Supreme Court rules Gitmo detainees can challenge their detention.
Supreme Court rules Gitmo detainees can challenge their detention.
The Supreme Court ruled today that “foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.” The AP reports:
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts “criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called ‘the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow — the SCOTUS actually upholding the U.S. Constitution. What next?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:15 amdoes this mean that habeus corpus will be re-instated? That will really piss off der furher and 5-deferment Dickhead.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:16 amunfortunately how many detainees didn’t make it this far to be able to challenge their detention?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:19 amUh Oh! I think somebody with a loaded shotgun and a man-sized safe is going to be VERY p!ssed off!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:21 amWow! - a branch of government with balls enough to tell Bush to shove it.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:22 amJohn Roberts is a terrorist. He is doing work for the terrorists who wish to destroy the fabric of democracy.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:24 amwhat’s that coughing I hear?? Why I think its the Constitution…and it’s not quite dead yet!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:25 amHow long until they’re accused of supporting terrorism, surrender, and being defeatists or activist judges?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:25 amBush, teeth grinding and muttering to himself as he searches through his desk in the Oval Office, ‘Dangit! What the hell happened to my rubber stamp?!”
June 12th, 2008 at 10:26 amThank you Justice Kennedy for your words. Our laws and Constitution can survive.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:27 amRoberts says, “‘the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.’” ?????
The Supreme Court says that aliens detained by this country are protected by the CONSTITUTION, but Roberts thinks perhaps the enemy combatant legistlation was more generous in its protections????
Roberts is a hack under whom we will suffer for decades.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amIf I remember correctly, the original court ruling had allowed the government to come up with an administrative hearing process to supplant civilian court proceedings. Bush used his usual common sense approach of creating a rubber stamp system that provided no real review of cases. Bush once again takes a golden opportunity to advance his power because he is unable to restrain his own king like attitude. Of course that is why the constitution has theses provisions in the first place. Now if the court can only revisit the fourth amendment and all those other wonderful provisions that have been trashed by King
June 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amGeorge.
There are definitely legal problems with Gitmo.
But, I don’t think the administration attempts to keep it open, just because they like denying the rights of the detainees.
I think they are concerned that the detainees there pose a significant risk of terrorism.
http://abcnews.go.com/ International/ wireStory?id=4805141
June 12th, 2008 at 10:32 amI’m glad Kennedy did the right thing for a change. It’s generous of the four who have been the lonely only upholders of the Constitution to let him write the majority opinion.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:32 amGet the hell out of here ObamaFan. You show up under a different moniker and try the same shit. Flagged, little guy.
On topic…. This has to piss Boy George off to no end. More reason to vote Obama. McSame would appoint a Roberts clone as soon as he could.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am‘the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.’
_________
Um, prior to the Bush administration, were there any other “aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants?”
As I recall, prior to the Bushco habeas corpus shitfest, our country didn’t HAVE aliens detained as enemy combatants. They were either prisoners of war or criminal suspects awaiting judicial prosecution. We didn’t have the internaitonal legal limbo state of “alien enemy combatants.”
June 12th, 2008 at 10:35 amThe system at Gitmo was a Kangaroo court in the first place. What kind of justice is being run when they can merely ‘dismiss’ a judge that doesn’t make rulings to their liking?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:36 ambackup Says:
I think they are concerned that the detainees there pose a significant risk of terrorism.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
______
So?
That’s what we get for kidnapping people and torturing them.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:37 amBackup - your wrong on both counts. They like keeping it open because placing them there keeps them from asserting their rights. They don’t want them in the US with easy access to US courts where they might actually have to justify what they’ve done and how they believe it comports with US law. Second, the military has admitted that the majority of detainees are not in fact enemy combatants, even under their strained and secredt definition. Therefore, they don’t believe they pose a risk of terrorist activity - unless, of course, we continue to keep them there, in which case they get madder and more deranged by the day (but then, who could really blame them - 6 + years of your life in hell for nothing - absolutely nothing. God bless America).
June 12th, 2008 at 10:38 am6 years!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:39 amyou can hear Bush and Cheney mumbling : “the consti-too-shun–
June 12th, 2008 at 10:40 amit’s just a godamn piece of paper…”
John Roberts is appears to have missed 8th grade civics. “Generous set of protections. . .”? What about the lawfulness of the detention in the first place bush boy?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 amI’d like to put everyone (past and present)of this goddamn admin in the front lines in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. That should be their punishment for the HELL they have caused over the past 8 years.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:44 amhere’s the thing:
elect McCant-hold-my-arm-up
and he’ll stack SCOTUS with more clones of Roberts — and then the decisions will be more like 6-3, 7-2
god help us all.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:48 ambackup,
Tell me again….of the hundreds of men that have been detained as “the worst of the worst terrorists” at Gitmo, how many of them have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses? The answer would be NONE, ZERO, NADA! Over 70% of the alleged terrorists that we have detained there have been released without significant charge (I don’t count immigration violations as a rationale for indefinite imprisonment). Even the men we have there who we do know have been involved in terrorism like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who we should have caught in 1996 - google Gregory Scarpa Jr., Vincent DelVecchio, and Ramzi Yousef) the Bush Administration doesn’t want to give them a day in a real court because we used torture to interrogate them, thereby violating the Geneva Conventions, The UN Council on Torture, and US law. Gitmo should have been closed after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was ruled in Hamdan’s favor. This place has been nothing but a blight on our Democracy and has, significantly, diminished our standing in the world.
If these men pose such a risk, then why wouldn’t we put them through the system, prove the risk they pose, and punish them accordingly? The simple reason is that our government knows that most of these men are guilty of nothing more than being Muslim in the wrong place and at the wrong time. CLOSE GITMO!!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:49 amObama’s going to have the responsibility to protect Americans. Will this response work when we’re attacked in the future?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:50 amwhen we’re attacked in the future?
oh, cripes.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:51 amThis admin attacked us on 9/11/01
and they’ll do it again.
Why all the excitement? Everybody knows that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the fourth branch of government. Dick Cheney can keep torturing Pakistani cabdrivers with no fear.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:52 amEvery time there has been “bad” news for this admin: they issue a “terror” alert.
watch carefully over the next few days.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:53 amLover of Progress Says:
This is a great day for Progress. I hope Obama pardons these prisoners and apologize to them. They should be given American citizenship and College Grants. It’s the least we can do for these peace loving people.
Gee, it is kinda hard to pardon someone who is a “detainee”, not a prisoner and never been to trial and convicted of a crime. (Like Scooter was.)
June 12th, 2008 at 11:01 ambackup; food for thought(if you are capable of thought)
The Constitution is just a God damned piece of paper- George W. Bush(in his) OWN words.
chew on that for a while, then go Cheney yourself.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:02 amScalia is wrong. Intellectual people will never consider imperialism and mineral control to be legitimate wars. And we will never consider “Islamic Terrorists” to be a real actual enemy in a classic war. Too much baggage and too much religiosity in this messed up game.
Right now in Great Britain they are attempting to extend the detention period for suspected terrorists. And they aren’t even fully vested in any type of actual war! Gordon Brown actually said (paraphrased):
In peacetime is the right time to make stiff laws against suspected terrorists
This is the crazy catch-22 non-reality that Mideast meddlers have created for the world.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:02 amgreen.
http://abcnews.go.com/ International/ wireStory?id=4805141
this is one of the guys they felt comfortable letting go.
It’s possible they don’t think they have enough evidence to keep them, but they also feel the risk of releasing them is too great.
If you’re not responsible for protecting Americans, it’s probably an easier call to make.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:04 amFive to four vote. Just remember that this election is all about who will get to pick the next justice. One more far right judge and this country will be on the dark path for a long time to come.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:07 amScary indeed.
.
But, but, but I thought that “TURRISTS” could only get a fair trial if it was partial and private, under circumstances of denied Rights and TORTURE?
What gives… ?
Does this mean that Bush set up a KANGAROO COURT or is he just emulating NAZI courts?
.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:07 amRule of Law? In BushitCo?
I do believe in miracles.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:12 amFunny how a few trolls here are mocking this decision. I wonder how they would feel if they were detained in a foreign country with no right to a lawyer or a trial.
But they probably never leave their mom’s double-wide anyway, so there is little risk of that happening.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:13 amGordon Brown:
It seems to me that in a moment of calm we should put in this legislation [to extend the detention time of suspected terrorists].
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ player/ mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=91415105&m=91415071
This request for extended detention time did not come from the police or intelligence communities.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:15 amLook at the scum that voted against the constitution. This is worthy of impeachment, and it needs to start right now.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:16 amteehee….Chimpy gets a stick in the eye…teehee…
If anyone thinks this makes a difference how Cheeeneey tells his minions to treat detainees ANYWHERE they are kidding themselves…this just means Condi gets to open more secret sites somewhere they have good shoe stores….
These bozos pay no attention to what the courts say, do or think…
June 12th, 2008 at 11:18 amOnce again, pResident Chimpy fails in his attempt to kill the Constitution…
June 12th, 2008 at 11:23 amAs if the NeoFascist administration gives a crap what the Supreme Court says. They will just ignore the ruling, as they have every other one they didn’t like.
It’s time Americans quit pretending we still have a Constitutional government.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:23 amConsidering ‘enemy combatant’ was coined within the last few years, Judge Roberts snarky little comment about affording them the most generous set of procedureal protections rings…rather hollow. EVER afforded them? How about NEVER afforded them? The procedures are definitely protections for the BushCo. form of justice, that’s for sure…
June 12th, 2008 at 11:24 amNot so fast, ThomasMc - just the fact that a majority of the court still managed to get this out and say it should surely give us some hope…
June 12th, 2008 at 11:26 ambackup Says:
There are definitely legal problems with Gitmo.
But, I don’t think the administration attempts to keep it open, just because they like denying the rights of the detainees.
I think they are concerned that the detainees there pose a significant risk of terrorism.
Backup - you flarking STUPID moron, pay attention:
If those men are terrorists, they are terrorists BECAUSE WE MADE THEM TERRORISTS by imprisoning innocent men - and torturing them for years.
What part of that don’t you understand??
June 12th, 2008 at 11:27 amUncle Ho.
I understand that you want to believe that Bush said that about the Constitution. It fits your narrative.
But, be honest. Doesn’t the sourcing seem a little thin to you.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:27 amIf the Bush administration believes these detainees are dangerous, then I have but two words to say:
Convict them
June 12th, 2008 at 11:33 amGuido the Loving OBGYN Says:
Gordon Brown:
It seems to me that in a moment of calm we should put in this legislation [to extend the detention time of suspected terrorists].
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ player/ mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=91415105&m=91415071
This request for extended detention time did not come from the police or intelligence communities.
_______________________________
Magna Carta repealed????? wtf?
Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares
No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,…or in any other way destroyed…except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:36 amWow, today’s threads sure stink of troll feces. I see yet another modification has been made to Roger2x’s name, backup(into the bathroom stall) is around and we have a new undercover concern troll “LOP”. I guess when Boehner was finished crying about the affectiveness of “left wing bloggers” someone at the RNC found a few extra bucks to offer some of their trolls a little overtime. Well, have at it folks. Let the whack-a-mole/flaggings begin!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:36 amOkay. The Bush administration picks up random middle eastern men minding their own business.
Detains and tortures them for 6 years for some reason. Maybe they just hate Arabs.
The detainees get so pissed that when the are released they decide to blow them selves up and take innocent people with them.
Is that about right?
I guess, at some point, you get tortured and jailed so much, that it starts to make sense to kill innocent people.
You’re working pretty hard for the idea that the detainees are just innocent bystanders detained for no reason.
Maybe it’s possible most of the detainees were jihadists to begin with, and the Bush administration is hesitant to release them, because there concerned they’ll commit acts similar to those of the released suicide bomber.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:36 amso they want to do away with the US Constitution and the thing that inspired also!!!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:37 ambackup, perhaps Bush didn’t really call the Constitution a “goddamn piece of paper. But surely with his pushing the unitary executive, warrantless wiretapping, signing statements, and detaining and torture of suspects without trial he is certainly treating it like that.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:37 amoops, inspired it
June 12th, 2008 at 11:38 amforget it, guys, we got two governments from to countries changing our rights and our liberties!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:39 ambackup Says:
I understand that you want to believe that Bush said that about the Constitution. It fits your narrative.
But, be honest. Doesn’t the sourcing seem a little thin to you.
It doesn’t just fit his narrative, it fits Bush/Cheney behavior for the last seven years. If you weren’t so busy being a Bush apologist, you might have noticed.
Here’s something to chew on, from the Cato Institute, which is anything but a leftist organization.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:40 amoops, two
June 12th, 2008 at 11:40 amhey, Guido, was that NPR from today?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:41 amBackup says:
You’re working pretty hard for the idea that the detainees are just innocent bystanders detained for no reason.
No, we aren’t saying anyone is innocent, unlike you who say they are guilty.
That is what an actual trial is for; present the case and get a court decision. But do you now feel that old, worn out concept needs to be flushed along with the rest of the Constitution?
Feel free to enlighten us on this.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:41 amPLC. That is a much more reasonable claim. Progressives are doing the right thing for standing up for the Constitution, but to be fair to Bush, he is currently responsible for defending Americans, it’s possible his initiatives are geared to address that charge.
It will be interesting for me to see how much of Bush’s efforts to protect the homeland Obama will reverse.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:43 amSo now you’re worried about how public pronouncements are going to read elsewhere? Proclsimingg that Americans torture their prisoners, that wedegrade them and play on their deepest sense of decency (attacked by dogs, forced to wear women’s underwear, naked and mocked before women) is now OK with Americans? Does that keep Americans safe?
For all the time that Arab/Islamic terrorists have hated the United States, ordinary Americans have paradoxically been liked and welcomed. There were terrorists who just dismissed human life in general–like Osama Bin Laden. But oridinary Americans could still travel in the Middle East, and the people there could distinguish between the pro-Israel policies of the Government and the friendliness, honesty and decency of ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans were, in fact, one of our greatest weapons against support for terrorism.
But now Americans are committing atrocities. Not only that, but when the photos come to light, they are excused and the practice of torture defended. By the media–which, these days, reaches Damascus and Karachi as easily as Dubuque and Peoria. And while America shrank in revulsion from the revelations of Abu Ghraib, you wouldn’t know it from the media.
All sorts of public statements are issuing from the media and the government, of an America that, when their soldiers shoot up a wedding it’s ignored, or excused, or encouraged. Blackwater mercenaries executing people in broad daylight, raping their own women? Not a word of protest. Instead, what they hear is “Islam is an evil religion” from radio talk-show hosts.
All a young Arab student has to do is log on to FreeRepublic.com to form an opinion of ordinary Americans that will not encourage good feelings towards ordinary Americans.
The one thing that might serve to improve the safety of ordinary Americans is letting people know that the majority of Americans still believe in honor, justice and fairness, even though that hasn’t been in evidence in either the government or the media ove rthe last 6 years. Maybe what we need is a few more people saying that we do know that wrongs have been done in our name, and that that is wrong no matter what the provocation, and that the way to return America to its place of honor and leadership in the world is to say a feww more things like ‘that’s what we get for kidnapping people and torturing them.’
June 12th, 2008 at 11:43 amRoger backed up into a Progressive Lover says:
“Maybe it’s possible most of the detainees were jihadists to begin with, and the Bush administration is hesitant to release them, because there concerned they’ll commit acts similar to those of the released suicide bomber.”
Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately with so much time passed and since their torture induced evidence is inadmissible in court and Team Bush never bothered collecting and documenting admissible evidence against any of these people it seems we may never be able to prove any detainees guilt or lack thereof. It looks like Chimpy is just fine with running out the clock and passing on another of his messes to the next President. Just one more Bush debacle to chalk up!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:43 amNO! we are saying everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty!!!! the key word is proven, proven guilty, not assumed guilty!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:44 amand if you don’t F@#king know, than give ‘em their due write to PROCESS!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:45 amSo much for “that god damned piece of paper” hey shrub?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:47 amoops, I meant right!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:47 ambackup Says:
PLC. That is a much more reasonable claim. Progressives are doing the right thing for standing up for the Constitution, but to be fair to Bush, he is currently responsible for defending Americans, it’s possible his initiatives are geared to address that charge.
Or it’s possible, and far more likely, that his “initiatives” are simply a power grab. He is the President as defined by the Constitution. No excuses. Every President is responsible for defending Americans, but not at the expense of the Constitution. What part of that do you have so much trouble with?
Go read the linked Cato Institute essay. All of it.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:48 amHillary supporters should reread this every day up to November.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:51 amA good day for basic INALIENABLE rights and democracy in America . Allow me to dissent that all it takes to make a terrorist is 6 years in gitmo . The sad reality that most Americans are completely unaware of is that for 60 years the CIA has used assassinations, death squads , economic embargoes of smaller nations , torture , and military coups to provide the cheap resources and labor pool in the 3rd world that makes that junk at the mall we’ve been buying inexpensive (atleast for the wastern consumer ) !
June 12th, 2008 at 11:53 amGot history ?
911 is the day the USA overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile which resulted in the deaths of 30,000 innocent people !
What about the unknown numbers that have been released after years and years of unlawful imprisonment and were found to have not committed a crime. Yet they were kidnapped from their native soil, tortured, and abused without any legal rights or representation. This is beyond medieval.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:54 amThat is what an actual trial is for; present the case and get a court decision. But do you now feel that old, worn out concept needs to be flushed along with the rest of the Constitution?
Feel free to enlighten us on this.
You’re right. But, I would suggest that there are threats that the law doesn’t really address until after the crime is committed.
It’s like a predator stalking a child. It’s possible he (or she) hasn’t broken any laws, but you might suspect it’s coming. The judge can tell you that there’s nothing he (or she) can do, but let the stalker have his liberty.
It would be easy to fight for the stalkers liberty, unless you were responsible for the safety of the child.
Don’t get me wrong, the Constitution is important. It’s essential. Bush may be on the wrong side of this issue. But, I’m playing devil’s advocate and giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think Bush wants to deny the liberty of the detainees as much as he wants to prevent innocent and/or Americans from being the victims of terror attacks.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pmPresidents no longer need the constitution or the congress to go to war , they only take us into conflicts any more , not wars.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pmJohn Roberts where did the concept of an enemy combatant ever come into play previous to Bush ? There were no enemy combatant’s before Bu$h .The term was coined by the same people who brought you signing statements , the unitary executive ,and the patriot act.
DO YOU PEOPLE JUST MAKE THIS STUFF UP AS YOU GO ?
backup Says:
but to be fair to Bush, he is currently responsible for defending Americans
Where, specifically, is he charged with this responsibility?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pmbackup Says:
Don’t get me wrong, the Constitution is important. It’s essential. Bush may be on the wrong side of this issue. But, I’m playing devil’s advocate and giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think Bush wants to deny the liberty of the detainees as much as he wants to prevent innocent and/or Americans from being the victims of terror attacks.
After seven years of Bush shredding the Constitution on multiple issues (go read the essay!), you still give him the “benefit of the doubt.” All this proves is that you’re incapable of learning, which is pretty much what you’ve consistently demonstrated here in the comment section at TP.
It “fits your narrative”, so you persist in blindly supporting Bush and ascribing only good motives to his behavior. You like to pretend you’re just being reasonable, but in reality you’re constantly scrabbling to rationalize Bush’s behavior, no matter how far you have to reach to do so.
It’s pathetic, really.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pmAnyone that gives herr dubyah “the benefit of the doubt” is a complete and utter moron.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pmGee bckup maybe if W wants to protect Amerikans so badly he should just kill and torture everyone else faster.The benefit of the doubt , wake up please ! If after the last several yers of an unelected presidency , and all the transparent powergrabs, criminal acts ,and war crimes, including but not limited to a million dead innocents , you can see giving the benefit of the doubt to these , then I highly doubt your intellectual sincerity .
June 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pmYou probably have a point that it’s not a specific job requirement, but be honest, you don’t think people expect the government to keep them safe from attack?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pmfreeman. we see it differently. The answer will be found, when we see how many of Bush’s initiatives Obama will reverse.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pmI guess, at some point, you get tortured and jailed so much, that it starts to make sense to kill innocent people.
You’re working pretty hard for the idea that the detainees are just innocent bystanders detained for no reason.
what you learn under those conditions is that there ARE no “innocent people” to kill: people are either actively permissive or they are tacitly complicit…
if prisons are the foremost breding grounds for “criminals,” why would anyone think that “terrorist-detention camps”–either at gitmo or in Bagdhad–wouldnt’ be equally successful incubators for future or incipient “terrorists”?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pmYes Backup from all enemies foreign and domestic that seek to undo the US constituion and do harm to our nation and it’s democracy !
June 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pmbackup;
at a meeting of Congressional Rethuglic party leaders in November 2005 in the Ofal Office concerning onerous parts of the unPatriot Act that might alienate conservatives.”mr. President, there is a valid case that the provisions of this law undermine the Constitution.”
I don’t give a goddamn. I’m the president and the commander-in-chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a god damned piece of paper.”- George W. Bush
think about THAT, then go phuck yourself.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pmbackup Says:
Where, specifically, is he charged with this responsibility?
You probably have a point that it’s not a specific job requirement, but be honest, you don’t think people expect the government to keep them safe from attack?
Read the Constitution. The Preamble states that “We, the people,in order to…promote the common defense”. It’s the responsibility of the people to defend themselves, through the granting of powers per the Constitution. And, specifically, the Constitution gives the power of defense against incursion or other threat to Congress, the immediate representatives of the people. The President, as Commander in Chief of the military, is the highest military person but the lowest ranking civilian for the distinct purpose of insuring that the people retain the power to control the military and the defense of the country. Bush’s cabal and power grab through the unitary executive seeks to undermine that hierarchy, trying to make the president the ultimate authority over all civilian and military matters. The founding fathers would be appalled at such a notion of an elected king.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pmProspective punishment of potential ‘criminals’ is the civil (and moral) equivalent of ‘preventative’ war against a sovereign nation.
some of the attitudes exhibited here in some comments ratify one of my more anguished premonitions: not only will the USofA NOT join the rest of the civilized world in banning the death penalty, but it will expand the list of crimes for which it will become virtually mandatory. Sexual molestation of a child, for example, seems a likely candidate.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pmOr to put in Bushese:
We, the people, are the Deciders.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pmYou can doubt my intellectual sincerity, but you must also understand that if your view of the situation is correct, why I’m puzzled that Democrats drag their feet on impeachment.
Without that, your charges only seem to be partisan rhetoric.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pmThe violent radicaliztion and homegrown terrorist act sits in Joe liebermens committee in the US Senate , if this bill doesn’t scare you nothing will . Americans will be monitored and can be declared enemy combattants and arrested without basic rights and without committing a crime .
June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pmPreemptive criminal justice .
Backup
June 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pmI’m an independent and thoroughly disgusted at the Democrats . Elect a democrat and as the saying goes things will just get bad a little slower.
PLC. If your going to blame him for not securing the people of hurricane Katrina, why wouldn’t he think you’d expect him to protect citizen’s from attack?
You set a pretty high (yet uneven) bar, I hope Obama can clear it.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pmI’, also afraid that in the end under Obaa besides a good show as window dressing , items like signing statements and US troops will remain where they are .
June 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pmbackup Says:
PLC. If your going to blame him for not securing the people of hurricane Katrina,
You’re making a huge assumption here about what I think, although you are correct. However, not in the way you might think. I remind you that FEMA was established and funded by legislation, by the representatives of the people, and, therefore, we the people have the right to expect the executive branches of government to execute the policies and procedures. You know, uphold the law.
why wouldn’t he think you’d expect him to protect citizen’s from attack?
The Constitution delineates powers. Put my previous post and the above comment together for the answer to this.
You set a pretty high (yet uneven) bar,
High, yes, which is why I don’t want just any ordinary person to be president. Give me someone elite. Uneven, no.
I hope Obama can clear it.
I doubt you do.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pmThe 2 party system ,the best government money can buy !
June 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pmfreeman Says:
Yes Backup from all enemies foreign and domestic that seek to undo the US constitution and do harm to our nation and it’s democracy !
And I take it that you agree that BushCo has surely done almost irreparable harm to our nation and its Democracy!
June 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pmIt IS good to see that in June of an election year, the trolls have resigned themselves and are looking forward to what PREISDENT OBAMA will “reverse.”
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmfreeman. leadership is not great. it’s obvious when you look at the approval ratings.
I may be naive and a pollyanna, but I think it’s possible that the low approval ratings are relative to the level of expectation.
I hope Obama can be more. But, I assume it’s a difficult job requiring exceptional balance with much more potential for alienating people than garnering their appreciation.
We seem to want government to be all things: protect us from attack, while you follow every rule, champion your ideas without bending the truth, meet every need, bail me out of the mistakes I’ve made, ensure I have work, cheap gas, a home, and a college education.
If we’re tired of being let down by government, maybe instead of looking for different leaders that continue to fail to meet our expectations, we should expect more from ourselves and less from people that, generally, don’t really care.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmbackup says: If we’re tired of being let down by government
We? I’m tired of the anti-government officials, not government itself.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pmPLC. Bush’s approval ratings: 28% Congressional approval: 13%.
I feel pretty confident when I say “we” feel let down by government.
Will a new president and a new congress really solve our problems?
June 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pmwe can agree to disagree on this point.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pmSo, backup, say I get to be president someday. As president, I make the decision with the authority granted to me by the Patriot Act, that you are a terrorist, because of your clear anti-American/anti-Constitution posts here.
Is it ok with you if I sweep you up off the street and put you in Gitmo for 6 years, not allow you to contact your family, speak to a lawyer, sleep in peace (without playing Lawrence Welk and Barry Manilow at all hours of the night at deafening volume), putting underwear on your head, threatening you with ferocious dogs (oops, sorry - Fido BITES! He didn’t mean to, I’m sure!!)…
And then - after those 6 long, long, long years have passed, I say to you, “Sorry, backup, we can’t let you go - because you’re probably so darn mad at us now that you might go out and bomb something.”
I guess that’d be just fine with you, eh? Since President Leftside Annie was only protecting America and all, right…?
Sure. Of course.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pmBackup:
We, the People, backup.
We want to promote the general welfare.
We want to securee the blessings of Liberty.
You believe that helping ordinary people is wrong, wimpy, immature.
I know why, because you believe that the magic of the free market wil magically make everything better if only we refuse to take money from the rich and refuse to help the losers.
Well, I believe in Adam Smith who said in the Wealth of Nations that unless the nation as a whole prospers, riches do not forestall that nation’s collapse and decay. The vast treasures Spain looted from the New World did not boost Spain–but because only the nobility prospered from it, Spainbecame a husk of the nation.
The General Welfare, backup.
To hear the theorists of the time say it, providing Old age pensions, workmen’s compensation, a 40 hour work week,a minimum wage, and the right to organize into unions would destroy the American Economy because it would shackle the great engine of capitalism. Well, we did it anyway, and guess what happened? The United States became the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in the world.
There are many reasons for this–like the fact that an industry needs a consumer base as well as a work force. Captains of industry can’t just ship pig iron back and forth between theirfactories–sooner or later they’ve got to sell stuff, and for that you need people with money and personal security to buy it.
It’s also because ‘losers’ aren’t losers all the time, or at everything. The kid who subsists on food stamps can in fact grow up to be the head of the Harvard Law Review and be sniped at as an elitist. And that a country where if you try and fail you don’t die in the gutter is a country where you can try again, and a country where people are less scared to try the first time.
America today is not filled with losers; it’s filled with people for whom life got a lot more difficult a lot quicker. Gas went up to 4bucks a gallon–and the only hybrids are from Japan. The crisis occurred, and the auto companies ignored, so now the automobile companies are failing too. That’s the triumph of the free market for you.
But it hurts the general welfare. And that makes the country poorer.
What we want government to be is right there on the label.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pmA STANDING OVATION for pbg. Magnificent.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm“Three strikes, you’re out”? Not with this> maladministration. Having flouted the rules (and laws) for so long, why would they now start heeding the dictates of the law instead of just telling the Supreme Court to go sod off as they did the last two times?
Cheers,
June 12th, 2008 at 1:58 pmCHINA has all the freebooting capitalism you could ever want, Backup.
They also have children working as slaves in the factories, air so polluted that it kills people, water so poisoned you can’t drink it, toys and toothpaste full of lead, contaminated food and schools that fall down and kill children when the earth shakes.
Your grandmother died from emphysema? Your grandfather got sick from drinking tap water? Your kid has lead poisoning - and he can’t go to work in the factory? Your other kid was killed when her classroom collapsed in a 4.0 quake?
Too bad, so sad.
You want unbridled, unregulated and unfettered capitalism, backup? Go to China.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:01 pmI have agreed there are legal problems with Gitmo. I’m only suggesting that there are two sides to the Gitmo story.
Let me pose this question to see how far you are willing to go to ensure the liberty of the detainees:
“President Bush, we the people have decided that it in not right to detain those in Gitmo. Objections to letting them go seem to be that you are concerned they will commit future terror acts. We agree to not hold you accountable if they do. Even if you feel they are a threat, we acknowledge what you think, but want Gitmo closed anyway. And agree to take responsibility for whatever acts they engage in. An additional suggestion is that trying the detainees would be so embarrassing to you and your administration, that you refuse to do it. Although we disagree with your policy of detention, we are willing to absolve you of any liability for their unjust detention if you release them immediately.”
June 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pmbackup Says:
Although we disagree with your policy of detention, we are willing to absolve you of any liability for their unjust detention if you release them immediately.”
Is it so hard to fathom?
Rule of Law.
Each and every one of those detainees deserve humane treatment.
They deserve access to their lawyers.
Each deserve to know why they are being held.
Each deserves the right to dispute the charges and have a FAIR trial.
By Law
That also includes absolving Bush from any crimes He Committed.
He deserves to know the charges
He has a right to a lawyer.
He has a right to be treated humanly, even though he denied that right to others.
He deserves a fair trial, with all evidence for prosecution and defense duely presented and not suppressed to insure that fair trial.
The same rights that “goddamned piece of paper” as Bush calls it, provides for also you or me.
Get it yet?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pmHe violated the Constitution.
He has violated his oath of office.
Sorry, backup, that’s just plain stupid.
WE WILL HOLD GEORGE W. BUSH ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING.
Because this whole g*ddamned mess IS HIS FAULT in the first place.
You stupid, stupid, stupid idiot. Why can’t you get that through your head????
June 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pmLet me pose THIS question to you, idiot child:
Let me pose this question to see how far you are willing to go to ensure the liberty of the detainees:
“President Leftside Annie, we the people have decided that it in not right to detain Backup in Gitmo. Objections to letting him/her/it go seem to be that you are concerned he/she/it will commit future terror acts. We agree to not hold you accountable if Backup goes insane and kills the first person he/she/it sees. Even if you feel he/she/it is a threat, we acknowledge what you think, but want Gitmo closed anyway. And agree to take responsibility for whatever acts Backup engages in. An additional suggestion is that trying Backup would be so embarrassing to you and your administration, that you refuse to do it. Although we disagree with your policy of detention, we are willing to absolve you of any liability for Backup’s unjust detention if you release him/her/it immediately.”
Let me know if that’s all ok with you. Idiot.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pmI guess we’ll just have to keep you in prison for the rest of your life, Backup. Hope you understand that I, ah, kinda blew it when I arrested you, and compounded my error by holding you in prison against your will and without a trial for 6 years.
Well, and now, I just can’t let you go, because you just might be …ah, *annoyed* at me.
You see how it is, right, Backup? You understand, right?
Sorry, old chap, I’m sure you won’t hold that against me.
~President Leftside Annie
June 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm>I don’t think Bush wants to
> deny the liberty of the detainees
unless you can promise me that every single president who comes after bush will be more honest than he, what’s going specifically in the mind of bush is irrelevant. its about the power we give to people in his position. and the people you’re playing advocate for are arguing they should be able to do whatever they want, they are arguing they should able to sexually torture children, all with nothing to keep them in check but their own good judgement. now if you really want to put this much power in the hands of peoeople who, a scant few years ago were insisting they knew exactly where saddams weapons were, more power to ya .
i just think any responsible constituional scholar would think you are crazy. the argument that “bad things have happened and bad people have escaped punishment” if we enforce the constition could be applied to just about ANY part of the constitution, if we used your logic we wouldnt have any freedumbs but hey, at least very little bad would happen, right?
im as much of a doubting thomas as anyone, and belive me, i question everything i beleive. but if your going to throw your lot in with people who claim they should have the right to sexually torture children with impunity, im going to stop listening at some point.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pmYou’re right. there is some obvious trade off between security and liberty. If we agree that government has to allow some jeopardy to our security (by trying the detainees and foregoing the idea of pre-emption) to permit a more universal liberty in a free world, I agree. I only think, when our security is breached in the future (either under Bush, Obama, or McCain, or whomever), we should remember that it was a conscious choice to trade that security for liberty. And we should not point to failure of leadership, but to a collective conscious choice to value liberty over security.
You’ve changed my mind on this subject, the detainees at Guantanomo deserve a fair trial. If they’re released and commit terror acts, it’s still better than denying the principle that people deserve the right to a fair trial.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pmWell backup if you refrain from telling me you believe the free market can sort out every issues of morality and decency I might begin to think we are really on the same page .
June 12th, 2008 at 5:57 pmThe democrats have stood by , aided and abetted the bush administration at every turn thru the last several sorry years. Many of the posters here believe a new and democratic president will roll back the changes that the neo con’s have wrought to our system of laws and restore integrity to the US government , I have my EXTREME doubts .
I’m with Ralph Nader , the US government must not be sold or held hostage to multi billion dollar international corporations , whose products are increasingly produced in outside the US under working conditions that the our ancestors succeeded in ending in the US 100 years ago and for slave wages .These corporations pay virtually no taxes to the American people and their future is assuredly in opening up markets in China and India ,although at present they still need the American middle class to launch themselves into a business plan that makes America all but irrelevant except perhaps when perhaps they need an army .
freeman. I’m sure we’ll still disagree on a lot. I still believe there are two sides to the Gitmo story. But, posters here have convinced me the progressive argument makes more sense. The liberty of the detainees (and more importantly, the American commitment to the principle of liberty itself) is more important than our security. Give them a trial. If we can’t justify holding them, let them go.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pmThe democrats have alot to be sorry for , The Patriot act, domestic spying without warrants , no meaningful attempt at ending the Iraq War and it’s millions of dead and refugeed ,signing statements , which correct me if I’m wrong is an issue about which Obama hasn’t made a comment on but which I’m worried will be allowed to remain long after Bu$h is long gone , unchallenged use of signing statements , ect.I I place into public evidence opinion polls on congressional approval as certain proof that I am not the only American citizen who is disgusted at the democrats as well as the republican enablers in our government .
June 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pmImpeach now Nancy before you bury both parties in the wake of this fiasco.Impeachment is the constitutional remedy as set forth by our nations founders as a remedy for treason and while Mrs pelosi took it off the table at least it is apart of constitutional law as opposed to signing statements which the democrats seem to have no problem with .
I’m sorry to say that while I do believe there is a differnce between the 2 parties , the largest differnce is in the volumes of money they take and from which corporations ! I have heard it said that great minds think alike but in my experience where eveyone thinks alike no one is thinking very much .
June 12th, 2008 at 6:18 pmDifference now thats a word .
June 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pmI bet Tony doesn’t get to go Duck Hunting this fall…or if he does he may want to walk BEHIND his ol’buddy shooter
June 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm