USSC Blunder

[Libsmasher]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365851,00.html

The supreme court ruled that the islamofascists at Gitmo have a right to habeas corpus. The decision was 5-4, with the alleged swing vote stevens supporting the libs. This is a monumental and breath-taking rewriting of hundreds of years of constitutional jurisprudence - never before would such persons be entitled to the writ, which has ALWAYS been limited to three classes:

1. US government dealings with US citizens in the US.
2. US government dealings with US citizens abroad.
3. US government dealings with non-citizens in the US.

The result for the IFs, after possibly a few more years of legal process, is that the government will let them go, so that they can go back to the middle east and once again murder women and children and kill US servicemen. That's because the US would have to give up military secrets and sources in order to try these people as if they were just someone who robbed the local 7-11.

But beyond this, the implications of the can of worms the court opened are beyond limit: Why can't now anyone detained in Iraq (or anywhere else) by the army seek the writ? And if this part of the constitution can be applied to foreigners in foreign lands, what else can? Due process? (Eg, a hearing must be held for an IF on the battlefield.)

The court has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of it's purview with this, intruding on the fine points of the president's power to conduct a war.

The broadest final point from this is - the USSC, envisioned by the Founders as a sort of minor, junior partner branch of government, continues its expansive reach and control into america, and needs to be reined in.

[Bunz]

never before would such persons be entitled to the writ, which has ALWAYS been limited to three classes:
1. US government dealings with US citizens in the US.
2. US government dealings with US citizens abroad.
3. US government dealings with non-citizens in the US.

Except what the Bush administration created, which is non-US citizens held in a third country.

The result for the IFs, after possibly a few more years of legal process, is that the government will let them go, so that they can go back to the middle east and once again murder women and children and kill US servicemen. That's because the US would have to give up military secrets and sources in order to try these people as if they were just someone who robbed the local 7-11.
WRONG, what will happen is that they will be provided with an avenue to prove they are no terrorists, or they are. If they are deemed to be, due what you will with them, if not, let them go. Unfortunately, those after being locked up for years on end without any due process, because the Geneva Convention has been decided to no longer apply to them, they are pissed off and more likely to strike again. This is the fault of the policy of the Bush Administratin.

But beyond this, the implications of the can of worms the court opened are beyond limit: Why can't now anyone detained in Iraq (or anywhere else) by the army seek the writ? And if this part of the constitution can be applied to foreigners in foreign lands, what else can? Due process? (Eg, a hearing must be held for an IF on the battlefield.)
Firstly, I think you already know the fallacy in your argument. In Iraq those detainees have legal protection to decide who is guilty and not. But I am one who thinks that, despite what has happened, that America needs to hold to its principals and contitution and apply it evenly.

The court has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of it's purview with this, intruding on the fine points of the president's power to conduct a war.
The Bush Administration needs to be your target. They are the ones out of line with historical precedence concerning this. Imagine if the Nazis captured were sent to a third country to be held indefinately. Even Saddam Hussein, and Rudolph Hess got thier day in court.

The broadest final point from this is - the USSC, envisioned by the Founders as a sort of minor, junior partner branch of government, continues its expansive reach and control into america, and needs to be reined in.
Your idea of a minor junior branch is in my feelings wholly underestimated. We have three equal but separate branches of government. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. This would mean to me, that if Roe V Wade were overturned, it would be done under a minor branch of government. This argument holds zero water.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
never before would such persons be entitled to the writ, which has ALWAYS been limited to three classes:
1. US government dealings with US citizens in the US.
2. US government dealings with US citizens abroad.
3. US government dealings with non-citizens in the US.

Except what the Bush administration created, which is non-US citizens held in a third country.

More total nonsense from you - the US has always held prisoners in foreign wars in foreign countries, starting with the War of Independence and every war since.

Quote:
The result for the IFs, after possibly a few more years of legal process, is that the government will let them go, so that they can go back to the middle east and once again murder women and children and kill US servicemen. That's because the US would have to give up military secrets and sources in order to try these people as if they were just someone who robbed the local 7-11.

WRONG, what will happen is that they will be provided with an avenue to prove they are no terrorists, or they are. If they are deemed to be, due what you will with them, if not, let them go. Unfortunately, those after being locked up for years on end without any due process, because the Geneva Convention has been decided to no longer apply to them, they are pissed off and more likely to strike again. This is the fault of the policy of the Bush Administratin.

Absolutely false. The millenia-long custom is to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, not up to some arbitrary time limit.

Quote:
But beyond this, the implications of the can of worms the court opened are beyond limit: Why can't now anyone detained in Iraq (or anywhere else) by the army seek the writ? And if this part of the constitution can be applied to foreigners in foreign lands, what else can? Due process? (Eg, a hearing must be held for an IF on the battlefield.)

Firstly, I think you already know the fallacy in your argument. In Iraq those detainees have legal protection to decide who is guilty and not. But I am one who thinks that, despite what has happened, that America needs to hold to its principals and contitution and apply it evenly.

You simply don't grasp it. Habeas corpus has always been applied to people picked up off the street by police. It has NEVER been used to spring prisoners of war.

Quote:
The court has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of it's purview with this, intruding on the fine points of the president's power to conduct a war.

The Bush Administration needs to be your target. They are the ones out of line with historical precedence concerning this. Imagine if the Nazis captured were sent to a third country to be held indefinately. Even Saddam Hussein, and Rudolph Hess got thier day in court.

Your Bushophobia is showing - I am talking about a broad historic legal mistake, and like most libs, you can't think past Bush. And it's ironic that you bring up Rudolph Hess - he was held for five years in the UK till the Nuremberg trials, which would have been illegal if the same USSC ruling applied in the UK back then.

Quote:
The broadest final point from this is - the USSC, envisioned by the Founders as a sort of minor, junior partner branch of government, continues its expansive reach and control into america, and needs to be reined in.

Your idea of a minor junior branch is in my feelings wholly underestimated. We have three equal but separate branches of government. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. This would mean to me, that if Roe V Wade were overturned, it would be done under a minor branch of government. This argument holds zero water.

You are simply unschooled in the history of the court and how the Framers viewed it, and are proceeding from a "high school textbook" theory of US government history. Read up. ;)

[GenSeneca]

I think this was the last straw for me....

The Left embraced defeat long ago and they have steadily been marching us into a corner. They have placed so many obstacles in the way, the next president will have to make a choice: Remove them, Aviod them, Deal with them, Finish castrating the Military and call it a day.

McCain will not be able to remove or avoid these obstacles but I hope he can deal with them.

This actually gives me a reason to vote McCain now... and that REALLY makes me mad :mad:

I don't like his policy positions at all, but at least the dude has an unquestionable love for our Military. I can say the same for Hillary too, she is quite the closet hawk. But Obama :eek: ... I mean, he's next door neighbors with Kucinich on the far left... and Kucinich's house is at the end of the street.

[Bunz]

More total nonsense from you - the US has always held prisoners in foreign wars in foreign countries, starting with the War of Independence and every war since.
Please do provide evidence of this.



Absolutely false. The millenia-long custom is to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, not up to some arbitrary time limit.
This is the United States of America. We are known to be the worlds leader in matter of human rights, why make exception for these idiots?


You simply don't grasp it. Habeas corpus has always been applied to people picked up off the street by police. It has NEVER been used to spring prisoners of war.
Because prisoners of war have been adminstrated under the Geneva Convention in modern times.


Your Bushophobia is showing - I am talking about a broad historic legal mistake, and like most libs, you can't think past Bush. And it's ironic that you bring up Rudolph Hess - he was held for five years in the UK till the Nuremberg trials, which would have been illegal if the same USSC ruling applied in the UK back then.
I dont know how long people have been held because that is generally held in secret. Which is part of suspending HB. The Nuremberg trials were upprecendented, and I have mixed feelings on the issue. I could name a bunch of other Nazi ministers to prove my point. Herman Goehring could be another. Point being, is the the United States of America is a land of justice and those who violate it are allowed a certain amount of defense. This is not to mean I want those at GITMO free, just held in compliance with the law. Which the USSC ruled in favor of.


You are simply unschooled in the history of the court and how the Framers viewed it, and are proceeding from a "high school textbook" theory of US government history. Read up. ;)
Laughabile.

[Federal Farmer]

Bunz, the first thing you've got to realize, in order for you to understand what is so wrong about his ruling, is that under the Geneva Convention (GCIII), Part 1, Article 4, Section 2, they are not granted the status of POW's.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They are obviously not being commanded by somene who is resposible for their actions, they do not wear uniforms or other distinctive insignia or sign, and they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, which means that they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. The fact that we would even allow them the extremely comfortable conditions under which they are being held is in itself testimony to our "compassion" and "human rights", and only the most ardent "hate America first" people would even attempt to claim otherwise. These 'prisoners' are T E R R O R I S T S, and as such should consider themselves lucky to even be alive, as in my day, they would have been summarily shot, in the head, twice, on sight (or we might possibly have watied until after they divulged whatever information we could have beaten out of them in the first 20 minutes after their capture).

As to our POW camps overseas, is it your contention that we executed any and all prisoners we took during WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam? Please. I know of at least 4 POW camps that we ran during and after WWII, in Germany, as I visited what was left of them while stationed there. It is my understanding that there were more than a dozen more, but having not been to them, I cannot attest to that as a fact.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
More total nonsense from you - the US has always held prisoners in foreign wars in foreign countries, starting with the War of Independence and every war since.

Please do provide evidence of this.

OBVIOUSLY the US held prisoners in, eg, europe in WWII.

Quote:
Absolutely false. The millenia-long custom is to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, not up to some arbitrary time limit.

This is the United States of America. We are known to be the worlds leader in matter of human rights, why make exception for these idiots?

I have NO idea what you're talking about. The US held tens of thousands of axis prisoners in the US in WWII for the duration of the war. Letting people go while a war is still on is what would be exceptional, indeed unprecedented.


Quote:
You simply don't grasp it. Habeas corpus has always been applied to people picked up off the street by police. It has NEVER been used to spring prisoners of war.

Because prisoners of war have been adminstrated under the Geneva Convention in modern times.

NOTHING in the conventions prohibits the standard practice of holding prisoners for the duration of hostilities. (It's also common sense - duhhhh :rolleyes:).


Quote:
Your Bushophobia is showing - I am talking about a broad historic legal mistake, and like most libs, you can't think past Bush. And it's ironic that you bring up Rudolph Hess - he was held for five years in the UK till the Nuremberg trials, which would have been illegal if the same USSC ruling applied in the UK back then.

I dont know how long people have been held because that is generally held in secret. Which is part of suspending HB. The Nuremberg trials were upprecendented, and I have mixed feelings on the issue. I could name a bunch of other Nazi ministers to prove my point. Herman Goehring could be another. Point being, is the the United States of America is a land of justice and those who violate it are allowed a certain amount of defense. This is not to mean I want those at GITMO free, just held in compliance with the law. Which the USSC ruled in favor of.

You are completely confused. The USSC made NEW LAW, which is strictly the purview of the people's legislative representatives. The USSC is out of control.

Quote:
You are simply unschooled in the history of the court and how the Framers viewed it, and are proceeding from a "high school textbook" theory of US government history. Read up.

Laughabile.

Won't read? I guess there's no helping the militantly ignorant. :o

[Libsmasher]

Excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissent on the IF habeas corpus case, discussing the consequences of previous releases from Gitmo, and the consequences of disclosures during HC hearings. Full opinion here:

http://theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/steven_foley/2008/06/13/justice_antonin_scalia_s_dissent_boumediene_v_bush

In the long term, then, the Court’s decision today accomplishes
little, except perhaps to reduce the well-being
of enemy combatants that the Court ostensibly seeks to
protect. In the short term, however, the decision is devastating.
At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released
from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.See S. Rep. No. 110–90, pt. 7, p. 13 (2007) (Minority Views
of Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn)
(hereinafter Minority Report). Some have been captured
or killed. See ibid.; see also Mintz, Released Detainees
Rejoining the Fight, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2004, pp.
A1, A12. But others have succeeded in carrying on their
atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a detainee
released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the
kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was
later shot to death when used as a human shield against
Pakistani commandoes. See Khan & Lancaster, Pakistanis
Rescue Hostage; 2nd Dies, Washington Post, Oct.
15, 2004, p. A18. Another former detainee promptly resumed
his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered
a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers.Mintz, supra.
Still another murdered an Afghan
judge. See Minority Report 13. It was reported only last
4 BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
SCALIA, J., dissenting
month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing
against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. See White, Ex-
Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack, Washington
Post, May 8, 2008, p. A18.
These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had
concluded were not enemy combatants. Their return to
the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing
who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign
theater of operations where the environment does not lend
itself to rigorous evidence collection. Astoundingly, the
Court today raises the bar, requiring military officials to
appear before civilian courts and defend their decisions
under procedural and evidentiary rules that go beyond
what Congress has specified. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s
dissent makes clear, we have no idea what those procedural
and evidentiary rules are, but they will be determined
by civil courts and (in the Court’s contemplation at
least) will be more detainee-friendly than those now applied,
since otherwise there would no reason to hold the
congressionally prescribed procedures unconstitutional. If
they impose a higher standard of proof (from foreign battlefields)
than the current procedures require, the number
of the enemy returned to combat will obviously increase.
But even when the military has evidence that it can
bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence
to the attorneys representing our enemies. And one escalation
of procedures that the Court is clear about is affording
the detainees increased access to witnesses (perhaps
troops serving in Afghanistan?) and to classified information.
See ante, at 54–55. During the 1995 prosecution of
Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names
of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the “Blind Sheik’s”
defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of
Osama Bin Laden within two weeks. See Minority Report
14–15. In another case, trial testimony revealed to the
enemy that the United States had been monitoring their
Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 5
SCALIA, J., dissenting
cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using
it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue
their atrocities. See id., at 15.

WAY TO GO - LIBS ON THE SUPREME COURT

[Jarlaxle]

There is a very clear solution to this, that is one hundred percent according to the Geneva Conventions. It is in two parts:

1) All prisoners held at Guantanamo should be immediately shot as spies.
2) No further prisoners should be taken, simply shoot them.

[Libsmasher]

There is a very clear solution to this, that is one hundred percent according to the Geneva Conventions. It is in two parts:

1) All prisoners held at Guantanamo should be immediately shot as spies.
2) No further prisoners should be taken, simply shoot them.

I have offered a "humane" alternative - the US should announce that not being a state actor doesn't relieve islamofascists from fighting with an identifying uniform, at least with an insignia patch, and that combatants not having such visible identification will be shot onn the battlefield if captured. If such persons are to be given the protections of the geneva conventions, why don't ALL rules of warfare apply to them?

[PLC1]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure? A president for life who doesn't have to worry about such details as courts, habeus corpus, and advice and consent would be able to carry out an invasion and occupation with far less fuss and muss that has been the case with Viet... I mean Iraq.

We could even allow the government to take over the news media. That way, we could tell people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and was started by the attack of 9/11. We could tout all of the victories, ignore the defeats, summarily execute anyone who even might possibly be on the other side, and eventually take over the Middle East.

And, by all means, just keep the people who have been sold to the military for the duration of the war. They are POWs, sort of, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions. So what if the war lasts another hundred years? Hey, they won't live that long anyway.

So what if we have no credibility in the struggle for human rights. We must win the war at all costs.

We were attacked, you know, not by Iraq, of course, but who cares about small details like that?

[Libsmasher]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure?

Talking about "easy" - instead of contributing to, eg, the debate on the proper scope of habeas corpus, you pop in just long enough for your usual brief mental masturbation. REALLY - you should do that in private. :rolleyes: Ugh.

[pocketfullofshells]

I want to Declare Bush a Enemy combatant. So much easier then Impeaching him. If we did that could jail him, never charge him, no layers, nothing for years.....at least in his idea of Justice and Democracy

[BigRob]

I want to Declare Bush a Enemy combatant. So much easier then Impeaching him. If we did that could jail him, never charge him, no layers, nothing for years.....at least in his idea of Justice and Democracy

Go for it, impeach him. I bet you will be a huge fan of President Dick Cheney.

[Federal Farmer]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Whose freedoms? It really would be easier if Democrats could finally figure out that a "democratic government" is the worst possible form of government. Nothing like 51% of the people being able to subjugate 49% of the population by popular opinion and mob rule.

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure? A president for life who doesn't have to worry about such details as courts, habeus corpus, and advice and consent would be able to carry out an invasion and occupation with far less fuss and muss that has been the case with Viet... I mean Iraq.

Well, suspending Habeas Corpus during wartime isn't exactly unprecedented. Everybody's favorite President, good ole` "honest Abe" did it during the Civil War (although he forgot that Congress is the only ones allowed to do that...OOPS). It would also be helpful to remember that Habeas Corpus doesn't apply to POW's, and until now, never has.

The thing I believe you've overlooked is the fact that the United States Congress assembled, by a majority of 373 to 156, passed Public Law number 107-243, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which was signed by the President, and became our FORMAL "Declaration of War" against Iraq, all in complete accordance with the US Constitution. There is your "advice and consent"

We could even allow the government to take over the news media. That way, we could tell people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and was started by the attack of 9/11. We could tout all of the victories, ignore the defeats, summarily execute anyone who even might possibly be on the other side, and eventually take over the Middle East.

Fortunately for us, the Republicans have no problem allowing the Press to report what they will. Now the Democrats on the other hand are screaming about some "fairness doctrine" in an effort to silence public debate.

As to your insinuation about "defeats", exactly what "defeats" are you referring to?

And, by all means, just keep the people who have been sold to the military for the duration of the war. They are POWs, sort of, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions. So what if the war lasts another hundred years? Hey, they won't live that long anyway.

As soon as you prove that any of the prisoners at Club Gitmo have in fact been "sold to the military" and were not "illegal enemy combatants" as defined under GCIII, I'll be the first one to stand right next to you and demand they be released. Thus far, the military has done exactly that, and even messed it up over 30 times in their efforts to be "fair" and give the "benefit of the doubt" to our guests.

So what if we have no credibility in the struggle for human rights.

According to whom? YOU? And exactly what metric are you using to measure our "credibility" when it comes to human rights? Mayhaps if you were really concerned about "human rights", you'd be spending your time looking at the real offenders, and not feigning faux indignation at your own nation.

We must win the war at all costs.

Yes we must, because we saw what happens when we fail to complete our mission, and we end up having to send our forces BACK to the desert, not for 100 hours like the first time, but for over 5 YEARS. As my grandfather used to say, "if you put your hand to the plow, you finish the row".

We were attacked, you know, not by Iraq, of course, but who cares about small details like that?

You're right, but then again Germany didn't attack us on Dec. 7, 1941, and neither did the Italians, or the Vichy French, but we kicked the crap out of them! Where's your "righteous indignation" about that? Where's your "righteous indignation" about our declaring war on Germany in 1917 when they hadn't attacked us?

Your protestations are, to say the least, intellectually flawed.

[GenSeneca]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure? A president for life who doesn't have to worry about such details as courts, habeus corpus, and advice and consent would be able to carry out an invasion and occupation with far less fuss and muss that has been the case with Viet... I mean Iraq.

We could even allow the government to take over the news media. That way, we could tell people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and was started by the attack of 9/11. We could tout all of the victories, ignore the defeats, summarily execute anyone who even might possibly be on the other side, and eventually take over the Middle East.

And, by all means, just keep the people who have been sold to the military for the duration of the war. They are POWs, sort of, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions. So what if the war lasts another hundred years? Hey, they won't live that long anyway.

So what if we have no credibility in the struggle for human rights. We must win the war at all costs.

We were attacked, you know, not by Iraq, of course, but who cares about small details like that?

Plenty of hyperbole...

You dodged my earlier question -

How do you think this will work out logistically?

[PLC1]

Whose freedoms? It really would be easier if Democrats could finally figure out that a "democratic government" is the worst possible form of government. Nothing like 51% of the people being able to subjugate 49% of the population by popular opinion and mob rule.

So, you agree that a democratic form of government is not working, and that we would be better off with a dictatorship. Here, I thought I was using hyperbole, as GenSeneca said, and some obvious sarcasm.

Well, suspending Habeas Corpus during wartime isn't exactly unprecedented. Everybody's favorite President, good ole` "honest Abe" did it during the Civil War (although he forgot that Congress is the only ones allowed to do that...OOPS). It would also be helpful to remember that Habeas Corpus doesn't apply to POW's, and until now, never has.

But, they aren't POW, or are they? Are they "enemy combatants", and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention, or are they ordinary accused criminals? Which is it?

The thing I believe you've overlooked is the fact that the United States Congress assembled, by a majority of 373 to 156, passed Public Law number 107-243, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which was signed by the President, and became our FORMAL "Declaration of War" against Iraq, all in complete accordance with the US Constitution. There is your "advice and consent"

You know, I remember that, and I've looked and looked, but nowhere do I see an authorization to keep prisoners indefinitely without charges nor to torture them. Maybe I've missed something.

Fortunately for us, the Republicans have no problem allowing the Press to report what they will. Now the Democrats on the other hand are screaming about some "fairness doctrine" in an effort to silence public debate.


See? With the dictatorship you support above, none of that would be an issue. You didn't see Russians trying to silence the Pravda, now did you?

Of course, no one is trying to silence the press now, either, just trying to discount what they are saying.



As soon as you prove that any of the prisoners at Club Gitmo have in fact been "sold to the military" and were not "illegal enemy combatants" as defined under GCIII, I'll be the first one to stand right next to you and demand they be released. Thus far, the military has done exactly that, and even messed it up over 30 times in their efforts to be "fair" and give the "benefit of the doubt" to our guests.

OK, read this thread (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3141), then stand next to me.


According to whom? YOU? And exactly what metric are you using to measure our "credibility" when it comes to human rights? Mayhaps if you were really concerned about "human rights", you'd be spending your time looking at the real offenders, and not feigning faux indignation at your own nation.

According to our actions, of course.


Yes we must, because we saw what happens when we fail to complete our mission, and we end up having to send our forces BACK to the desert, not for 100 hours like the first time, but for over 5 YEARS. As my grandfather used to say, "if you put your hand to the plow, you finish the row".

Yes, and if you broke it, fix it. We broke it, but are having a time fixing it, aren't we? If we do leave Iraq suddenly and without leaving a stable country behind, we're likely to be facing an even wider war in the MidEast quite soon. When that happens, if it happens, then those favoring the war will point fingers at the "liberals" who "wouldn't let us win", just as they did in Vietnam, without examining whether we should be there in the first place, nor whether we are doing what really needs to be done to stabilize the situation and get out.


You're right, but then again Germany didn't attack us on Dec. 7, 1941, and neither did the Italians, or the Vichy French, but we kicked the crap out of them! Where's your "righteous indignation" about that? Where's your "righteous indignation" about our declaring war on Germany in 1917 when they hadn't attacked us?

Your protestations are, to say the least, intellectually flawed.

Does the term "axis powers" mean anything to you? No, what is intellectually flawed is the insistence that the war in Iraq is anything like WWII. It isn't, and never has been. It is much more like the war in Vietnam, but even that analogy is flawed. There really is no precedent for the mess we're in right now.

[Federal Farmer]

So, you agree that a democratic form of government is not working, and that we would be better off with a dictatorship. Here, I thought I was using hyperbole, as GenSeneca said, and some obvious sarcasm.

Nice try, but no cookie. We do not now, nor have we ever had a "democratic" form of government. We have a Constitutional Representative Republic form of government.

But, they aren't POW, or are they? Are they "enemy combatants", and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention, or are they ordinary accused criminals? Which is it?

Neither, they are "unlawful enemy combatants", and under IHL, we can basically do any damned thing we want to with them, provided we don't violate their VERY basic human rights. We can detain them as long as we want to, we can try them if we decide we want to, and incarcerate them for periods longer than the term of the conflict. Essentially, they might as well give their hearts and souls to Jesus, because their asses belong to us.

You know, I remember that, and I've looked and looked, but nowhere do I see an authorization to keep prisoners indefinitely without charges nor to torture them. Maybe I've missed something.

Yup, you missed the IHL and ICRC determinations. As for "torture", that's another issue altogether. Perhaps you can find a definition of "torture" that applies to anything that US Troops have done to any prisoners, that they haven't been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for. Your whole "torture" charge is specious, as anyone who has engaged in anything that could be considered torture has already been dealt with.

See? With the dictatorship you support above, none of that would be an issue. You didn't see Russians trying to silence the Pravda, now did you?

Not even close, but thank you for playing.

Of course, no one is trying to silence the press now, either, just trying to discount what they are saying.

And what's wrong with that? If they're as AFU as they usually are, should they not be challenged?

OK, read this thread (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3141), then stand next to me.

Read and responded to. You're not even close, so I'm across the street laughing at you.

According to our actions, of course.

Not even a close attempt at a response, try again.

Yes, and if you broke it, fix it. We broke it, but are having a time fixing it, aren't we?

Not really. It took us over 20 years to fix Germany and Japan, what's your hurry?

If we do leave Iraq suddenly and without leaving a stable country behind, we're likely to be facing an even wider war in the MidEast quite soon.

Which is why we're back there this time. We pulled out before the mission was accomplished in '91 because we listened to the "hand-wringers" in the UN and our own Congress, and we're paying for it now.

When that happens, if it happens, then those favoring the war will point fingers at the "liberals" who "wouldn't let us win", just as they did in Vietnam, without examining whether we should be there in the first place, nor whether we are doing what really needs to be done to stabilize the situation and get out.

Let me ask you a question; did you serve in Vietnam? If not, do me a favor and STFU about it, because it's readily apparant that you don't have the first clue in the world WTF you're talking about. Once again, we won in Vietnam in '72, S. Vietnam fell in '75, over 2 years after we left VICTORIOUS. No, we won the war, but you're at least partially right in that it was the Dim's that lost the peace.

Hindsight is sometimes 20/20, but with the "handwringers", they're as blind looking back as they are looking forward.

Does the term "axis powers" mean anything to you? No, what is intellectually flawed is the insistence that the war in Iraq is anything like WWII. It isn't, and never has been. It is much more like the war in Vietnam, but even that analogy is flawed. There really is no precedent for the mess we're in right now.

Of course I know what the "axis powers" were, but that has nothing to do with your argument. Now, answer the question directly; did or did not Germany attack us?

Using your "peacenik" logic, we should very well have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor (after all, it wasn't even a State then, and all they did was blow up a few boats), and even if we had declared War on Japan, there's still no reason for us to have gotten involved in a War with Germany, regardless of their declaration of War against us. All we had to do was ignore them, and they'd leave us alone! Using your logic, we SHOULD have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor, since fewer people died in that attack than in the attack of 9-11, and it was strictly a military target, not on US soil, and 9-11 was an attack against civilian targets ON US soil.

I guess the next thing you'll do is try that old "Saddam didn't have anything to do with UBL" argument (believe me, I'm waiting for that one!), or that "Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11" (I'm waiting for that one too).

Even your assertion that "we've never faced anything like this before" isn't entirely historically accurate, but I can easily see why you'd overlook it (most people do), in that our "wars" with the Native American tribes were in almost every sense very much like what we're facing here. They didn't wear uniforms, they all looked very much alike so it was hard, if not impossible to determine which ones had, and hadn't actually attacked us, they didn't comport themselves to the "normal rules of war", and on and on and on. The big difference between then and now though, since we learned our lessons, is that this time instead of simply taking a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach, we're trying our very best to discern which ones are the good guys from the bad guys, and we're doing our best to help them establish their own government, under their own rules, so that we don't have to go back again.

[PLC1]

Nice try, but no cookie. We do not now, nor have we ever had a "democratic" form of government. We have a Constitutional Representative Republic form of government.



Neither, they are "unlawful enemy combatants", and under IHL, we can basically do any damned thing we want to with them, provided we don't violate their VERY basic human rights. We can detain them as long as we want to, we can try them if we decide we want to, and incarcerate them for periods longer than the term of the conflict. Essentially, they might as well give their hearts and souls to Jesus, because their asses belong to us.



Yup, you missed the IHL and ICRC determinations. As for "torture", that's another issue altogether. Perhaps you can find a definition of "torture" that applies to anything that US Troops have done to any prisoners, that they haven't been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for. Your whole "torture" charge is specious, as anyone who has engaged in anything that could be considered torture has already been dealt with.



Not even close, but thank you for playing.



And what's wrong with that? If they're as AFU as they usually are, should they not be challenged?



Read and responded to. You're not even close, so I'm across the street laughing at you.



Not even a close attempt at a response, try again.



Not really. It took us over 20 years to fix Germany and Japan, what's your hurry?



Which is why we're back there this time. We pulled out before the mission was accomplished in '91 because we listened to the "hand-wringers" in the UN and our own Congress, and we're paying for it now.



Let me ask you a question; did you serve in Vietnam? If not, do me a favor and STFU about it, because it's readily apparant that you don't have the first clue in the world WTF you're talking about. Once again, we won in Vietnam in '72, S. Vietnam fell in '75, over 2 years after we left VICTORIOUS. No, we won the war, but you're at least partially right in that it was the Dim's that lost the peace.

Hindsight is sometimes 20/20, but with the "handwringers", they're as blind looking back as they are looking forward.



Of course I know what the "axis powers" were, but that has nothing to do with your argument. Now, answer the question directly; did or did not Germany attack us?

Using your "peacenik" logic, we should very well have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor (after all, it wasn't even a State then, and all they did was blow up a few boats), and even if we had declared War on Japan, there's still no reason for us to have gotten involved in a War with Germany, regardless of their declaration of War against us. All we had to do was ignore them, and they'd leave us alone! Using your logic, we SHOULD have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor, since fewer people died in that attack than in the attack of 9-11, and it was strictly a military target, not on US soil, and 9-11 was an attack against civilian targets ON US soil.

I guess the next thing you'll do is try that old "Saddam didn't have anything to do with UBL" argument (believe me, I'm waiting for that one!), or that "Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11" (I'm waiting for that one too).

Even your assertion that "we've never faced anything like this before" isn't entirely historically accurate, but I can easily see why you'd overlook it (most people do), in that our "wars" with the Native American tribes were in almost every sense very much like what we're facing here. They didn't wear uniforms, they all looked very much alike so it was hard, if not impossible to determine which ones had, and hadn't actually attacked us, they didn't comport themselves to the "normal rules of war", and on and on and on. The big difference between then and now though, since we learned our lessons, is that this time instead of simply taking a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach, we're trying our very best to discern which ones are the good guys from the bad guys, and we're doing our best to help them establish their own government, under their own rules, so that we don't have to go back again.

This is what you posted in response to my post on the "innocents in Gitmo" thread:

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
They go on to say: (again, emphasis mine)
Quote:
The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status."

So, they are not POW, according to your source, but are "entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law."

Whether they are POW or not, they still have human rights which does not include locking them up indefinitely, beating them, hanging them from the ceiling, or torturing them to death. I've already shown, in sites where I did provide links, which you did not, what has happened to prisoners.

Of course, no one wants to believe that our country, a beacon of human rights and law, would actually stoop to what it has in this so called "war on terror." Sometimes, though, it is necessary to look at the evidence, make up your own mind, and understand what actually has happened so that it can be stopped.

Oh, yes, and your personal insults (peacenik, don't know WTF you're talking about, handwringers) show that you have run out of valid arguments. The assertion that we "won" in Vietnam also flies in the face of the facts, as does your idea that invading France in WWII was somehow tantamount to invading Iraq. It es predictable, of course, that you would run out of real points, since you have taken it upon yourself to deny plain facts and to argue that this great nation of ours is somehow justified in beating prisoners to death in the name of the war on terror. Such a position is, to say the least, untenable.

[BigRob]

So, they are not POW, according to your source, but are "entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law."


As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, this debate about Protocol I is meaningless because the United States refused to ratify that section of the treaty. Therefore you are using a law that does not apply to the United States to claim what we are doing is illegal.

As for customary international law, it has its place, however, according to United States domestic law, any act of Congress or the President overrides any International Law (customary or not). Since the intent of Congress was explicit with the rejection of Protocol I because we did not want groups such as the PLO to qualify for the same protections under the Geneva Conventions, this law has no bearing on the United States.

So, your arguments is basically summed up as pointing to a law that the US never ratified or agreed to, but claiming that since Europe agreed to this law that it has become part of customary international law. That said, the whole argument is void, because the original intent of Congress was clear with their rejection of Protocol I and with subsequent Presidential orders (By Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush) that override international law.

[PLC1]

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, this debate about Protocol I is meaningless because the United States refused to ratify that section of the treaty. Therefore you are using a law that does not apply to the United States to claim what we are doing is illegal.

As for customary international law, it has its place, however, according to United States domestic law, any act of Congress or the President overrides any International Law (customary or not). Since the intent of Congress was explicit with the rejection of Protocol I because we did not want groups such as the PLO to qualify for the same protections under the Geneva Conventions, this law has no bearing on the United States.

So, your arguments is basically summed up as pointing to a law that the US never ratified or agreed to, but claiming that since Europe agreed to this law that it has become part of customary international law. That said, the whole argument is void, because the original intent of Congress was clear with their rejection of Protocol I and with subsequent Presidential orders (By Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush) that override international law.

So, we didn't ratify the law, and that gives us the right to beat prisoners, torture them, and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges. Does that make the US a rogue nation?

[BigRob]

So, we didn't ratify the law, and that gives us the right to beat prisoners, torture them, and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges. Does that make the US a rogue nation?

Legally speaking, yes, it gives us the right to incarcerate them indefinitely without charge (as previous Presidential orders have confirmed dating back to Reagan) until we decide otherwise.

And while yes there have been some instances such as Abu Ghraib, those involved have been punished. Further, according to International Law, torture is what we say it is as well. So, unless we define what we do as torture, it is not in a legal sense.

You can argue that we "should" not do something like this all you want, but you cannot make the case that we should not by invoking international law that the United States has not ratified.

And no, this does not make the USA a rouge nation. Perhaps some people will look at it this way, but the US is the world hegemon and the world knows it, and I am not sure that the Army is even doing half the things you accuse them of, outside a few incidents that those responsible were punished for.

[Federal Farmer]

So, they are not POW, according to your source, but are "entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law."

Whether they are POW or not, they still have human rights which does not include locking them up indefinitely,

I see you didn't read the information I posted for you directly from the IHL, so I'll post it again;

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

beating them, hanging them from the ceiling, or torturing them to death. I've already shown, in sites where I did provide links, which you did not, what has happened to prisoners.

I didn't realize that you needed links to the cases of the Abu Grabass trials and convictions. I was under the impression that anyone not living under a rock was fully aware of the convictions and sentences of the personnel involved in violating the rights of the prisoners there. If you are talking of other cases of US Personnel involvement in the crimes you allege, produce your evidence, but links provided elsewhere does not constitute "evidence" here, so your claim is specious. Also, If I did not provide links, it's only because I'm not a member of the "other sites" you allege to have posted your information on, so this accusation is also a Red Herring.

Of course, no one wants to believe that our country, a beacon of human rights and law, would actually stoop to what it has in this so called "war on terror." Sometimes, though, it is necessary to look at the evidence, make up your own mind, and understand what actually has happened so that it can be stopped.

Sometimes terrible things happen in war, it is regrettable, and when it does, those responsible are prosecuted, but that is no reason to condemn the country, or the administration because of the actions of a few who EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY.

Oh, yes, and your personal insults (peacenik, don't know WTF you're talking about, handwringers) show that you have run out of valid arguments.

Oh yes, the obfuscation, and vain attempts at sophistry and prevarication. It would appear that it is YOU who have run out of arguments, especially since you lack the intestinal fortitude to answer a simple, direct question. I will take your failure to do so as an admission that you did not serve in Vietnam, and therefore do NOT have any idea WTF you're talking about on the subject. Thank you for playing, and I don't expect to hear anything further from you on the subject except in the form of a QUESTION.

The assertion that we "won" in Vietnam also flies in the face of the facts,

Then present your "facts", and let us all analyze them.

as does your idea that invading France in WWII was somehow tantamount to invading Iraq.

More obfuscation and equivocation. I never said that invading France was in any way related to the invasion of Iraq. I merely challenged you to provide a rebuttal to the point that our fighting Iraq was any different than our decision to fight Germany, Vichy France, or Italy during WWII, as they didn't attack us either. Your refusal to acknowledge the question, and to address it directly shows that you have run out of excuses and admitted the extreme flaws in your own failed logic.

It es predictable, of course, that you would run out of real points, since you have taken it upon yourself to deny plain facts and to argue that this great nation of ours is somehow justified in beating prisoners to death in the name of the war on terror. Such a position is, to say the least, untenable.

I have denied no plain facts, as you've presented no plain facts, especially of US personnel "beating prisoners to death". You've presented nothing but tissue thin excuses, theories, and opinions, along with the occasional appeal to emotion, and outright heresay, which altogether qualifies as "facts not in evidence", and it is all inadmissible.

PRESENT YOUR "FACTS", I look forward to seeing them.

[PLC1]

Legally speaking, yes, it gives us the right to incarcerate them indefinitely without charge (as previous Presidential orders have confirmed dating back to Reagan) until we decide otherwise.

And while yes there have been some instances such as Abu Ghraib, those involved have been punished. Further, according to International Law, torture is what we say it is as well. So, unless we define what we do as torture, it is not in a legal sense.

You can argue that we "should" not do something like this all you want, but you cannot make the case that we should not by invoking international law that the United States has not ratified.

And no, this does not make the USA a rouge nation. Perhaps some people will look at it this way, but the US is the world hegemon and the world knows it, and I am not sure that the Army is even doing half the things you accuse them of, outside a few incidents that those responsible were punished for.

It isn't me that is accusing the army of doing things they shouldn't, it is the news people who did the research I cited. I don't have the resources to go off to foreign countries interviewing prisoners and guards anyway.

So, now your argument boils down to "we didn't ratify the law", so it makes the actions I've already cited and backed up OK in your eyes. As I've said, it is never easy to admit that one's own government is doing bad things. Ignoring evidence is much easier, now isn't it?

Which of the actions I've cited and supported do you doubt?

[Libsmasher]

Uh........could we get back to Habeas Corpus? :rolleyes:

[PLC1]

I see you didn't read the information I posted for you directly from the IHL, so I'll post it again;

I read it, and cited this part:

may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities


That's what we're doing, finally, thanks to the decision made by the SCOTUS. Now, maybe the innocent people we've kept locked up, beaten, and tortured can get out and go home. I'm sure that they will be avid supporters of the US now.:rolleyes:



I have denied no plain facts, as you've presented no plain facts, especially of US personnel "beating prisoners to death". You've presented nothing but tissue thin excuses, theories, and opinions, along with the occasional appeal to emotion, and outright heresay, which altogether qualifies as "facts not in evidence", and it is all inadmissible.

PRESENT YOUR "FACTS", I look forward to seeing them.

I have presented the facts already. There is no use bringing them up again, to have you ignore them yet again.

[BigRob]

It isn't me that is accusing the army of doing things they shouldn't, it is the news people who did the research I cited. I don't have the resources to go off to foreign countries interviewing prisoners and guards anyway.

So, now your argument boils down to "we didn't ratify the law", so it makes the actions I've already cited and backed up OK in your eyes. As I've said, it is never easy to admit that one's own government is doing bad things. Ignoring evidence is much easier, now isn't it?

Which of the actions I've cited and supported do you doubt?

If your case has now turned into an appeal to emotions then you will not get very far when trying to push your case.

[Federal Farmer]

I read it, and cited this part:
While conveniently ignoring the other salient parts of the treaty that we're not even a party to since they totally obliterate your entire handwringing mantra. You cannot simply ignore one part of a law and trumpet another part of it. The law must be accepted as a whole, or rejected as a whole. Sorry buddy, you can't have it both ways.

That's what we're doing, finally, thanks to the decision made by the SCOTUS. Now, maybe the innocent people we've kept locked up, beaten, and tortured can get out and go home. I'm sure that they will be avid supporters of the US now.:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't care if they support us or not. It's a matter of complete indifference to me what they think of us any more than what the Russians or Chinese thought of us at the height of the cold war.

As for SCOTUS, again, selective acceptance isn't a good idea. I suppose you think SCOTUS made a good call in Dred Scott v. Sandford too? I've always been critical of SCOTUS, and will continue to be so.

I have presented the facts already. There is no use bringing them up again, to have you ignore them yet again.

What you may or may not have presented on some other website has no bearing on this discussion. You asked for evidence, I provided it, I have asked for evidence, you've repeatedly avoided providing it. YOU LOSE.

[Libsmasher]

....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus

[BigRob]

....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus

If you keep interrupting I will revoke your habeas corpus and send to you cuba :eek:

[Libsmasher]

If you keep interrupting I will revoke your habeas corpus and send to you cuba :eek:

You'll send ME cuba? I don't want it!!!!! :eek:

[Federal Farmer]

....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus

Yes, yes, yes, Habeas Corpus, SCOTUS screwed up, conservative and real Americans know this, liberals and the "hate America first" crowd love it. Now they get to sit at home, in their underwear, eating cheeto's, and watching Court TV for the next 10 years, wringing their hands and saying "those poor, poor, mistreated Muzzies". Got it. These are the same morons who were glued to the OJ trial, and who think that Sally Jessie Raphael was the neatest thing since sliced bread.

[Federal Farmer]

You'll send ME cuba? I don't want it!!!!! :eek:
Hey, will you pick me up a couple of boxes of Havana's while you're there?

[Libsmasher]

Hey, will you pick me up a couple of boxes of Havana's while you're there?

No, I will NOT kidnap cuban people! :mad:

[Federal Farmer]

No, I will NOT kidnap cuban people! :mad:

Well OK then, how about a couple of boxes of cigars instead. Tell ya what, if you'll pick up 3 boxes, I'll give one of them to you. Even if you don't smoke, you can turn around and sell 'em for about $20 a stick (without drawing attention to yourself).