More to the point, the Court never even gave those procedures an opportunity to work. They decided that it was insufficient without seeing whether it worked - taking the matter out of the hands of Congress and the Executive.

Boumediene Five? I refer to them as the Politburo Five.

Stupid is as stupid does...

The man who should be the Republican nominee.

What's next? Read the enemy their rights before you shoot them?
(I wish I were kidding)

Can't the Left cede from the US, raise the white flag and surrender to the jihadists and commies leaving the rest of us out of their suicide pact.

Free The Boumediene Five!

/never mind

You get more rights as an enemy waging war against the US than you do as a citizen.

Reminds me of when Khrushchev said that when the Communists come to hang the West the Capitalists will sell them the rope. What will it take for these guys to realize that they really mean to kill us all?

This decision pretty much blows away the Geneva Conventions, no?

They just ruled on another case today (I believe) dismissing a enviromental lawsuit directed at halting the Border Fence. Problem is - they should never have heard it to begin with. The Border is the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch of the Government. The Supremes have no business ruling on the Border. This seizing authority from the Executive and Legislative Branches needs to be halted.

This is the one area I'm really concerned about with an Obama Presidency. Just about anything else can be fixed - but if he picks 2-3 justices for the court it will be decades before it can be repaired.

re: #10 abolitionist

well, a whole lot of countries don't abide by them anyway- and yet we put up with it.

Some really interesting comments. This one highlights the "unexpected consequences" of bad decisions:

Kim Zigfeld:
I think the most appalling aspect of this decision is that it tells our armed forces they simply should not take prisoners, but rather liquidate all enemy forces on the battlefield. If they take prisoners now, the Supreme Court says, they risk (a) bankrupting their budgets with defense work at trials and (b) losing those trials and having dangerous foes let free into American society and/or the world.

And this one - what would happen if the Pres did it?

Roger Coke:
... What to do? The President’s remedy is simple but requires daring - tell the country in a few well-chosen words on television that the supreme court’s decision endangers national security, and that for the sake of the country and future presidents, Boumedienne will not be followed.

When will the executive and legislative branches grow a pair?

re: #6 jemima,

Their whole point is to drag the rest of us down with them. Where's the fun in surrender if you can't bring the whole USA down with it?

We're the people we've been waiting for!

re: #5 Iron Fist

What's next? Read the enemy their rights before you shoot them?
(I wish I were kidding)

All this PC bullshit is going to come back to haunt us. Hopefully people will awaken and realize what is going on. Just like now with $4.50 gal gas prices people are finally taking it personal and demanding that we start drilling NOW. Screw the environuts.

the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.

re: #9 bucephalas

Reminds me of when Khrushchev said that when the Communists come to hang the West the Capitalists will sell them the rope. What will it take for these guys to realize that they really mean to kill us all?

They know - they've chosen their side and it ain't ours.

This is what is meant when said "elections have consequences". I hope folks are paying attention. This is democracy in decline.

re: #10 abolitionist

This decision pretty much blows away the Geneva Conventions, no?

Yup, its trash now

re: #12 madisonsfriend

well, a whole lot of countries don't abide by them anyway- and yet we put up with it.

Thing is, the Geneva Convention provides for military hearings!

I am sure under the Obama Administration, the military rules of engagement will include handing out Twinkies to the other side before battle, making each Marine or soldier carry two lawyers on his back into battle, and arresting each service person as they come off suty wach day -- just to be safe.

If these hacks spent half the energy trying to protect us as they do trying to protect our enemies we would have a lot less to worry about as Americans.

re: #19 The Shadow Do

This is democracy in decline.

Where's Nero? Rome's burning.

The impact of this asinine decision cannot even be understood at this point, but Thompson is on the right track. The logical extension of the Court's "logic" is that EVERYONE ON THE PLANET is entitled to the rights and privileges afforded us under the Constitution. That would be wonderful if everyone thought roughly the same way we do, but the problem is, Islamist terrorists don't. Kennedy didn't get that. Ginsburg didn't get it. Breyer didn't get it. Stevens didn't get it. Souter didn't get it. None of them have any freakin' idea as to what they have done.

Here's another kick in the privates about this decision: Kennedy and Souter were REPUBLICAN appointees. In fact, all of the current Justices but two (Ginsburg and Breyer) were Republican appointees. If this is what we get from them, what kind of Justices would we get from a President Obama?

BHG

re: #4 Ford_Prefect

The man who should be the Republican nominee.

Absolutely true. The man did a real disservice however when he failed to run a credible campaign with the assumption people would somehow find him.

re: #12 madisonsfriend

well, a whole lot of countries don't abide by them anyway- and yet we put up with it.

Well, we could've abided strictly by it. You do know what happens to enemy combatants who are not in uniform under Geneva Conventions, don't you? So, the combatants should feel very lucky we did not abide strictly by Geneva Conventions, IMHO.

According to the Supreme Court, captured enemy combatants must now be extended the rights and protections of US citizens in a criminal prosecution.

The Court decision is absurd. War does not work that way.

Of course as a logical consequence, the military has a much stronger reason to "take no prisoners".

re: #1 lawhawk

More to the point, the Court never even gave those procedures an opportunity to work. They decided that it was insufficient without seeing whether it worked - taking the matter out of the hands of Congress and the Executive.

This is what I find so scary. So, how do we the people start taking back control and make sure that the courts recognize the proper and appropriate authority of the legislative and executive branches (whether Federal or State governments)?

It's really frustrating to have girly men like Souter and Breyer trying to destroy this great nation and they seem to be getting away with it

re: #25 bald headed geek,

Under a President Obama, this would no longer be a 5-4 decision.

re: #24 Max Darkside

Where's Nero? Rome's burning.

GWB?

Just posted in the spinoffs...

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Enemy Combatant Classification for Guantanamo Detainee

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court announced Monday that it has overturned the Pentagon's classification of a Guantanamo Bay detainee as an enemy combatant.

In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.

The appeals court directed the U.S. military to release Parhat, to transfer him or to hold a new proceeding promptly in light of the appeals court's ruling.

The court also specified that Parhat could petition a federal judge seeking his immediate release in light of the Supreme Court's June 12 decision giving that right to all the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

Surprise!

what is the procedure for removing justices from the supreme court?
impeachment? congressional action? can it even be done?
someone please start a petition calling for the removal of these fve "judges" and i will gladly sign it, and e-mail it to the world.

re: #13 reine.de.tout

And this one - what would happen if the Pres did it?

Roger Coke:
... What to do? The President’s remedy is simple but requires daring - tell the country in a few well-chosen words on television that the supreme court’s decision endangers national security, and that for the sake of the country and future presidents, Boumedienne will not be followed.

I'd love to see the Congress actually try to bring impeachment proceedings against President Bush for not following Boumediene. Now there's a real political sideshow!

(I mean, the Democrats like to fantasize about it, but let's see what they'd actually do if there really were an issue like that.)

Just let Obama appoint a couple judges and we will be paying reparations to the terrorist for detaining them.

So Sarkozy says Israel has to share Jerusalem with the Palis AND ensure access to all holy places to all religions. Well, I guess he is just another balls-less Frog. We know the French forget history quickly but Jordan's hold on Jerusalem was not so long ago- and not only did Jews have no access, the Jordanians(which is what Palis are) destroyed our holy places and desecrated our cemeteries. I am sure Sarkozy's grandfather is cursing him. Hey, Sarkozy- the carbeques won't stop because you want Israel to do what the French always do.

re: #24 Max Darkside

Where's Nero? Rome's burning.

He's rosinning up his bow.

re: #14 redheadredstate

When will the executive and legislative branches grow a pair?

They haven't done it in 50+ years. Why should they do so now?

If McAmnesty would pledge to put Fred either as Veep, AG, or Secretary of Something Important...he might actually get me to vote for him.

Better yet...pledge to put Fred ON SCOTUS

re: #34 cannon2

what is the procedure for removing justices from the supreme court?
impeachment? congressional action? can it even be done?
someone please start a petition calling for the removal of these fve "judges" and i will gladly sign it, and e-mail it to the world.

I think nothing but resignation by their own choice.

re: #37 madisonsfriend

So Sarkozy says Israel has to share Jerusalem with the Palis AND ensure access to all holy places to all religions. Well, I guess he is just another balls-less Frog. We know the French forget history quickly but Jordan's hold on Jerusalem was not so long ago- and not only did Jews have no access, the Jordanians(which is what Palis are) destroyed our holy places and desecrated our cemeteries. I am sure Sarkozy's grandfather is cursing him. Hey, Sarkozy- the carbeques won't stop because you want Israel to do what the French always do.

Land for Peace: The French Solution

Here's the relevant Geneva Conventions on spies and mecenaries, of which the Taliban fit best into the mecenary category:

Art. 46. Spies

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.

3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.

4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

re: #41 madisonsfriend,

There's always death. Ain't none of them young.

It is decisions like this that make very important, that the next three appointees to the Court are not the choice of President Obama.
The Court is skidding off of the rails, citing foreign precednt when there are domestic cases available.
Now Habeas Corpus protection to Stateless, ununiformred terrorists.
They should view the Geneva Convention!

re: #40 Rogue198

If McAmnesty would pledge to put Fred either as Veep, AG, or Secretary of Something Important...he might actually get me to vote for him.

Better yet...pledge to put Fred ON SCOTUS

Fred's made it clear he has no interest beyond President. Stubborn old so and so that he is.

re: #25 bald headed geek

Maybe Obama will nominate closet conservatives by mistake...

re: #46 The Shadow Do

Fred's made it clear he has no interest beyond President. Stubborn old so and so that he is.

The country's loss...

re: #45 opnion

It is decisions like this that make very important, that the next three appointees to the Court are not the choice of President Obama.
The Court is skidding off of the rails, citing foreign precednt when there are domestic cases available.
Now Habeas Corpus protection to Stateless, ununiformred terrorists.
They should view the Geneva Convention!

Is there ever a situation when the court should cite foreign precedent rather than domestic precedent or new decisions based on the U.S. Constitution?

re: #34 cannon2

what is the procedure for removing justices from the supreme court?
impeachment? congressional action? can it even be done?
someone please start a petition calling for the removal of these fve "judges" and i will gladly sign it, and e-mail it to the world.

The proper recourse is for the executive branch to refuse to enforce the SCOTUS fantasy and proceed as usual.
Congress can then either pass legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the court and nullify the decision or to impeach the president.

As Homer Simpson would say, "Lousy Democrats."

or better yet, "lousy courts."

re: #35 Dar ul Harb

I guess my question should have been phrased - what can be done as regards bad decisions such as this? This decision isn't just bad - it compromises the security of this country and all citizens.

Scalia put it best in his dissent:

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 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.

We haven't fought a war since WWII. They have all been "conflicts" and "Police Actions". In a real war, the gloves are off and there are no laws other than the laws of physics. No rules. Destroy the enemy, else be destroyed.

"Sorry, sir. But that Trojan Horse gift was a trick and tricks are in violation of International Conflict Policy #33481.393 C) ii) part B. We demand an immediate withdrawl to the beach and our city rebuilt. Thank you."

/ya, right.

re: #45 opnion

It is decisions like this that make very important, that the next three appointees to the Court are not the choice of President Obama.
The Court is skidding off of the rails, citing foreign precednt when there are domestic cases available.
Now Habeas Corpus protection to Stateless, ununiformred terrorists.
They should view the Geneva Convention!

See my #43. These terrorists are covered best under the mercenaries section of the Geneva Conventions. They have no right to be POWs in the first place, and as such, we can try them as we see fit. The SCOTUS is doing a great injustice to both US law and international law.

re: #41 madisonsfriend

I think nothing but resignation by their own choice.

No, they can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but not , alas, for ideological idiocy.

The Stench from the bench is making me clench

re: #50 wolfie

The proper recourse is for the executive branch to refuse to enforce the SCOTUS fantasy and proceed as usual.
Congress can then either pass legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the court and nullify the decision or to impeach the president.

Win/Win
Give Cheney a couple of months to run the show.

re: #42 Alouette

Excellent article- I knew Steve many years ago(when we were both young-er).

re: #5 Iron Fist

What's next? Read the enemy their rights before you shoot them?
(I wish I were kidding)

No, what's next is jihadis with toy guns getting shot and then our soldier's put on trial for excessive use of force.

The courts need to sit themselves down and focus on what happens between east coast and the west coast. Anything outside of that is beyond their jurisdiction.

re: #49 reine.de.tout

Is there ever a situation when the court should cite foreign precedent rather than domestic precedent or new decisions based on the U.S. Constitution?

If you are a lib precedence has absolutely no credence in your declarations and decisions. You are simply smarter than all that. You cite from whatever esoteric source you choose to use on any given day.

re: #44 Iron Fist

,

There's always death. Ain't none of them young.

Yes, there is that although occasionally, as with some elected officials, it appears that they are serving after death.

re: #53 lawhawk

Scalia put it best in his dissent:

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

So do I.

re: #31 Iron Fist

Don't be so sure. Reagan gave us Kennedy, Bush 41 gave us Souter.

BHG

I can see our soldiers trying to read Miranda warnings to terrorists, in Pashtun, and understanding their responses.

re: #40 Rogue198

If McAmnesty would pledge to put Fred either as Veep, AG, or Secretary of Something Important...he might actually get me to vote for him.

Better yet...pledge to put Fred ON SCOTUS

IIRC, someone had a story linked .......or maybe not linked because it was AP.....that McCain had engaged Thompson as his SCOTUS advisor.
Thompson, of course, was the one who steered Roberts's appt thru the Senate for Bush.

re: #50 wolfie

The proper recourse is for the executive branch to refuse to enforce the SCOTUS fantasy and proceed as usual.
Congress can then either pass legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the court and nullify the decision or to impeach the president.

Yup, I think Jackson did just that.

re: #60 CommonCents

Nice avatar!

If the Jihad doesn't fit, you must acquit.

see you later!

re: #47 bucephalas

Heh.

Don't get on it. If Obama wins the White House, we'll get nominees who make Breyer and Ginsburg look liked Scalia and Rehnquis (may he rest in peace).........

BHG

I dissent

I disgusted.

re: #37 madisonsfriend

So Sarkozy says Israel has to share Jerusalem with the Palis AND ensure access to all holy places to all religions. Well, I guess he is just another balls-less Frog. We know the French forget history quickly but Jordan's hold on Jerusalem was not so long ago- and not only did Jews have no access, the Jordanians(which is what Palis are) destroyed our holy places and desecrated our cemeteries. I am sure Sarkozy's grandfather is cursing him. Hey, Sarkozy- the carbeques won't stop because you want Israel to do what the French always do.

I had posted the link in the spinoffs and dead thread.
Sarkozy has proven he really is Fwench.

We should tell him to give Paris back to the Germans. Or at least Alsace.

re: #65 Kosh's Shadow

I can see our soldiers trying to read Miranda warnings to terrorists, in Pashtun, and understanding their responses.

I can see them taking a whole lot less prisoners or they will be turned over to the Iraqi Government.
They would be begging to be detainees then, don't you think?

re: #49 reine.de.tout

Is there ever a situation when the court should cite foreign precedent rather than domestic precedent or new decisions based on the U.S. Constitution?

No, U.S precedent is governing, unless unavailable.
After hundreds of years oc Common Law decisions by our courts, it would be difficult to do a Lexis Nexis search and not find relevant U.S cases.
It is just that justices like Bryer find going outside really fun & edegy.

re: #53 lawhawk

He was so, so right in dissent......

BHG

re: #66 wolfie

IIRC, someone had a story linked .......or maybe not linked because it was AP.....that McCain had engaged Thompson as his SCOTUS advisor.
Thompson, of course, was the one who steered Roberts's appt thru the Senate for Bush.

Good sign

re: #64 bald headed geek,

Yes, but in both cases they weren't trying to give us candidates like this. Obama will look to Ginsburg they way we might look to Roberts or Thomas, as a model for his picks. This despite the fact that Ginsburg should have never been allowed to take the bench (I fault the Republicans for that as much as I do Clinton).

McCian might give us a bad Justice, but he will at least try to give us a good one. I guess Obama might give us a good Justice, but he will try to give us a bad one.

My bet is, with a Democratic Congress, Obama will succeede. We can't afford an Obama Presidency. For this among many reasons.

Supreme Court Judges can be impeached. It's just not likely to happen.

Blown Away
--with apologies to Rudyard Kipling's "Mandalay"

By the old Boumediene decision, giving rights to detainees
There's a flock of lawyers waiting on behalf of jihadis
For the fat is in the fire now, as the five justices say,
"Let's enlarge the legal rights of those who would blow you away!"
Those who would blow you away
If the imams have their say
Planning mayhem for the morrow in their sleeper cells today
Those who would blow you away;
If in court they have their say
The dawn will come up like thunder just as they devoutly pray!

Let's ship somewhere east of Suez, where jihadis make their home
And bring the battle to them before we become as Rome
If upon the field of battle they are slain, there'll be no chance
They can obfuscate the issue with the rules of evidence
For the rights of citizens
Are the province of free men
Not a gift to give to killers who would see that freedom end
Like those who'd blow you away...

Those who would blow you away
If the imams have their say
Planning mayhem for the morrow in their sleeper cells today
Those who would blow you away;
If in court they have their say
The dawn will come up like thunder just as they devoutly pray!

re: #5 Iron Fist

What's next? Read the enemy their rights before you shoot them?
(I wish I were kidding)

No. Read them their rights after you shoot them.

This decision really is the hill G.W. Bush should choose to die on. Seriously, it is that important. He should defy the court, consequences be damned. Has he become a eunuch? No need to answer that.

re: #42 Alouette

I had high hopes for Sarkozy when he took office, but he has turned out to be your typical French politician, which is to say, anti-Israel.

BHG

re: #64 bald headed geek

Don't be so sure. Reagan gave us Kennedy, Bush 41 gave us Souter.

BHG

True. But this is the way it is:
With McCain you stand a chance of getting a decent judge & you stand a good chance of getting a Kennedy/O'Connor type who is not predictably left-wing....i.e., a swin voter.
With Obama, you will get a radical anti-Constitutionalist like Ginsburg
It's a certainty.

re: #81 kansas

No. Read them their rights after you shoot them.

Shoot em, read them thier rights, shoot em again.
Just to be sure.

re: #85 VegasRick

Shoot em, read them thier rights, shoot em again.
Just to be sure.

Thanks for improving on my idea.

re: #75 opnion

No, U.S precedent is governing, unless unavailable.
After hundreds of years oc Common Law decisions by our courts, it would be difficult to do a Lexis Nexis search and not find relevant U.S cases.
It is just that justices like Bryer find going outside really fun & edegy.

Ginsburg has, in fact, openly defended and supported using foreign "enlightened" opinion as a criterion superior to American customs and law.

re: #79 kateca

Supreme Court Judges can be impeached. It's just not likely to happen.

I do not believe that it has ever happened?

re: #81 kansas

No. Read them their rights after you shoot them.

You have the right to remain dead.
You have the right to an undertaker. If you cannot afford an undertaker, your body will be dumped in a pile pf pig shit somewhere.

re: #86 kansas

Thanks for improving on my idea.

You're welcome. Don't take any chances with these monsters.

re: #87 wolfie

Ginsburg has, in fact, openly defended and supported using foreign "enlightened" opinion as a criterion superior to American customs and law.

If Ginsberg thinks that, maybe she should read Article 47 of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries, of which these inmates at Gitmo were.

She's an idiot, IMHO.

re: #89 Kosh's Shadow

You have the right to remain dead.
You have the right to an undertaker. If you cannot afford an undertaker,
your body will be dumped in a pile pf pig shit somewhere.

simplified.

The "Boumediene" decision is bad law.

It will not stand.

.

re: #84 wolfie

I agree completely, which is why I will pull the lever (albeit with some distaste) for John McCain in November.

BHG

re: #82 The Shadow Do

This decision really is the hill G.W. Bush should choose to die on. Seriously, it is that important. He should defy the court, consequences be damned. Has he become a eunuch? No need to answer that.

This is one fight that he should engage to the death. I agree.
And I agree that he will not do it. He has no political capital and is probably just plain tired of being abused.

re: #87 wolfie

Ginsburg has, in fact, openly defended and supported using foreign "enlightened" opinion as a criterion superior to American customs and law.

Yes she has. Ginsburg & the other elitists in black robes on the bench see British law & others to be a cut above U.S law.
Seems to be that like Obama, they consider the U.S to be backward.

re: #91 Honorary Yooper

If Ginsberg thinks that, maybe she should read Article 47 of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries, of which these inmates at Gitmo were.

She's an idiot, IMHO.

No, she is not an idiot. She finds herself in a position of unrestrained authority and will damn well use it.

re: #88 opnion

I do not believe that it has ever happened?

I would say it's time for a first.

The guys at Gitmo are either

1) Enemy Combatants protected under the Geneva convention.

or

2) Common Criminals that can be tried at a court of law under the rights we have reserved to the US to prosecute criminals who commit crimes against Americans in a foreign country.

The Supremes have decided door #2. Let us then start the trials and carry out the penalty phase when they are convicted.

re: #95 wolfie

This is one fight that he should engage to the death. I agree.
And I agree that he will not do it. He has no political capital and is probably just plain tired of being abused.

If he want that legacy, now would be the time to earn it.

re: #97 The Shadow Do

No, she is not an idiot. She finds herself in a position of unrestrained authority and will damn well use it.

Justice Ginsberg has written that the age of consent should be 12 years old!
Yet she was confirmed

re: #88 opnion

I do not believe that it has ever happened?

Only one attempt in 1805.

re: #74 Typicalwhitey

I can see them taking a whole lot less prisoners or they will be turned over to the Iraqi Government.
They would be begging to be detainees then, don't you think?

I'm sure that at this very moment, somewhere out at sea or on a remote airbase, some ordie is busily chalking Miranda warnings onto JDAMs and CBU-58's...

.... Hey Achmed what's this? it says here: "you have the right to.... BOOM!

/Lemons. Lemonade...

re: #101 opnion

Justice Ginsberg has written that the age of consent should be 12 years old!
Yet she was confirmed

Confirmed to be insane?

re: #99 Shr_Nfr

The guys at Gitmo are either

1) Enemy Combatants protected under the Geneva convention.

or

2) Common Criminals that can be tried at a court of law under the rights we have reserved to the US to prosecute criminals who commit crimes against Americans in a foreign country.

The Supremes have decided door #2. Let us then start the trials and carry out the penalty phase when they are convicted.

Actually, there's a third way, but also under Geneva Conventions. They should be considered mercenaries and spies due to the fact that most of them were not from Iraq or Afghanistan, and not in any sort of uniform. This bascially lets the capturing country do what they like with them.

re: #95 wolfie

This is one fight that he should engage to the death. I agree.
And I agree that he will not do it. He has no political capital and is probably just plain tired of being abused.

Boo fucking Hoo! GW needs to get off his ass and start acting like the leader that we voted for, tell the libs to fuck off and start running this country like he is supposed to. He needs a good Al Martini (Godfather) moment. Start acting like a man dammit!

re: #101 opnion

Justice Ginsberg has written that the age of consent should be 12 years old!
Yet she was confirmed

And there you go...

re: #106 VegasRick

Boo fucking Hoo! GW needs to get off his ass and start acting like the leader that we voted for, tell the libs to fuck off and start running this country like he is supposed to. He needs a good Al Martini (Godfather) moment. Start acting like a man dammit!

But that would take effort.
/

re: #102 kateca

Only one attempt in 1805.

Do you know what the basis was?

re: #91 Honorary Yooper

If Ginsberg thinks that, maybe she should read Article 47 of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries, of which these inmates at Gitmo were.

She's an idiot, IMHO.

She is a post-nationalist and a believer in "human rights," as opposed to US civil rights. She really is an extremist and anti-Constitutionalist, but nobody knew (or cared) when she was approved. In the MSM only conservatives are "extremists."