide what to do with him…
This country is getting very scary, you can be taken from your home and detained without explanation or a chance to talk to a lawyer and defend yourself. The land of the free… what a joke.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:02 amGreat!! Now we can charge him with Treason, give him a jury trial, then hang him! That will teach W. a lesson.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:21 amgood article, thanks for it
June 12th, 2007 at 10:46 amllklklkl
June 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhat this shows me (even tho it shouldn’t) is that bu$h is losing power and being taken (more) lightly as of late. His numbers are SO low that (in my opinion) judges are feeling emboldened to follow the letter of the law instead of being cowed by this latter-day tin-hat dictator. Now if ONLY OUR GENERALS had some balls and would act instead of just talk and relieve junior of his command, we could be rid of this blight called bu$h once and for all…
June 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pmSomeone should rein in these activist judges before they’ll cause another 9/11.
Comment by MAF54
Out on parole, I see.. either that, or back from vacation. Probably one and the same as far as your concerned. Wait, wait, let me say it… you’re a changed man. Dr Holsinger’s aversion therapy worked! You’re turning over a new PAGE!!!
Question, do you REALLY believe that is Marc Foley your communicating with?
June 12th, 2007 at 8:10 pmYou didn’t answer the question.
Do you support the actions of the terrorists as laid out in this hypothetical?
I do not support terrorists. But it is necessary to meet force with force.
They began this war when they invaded our homeland and killed 3000 Americans.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:14 amThe 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will become increasingly more centrist with any appointee having to be approved by Sens. John Warner and Jim Webb.
Yes, nation, you can once again thank Virginia and Webb for saving the constitution.
That’s true for only 2 of the 5 vacant seats.
But I doubt gun toting Webb wants any Ginsbergs on his Circuit.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:16 amComment by JPV — June 11, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
HEY GUYS, CAN WE MAKE A PACT, WITH EACH OTHER, TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE TROLLS FROM NOW ON?
Comment by Buck Fush — June 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
“IGNORE THE TROLLS CLUB.”
good idea, guys!!
Why not take this list you started and expand it to include the rest not listed yet, and also as Trolls change their “handle.” Then automatically (cut & paste) post it on every thread on TP about, say, every 25 posts. All of us anti troll folks can post it if we see it hasn’t been posted in a while. Especially on troll heavy threads. “Members” can add their names as they wish forswearing communication with the trolls. Repetition is the name of the game! (Put the word “Reminder” on top in bold)
What do you think folks? Shall we band together formally? If I don’t hear from anyone I will begin to post it anyway.
IGNORE THE TROLLS CLUB
Members:
Buck Fush, JPV, Merlin
Reminder
Don’t Read A Trolls Post
Don’t Respond To A Trolls Post
IGNORE THE TROLLS – Debate good, Trolls bad
Here are the trolls currently posting on TP.
m12, Patrick1, Jake, Valiant Venus, Pres. Clinton, MAF54, Mr. President,
June 14th, 2007 at 2:23 am