It's funny, he did not mind when the 5-4 vote elected him as president. He called that a mandate.
Now read this from CNN:


In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

I don't like the vote either.

These terrorists are trying to cut off our heads and leftist judges want to play patty-cake with them.

Sorry.

This one will be overturned once Mr. McCain appoints Ralph Reed as the next Supreme Court justice.

Herbert Milhous Bork

I do not agree with the torture of these people. Mostly because of the poor treatment any US prisoners are likely to get as a result.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"

We're not talking about torture.

Mr. McCain is against torture and HE has a problem with the split decision.

Yet another reason to boot Ruth 'aclu' Bader Ginsberg.

Herb

Herb, you're the most un-American person I've ever met.

These people should either be tried and convicted or let go. Otherwise, they're hostages.

Yep, just let them go out the gate down there and they can find their own way home.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Mr. Herb, how will providing a fair trial to the prisoners create more terrorism?

Has Clarence Thomas asked a question yet? Does he still drink Coca-cola?

My understanding is that the last time Thomas asked a question in court was Feb. 22, 2006.

So, thanks to a close 5-4 decision we continue to obey the Army Field Manual, the Geneva Conventions and our own Constitution by offering a fair trial to prisoners. Good.

America is safer when we show everyone that we still follow the rule of law.

We could solve this while problem for everybody by a simple policy of "take no prisoners".

Don't Choke Em' Smoke Em'.

That one did not work so well as I remember!

Knowing how Bush never follows the law as written, I'm sure he and Cheney will gather their friends from the Federalist Society together to find away to void the Supreme Court and continue this kangaroo mockery of the rule of law. Maybe Bush will pull a Musharaff, fire those who wrote the majority opinion, and appoint eunuchs to serve in their stead.

"Mr. Herb, how will providing a fair trial to the prisoners create more terrorism?"

They'll get off by using our leftist-tainted judicial system which gives more rights to a dog than a child being born.

On this one, Michael Savage is right.

Herb

I'll send out some cheese to go with all that whine.

>>America is safer

Yes! America is safer til today...or when these Islamic Terrorist be let go...good grief...they're part of the reason we have NOT had another 9-11...cause their in the slammer.
Guess we need another catastrophic event to wake us/US up??? Their are millions of people that want to kill us/US...get a clue!

" they're part of the reason we have NOT had another 9-11...cause their in the slammer."

All the detainees at Gitmo are guilty?

How could you possibly know that?

I just don't think we should worry about them when they've got 3 hots [all Muslim-approved according to their dietary laws, no less], a cot, plus plenty of leisure time and a Koran.

Tieing up our judicial system with these enemy combatants is ridiculous. They are not wearing a uniform and under the Geneva Convention could be shot as spies. I'm all for being humane. But let's not let them tangle us up for years. Maybe we should have handed them all over to the Israelis.

Herb

"All the detainees at Gitmo are guilty?"

They're guilty of being Muslim.
That's all it takes for religious bigots.

Go ahead and play the bigot card, just like OJ played the race card.

It doesn't wash here.

These guys want to cut your head off. It's fine if the whole lot of self-hating, guilt-ridden , hand-wringing liberals wants to give 'em a pass with your own lives.

Just don't include the rest of us in your folly.

Herb

We can thank George W. Bush for fostering an indescribable degree of intolerance to the rest of the world. But given George W. Bush’s stated desire for Armageddon, we shouldn’t put anything past him. I’m sure he saw Saddam Hussein as the anti-Christ, per whispers from lamebrains like Hal Lindsey and the evangelical right. They’ve been preaching this garbage for years, looking for the perfect opportunity to start World War III.

First of all they should not be tried in any US court system. There needs to be a world court and then thier fates can be decided by that. For the US to bear the brunt of the costs for terrorist proceedings is rediculous when you consider that there are more terrorist acts carried out in Europe than in the US. Why is America all of a sudden the world police force for terrorism? The UN is a frickin' joke and the building should be leveled. Hell, the peace corps would have better success in fighting terrorism than the UN!

>> Why is America all of a sudden the world police force for terrorism?

DT...agreed!

Broadway, you should ask that of George W. Bush. He's the one speaking about the Axis of Evil.

>>the Axis of Evil.

anyone wanting your head off...

Herb, what you're conveniently ignoring is that there has been no proof presented to a jury that these "detainees" are guilty of anything. If they are guilty, try them and put them away. If it's such a slam dunk, AS YOU ASSUME, then trying them should be no big deal. But to keep them jailed indefinitely is ridiculous. If these detainees in Gitmo were Americans being held by another government, we'd be calling them hostages.

" These guys want to cut your head off. It's fine if the whole lot of self-hating, guilt-ridden , hand-wringing liberals wants to give 'em a pass with your own lives."

You could use a little more guilt in your life, Herb. But, you know, God told Bush to do this ( I know it's used as a punchline. But I have to cite it to laugh, because if I remind people that it was actually said AND belived to and by Bush, I'll cry ) so it's ordained and biblical. God can't be wrong - therfore everything that has been done was right.

Unless, of course, God didn't actully say anything to Bush and we are being punished by God for Bush lying about that too.

Which brings up an intersting philosophical idea; Ahhhh...you know what? Forget it. It'll just get turned around into something it's not and never actually answered by those who used to support the war and still do. It's pointless to have me ask any serious question about this. Nobody can answer it.

See? I DO have self control. I'm learning.

But we are being punished by God. From 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, AIDS to homosexuality, God is punishing us. Just ask two of the most revered theologians since Martin Luther and the Apostle Paul, Pat Robertson and the late great Jerry Farwell. Why should we not believe these two? Nobody can steer a hurricane away like the reputed bigot, diamond merchant and hack theologian Pat Robertson as well as leader of the putridly pious Moral Majority and knower of all things gay the late Jerry Farwell.

Herb, you're the most un-American person I've ever met.


I second that. Bad for America!

On this one, Michael Savage is right.

America's biggest talk show BIGOT is NEVER right. He's a RADICAL FundaMENTAList. EXTREME RIGHT-ism is America's worst illness!

...wait for it...God punishes the ones he loves...it's coming...

>>America's biggest talk show BIGOT is NEVER right. He's a RADICAL FundaMENTAList. EXTREME RIGHT-ism is America's worst illness!

Hey I agree somewhat about Savage...he's really out there even for me and not a good spokesperson for the right....way to far if off the chart and not relevent though gets numbers so what gives?

'If they are guilty, try them and put them away. If it's such a slam dunk, AS YOU ASSUME, then trying them should be no big deal.'

You've laid out the essence of the issue, Vitalogy.

Herb

>>God punishes the ones he loves

Think your refering to Hebrews 12...The Message version

Have you forgotten how good parents treat children, and that God regards you as his children? My dear child, don't shrug off God's discipline, but don't be crushed by it either.
It's the child he loves that he disciplines;
the child he embraces, he also corrects.
God is educating you; that's why you must never drop out. He's treating you as dear children. This trouble you're in isn't punishment; it's training, the normal experience of children. Only irresponsible parents leave children to fend for themselves. Would you prefer an irresponsible God? We respect our own parents for training and not spoiling us, so why not embrace God's training so we can truly live? While we were children, our parents did what seemed best to them. But God is doing what is best for us, training us to live God's holy best. At the time, discipline isn't much fun. It always feels like it's going against the grain. Later, of course, it pays off handsomely, for it's the well-trained who find themselves mature in their relationship with God.

"...wait for it...God punishes the ones he loves...it's coming..."

No Shite!

CJ: Thanks SO much for opening THAT door for Broadway.

Does anyone here actually read (not skim), appreciate, or enjoy this kind of preaching post on non-appropriate threads on this board?

(Besides Herb, Wayne and Marvin?)


Just asking.

Generally no.

However, I've entertained a few of them, largely wanting to ferret out what variation Broadway subscribes to.

Mostly seen enough now.

Always appreciate the opportunity to explain myself and my God. I only respond/give opinions...you have yours...I have mine....and we all get off topic from initial threads so...

I'm in agreement of Scalia in yest decision..."the nation will live to regret what the court has done today" Sadly profound.

I suppose you leftists would prefer the variation of God talk of accused liberal paedophile Bernie Ward?

I've never understood how such a small percentage of the population could affect the rest of us so much, in a negative way.

Observing that dynamic here has cleared that up, and causes me to pose a query:

How much grease does does the damn squeaky wheel need?

How much grease does does the damn squeaky wheel need?

That question does put an interesting spin on our current energy crisis and the war. I guess we gotta keep that black gold flowing through the yowling bearings and wailing hub.

It's unfortunate that certain people here tend to "LABEL" democrats as Leftists and "ASS-UME" them to be non GOD-fearing people. It's just like racism and it's wrong to believe the the extreme right religious zeolots are the only ones who have faith. Why don't you start using terms like atheists, believers, and fanatics and try not to pin any one type of belief system to a political party. The Democratic may be more liberal than the Republicans but maybe it's just that they believe in the Constitution of the United States and the freedom's guaranteed within that document and also believe that when given those freedom's people can use them responsibly.
I consider myself a Republocrat.

PS...It's way past due though to Tar and Feather that Carpet Bagger and run him out of office!

Does anyone here actually read (not skim), appreciate, or enjoy this kind of preaching post on non-appropriate threads on this board?

Yes. It sometimes reads like a bottle of Dr. Bronner's, but not in a good way. Maybe I am the only one who reads quirky preachy soap bottles when I sit on the can.

I consider myself a Republocrat.

Great way to put it DT!

Hmmmm.... I think maybe I am more like a Demoralican! Part Democrat, A bit of Liberal And a touch of republican.

Now, If I were not part Republican, I would be just be in the feel good party, "Demoral".

And for the record a believer in GOD!

"'the nation will live to regret what the court has done today' Sadly profound."

No...just sad. The Supreme Court upholds a key constitutional principle and Scalia demeans it. He is either a right-wing idealogue that has abandoned his judicial objectivity, or he believes more in the power of terrorism to destroy America than in America's strength and ability to withstand such low, heinous and cowardly attacks.

The terrorists will never be able to destroy America, but if we allow them to frighten us sufficiently, we will destroy it from within for them.

Entre' I think it's as much grease as it can get.

There never is enough. Comes down to core control issues and insecurities, IMHO.

Both of which really can't be cured from more control, but feel better with it for a time. The real disease lies deeper than that, but they don't know it, so they squeak, and squeak....

>>The terrorists will never be able to destroy America

Good grief...letting them out of jail to repeat their mandates of killing us/US one at a time fullfills their agenda...let's protect Americans and America.

>>but if we allow them to frighten us sufficiently

I want protection for me and my family for someone who wants to chop my head off...a reality to be concerned about...if we protect ourselves we live and cannot destroy ourselves.

You are confusing due process of law with being set free. Justice is very important in maintaining our freedoms. Fear is not a solid reason to discard the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

My lord, the smallness of some people's thought processess sometimes astounds me!

Nobody is saying just set them free. But to hold people indefinitely without trying them is no different than nabbing someone of the street and putting them away. Just imagine if China swept up a few hundred Americans, locked them up as "enemy combatants" and never let them go? We'd call those people HOSTAGES!

If they are indeed as dangerous as we've been told, then try them, convict them, and put them away. Otherwise, our actions are no different than when Iran held Americans hostage.

Forget about the bragging that this is another slam against Bush.

Look at the bigger picture. This Supreme Court ruling effectively says the U.S. Constitution now applies to everyone in the world, not just to people within the borders of the U.S. This is a crazy, senseless decision, and ignores over 200 years of Constitutional law and the concept of the rule of law.

The Supreme Court had no business ignoring the time-honored legal concept of stare decisis, aka precedent. They're didn't interpret law, they made new law.

Of course, former ACLU Chief Counsel and now Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg has been trying to work international law into Supreme Court decisions ever since Clinton appointed her.

It's true. Our nation will regret this decision for many years to come.

Bullshit. The only regret is that so-called Americans like yourself are okay with keeping hostages indefinitely without proving their guilt.

Let me ask those that are against this decision: If you were in a foreign country and were jailed, wouldn't you want to have your day in court? Or would you be okay with being locked up indefinitely?

Like I've said, if these guys are as guilty as Bush has assumed, what's the fear in trying them? Could it be that just maybe we are holding innocents??

More proof that McCain will be a third term of Bush:

In a five-to-four decision, the Court determined that suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base have the right to appeal their detention in federal court. This is a major victory for everyone who cares about civil liberties, human rights, and America's standing in the world.

Barack Obama praised this ruling -- demonstrating his respect for our civil liberties and showing his commitment to keeping us safe while restoring the rights that have been stripped away by George W. Bush.

But the only way to restore and protect these rights is by defeating John McCain and bringing meaningful change to Washington.

That won't happen without your help. Take a stand now and grow our movement -- reach out to your friends and family who share your concerns about civil liberties. Ask them to join you in showing their support for the Supreme Court's decision and for this campaign.

John McCain and George W. Bush had a very different take on yesterday's decision.
"I strongly agree with [the justices] who dissented," said Bush. McCain struck a similar note, saying, "The decision obviously concerns me."

This episode is another reminder that John McCain is fighting to continue George Bush's policies for a third term.

John McCain has shown his willingness to compromise basic rights that are at the core of American justice and the rule of law. He seems willing to turn a blind eye to the suspension of habeas corpus and the mistreatment of prisoners that have destroyed our country's reputation in the world.

Barack Obama will fight terrorism aggressively and keep every American safe -- while preserving our sacred civil liberties.

Spot on, Wobboh.

Justice Bader Ginsburg is a total pinko.

Just like the missile-document-selling president who appointed her.

Herb

"Look at the bigger picture. This Supreme Court ruling effectively says the U.S. Constitution now applies to everyone in the world, not just to people within the borders of the U.S."

Is not Guantanamo U.S. soil? If overseas bases are not US soil, then John McCain is not qualified as a natural born citizen to run for president, since he was born at a U.S. military base in Panama.

But if these civilians are in US custody in a US facility, they are entitled to the same protections of the Constitution as any one legally on our soil, not just citizens. By default, the constitutional rights and rules of a society come into effect the moment you step foot on that country's soil.

Of course, you can sidestep the Constitution (as Bush has become quite practiced at) and hold these prisoners in 'secret prisons' of foreign governments. Then, with the consent of that government, you can imprison and torture to your hearts content, being accountable only to your conscience.

"Barack Obama will fight terrorism aggressively and keep every American safe -- while preserving our sacred civil liberties."

The worst part is that you actually believe this crap.

What regard has Bush had for our rights and liberties, Deane?

Someone once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Bush is basically saying "If it's liberty or safety, gimme safety." Sad thing is, he is giving us neither.

Justice Bader Ginsburg is a total pinko.

No more than the EXTREME REICH that preside over the bench being Fascists.

The real pinkos are ones that jail people on a whim and leave them there to rot without trial.

Naw, the real pinkos are those who embolden terrorists wishing to cut off our heads.

Herb

You don't think we are emboldening our enemies by jailing people indefinitely without trial? How pissed would the US be at China if they detained a few hundred Americans during the Olympics and held them indefinitely as spies?

Please, someone answer this simple question: What's the fear in trying these so-called terrorists?

"What regard has Bush had for our rights and liberties, Deane? "

I don't feel the least bit encroached on. I've never figured out what all the hubbub is about.

If Senator McCain's position was used by Vietnam, Senator McCain would still be in prison as an enemy combatant to the government.

Does John McCain really think he should still be in a Vietnam prison?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-- Pastor Martin Niemoller

I don't feel the least bit encroached on. I've never figured out what all the hubbub is about.

Radical Extremists NEVER do....

Naw, the real pinkos are those who embolden terrorists wishing to cut off our heads.

That would be YOUR side. BOMB BOMB BOMB! KILL Innocents! Kill UNborn babies in the wombs of young women!!!! Thanks for GIVING the terrorists the CAUSE to kill any of us!

Vit>>Please, someone answer this simple question: What's the fear in trying these so-called terrorists?

(Crickets chirping ... then deafening silence.)

The 23 percenters have clammed up in their corners again as usual.

The bottom line of this Supreme Court ruling will prove totally meaningless, as previous similar rulings have, as long as the little boy in charge knows there are no consequences to his actions. "Spare the rod, spoil the child," as the Bible says.

The Democrats in Congress and Senate are just as guilty as Bush and Company until they are willing to give Bush and Cheney THEIR days in court.

Damn right!

Law means nothing if we don't do the work to give it meaning.

Pelosi is making a big mistake, thinking that there is some political advantage in continuing to set the expectation that we can and should let a President abuse us with no real consequences.

Go Wexler and Kuchinish (however you spell it.)

Norms are almost as powerful as law is. If we let these clowns off, the norm then is that we elect a leader and accept that leader no matter what.

That's not the norm I want set. Our leader should fear us --know they would be checked, leaving them to serve us well, just as they would like to be served when it's not their time to lead.

Our founders knew this, lived this, tried to build a society where this would happen. We let them down this time around. Well, maybe. There is time yet.

"That's not the norm I want set."

Let's see what kind of a pass you continue to give on norms for future liberal elected officials, i.e., 'no one died when Clinton lied,' blah, blah, blah.

That's the problem...when your own guys get in, the norm gets relaxed no differently than with those against whom you rail.

Herb

This is one of the worst decisions ever from the Supreme Court. Nothing in the Constitution applies to people from other countries. ACLU resident Communist Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been trying to have International Law override our Constitution ever since her appointment.

The Supreme Court should not be making these decisions, Congress should. If Congress doesn't want these guys held, then they should pass a law that the Administration can't hold them without certain due process.

Hiring them liberal lawyers to get them freed on technicalities is not in our best interest. Do we want an island full of OJs?

We don't want this country run by court judges, we want it ran by elected officials.

>>Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been trying to have International Law override our Constitution

so much for the wisdom of (some) our Supremes...very sad.


>>Nothing in the Constitution applies to people from other countries

we had a plan that made sense but Bush was tardy in implementing it so that might be the cause for the ruling to go though.

No, we want it run by our representative government that is for us, by us and of us.

That means checks and balances across the board.

The SCOTUS reaffirmed this with this ruling.

Habius Corpus is long established law, time tested and proven worthy. If they are actually terrorists, then they will be found as such and dealt with as such.

If we cannot really establish they are terrorists, and or we have abused our position trying to get that established, then they are entitled to their day in court to have all that decided.

I hear this a lot. Say we've got a criminal of some kind, and the police abuse their position in an attempt to get them convicted.

That's not a just and true decision then, and it's wrong, and the price we pay for that is not being able to put that criminal behind bars.

It's also protection against people being framed or abused politically, or for reasons of revenge, etc...

Deane, didn't you go to school --even primary school?

Our Constitution limits the power of OUR GOVERNMENT over US AS FREE PEOPLE. In fact, the default assumption is that PEOPLE are free, and that's anybody.

You don't get to be free because you are an American, you are free as a human and are lucky as hell to have us Americans building and employing a system of government that respects that freedom.

Do you even know where the authority of our government comes from? (doubt it) It comes from the mutual consent of those so governed. Basically, we recognize that our quality of life is improved if we have government, and that's really it.

There is no magic entitlement, no better people, no royalty, no wealth that grants this, only the consent of the governed.

If, our government is not serving us well, it is our duty as citizens and fellow people to rise up and deal with that for all of our own good.

The government works for us, not the other way around.

Talk about a technicality! That's one big enough to drive a truck through.

BTW: We also agreed to this stuff via treaty, which we violated. Hell, we withdrew from the human rights council of the UN. Why? Because we are violating those rights big time, every single day. That's a high crime and somebody needs to pay for that.

Either we can deal in this world as Americans, or we can't.

You are saying we can't and that all we stand for is off the table. Sorry, but that's just crap.

I think one of the first things we need to do is mandatory civic service and education for every American, and just keep doing that until this crap sinks in.

Lord knows public education clearly isn't getting it done.

You are a chicken shit, scared person --all of you that think this ruling is bad. It's easy to find ways to just hammer on people and feel good about it --safer about it.

It's a lot harder to step up and apply the law, do the work, and sort them out in a humane and rational fashion.

The latter is what Americans do. The former is what lazy, scared people do.

I'm embarrassed to even have this conversation. You all should be ashamed. (and you know who you are)

Herb, I hammered Clinton plenty for his bad decisions. Continuing with these horrible global "free" trade agreements is one area I'm not happy with his performance on.

Deregulating media too much is another.

Lying is a third.

I just don't think that lie was worth removing him as President. Clearly I'm in the majority on that, or he would have been removed.

When Obama gets elected, he's gonna have his feet to the fire like everybody else.

You can try that "give liberals a pass bit", but it just won't fly. The core things about our nation are not partisan things. Our shared common interests are not partisan things.

When those things are not handled properly, count on me speaking up about it and acting on it.

That's my end of the social contract that governs us, and I am totally ok with pulling my weight, no matter who is President.

Core human rights and freedoms are exactly the same way. I support the ACLU, for exactly this reason. I want every last infringement on our freedoms, that is not a demonstrable harm, checked and checked hard.

That's only gonna happen with our courts hearing cases with strong arguments from both sides, and with politicians actually legislating in our interests, not those of the corporation or the wealthy.

Those two can just suck it, from my perspective.

We, the people, come first.

Missing, where we disagree is that our Constitution was not framed to protect non-U.S. citizens or foreign governments. It was not framed to give enemy combatants protection.

The Geneva Convention protects combat soldiers of another nation. Which nation does Al-quida belong to?

What's going on here is a liberal effort to drag us into a world government. No thanks.

It was framed to limit the power our government has over us the people, end of story.

I don't want a world government actually. I want our government, working as well as it can, putting the pressure on other nations to step up and do the right thing.

We won't get that, if we allow this bull shit kind of reasoning to continue.

Geneva is about human rights. War, no war, we are all people with families in the end.

As people, we need to remember what it means to be people.

If we have real terrorists, then our laws are plenty good to convict them and bring them to justice. There is NO need for all this rendition, secret courts, torture and other crap from the dark ages.

NONE.

Deane, you sound like a parrot repeating the garbage you hear on your conservative radio and TV shows.

Seriously, nobody has even offered to debate me on this subject. I want to know the following from Herb and Deane:

1. What's the fear in trying these so-called terrorists?

2. Do you believe the US has the authority to jail people indefinitely without trial, citizens or not?

3. If China operated a "Gitmo" which held US citizens just like we are doing to other countries citizens, would you be okay with this?

Please do this.

I would so love to watch you both get your asses handed to you.

Studies are showing that the majority of the so-called terrorists at Gitmo were set up by the real terrorists, so that means the Bush administration is helping the terrorists fight our allies.

>>fear in trying these so-called terrorists
>>jail people indefinitely without trial, citizens or not?

no fear...there was a plan by our government...just took/taken tooooooo long thus the ruleing.

>>If China operated a "Gitmo"

you cannot compare the US and communistic countries and prison treatment. Their historys are apples and oranges.

>>asses handed to you.

physically impossible.

Broadway, if a family member of yours was swept up by a foreign government and labeled an "enemy combatant" and held indefinitely, how would this make you feel?

And, the debate is not how they are treated while in detention, it's the fact that they are DETAINED without the ability to challenge the detention. Communist or not, we are no better in our actions because we are essentially holding hostages. Gitmo is a modern day internment camp and it's shameful that any American would support such policies.

I want to know the following from Herb and Deane:

1. What's the fear in trying these so-called terrorists?

Fear? It's about being in a war and not rolling over. The terrorists are laughing at those who make it easy for them to fly planes into buildings, give them 3 Koran-approved hots and a cot, then help with their own legal defense during a time of war.
2. Do you believe the US has the authority to jail people indefinitely without trial, citizens or not?

They're getting a trial. But yes anyway, during wartime, with enemy combatants who wear no uniform and represent only a belief system. The Geneva Convention does not apply here.

3. If China operated a "Gitmo" which held US citizens just like we are doing to other countries citizens, would you be okay with this?

Great hypothetical. Are we at war? Are our people spies not wearing a uniform? What is the result of the hearings?

Abraham Lincoln and FDR both suspended Habeas Corpus during war. And the democrat FDR was no lily-liver, as 6 of them were electrocuted:

http://www.uboat.net/ops/agents1942.htm

"Roosevelt ordered that a military tribunal would trial the case, the first time such a tribunal had been set up since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

The trial last most of July and the prosecution asked for the death penalty, the standard punishment for espionage during wartime. Due to the co-operation of Dasch and Burger it was difficult to sentence them to death. Burger was give life of hard labour while Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison. The other 6 members of the teams were electrocuted at the Distinct Jail in Washington D.C. on 8 August, 1942."

You leftists can cut slack for those who wish to cut off your own head. But you only will bring us all down with you. Our laws are only as good as the justices who interpret them, and I have little confidence that liberal judges will do the right thing.

Herb

What country have we formally declared war with?

Hey, I know, what say we setup those camps like in WWII so that if a person is from the middle east they should be put there! What crime did Japanaese/Americans commit back then other than most of them being hard working American citizens?

Absolute power corrupt's absolutely!

Herb, you gave it a good shot, but you didn't really answer my questions. They are yes or no answers.

So, based on your answers, I can only sumarize that you do have a fear in trying these detainees, you believe that the US has the authority to do whatever it wants, and that you'd be upset as hell if China held our people like we hold others.

This is a hypocritical stance. You're okay doing it to others, but you wouldn't want it done to you.

And, last time I checked, there has been no declaration of war. So, China could do as they please just like we are doing.

>>if a family member of yours was swept up by a foreign government and labeled an "enemy combatant" and held indefinitely

were talking known Nazi radical Islamic terrorists here...pretty bad guys...to compare that to my family...cannot relate to question.

Again the government had/has a plan...just taken tooooo long to implement. One of the guys they let out went back to the mid east and blew himself up along with others...what gives!???

"were talking known Nazi radical Islamic terrorists here...pretty bad guys...to compare that to my family...cannot relate to question."

Broadway, how do we know they are what you are being told they are? Do you just take our government's word and that's good enough for you? All China would have to do is label your family as terrorists and they can hold them indefinitely. Would this be okay with you?

"One of the guys they let out went back to the mid east and blew himself up along with others...what gives!???"

And how many criminals in our justice system serve their time and then get out and commit more crimes? While it would be nice to hold people who we "think" will commit more crimes longer, it's not the way it works.

>>Do you just take our government's word and that's good enough for you

Who do you trust more...Bush or any communistic leader of the world?

>>And how many criminals in our justice system serve their time and then get out and commit more crimes?

I rest my case...

Oh My God!

You actually buy that crap Broadway?

>>buy that crap

can't afford with todays gas prices...not implying that I have made purchases in the past...into cleaner/less putrid ideas...

You know exactly what I mean. There are no easy outs on this stuff.

All I know is that I would not feel very good about that at all.

"Who do you trust more...Bush or any communistic leader of the world?"

I trust neither. And the same would be said if Obama, Kerry, or Gore were pushing the same agenda.

I believe in "trust but verify". You are willing to trust but unwilling to verify, which is scary.

Here is the latest from Guantanamo.

Littlesongs, we are wasting our breath. The Neocons on this site are either illiterate or too brainwashed by drinking Bush's Kool-Aid. They cannot handle the truth.

Their philosophy is "If they ain't white, were gonna indite."

Captaindan, that's really heavy.

LOL!!!

(hey, we gotta laugh a little or it gets ugly)

She’s so heavy heavy, heavy, heavy.

She's so heavy
She's so heavy, heavy, heavy

Deane, sorry dude, but I am no heavier than those who refuse to believe in the right of innocence before trial and due process for all we prosecute, for that is what sets us apart from the terrorists.

"or that is what sets us apart from the terrorists."

We're just a bit further apart than you apparently realize. They saw peoples heads off. We kiss there ass and provide them with all sorts of amenities, including religious sensitivity and diet, not to mention top notch medical, better than what some get in this country.

Given that the public can't always know every detail of what goes on with our government's most sensitive security and interrogation systems, no one, myself included, has all the information that would be desirable to make an informed decision on dealing with those being held at Guantanamo.

That having been said, let's hear just how much money and tangling up of our legal system the left is willing to provide for those who are not American citizens and instead of paying taxes, are doing their level best to kill us, their sworn enemy.

The left is attempting to equate the rights of lawful Americans with those who are not American citizens, but combatants in a war in which our opponents are little more than spies.

I'm all for human rights, and am quick to go the extra mile 'beyond the basics' for those whom such rights are appropriate. In fact, we've already done that. I seem to recall our prisoners being reviewed by the Red Cross or Red Crescent to ensure they are not abused.
Herb

WOW!
Herb and DJ against everyone.... Glad to see that the EXTREME RADICAL right is gettin' the one two punch.
KEEP IT UP GUYS!

The only extreme radicals here are you and your leftist pals. We all saw you throw Mr. McCain under the bus, you duplicitous democrat.

Herb

How much legal?

As much as it takes. We don't punish those we don't know are deserving of the punishment.

This is really basic stuff.

I'm hearing "they want to cut off our heads"

Ok, so that's bad right?

Do we know those guys at gitmo are actually those people that want to cut off heads? Secondly, have they tried cutting off heads, with or with out success?

Or, are they some chumps given up to us to satisfy the bounty we put out there?

The only extreme radicals here are you and your leftist pals.

That's a load of crap!

"We kiss there ass and provide them with all sorts of amenities, including religious sensitivity and diet, not to mention top notch medical, better than what some get in this country."

What about sticking their Koran in the toilet, beating them, treating them like dogs, etc.

Yoy keep saying head choppers, but there is no proof yet that we have any of those yet at Gitmo.

So because we don't want to tie up the courts and spend money, it's okay to jail people indefinitely?

Again, nobody has bothered to answer me on this: What if some other country did this to a US citizen? Declared them an enemby combatant and put them away indefintely?

Face it, we are no better than the terrorists when we behave like this. No wonder we've lost the respect of the rest of the world.

Oh and life is precious.... unless it actually costs some money to deal with.

"Do we know those guys at gitmo are actually those people that want to cut off heads?"

How about some of you libs volunteering to take a machete and get in the cells with these guys so we can find out?


"No wonder we've lost the respect of the rest of the world."

Who gives a crap about respect? The only thing the world understands is power. Anyway, we could use a little less respect so that all of these folks from other countries didn't fight so hard to get into this country.

'Oh and life is precious.... unless it actually costs some money to deal with.'

I prefer to throw money at people who don't blow themselves up and their innocent victims. 'Tis the left who has shown how little they truly care about the innocent.

And as far as international relations, anyone who actually cares what the phoney, commie-infested, corrupt and uber-hypocritical UN thinks is seriously deluded. These are the same people who place terrorist nations on their security council:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200804/FOR20080425b.html

Cry me a river.

Herb

You don't know that they did that.

All we know is that we have a bunch of people being held, tortured, and for what?

That's the whole problem here. You guys can try and make it scary, or expensive, or risky or some other stupid excuse, but the truth is we have no idea if the charges, if any besides being in the wrong place at the wrong time, have merit.

That is why we have due process.

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation. It's like being in bizzaro world.

Well, you guys lose, and lose big. The majority of people in this nation understand the core elements of law and process we have in place and why they are in place and what protections from government abuse they bring people.

Deane, I think you are right about power though. The world is gonna see people power. People have had enough of their leaders just exerting power they gave them in good faith to do the right things, not the wrong things.

These abuses in our name have absolutely got to end.

'Who gives a crap about respect?"

That statement pretty sums up your GOP.

How unbelievably arrogant, condescending, supercilious, cocky, conceited, imperious and any other word my thesaurus can come up with to describe that attitude.

Deane, you've outdone yourself! You are a real jerk.

Herb, HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE TERRORISTS? WHERE'S THE PROOF? You are one sick puppy. Guess what, you both lose big on this one. You'd rather shit on the Constitution than uphold it. Sad, sorry, sacks of shit. Both of you.

Told 'ya!

Ass, meet hand!

*PLONK!*

"Investigation finds widespread abuse at US detention centre in Afghanistan"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/16/usa.afghanistan?gusrc=rss&feed=netwo rkfront

"The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. US troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling."

Is that what you call kissing their asses?

"Guards said they routinely beat their prisoners to retaliate for al-Qaida's 9/11 attacks, unaware that the vast majority of the detainees had little or no connection to al-Qaida."

Both Deane and Herb would be beating them as well, as they have the same misinformation and mindset.

"Because President Bush loosened or eliminated the rules governing the treatment of so-called enemy combatants, however, few US troops have been disciplined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and no serious punishments have been administered, even in the cases of two detainees who died after American guards beat them."

Those of you that support Bush are complicit in supporting torture.

"The brutality at Bagram peaked in December 2002, when US soldiers beat two Afghan detainees, Habibullah and Dilawar, to death as they hung by their wrists. Habibullah and Dilawar, like many Afghans, have only one name."

Is that what you call "three hots and a cot" ammenities?

"He'd been hit in his leg so many times that the tissue was "falling apart" and had "basically been pulpified," said then-Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, the US air force medical examiner who performed the autopsy on him."

I'm sure the person who admisitered the fatal beatings considers himself a christian, just like Herb.

"Whether they got in trouble or not, everybody struck a detainee at some point," said Brian Cammack, a former specialist with the 377th military police company. "

More plush treatment at Hotel Torture?

"Specialist Jeremy Callaway, who admitted to striking about 12 detainees at Bagram, told military investigators in sworn testimony that he was uncomfortable following orders to "mentally and physically break the detainees."

Straight from the order desk of the Bush Administration.

"Asked why someone would abuse a detainee, Callaway told military investigators: "Retribution for September 11 2001." Almost none of the detainees at Bagram, however, had anything to do with the terrorist attacks.

Same ignorance as Herb and Deane.

"Major Jeff Bovarnick, the former chief legal officer for operational law in Afghanistan and Bagram legal adviser, said in a sworn statement that of 500 detainees he knew of who'd passed through Bagram, only about 10 were high-value targets, the military's term for senior terrorist operatives."

More proof that we are holding people we probably shouldn't be holding.

"The mistreatment of detainees at Bagram, some legal experts said, may have been a violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which forbids violence against or humiliating treatment of detainees. The US War Crimes Act of 1996 imposes penalties up to death for such mistreatment. At Bagram, however, the rules didn't apply. In February 2002, President Bush issued an order denying suspected Taliban and al-Qaida detainees prisoner-of-war status. He also denied them basic Geneva protections known as Common Article Three, which sets a minimum standard for humane treatment. In 2006, Bush pushed Congress to narrow the definition of a war crime under the War Crimes Act, making prosecution even more difficult. The military police at Bagram had guidelines, Army Regulation 190-47, telling them they couldn't chain prisoners to doors or to the ceiling. They also had Army Regulation 190-8, which said that humiliating detainees wasn't allowed. Neither was applicable at Bagram, however, said Bovarnick, the former senior legal officer for the installation. The military police rulebook saying that enemy prisoners of war should be treated humanely didn't apply, he said, because the detainees weren't prisoners of war, according to the Bush administration's decision to withhold Geneva Convention protections from suspected Taliban and al-Qaida detainees."

So Bush wanted a freeforall where he could torture who he wants and not face punishment. Talk about wanting to rewrite the rule book to your benefit!

From another thread a few hours ago...

Author: Herb
Monday, June 16, 2008 - 5:00 pm

I've consistently defended ALL innocent life, yet the left has the gall to say they actually care.

Tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and that's what you get.

Herb

"It's like being in bizzaro world."

Exactly. How can one declare having a "mandate" and whine about 5-4 decisions at the same time.

Author: Herb
Monday, June 16, 2008 - 5:00 pm

I've consistently defended ALL innocent life,

Can you 100% say that everyone being held is guilty? What about those who are actually innocent being held there? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to clear themselves?

"Can you 100% say that everyone being held is guilty?"

From my prior post:

'Given that the public can't always know every detail of what goes on with our government's most sensitive security and interrogation systems, no one, myself included, has all the information that would be desirable to make an informed decision on dealing with those being held at Guantanamo.'

I would only add that if these suspected terrorists have not participated in killing innocents, but have information about those who have, then we are in a war and they are the bad guys. I say give 'em their 3 hots and a cot. At least they're not breaking big rocks into small ones. We're not mistreating them whilst detaining them, and in fact, we're treating them far better than they would treat us.

Herb

"Can you 100% say that everyone being held is guilty? What about those who are actually innocent being held there? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to clear themselves?"

I think that our next President should consider Darktemper for the bench.

While I appreciate the nomination I feel that my first best destiny is being a starship captain Defense attorney.......anything else would be a waste of material.

I'm Denny Crane!

---

quote:

"Can you 100% say that everyone being held is guilty?"

From my prior post:

'Given that the public can't always know every detail of what goes on with our government's most sensitive security and interrogation systems, no one, myself included, has all the information that would be desirable to make an informed decision on dealing with those being held at Guantanamo.'

I would only add that if these suspected terrorists have not participated in killing innocents, but have information about those who have, then we are in a war and they are the bad guys. I say give 'em their 3 hots and a cot. At least they're not breaking big rocks into small ones. We're not mistreating them whilst detaining them, and in fact, we're treating them far better than they would treat us.

Herb

---

"At least they're not breaking big rocks into small ones."

True, but they are having they legs "pulpified" while being beaten to death.

'...unjustly...'

Okay. Wait a minute. How flimsy is the evidence the US has on these guys? Does anyone know? I've admitted I don't and doubt if anyone else has secret intel. But go ahead if youse guys wanna guess.

Herb

Studies differ on threat from Guantanamo detainees

By Tom Lasseter

WASHINGTON - Had a majority of the men imprisoned at Guantanamo after 2002 attacked the United States or American troops?

It depends on whom you ask.

A study published by a professor at the Seton Hall School of Law found that 45 percent of 516 Guantanamo detainees examined had committed hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and that only 8 percent of them had been al Qaida fighters. The study drew on unclassified Department of Defense transcripts and documents from military tribunals at Guantanamo.

West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, however, working from the same set of unclassified documents, found that while the tribunals determined that 56 percent of the men had committed or supported hostile acts - such as direct combat, manning the front lines or planning combat operations - 73 percent of them posed a "demonstrated threat."

Seton Hall is an independent Roman Catholic university in New Jersey, and a professor who represented two Guantanamo detainees co-authored its study in 2006. West Point is the U.S. military academy, where many top Army officers receive their university educations.

So who got it right?

It's not possible to say definitively. However, a McClatchy investigation came to conclusions similar to the Seton Hall study, and West Point's statistical breakdown, under close examination, helps explain how Guantanamo's cellblocks became filled with innocents and low-level Taliban grunts.

West Point included in its "demonstrated threat" category anyone who'd committed hostile acts; been identified as a fighter; received training at a camp run by al Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces; or received training in combat weapons other than rifles or other small arms.

Of the 291 men included in the West Point study's hostile acts subgroup, 104 - more than a third - were those who reportedly manned the front lines. However, as the United States and its Afghan allies advanced in northern Afghanistan late in 2001, the front lines were manned by conscripts, young volunteers from Pakistan or low-ranking Taliban fighters. Top al Qaida and Taliban leaders already had fled.

The system of identifying men as fighters, a second subgroup, depended on the accounts of the men who initially detained the "fighters," often Afghan commanders looking for bounties from U.S. forces who paid more for men alleged to be Taliban or al Qaida leaders.

According to the Seton Hall study, in cases where the identities of the captors were known, only 8 percent of the Guantanamo detainees were captured by U.S. forces; 86 percent were turned over to U.S. custody either by Pakistan or by the northern alliance, a coalition led by anti-Taliban commanders who came to power after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

The same bounty hunters often were the source of allegations about training in al Qaida and Taliban camps, the Seton Hall study said. While some camps were dens of dangerous radicals, others taught little more than how to use an AK-47, a skill known to many Afghan boys.

McClatchy

So, assuming the West Point assessment is correct, "56 percent of the men had committed or supported hostile acts - such as direct combat, manning the front lines or planning combat operations - 73 percent of them posed a "demonstrated threat."

This means that one out of every four detainees was not a "demonstrated threat." Would anyone here want to be part of the 27% that our top military academy admits is not dangerous, and yet, our government still held without trial? Would you like to be among the foreign journalists, juvenile conscripts, renditioned innocents and hapless victims of bounty hunters?

The Supreme Court made the correct decision.

As Mr. Nixon might have said whilst shaking his big ol' jowls, Littlesongs: 'That's all very well and good.' But how about this issue that appears to have been missed:

How about intel detainees may have on past, present or future operations against the US?

If these detainees have evidence, or are complicit in the planning, that also makes them part of a terrorist network. Just because a guy isn't there when a bomb goes off doesn't mean he didn't help construct the timer or buy the explosives.

So if you guys are going to willy-nilly abandon any sense that we are at war, then in order to defend this country you at least need to think like a criminal prosecutor.

Herb

---

quote:

Okay. Wait a minute. How flimsy is the evidence the US has on these guys? Does anyone know? I've admitted I don't and doubt if anyone else has secret intel. But go ahead if youse guys wanna guess.

Herb

---

I don't know, but I'd guess flimsy might be a way to describe the evidence for these two:

"In 2003, a US official admitted to the Sunday Telegraph that the CIA was detaining and interrogating children. Discussing two boys aged seven and nine held in secret detention by the CIA, the official explained: “We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible."

The fact is, Herb does not defend all innocent life.

Since you talk about not defending innocent life, your blindness is stunning. The left is only too willing to kill unborn babies, the elderly and legalise deadly illicit drugs.

And I'M the bad guy for trying to protect innocent life from those who vow to blow themselves up, along with innocent bystanders. These guys have proven themselves from 9/11 forward, including strapping bombs on women and children to kill innocent people.

Fact is, many liberals defend a culture of death.

Herb

Talk all you want about the unborn, meanwhile, you whole heartedly support the murder of anyone who we "think" is a terrorist and you support the killing of our US troops for an unnecessary war. Seems to me you've got more blood on your own hands than anyone else.

You're a big, fat, white, Hypocrite. With a capital H.

Are you also for protecting the innocent detainees who may feel that taking their own lives is the only way out? How about our innocent sons & daughters dying in Iraq for no good reason? How about the starving child who will die in the US when funds for this political battle we are in could have been used to save him/her?

All For This

"...you whole heartedly support the murder of anyone who we "think" is a terrorist and you support the killing of our US troops for an unnecessary war."

Wrong again.

Defend your statements. Show me where I've supported the murder of anyone we "think" is a terrorist OR where I support the killing of our US troops for an unnecessary war.

You won't because you can't.

Neither denying your views, nor lying about mine will work.

Herb

>>innocent sons & daughters dying in Iraq

We have a volunteer Armed Service...they want to protect our country for YOU and me...Proud and willing is their proper status.

>>starving child who will die in the US

there is none...if it was it would be headlines.

They did not volunteer to spill their blood in exchange for oil! This battle was started for good reasons but went "W"rong in a hurry. I guess that is what happens when you appoint a stubborn idiot to be in charge of things!

"Show me where I've supported the murder of anyone we "think" is a terrorist OR where I support the killing of our US troops for an unnecessary war."

You've already shown us over and over.

Broadway, just because it's a "volunteer" armed service doesn't mean we should needlessly send them to their deaths.

Ask a leftist to defend their lies, and they never fail to fail.

Herb

"Ask a leftist to defend their lies, and they never fail to fail."

Ask a rightie anything and expect a lie for an answer because it's all they are capable of.

Lies? What lies?

Pick one, HerrB.

To help keep children from starving in this country, we have the Federal Food Stamp Program. But guess who vetoed the Farm Bill which contained funding for Food Stamps. Our very own patron saint of the poor and malnourished, George W. Bush. As long he and his ilk are eating large -- then the rest of us should simply eat cake.

Could you imagine what sorts of ballyhoo George W. Bush would have found for US forces if service was mandatory for young men of draft age? What a bloody mess.

Troll Sat Alone on His Seat of Stone

Troll sat alone on his seat of stone,
And munched and mumbled a bare old bone;
For many a year he had gnawed it near,
For meat was hard to come by.
Done by! Gum by!
In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone,
And meat was hard to come by.

Up came Tom with his big boots on.
Said he to Troll: 'Pray, what is yon?
For it looks like the shin o' my nuncle Tim.
As should be a-lyin' in the graveyard.
Caveyard! Paveyard!
This many a year has Tim been gone,
And I thought he were lyin' in the graveyard.'

'My lad,' said Troll, 'this bone I stole.
But what be bones that lie in a hole?
Thy nuncle was dead as a lump o' lead,
Afore I found his shinbone.
Tinbone! Skinbone!
He can spare a share for a poor old troll,
For he don't need his shinbone.'

Said Tom: 'I don't see why the likes o' thee
Without axin' leave should go makin' free
With the shank or the shin o' my father's kin;
So hand the old bone over!
Rover! Trover!
Though dead he be, it belongs to he;
So hand the old bone over!'

'For a couple o' pins,' says Troll, and grins,
'I'll eat thee too, and gnaw thy shins.
A bit o' fresh meat will go down sweet!
I'll try my teeth on thee now.
Hee now! See now!
I'm tired o' gnawing old bones and skins;
I've a mind to dine on thee now.'

But just as he thought his dinner was caught,
He found his hands had hold of naught.
Before he could mind, Tom slipped behind
And gave him the boot to larn him.
Warn him! Darn him!
A bump o' the boot on the seat, Tom thought,
Would be the way to larn him.

But harder than stone is the flesh and bone
Of a troll that sits in the hills alone.
As well set your boot to the mountain's root,
For the seat of a troll don't feel it.
Peel it! Heal it!
Old Troll laughed, when he heard Tom groan,
And he knew his toes could feel it.

Tom's leg is game, since home he came,
And his bootless foot is lasting lame;
But Troll don't care, and he's still there
With the bone he boned from its owner.
Doner! Boner!
Troll's old seat is still the same,
And the bone he boned from its owner!

J.R.R. Tolkien

More information about Guantanamo can be found on the Wikileaks website.

"The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability."

Oh goody gum drop. Another chance to bash Bush.

You do realize don't you that Obomba's turn is coming and I intend to be up at bat often.

So is your solution to not look back and reward bad behaviour (in this case freaking WAR CRIMES) by letting bygones be bygones?

If I may interject, that article was a great find Amus. Thanks.

Credit where credit is due..

I heard this on Hartmann's show this morning.

One reason for sure why George hopes McCain wins, "Presidential Pardon".