Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Supreme Court says Gitmo detainees must have access to US courts Update: Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

Breaking: Supreme Court says Gitmo detainees must have access to US courts Update: Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

posted at 10:45 am on June 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba must have access to American courts to challenge their detention. The ruling eliminates three attempts by the Bush administration and Congress to establish military tribunals that would handle the adjudication of terrorist cases without involving access to the civilian justice system:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” …

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

This will probably derail the hearings that had just begun at Gitmo for six members of the 9/11 conspiracy. By granting the unlawful combatants habeas corpus, the court has now eliminated the main reason for the military tribunal system — and for that matter, Gitmo itself. If the detainees can access American courts, they may as well be held on American soil.

The previous two rulings that struck down the tribunals forced the government to quickly pass laws that allowed for them. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the Constitution applies worldwide rather than just to the US and its residents, which makes it pretty difficult to go back to the well a third time. Also, with very little time remaining in the Bush administration, they will not have enough time to push through a third attempt to address the Court’s concerns — and this ruling appears to be much broader than the two that preceded this one.

It seems absurd to apply criminal law to unlawful combatants captured during hostilities abroad. Will they require a Miranda reading, too? Do we have to bring the soldiers and Marines who captured them to the trial? In our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed that kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the US itself?

Update: Bear in mind that we do not yet have the full opinion, and it may be less egregious than what we have heard thus far. However, the quote from Kennedy certainly suggests an expansive ruling.

Squid Shark says in the comments that the work-around would be to classify them as POWs and be done with it. That presents a few problems, too. It eliminates the status of unlawful combatant, which then encourages all forces to eschew uniforms, legitimate state backing, etc etc. The unlawful-combatant designation and its circumscribed rights in Geneva intended to penalize those who hide among civilians for their attacks. Are we now to forego that?

Update II: The opinion can be read here. From a cursory reading, the Court says that Congress cannot act to suspend habeas corpus except through the Suspension Clause, which requires an explicit act noting invasion or rebellion. Would infiltration suffice, or does Congress even need that much reason to invoke the Suspension Clause?

Scalia’s dissent is especially scathing:

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other Constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes [sic] important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.

Update III: I’ve read through both dissents, and I have to say that I’m struck by the tone of Scalia and Roberts. Not only do they dissent, they practically accuse the majority of deliberately misreading both law and precedent, especially regarding Eisentrager. They point out that the dissent in that case explicitly noted that the decision gave aliens in detention by American forces outside of our own sovereign territory no habeas rights at all, and yet the majority used it to apply those rights in this case. Roberts scornfully argues that the Court “cashiered” the military tribunal system before it had a chance to show that it addressed detainee rights properly.

I’d say that the end of this session couldn’t come quickly enough for these justices.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Next »

Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Are you gardening using hydroponics?

linlithgow on June 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM

If Obama is the president, who do yo think he will nominate, and the democrats will vote for?

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM

That is the problem wise, I am fully aware where Obama stands. I know what will happen. You can’t educate me on Obama any more than I already am.

I can’t say the same for McCain. In fact if I followed logic it would appear to me that McCain will be forced to nominate left leaning appointees, because nothing else will ever be approved by the Democrat run congress?

Both options hurt, just one is mildly less painful…

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM

maybe we should close Club Gitmo and make 5 separate prisons in the backyard of each of these justices…use the eminent domain clause they also passed.

Conservative Voice on June 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM

You know, it wasn’t always a Prison… I was there in the 80’s when it was essentialy a training base (GREAT DIVING!).

Come on, brother, you know myt background. I know this.

I think we really need to read this actual decision. Does anyone have a link?

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM

the Court just declared that it was all by itself.

Marbury v. Madison.

The other branches were complicit.

JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM

I’d say that the end of this session couldn’t come quickly enough for these justices.

And we still have that 2nd Amendment ruling to be given before the end of this session.

NotCoach on June 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Old Country Boy on June 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Change begins not by patching the old dress, but wearing a new one.

Your suggestion that Conservatives solicit John Muhammad McCain and the Republican Party leaders will not work. We have tried it before. We have been ignored.

You have to understand one thing:

There is a difference between the Republican Party and Conservatives.

I know, nobody has ever talked about that difference explicitly until now.

I am telling you, there should be a separation between the two, physically, literally as much as there is ideologically.

The Republican Party stopped representing me long time ago.

As I said earlier, the only way to distinguish myself, and for that matter all Conservatives, from the Republican Party is to have our own Party and I believe that the first step should start at the polling places.

We have to send a message to Washington D.C. and to the Republicans. We have to tell John Muhammad McCain and all those Republicans who are bunch of say-and-do-nothing that they lost because they are phony, because they lost the Conservative voice.

It doesn’t matter if we, Conservatives, don’t have access to power this November, what’s important is the first step towards taking our country back.

I believe in Honesty. I believe that my vote should not go for someone who doesn’t represent my Conservative Values.

I do not vote for the lesser of two evils. If it’s evil, then it should be called for what it is.

Go, my fellow Conservatives, go vote for your conscience, for your core beliefs, because this country was founded by people who honestly believe in real change, not by those who voted for the lesser of two evils.

Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM

You can’t vote “against” Obama when you don’t know who your vote will go to.

Now that’s an interesting concept. We should be able to cast a negative vote – deducting one vote from a candidate. That way, I wouldn’t be adding to the totals of any of the other undeserving candidates, merely having my say on the supreme unsuitability of one specific candidate – the other candidates can fight it out among themselves.

Perfectly constitutional too.

LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM

“but, but, E, the information we gather from them…” It ain’t worth I[t]

Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM

McCain, and I assume Obama, don’t want us to interrogate them anyway so taking prisoners isn’t likely to provide useful intelligence. There’s no reason not to shoot them.

Take no prisoners!

FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM

I would think that Hamdi v Rumsfeld would confirm the right of the govt to deny H.C. to a non-citizen while reenforcing the basic right of H.C. for citizens.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Since when has it been a conservative value to detain foreigners indefinetely without charge.

I have yet to see you say anything except leftwing talking points. We are not detaining “foreigners” indefinitely without charge. KSM is not accurately described as a “foreigner”.

The next conservative opinion you express will also be the first one.

As for who I am to tell you what is and is not conservative – I’m a conservative. You have yet to express an opinion not cribbed from the pages of The Nation, so it’s safe to conclude that you are not one.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM

LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Love the idea

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I used to listen to Rush. Alot. Not too much anymore. He makes me sick. He can help keep a Republican in office. He won’t. He’s not a team player anymore. My kids are gonna get Obama because of sore losers like him and crybabies like 95% of posters here.

Thanks

5-4. and it will never change. BTW… the future unborn thanks you too.

LtE126 on June 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM

So, you’re blaming the stupidity of the masses on the readers here???

Good call, blame us and Rush.

You know why Rush doesn’t tell us what to do? Because he CAN’T.

We think for ourselves on the Right, unlike the bots on the Left.

The reason we’re in this mess is because the Left has infiltrated Education, the Press, Politics, and Government…while those of us on the Right go outside to fix our clutch.

Have fun out there blaming us while reality continues on in here…

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM

The reason we’re in this mess is because the Left has infiltrated Education, the Press, Politics, and Government…while those of us on the Right go outside to fix our clutch.

Bingo!

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM

We are not detaining “foreigners” indefinitely without charge. KSM is not accurately described as a “foreigner”.

Ummm, yes we actually are. KSM is not the only person there.

Also KSM has been charged.

As for your other verbal jabs, I am not going to play your stupid little RINO v TC games, I dont have the stomach for stupid this afternoon.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM

At some point, secession will have to become a deadly serious consideration.

LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM

If you Brits can have more than one civil war, so can we.

JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Now that’s an interesting concept. We should be able to cast a negative vote – deducting one vote from a candidate. That way, I wouldn’t be adding to the totals of any of the other undeserving candidates, merely having my say on the supreme unsuitability of one specific candidate – the other candidates can fight it out among themselves.

Perfectly constitutional too.

LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Awesome. Where can I sign up?

Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Well, let’s review some history.

Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Tribunal Plan

(The GOP chiefs were MCain, Lindsey, and Warner.)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

In Congress, Republican leaders said the House would vote on the president’s proposal the week after next, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, argued in favor of the administration’s approach in a hearing on Thursday morning with military lawyers.

But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”

Administration lawyers on Capitol Hill said Thursday that the military trials now proposed by the administration were markedly different from the previous system and would pass court scrutiny. Among other changes, the proposal sets up tribunals overseen by a judge who could not also serve as part of the jury. Defendants would be given two appeals, and could not be tried twice.

But Senate Republicans remained divided over the White House proposal.

On one side, Mr. Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia have argued that the system must provide enough fairness guarantees that the nation would feel comfortable having American troops tried under it. This is important, they argue, to repair a national reputation that has been damaged internationally by revelations of abuse at Guantánamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and to set a model for how other countries might try American troops.

On the other side, Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama have shown more inclination to endorse the president’s proposal. Mr. Cornyn said after a round of meetings Thursday that he still supported the president’s approach on classified evidence, but that he hoped the differences could be bridged. “We’re trying,” he said.

Democrats have essentially said they would back Senators Warner, Graham and McCain, leaving the Republicans to lead the fight against the administration, and allowing the Democrats to avoid political fallout from challenging the administration while maintaining their criticism of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

I don’t think that captured terrorists can be or should be treated the same way that we’d like US troops to be treated. And if I cared what the international community thought, I’d have voted for Kerry over Bush in 2004.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM

So many thoughts.

This is a terrible decision. The logical correction to a terrible decision like this would be to amend the constitution. Given the makeup of the congress, that avenue to a remedy would seem to be closed.

I can see a result where the military will simply take fewer prisoners. Nobody will put this into writing. It’ll simply be an ‘understanding’ among those wonderful people who do our fighting for us.

What to do with the detainees? Personally, I’d say bring them back to the US, declare it impossible to try them in a civilian court and release them on the street. Yeah, I know. But, maybe the average american out there needs to meet these guys up close and personal. Let the left explain why they love them and thier rights so damned much after they’ve commited the various acts of mayhem they will surely commit. It just might make it easier to get that amendment to the constitution rolling, too.

(Note: I’m not going with my other idea of dividing the detainees into 5 groups and doing their release on the front lawns of the five majority justices. That would be over the line, even if somewhat amusing.)

I consider myself a conservative on most issues. That’s why I’m registered as a Republican. The Republican Party is not always a comfortable home. The party frequently disappoints me. That’s still better than the dems, who, more often than not, horrify me. In fact, I consider it to be more of a suicide cult than a political party. To their even greater discredit, they do not even have the courage or decency to recognize that they are a suicide cult.

I’ll vote for McCain this fall (unless some miracle happens and I get a chance to vote for a real conservative). I’m not going to vote this way because I have much that I agree with McCain about. I don’t. The vote will give me no pleasure. I may even need a good shower and a couple of cold beers afterward. I’ll do it, though. I’ll do it because Obama is the nominee of a suicide cult. And, that’s not something I want anywhere near the oval office.

trigon on June 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Now that’s an interesting concept. We should be able to cast a negative vote – deducting one vote from a candidate. That way, I wouldn’t be adding to the totals of any of the other undeserving candidates, merely having my say on the supreme unsuitability of one specific candidate – the other candidates can fight it out among themselves. Perfectly constitutional too.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM

There you go. A negative vote. All we need to do now is change the rules so people can do this in the future.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Please study history. Because I’m pretty sure Madison, Jefferson and others hated slavery, but they didn’t abolish it is our original constitution because they knew it would destroy our country before it even began.

Kinda makes being a rigid idealogue look foolish doesn’t it?
Or maybe we should have fought the civil war before we were actually a country? I’m sure the world would be a better place now.

Guess they looked at it as the better choice in the long run, not the lesser of two evils. Semantics I guess.

Who cares as long as your beliefs ae true, right?

tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Theres a link back on page one somewhere… read it hours ago…

Key is that they opened the Prison part of Gitmo for this very reason. They KNEW (as did anyone who followed this kind of thing) that as soon as they put Enemy combatants on Amercian soil the Courts would get involved, because there is STILL not a formal decleration of war (that has since been adjudactated, but at the start had not).

From Hamdi… I don’t think it said what you think it said:

“Although by the terms used in the Court’s holdings they were apparently limited to “citizen-detainees,” the last paragraph of section III, D of the O’Connor plurality (four justices: O’Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an “alleged enemy combatant.” Based on that language and Court’s holding in the case of Rasul v. Bush (issued on the same day as Hamdi, but limited solely to the holding that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by the Guantanamo detainees), the government conceded that some very limited due process rights allowing for hearings to determine the detainees’ status as enemy combatants and the right to legal counsel would be extended to all of the Guantanamo detainees, citizen and non-citizen alike.”

Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Will our soldiers have to read detainees caught on the battlefield without a uniform Miranda rights?

danking70 on June 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Ummm, yes we actually are. KSM is not the only person there.

How does “KSM is not the only person there” respond to my point that we are not detaining people for being foreigners, but for being terrorists?

I am not going to play your stupid little RINO v TC games

Maybe you mean that you are going to stop playing them, you disgustng hypocrite, because you are the one who started in with the name calling. Don’t start pretending to be an injured innocent now.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Oh, and about McCain supposedly agreeing with the supreme court as someone claimed earlier when he said ‘we need to listen to Roberts who dissented’ and ‘we need to move on because the supreme court has spoken’ ….

And this is somehow supposed to be an endorsement of the supreme court decision on giving enemy combatants full US constitution protection since McCain wanted to close gitmo and send them to ft leavenworth, Look what Bush said:

Bush disagrees with court’s Guantanamo ruling

President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

“We’ll abide by the court’s decision,” Bush said during a news conference in Rome. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.” The court’s decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of of Guantanamo.

See? Bush ‘agrees’ with the supreme court too, just like McCain!!!!!!

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Thanks for the refresher, Its been about a year since I read Hamdi.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM

See? Bush ‘agrees’ with the supreme court too, just like McCain!!!!!!

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Uhhhh…and is that supposed to be a point for your side?

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM

How does “KSM is not the only person there” respond to my point that we are not detaining people for being foreigners, but for being terrorists?

We are detaining them because they are SUSPECTED of being terrorists or having terrorist ties. Since some have been released, it would seem our procedures are not perfect, imagine that.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Maybe you mean that you are going to stop playing them, you disgustng hypocrite, because you are the one who started in with the name calling. Don’t start pretending to be an injured innocent now.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Keep digging that grave, flenser.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Kinda makes being a rigid idealogue look foolish doesn’t it?

I hate rigid ideologues myself. Especially the ones whose rigid ideology is that we must all vote for the Republican, whatever he’s like.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

We are detaining them because they are SUSPECTED of being terrorists or having terrorist ties. Since some have been released, it would seem our procedures are not perfect, imagine that.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Alternative option?

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Uhhhh…and is that supposed to be a point for your side?
ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM

The side who is lying about McCain and claims that McCain is supporting the supreme court decision, ClassicCon.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Maybe you mean that you are going to stop playing them, you disgustng hypocrite, because you are the one who started in with the name calling. Don’t start pretending to be an injured innocent now.”

He started it, waahhhhhhh.

As I recall I “started it” by noting everyone who was intentionally lying about John McCains position and using this as a wedge to trash McCain.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM

We are detaining them because they are SUSPECTED of being terrorists or having terrorist ties.

KSM was SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, and his confession would not stand up in a court, or even a military tribunal. Should we release him? Why or why not?

Since some have been released, it would seem our procedures are not perfect, imagine that.

Again, your talking points are ripped from the pages of The Nation or the Daily Kos. Yes, we have released some. And some of those released because we did not have enough legal evidence against them were later captured or killed fighting against us.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM

He started it, waahhhhhhh.

You did start it, you gutless whore. Don’t fart around here calling people names and then give me this “Who, me?” routine. At least have the fortitude to stand by your own words.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM

As I recall I “started it” by noting everyone who was intentionally lying about John McCains position and using this as a wedge to trash McCain.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM

What is your interpretation of McCain’s stance on Gitmo, ignoring the current ruling?

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Kinda makes being a rigid idealogue look foolish doesn’t it?
I hate rigid ideologues myself. Especially the ones whose rigid ideology is that we must all vote for the Republican, whatever he’s like.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Vote for who you want. I’m not arguing against your right to choose, just your judgement in who. Have I told you who you must vote for?

tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM

linlithgow on June 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM

ummmmmmm…no different then the hydroponics my great grandfather used (1856-1921)
…………..

Flenser…

I don’t want, or wish, that you vote Republican based on a party trump. What my argument is about is that I am not offered the same courtesy to decide. I’m a ‘man-without-principles’, according to the TCs.

My guess, if you could write down all the positions from abortion to Miranda that you and I wouldn’t be far from each other. Where we differ is in method. I simple believe that fixing the wheel is better then remaking the wheel.

Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Well, it’s offical. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has declared that, in its opinion, the Constitution is a suicide pact.

njcommuter on June 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM

KSM was SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, and his confession would not stand up in a court, or even a military tribunal. Should we release him? Why or why not?

Because there is a mountain of other evidence against him, and the rules of evidence are different in a Military Tribunal.

“Again, your talking points are ripped from the pages of The Nation or the Daily Kos. Yes, we have released some. And some of those released because we did not have enough legal evidence against them were later captured or killed fighting against us.”

And some went on to live normal lives.

What do you think the US would do if I were picked up by the Iranian Govt in Bahrain and Held on one of the disputed Islands in the SOH for suspicion of terrorist acts.?

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I “started it” by noting everyone who was intentionally lying about John McCains position

I can’t help but notice that the only people actaully quoting John McCain on his position are me and the other McCain critics. So calling me an “intentional liar” is an intentional lie.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

The court’s decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of of Guantanamo.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Why close Guantanamo now, if the prisoners can receive Constitutional rights there? What’s the “necessity”?

JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

The fall of Rome is at hand…

Tim Burton on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I simple believe that fixing the wheel is better then remaking the wheel.

I think that sums up the two camps.

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Clearly you need a reading lesson, I have posted his position twice.

It is useless to scream something three times at a deaf person.

You have yet to produce a quote from John McCain where he says that terrorists deserve consitutional rights. You have produced several that express his position that GTMO be closed, which is not in dispute.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM

tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM

I was referring to our Independence from the British Empire. We didn’t concede our principles to get Independence, we stuck to our beliefs until we got what we wanted, and we fought for it.

We were not cowards like today.

We were not politically correct with the British.

We lost battles but we won the war.

Today’s Americans surrender before even thinking of fighting one battle.

Conservatives should take heed from our Forefathers.

Losing a battle should establish the momentum to win the war.

Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM

rigid ideologues = someone who seeks a messiah in religion or politics

Conservative= doesn’t believe in a political messiah.(see Goldwater, regean and buckley)

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

= waiting and waiting and waiting…..

tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Clearly you need a reading lesson, I have posted his position twice.
It is useless to scream something three times at a deaf person.
You have yet to produce a quote from John McCain where he says that terrorists deserve consitutional rights. You have produced several that express his position that GTMO be closed, which is not in dispute.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM

He is quite good at spamming this site with his lies. But no, he/she/it hasn’t produced a quote from John McCain claiming that terrorists deserve constitutional rights.

Makes you wonder what his motives are, since he is constanly lying about McCain.

Makes you wonder.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Because there is a mountain of other evidence against him

What “mountain of evidence” are you refering to? What exists against him, and not against the others?

What do you think the US would do if I were picked up by the Iranian Govt in Bahrain and Held on one of the disputed Islands in the SOH for suspicion of terrorist acts.?

As I say, every single thing you say is cribbed from the left. If we cannot even detain suspected terrorists, how can we actually, you know, kill them? Should every Marine in Iraq and soldier in Afghanistan act as policemen, and simply detain “suspected terrorists” for a trial in the US?

Do you vote for Kerry? He favored your approach to this – the law enforcement model.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM

What is your interpretation of McCain’s stance on Gitmo, ignoring the current ruling?

Close GTMO because it creates an aura of illegitimacy which we do not need.

Charge them in military trubunals IAW the Military Comissions Act of 2006.

Conduct tribunals, execute, further imprison, or release accordingly. Or turn over to another counrty for prosecution.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Kinda makes being a rigid idealogue look foolish doesn’t it?
Or maybe we should have fought the civil war before we were actually a country? I’m sure the world would be a better place now.

Guess they looked at it as the better choice in the long run, not the lesser of two evils. Semantics I guess.

Who cares as long as your beliefs ae true, right?
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Although I don’t believe in being a stiff idealogue, we have a country already, unlike the situation you’re referencing…

And the Left is pushing US to the brink of Civil War, my friend.

No jokes here…I see it coming. I am not pointing the fingers at anyone here, or at McCain. You can read my posts to see that.

How many of us have begun stockpiling weapons, ammo, and emergency supplies?

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM

What “mountain of evidence” are you refering to? What exists against him, and not against the others?

Oh my, you have to be someone living in a cave. The media has been pushing the case against him for years, why do you think we were so happy to catch “the mastermind”. We sure as hell didnt have his confession then.

Should every Marine in Iraq and soldier in Afghanistan act as policemen, and simply detain “suspected terrorists” for a trial in the US?

Typical strawman, if they are shooting back, of course they will kill them.

Do you vote for Kerry? He favored your approach to this – the law enforcement model.

Nope, I voted for Bush.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Do you vote for Kerry? He favored your approach to this – the law enforcement model.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM

They declared war on us…this should NEVER be tried in a court of law, but is a military issue. Period.

Watch a You Tube video on how they treat our prisoners, or get your hands on the AQ how-to manual on how to treat prisoners. I doubt you’d disagree that they deserve “proper” treatment accorded US citizens under the US Constitution…even though GTMO provides them such.

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM

rigid ideologues = someone who seeks a messiah in religion or politics

= waiting and waiting and waiting…..

You can stop waiting and waiting and waiting. (1) your made up definition of what a rigid ideologue is wrong. (2) You’ll be delighted to know that I’m not a “rigid ideologue” under that or any other definition.

I’m advocating for my beliefs, just as you are for yours. Perhaps you can explain why conservatism as an “ideology” and your beliefs are not.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM

How many of us have begun stockpiling weapons, ammo, and emergency supplies?

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Hand goes up, sheepishly.

JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Nuremberg. Hmmmm. Civilian court, or military tribunal? Who cares, just close Guantanamo already! Yeah!

Seixon on June 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Miss_Anthrope, you’ve not understood the thread.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM

What “mountain of evidence” are you refering to? What exists against him, and not against the others?

Oh my, you have to be someone living in a cave.

I asked you a question, you obnoxious little troll. Your speculation about where I live is not an answer. I’ll ask it again. What mountain of evidence existed against KSM which does not exist against the others.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Fark it. Capture terrorists. Extract information. Kill them. ‘Nuff said.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM

The reason we’re in this mess is because the Left has infiltrated Education, the Press, Politics, Government, and the Republican Party…while those of us on the Right go outside to fix our clutch.

Fixed it for ya.

Mike H on June 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

flenser,

I will repost:

The media has been pushing the case against him for years, why do you think we were so happy to catch “the mastermind”. We sure as hell didnt have his confession then.

Enjoy:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/CSRT_Summary_of_Evidence_memo_for_Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM

I’d say that the end of ~~this session~~ their judicial careers couldn’t come quickly enough for these justices.

Ed

You don’t need any editorial help, Ed, but indulge me.

Jaibones on June 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Typical strawman, if they are shooting back, of course they will kill them.

That’s going to make fighting a war on terrorists rather difficult. The key to military victory is stay on offense and keep the initative. Are you SURE you are in the military? When I was in the service I never had time to hang out on blogs.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM

I love laws with unintended consequences sometimes. Now, we don’t have to take ANY prisoners. Hmmmmm :)

THE CHOSEN ONE on June 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Fark it. Capture terrorists. Extract information. Kill them. ‘Nuff said.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM

I don’t know enough about current military thinking to comment on your point intelligently, but it sure seems like this is a plausible scenario for a military that feels alienated by our own government.

Jaibones on June 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Enjoy

Enjoy what? After he was captured, various evidence tying him to 911 and Bin Laden were found. What legal grounds existed to capture him in the first place? After all, he was not “shooting at us”, your standard for taking action.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM

I think that sums up the two camps.

ClassicCon on June 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I don’t disagree, but there are three camps as I see it: One, there are those who genuinely and enthusiastically support McCain and really aren’t very conservative or are focused strictly on Iraq. Two, there are those who will vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils, and three, those who can’t bring themselves to vote for McCain for whatever reason, or at least are holding out for the time being.

The later two share a lot in common and seem to dominate here at Hot Air but the first group seems to feel that they are dominant and the rest of us are trying to take over this blog, this in spite of the fact that most of the regulars here seem to be in the latter two camps.

FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM

That’s going to make fighting a war on terrorists rather difficult. The key to military victory is stay on offense and keep the initative. Are you SURE you are in the military? When I was in the service I never had time to hang out on blogs.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Thanks for the tactics lesson. *Check wallet* yeah I am sure I am in the military.

Since we are in a war on terror we are actively routing and engaging terrorist and their supporting states.

This is neither a conventional war, nor a pure law enforcement action. I would expect you to understand that.

If this were a conventional war, irregulars would either be shot on site or detained as POW’s. Which would be fine by me but not produce and info or real justice for the crimes against the country.

If this were a law enforcement action we would be trying them in U.S. Courts as federal criminals.

Since it is some new fusion of the two, we are detaining some, killing others, as the opportunity arises. Since they are irregulars, they are being denied Geneva Convention rights as POW’s since the convention is quite hazy on the treatment of irrregulars.

Military Trubunals and charges for all those being detained. Not just for some and then others we will just keep because we arent sure.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM

The media has been pushing the case against him for years, why do you think we were so happy to catch “the mastermind”. We sure as hell didnt have his confession then.

The evidence cited did not exist before we caught him.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Ah yes, the classic case of Murder-Suicide, just on a slightly bigger scale.

Just add a dash of ‘Obamaism’ and the main course will be complete.

SwampRat on June 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM

You have yet to produce a quote from John McCain where he says that terrorists deserve consitutional rights.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM

He doesn’t have to. If we’d done what McCain wanted they would have been conferred Constitutional rights regardless of McCain’s rhetoric. The only way that McCain’s words on the matter means anything is as an example of his own ignorance of practical legal considerations.

FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM

flenser, i understand the thread. you & Squid Shark are going at it, while the real world is crumbling down around you.

fine, you two argue about McCain & whether he’s w/ or against SCOTUS. see if the rest of us give a GOOD GOD D&.

we’re discussing reality, if you don’t mind…nothing personal.

JiangxiDad, arm up HIGH.

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Enjoy what? After he was captured, various evidence tying him to 911 and Bin Laden were found. What legal grounds existed to capture him in the first place? After all, he was not “shooting at us”, your standard for taking action.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM

We had enough evidence to look for him and know he was important. Apparently you did not read too hard because there are several points of evidence which came before he was caught.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Some issues are worth fighting for. My point was that our country was not founded on a (singular idea) one principal.

But the idea that anyone who disagrees is evil is wrong. We were not founded by a bunch of people who agreed on everything. We were founded on freedom and individualism.

I hope we don’t need to use your stockpile. That doesn’t mean that I think you shouldn’t have it.

tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I love laws with unintended consequences sometimes. Now, we don’t have to take ANY prisoners. Hmmmmm :)
THE CHOSEN ONE on June 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM

There are unintended consequences, and then there are intended consequences.

Lawyer for bin Laden driver wants charges dismissed

A lawyer for Osama bin Laden’s former driver said Thursday he would try to stop the first scheduled war-crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay now that the Supreme Court says detainees have constitutional rights.

Other lawyers are expected to join in a blizzard of filings to the war-crimes tribunal and to U.S. federal courts after the ruling Thursday that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in civilian court.

Thanks a lot, 5 supreme court justices. The terrorists applaud you again.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Fark it. Capture terrorists. Extract information. Kill them. ‘Nuff said.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM

I don’t know enough about current military thinking to comment on your point intelligently, but it sure seems like this is a plausible scenario for a military that feels alienated by our own government.

Jaibones on June 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Somethin’ tells me this is going to be a MAJOR side effect of this decision…

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Makes you wonder what his motives are, since he is constanly lying about McCain.

Makes you wonder.

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM

If you can take a moment to see past McCain’s rhetoric and examine reality for a moment you’ll realize that what you’ve been referring to as a lie is actually a point of clarity.

FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Apologies, I get sucked into the stupid.

I have got to get a hold of this decision.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM

I bet Keith Olbermann and his pals in the left wing blogosphere are dancing a little jig right now. But there won’t be a lot of celebrating for the families of victims killed by terrorists that were let go by liberal judges.

SoulGlo on June 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM

*Check wallet* yeah I am sure I am in the military.

Glad to see we’re getting our moneys worth for our defence dollars. I get a warm fuzzy seeing you in action defending our country every day on this blog.

Since we are in a war on terror we are actively routing and engaging terrorist and their supporting states.

That supposes that we know how the terrorists are. By definition, that is always uncertain.

Since they are irregulars, they are being denied Geneva Convention rights as POW’s since the convention is quite hazy on the treatment of irrregulars.

I take it that you have not been following the series of Supreme Court rulings on exactly that topic. Are you sure that you are studying law?

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Somethin’ tells me this is going to be a MAJOR side effect of this decision…

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Concur.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM

The End. It’s over.

Griz on June 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM

A bit of side theater…

Just received a e-letter from my son in Mosul. He wants the skinny on this decision.

I quote (from the e-mail)…”Where the **** does that leave us?”

I’ve yet to respond because I have no idea what the hell to tell him.

Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Lim, I think he is OK, it is the poor folks working at GTMO that are getting fracked first.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM

OK all, I will talk to you later.

Time for work.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Wow… just heard Napolitano and Shep saying this was a GREAT shining day for the rule of law….

Wow… just Wow…

This just put the lawyers even more in charge of the war… and made soldiers into law enforcment officers.

The way this reads, EVERY US military installation, foreign or domestic, is covered.

Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Typical strawman, if they are shooting back, of course they will kill them.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM

If they are shooting back and we kill some of them before the rest run out of ammo, and then detain those we capture in Guantanamo, how is their detention less just than killing the others? Why should they have Constitutional rights while their fellow Jihadi’s are dead?

FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM

fine, you two argue about McCain & whether he’s w/ or against SCOTUS. see if the rest of us give a GOOD GOD D&.

Well, that’s idiotic. If you are upset with the SCOTUS ruling, it matters a lot what McCain thinks on the matter. After all, he may be appointing a few justices in the not too distant future.

But you feel free to worry about whatever it is you are worried about.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Fixed it for ya.

Mike H on June 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Nice touch.

FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 3:45 PM

I’ve yet to respond because I have no idea what the hell to tell him.

Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Why don’t you quote him John McCains comment? I’m sure that will lift his spirits. How did it go again? “This is an outrage which cannot be allowed to stand”?

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM

What the hell does McCain’s take on the decision have to do with anything. Thanks for showing where your focus is, smack dab on yourself.

Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM

A bit of side theater…
Just received a e-letter from my son in Mosul. He wants the skinny on this decision.
I quote (from the e-mail)…”Where the **** does that leave us?”
I’ve yet to respond because I have no idea what the hell to tell him.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Until they start charging US soldiers with murder when they shoot terrorists, then the answer is ‘noting has changed.’

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Why don’t you quote him John McCains comment? I’m sure that will lift his spirits. How did it go again? “This is an outrage which cannot be allowed to stand”?
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Holy christ, what is it with you and lying about McCain? Do you have some sort of mental disorder?

Does Charles Krauthammer need to make up a medical definition to your malady as well?

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Until they start charging US soldiers with murder when they shoot terrorists, then the answer is ‘noting has changed.’

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Dude, heard about Haditha?

Heard about the Sniper who was brought home, and brought up on charges?

They are trying.

Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM

The wheels have completely come off the “conservative” movement at this point. The question is no longer if the country is going to hell in a hand basket. It has become, “How quickly is the basket moving?”

Benaiah on June 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM

The End. It’s over.

Griz on June 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Right there w/ya, pal.

flenser on June 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Then you’re not getting MY point, that a candidate’s opinion is POINTLESS when SCOTUS just crossed over into the judiciary.

You catchin’ MY drift NOW?

If you think I have NO CLUE about the ramifications here, you are DEAD WRONG…I am on the double-paying end here. Wish I could clarify that comment, but I just can’t.

Squid Shark, don’t sweat it…been freakin’ over this decision. Been a rough day…feel like our country is DONE.

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:55 PM

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Maybe Flenser left. He was being sarcastic with the McCain “quote.” He was saying what he wished our nominee would say, but didn’t.

JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Until they start charging US soldiers with murder when they shoot terrorists, then the answer is ‘noting has changed.’

wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Dude, heard about Haditha?

Heard about the Sniper who was brought home, and brought up on charges?

They are trying.

Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Yep, been there, done that. All acquitted to-date…just two left. Thanks, Murtha, ya bastard.

Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Next »