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.

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."

re: #105 Honorary Yooper

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.

Under the Conventions, they can be executed.

These matters were better handled in the past.

[Link: www.fbi.gov...]

"By June 27, 1942, all eight [Nazi] saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days"

re: #96 opnion

In the case of habeas corpus, the British common law has applicability in its practice prior to 1789. After 1789, such common law is superseded by the constitution. When the constitution does not speak to a particular issue, items like founders intent, common law prior to 1789, etc. come into play.

I have a rather simple solution however. Since we have gotten most of what we can get out of these guys, let us just repatriate them back to the Afgan government. They would have their 72 raisins in short order.

re: #112 BuddyG

These matters were better handled in the past.

[Link: www.fbi.gov...]

"By June 27, 1942, all eight [Nazi] saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days"

Under this ruling, they would have our Constitutional rights. Sickening.

If I'm reading this correctly there appears to have been 204 SCOTUS decisions overruled by subsequent decision, the last being in 1992 ...

[Link: www.gpoaccess.gov...]

Let's hope this one becomes #205

re: #111 opnion

Under the Conventions, they can be executed.

Exactly. They can even be subject to the death penalty under our laws, or just be executed on the field. There is no protection for mercenaries or spies.

re: #114 Hard Right

Under this ruling, they would have our Constitutional rights. Sickening.

Unfortunatley, 9/11 wasn't enough of a kick in the bal*s for some.

OT:
Shfar'am: A Jewish Town Populated by Arab Late-Comers
^{(or, Anther Historically Jewish Town The MSM Calls "Arab")}

re: #54 Max Darkside

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.

Excellent post, and I agree. Trying to fight a politically correct war is pointless. It makes it worse for both sides by dragging it out needlessly. The victor is unable to withdraw forces and the defeated is unable to move forward with rebuilding efforts because it just drags on and on...

Sherman's philosophy for defeating an enemy was correct in the US Civil War, and every war since.

re: #113 Shr_Nfr

In the case of habeas corpus, the British common law has applicability in its practice prior to 1789. After 1789, such common law is superseded by the constitution. When the constitution does not speak to a particular issue, items like founders intent, common law prior to 1789, etc. come into play.

I have a rather simple solution however. Since we have gotten most of what we can get out of these guys, let us just repatriate them back to the Afgan government. They would have their 72 raisins in short order.

Not so sure. Remember when the Northern Alliance was supposed to block the Taliban & AlQaeda retreat?
Didn't go too well. Lots of conflicted loyalties

re: #117 BuddyG

Unfortunatley, 9/11 wasn't enough of a kick in the bal*s for some.

Some are disconnected from reality as these SC judges show. Wonder how they would feel if it one of their loved one on those planes.

re: #90 VegasRick

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

Thus the term "double tap"!
If they're worth shooting once,they're
worth shooting twice!
Ammo's cheap!

re: #93 Dad O' Blondes

The "Boumediene" decision is bad law.

It will not stand.

.

What's to keep it from standing? What has to happen for it to be done away with? I thought Supreme Court decisions were final, until the Supreme court itself took another look and overturned itself.

re: #113 Shr_Nfr

I have a rather simple solution however. Since we have gotten most of what we can get out of these guys, let us just repatriate them back to the Afgan government. They would have their 72 raisins in short order.

I don't really see any other practical recourse. What will undoubtedly happen, however, is that the libs will argue that they will not get due processs in Afghanistan. You can look forward to a released Jihadi coming to your neighborhood soon!

re: #117 BuddyG

Unfortunatley, 9/11 wasn't enough of a kick in the bal*s for some.

And it would be all combatants held by US forces throughout the world.

This. Coming from the man who provided legal work to get the murderous Islamist terrorists responsible for killing 270 innocent people on Pan Am 103 a trial in Libya where they were sure to get exonerated.

He is opposed to trying them in the US, but his alternative is to try them in Libya where they will get off scot-free* (pun intended)

OT:

"Olmert Tells Jewish Agency That Israel Has Enough Jews; Stop Emphasizing Alliyah."

re: #105 Honorary Yooper

Exactly, because giving rights to fighters who do not follow rules of war makes those rules less likely to be followed, encouraging civilian casualties and terror tactics. Utterly self-defeating "compassion" that leads to more suffering.

re: #108 Hard Right

But that would take effort.
/

I really think we are at the tipping point, the next election will determine which path we take. More and more people are fed up with this bs/pc crap and it is starting to get very personal to a lot of people. No drilling allowed, no border fence, no protections from a bunch of animals that want to kill you and your family because you will not believe in thier false god (cult) just to name a very few.

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.
William Tecumseh Sherman

re: #122 reloadingisnotahobby

Thus the term "double tap"!
If they're worth shooting once,they're
worth shooting twice!
Ammo's cheap!

True story. When the SAS executed the embassy rescue they were criticized for shooting the terrs too many times.
Apparently as they would go by a previously downed/possibly dead terr they would put a few more shots in them to "anchor them in place". That was meant to keep them from getting up and shooting the SF soldiers in the back or worse.
Some were shot dozens of times.

re: #123 reine.de.tout

What's to keep it from standing? What has to happen for it to be done away with? I thought Supreme Court decisions were final, until the Supreme court itself took another look and overturned itself.

re: #133 ploome hineni

who can change it?

GMTA?

re: #117 BuddyG

Unfortunatley, 9/11 wasn't enough of a kick in the bal*s for some.

Buddy have you noticed that people act as if it never happened?
I NEVER thought I would see this day.

re: #109 opnion

Do you know what the basis was?

Four articles regarding proceedural errors, two articles referring to "indecent remarks".

In a related development, the Pentagon has announced that, effective immediately, all rifles will be replaced by tasers.

re: #129 buzzsawmonkey

It is truly amazing. I didn't think Olmert could become more repulsive and Anti-Jewish....but once again, Olmert proves me wrong.

He even states that "the time of mass Jewish immigration to Israel is over". A guy who doesn't even believe in Judaism is making rabbinical statements about when G-d's plan that the Jews will return to Israel is "over"? [deleted]

Olmert: A guy who is "tired of winning wars", and tired of Jewish immigration to Israel. The shmuck is the Anti-Zionist.

re: #123 reine.de.tout

What's to keep it from standing? What has to happen for it to be done away with? I thought Supreme Court decisions were final, until the Supreme court itself took another look and overturned itself.

Right, where do you appeal a Supreme Court decision?
The Legislative branch could address it with unambiguous law that passes constitutional muster. The problem is that there is a Democrat majority with more coming.
And as someone mentioned earlier President Barack Hussein will probably want to pay reparations.

re: #122 reloadingisnotahobby

Thus the term "double tap"!
If they're worth shooting once,they're
worth shooting twice!
Ammo's cheap!

Third times the charm?

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.

On the one hand, Bush has never given those procedures an opportunity to work. I wish that he had, and that we had executed fifty or a hundred of the scum, as allowed under the Geneva Convention, insofar as anyone cares what is allowed under the Geneva Convention.

Which brings us to the other horn, which is I hope Bush give the same (lack of) attention to this SCOTUS ruling. It is absurd and obscene and entirely hypocritical. If five SCOTUS justices have heart palpitations on behalf of Gitmo prisoners, if five SCOTUS justices think Bush is derilict in his duties, if five SCOTUS judges consider this sufficient pretext to make up new law out of whole cloth, then let them say so, otherwise all we have is SCOTUS lied, Americans died.

re: #134 Hard Right

True story. When the SAS executed the embassy rescue they were criticized for shooting the terrs too many times.
Apparently as they would go by a previously downed/possibly dead terr they would put a few more shots in them to "anchor them in place". That was meant to keep them from getting up and shooting the SF soldiers in the back or worse.
Some were shot dozens of times.

Reminds me of what a police office friend of mine said to a lawyer who asked him why he had shot an armed robber six times:

"I ran out of bullets"

re: #26 The Shadow Do

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.

Sad but true. He was the only candidate I could really see myself getting firmly behind, and now he is gone. I find myself, once again in a position of having to vote against someone instead of really voting for someone.

re: #101 opnion

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

Indeed.
And yet she led the overturn of laws that permit capital punishment for those under 18 on the sentimental grounds that teenagers are too young to know what they are doing.
That was the decision, IIRC, in which she argued that American opinion as to what is "cruel" should be over-ridden by European opinion......and that the UN and EU set the standard for "living justice."
She doesn't even pretend to follow the Constitution.

*spit

re: #137 kateca

Four articles regarding proceedural errors, two articles referring to "indecent remarks".

Thanks

re: #127 WrathofG-d

OT:

"Olmert Tells Jewish Agency That Israel Has Enough Jews; Stop Emphasizing Alliyah."

Oh great. But this is probably just more echo from Condi's meddling, deflate the idea that Israel is a Zionist (read: Jewish) entity.

re: #144 buzzsawmonkey

It makes you wonder why his government kept Finkelstein out of Israel. They seem to be increasingly kindred spirits.

Obviously, didn't want the competition!

re: #102 kateca

Only one attempt in 1805.

Was that over the National Bank?

re: #5 Iron Fist

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

Obama admin ROE?

re: #140 opnion

Right, where do you appeal a Supreme Court decision?
The Legislative branch could address it with unambiguous law that passes constitutional muster. The problem is that there is a Democrat majority with more coming.
And as someone mentioned earlier President Barack Hussein will probably want to pay reparations.

Well, then, we're in for a rough ride.

The legislative and executive branch "solutions" were declared to be "unconstitutional" via this decision, if I'm correctly understanding how this works.

Now that this decision has been made, can Congress pass a law that essentially negates this decision?

More importantly, I guess, is would they? You think not, and I agree with you it is unlikely.

re: #144 buzzsawmonkey

Olmert knew his approval ratings were low and was afraid that if Al-Kadima heard Norm, they might replace Olmert's as head of the party.

re: #131 VegasRick

I really think we are at the tipping point, the next election will determine which path we take. More and more people are fed up with this bs/pc crap and it is starting to get very personal to a lot of people. No drilling allowed, no border fence, no protections from a bunch of animals that want to kill you and your family because you will not believe in thier false god (cult) just to name a very few.

I tend to agree. This may be our last chance to avoid violent change.

re: #148 itellu3times

Oh great. But this is probably just more echo from Condi's meddling, deflate the idea that Israel is a Zionist (read: Jewish) entity.

Turning away Jews has a 1930s ring to it. And not a good one.

re: #127 WrathofG-d

OT:

"Olmert Tells Jewish Agency That Israel Has Enough Jews; Stop Emphasizing Alliyah."

So tell Olmert to move to France. NOW.

re: #145 Ford_Prefect

Sad but true. He was the only candidate I could really see myself getting firmly behind, and now he is gone. I find myself, once again in a position of having to vote against someone instead of really voting for someone.

Dude, think of it as voting for a team. You have team McCain, of which Thompson is an integral part. Or you have team Obama, featuring William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

re: #145 Ford_Prefect

Sad but true. He was the only candidate I could really see myself getting firmly behind, and now he is gone. I find myself, once again in a position of having to vote against someone instead of really voting for someone.

I am voting for John McCain. He is a patriot and an honorable man - with whom I disagree on some relatively minor points.

re: #133 ploome hineni

who can change it?

Officially, I guess either a later court, or an act of Congress, though arguably it would require amending the constitution.

But that's de jure. De facto it can be ignored, silently or with great fanfare, and I vote for the later.

As with the eminent domain ruling two years ago, this discredits the court. A little more of this, and it will destroy the court.

re: #148 itellu3times

There are a few well accepted pillars of Zionism....Olmert is rejecting/destroying all of them. He has already worked his magic to eliminate Holy Providence (ie: G-d's plan that Jews return to their homeland), and Jewish Self Defense, so now he is going after Alliyah.

re: #143 CIA Reject

Reminds me of what a police office friend of mine said to a lawyer who asked him why he had shot an armed robber six times:

"I ran out of bullets"

Woody Hayes (OSU) and (UM) Bo Shembeckler (sp) running up the score in a game. "Coach, at the end of the game your team was up by 27 points, why did you go for the 2 point conversion?" Coach: "Because there is no 3 point conversion!"
LOL!

re: #134 Hard Right

Take no prisoners,and bring more of your troops home on both feet!
30 released "combatants" were known to have allready
re entered,and died in this "conflict/police/WAR!
They should have been dead!
Sorry if I offend anyone~!

re: #143 CIA Reject

Reminds me of what a police office friend of mine said to a lawyer who asked him why he had shot an armed robber six times:

"I ran out of bullets"

Ha!
Reminds of one where a lawyer asked a homeowner why he'd shot an intruder 9 times.
"Because he was still trying to kill me after #8."
Not guilty verdict :)

re: #128 buzzsawmonkey

That is a function of replacing the War Department with the Defense Department. If you don't know what business you're in, it is not likely you'll succeed.

And wasn't someone proposing a "Department of Peace"?

I suggest when we are struck, we find and isolate them, retaliate with all our might, destroy them, walk away and go back to our peaceful life. People will learn to not tread on us.

No prisoners. No lingering "Peace Keeping". No "Occupations". No SCOTUS "let's play house 'comments'". No Constitutional crisises, which we may be facing, if GWB disents as well.

re: #156 wolfie

So tell Olmert to move to France. NOW.

He has to fend off Condi for another six months. I don't envy him the task. Where is President Bush?

re: #154 Hard Right

I tend to agree. This may be our last chance to avoid violent change.

I am prepared.

Not good anymore at all to let terrorists even get into the justice system.

re: #111 opnion

The definition of mercenary is a tad nebulous when you have an person not in uniform fighting as an irregular. Were they paid by the Taliban? If so then they may be mercenaries under the meaning of the law all the same as the Hessians were at Trenton when George pulled his Christmas visit. Although even there, given that the King of England was also part of the House of Hanover, its a bit foggy. To be sure, I have problems with affording these people extraordinary treatment when they execute civilians in the area. As people not in uniform, they are not subject to the Geneva convention and are not POWs. They are common criminals and traitors to the current governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, aside from committing crimes against Americans. Try them, and sentence them. I would like to see them all rot in supermax till the day that the Good Lord removes their mangy carcasses from the face of this earth. Thin mattress on a concrete bed, a concrete desk, a slit to view the world through, and no human contact. We all die sooner or later, so an execution would just put them out of their misery sooner. I would prefer it to be later. Either that or ship them back to the folks who will dispose of them in short order.

re: #158 The Shadow Do

I am voting for John McCain. He is a patriot and an honorable man - with whom I disagree on some relatively minor points.

Most of the points I disagree with John McCain over I don't really consider "minor". He at least believes we should defend this nation from foreign enemies, and that I respect, but his domestic policy leaves a lot to be desired. While defense of this nation from foreign enemies is one of if not the most important job of the federal government, they also have a responsibility to honor our constitution when dealing with domestic policies, and McCain's stances on most all domestic policies leaves me concerned. (Though his recent change on Nuclear and domestic drilling is a refreshing change for him, they were still half-way commitments).

re: #157 funky chicken

Dude, think of it as voting for a team. You have team McCain, of which Thompson is an integral part. Or you have team Obama, featuring William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

I understand that, and that is why I will ultimately, though reluctantly, vote for McCain. As for Thompson being part of McCain's team, I don't think so. Other than the war issue, and I grant you that is a big issue, I don't see a whole lot of difference between McCain and most moderate Dem's. Besides which, I just don't see McCain as having the right temperament or bearing to be an effective President.

re: #166 VegasRick

I am prepared.

Stocking up as we speak. I hope it won't be needed. Pray for the best, prepare for the worst.

re: #162 reloadingisnotahobby

Take no prisoners,and bring more of your troops home on both feet!
30 released "combatants" were known to have allready
re entered,and died in this "conflict/police/WAR!
They should have been dead!
Sorry if I offend anyone~!

I thought that very thing. The Court may have inadvertently set up a defacto take no prisoners policy.
Who wants to take a prisoner, who can return and kill you or your pals?

Evan Vela; U.S. soldier

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!

No can do. New tone you know.

re: #174 kansas

No can do. New tone you know.

Sounds like a raspberry.

re: #169 Rhino2

Most of the points I disagree with John McCain over I don't really consider "minor". He at least believes we should defend this nation from foreign enemies, and that I respect, but his domestic policy leaves a lot to be desired. While defense of this nation from foreign enemies is one of if not the most important job of the federal government, they also have a responsibility to honor our constitution when dealing with domestic policies, and McCain's stances on most all domestic policies leaves me concerned. (Though his recent change on Nuclear and domestic drilling is a refreshing change for him, they were still half-way commitments).

Maybe this fact will make you feel better. John McCain is not, nor has he ever been, nor will he ever been Barack Hussein Obama.

this kind of counterproductive pc thinking is how countries weaken themselves in the name of "fairness."
how twisted and unfair this ruling is for our country and our citizens.
it is not a noble thing to expand the rights of terrorists and further endanger the lives of innocent people.
some judges on the sup. ct. apparently have no idea we are fighting a ruthless enemy.

re: #171 Hard Right

Ditto!
As you can tell by my "nic",No problems in that department!
Glad people are thinking the same!

re: #168 Shr_Nfr

The definition of mercenary is a tad nebulous when you have an person not in uniform fighting as an irregular. Were they paid by the Taliban? If so then they may be mercenaries under the meaning of the law all the same as the Hessians were at Trenton when George pulled his Christmas visit. Although even there, given that the King of England was also part of the House of Hanover, its a bit foggy. To be sure, I have problems with affording these people extraordinary treatment when they execute civilians in the area. As people not in uniform, they are not subject to the Geneva convention and are not POWs. They are common criminals and traitors to the current governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, aside from committing crimes against Americans. Try them, and sentence them. I would like to see them all rot in supermax till the day that the Good Lord removes their mangy carcasses from the face of this earth. Thin mattress on a concrete bed, a concrete desk, a slit to view the world through, and no human contact. We all die sooner or later, so an execution would just put them out of their misery sooner. I would prefer it to be later. Either that or ship them back to the folks who will dispose of them in short order.

I think we should keep absolutely none of them from here on out. They must, as a matter of policy and in respect for local sovereignty, be turned immediately into the hands of a local judiciary. Let the chips fall where they may. If released via corruption or whatever then they should be hunted down and killed.

Olmert's a foreshadowing of Obama. It's never a good idea to have a person who hates a nation be the leader of that nation. It makes no sense. A person who hates his or her nation, should never come anywhere near its government, let alone be its leader.

re: #139 WrathofG-d

It is truly amazing. I didn't think Olmert could become more repulsive and Anti-Jewish....but once again, Olmert proves me wrong.

He even states that "the time of mass Jewish immigration to Israel is over". A guy who doesn't even believe in Judaism is making rabbinical statements about when G-d's plan that the Jews will return to Israel is "over"? [deleted]

Olmert: A guy who is "tired of winning wars", and tired of Jewish immigration to Israel. The shmuck is the Anti-Zionist.

re: #179 buzzsawmonkey

I assume its seal will carry the Great Peace Duck.

[Link: www.libertygunrights.com...]

re: #179 buzzsawmonkey

Great Peace Duck!
That's funny.......er .....Not!

re: #178 reloadingisnotahobby

Ditto!
As you can tell by my "nic",No problems in that department!
Glad people are thinking the same!

There are many others as well. Gunco.com has a few of them too.

re: #169 Rhino2

Most of the points I disagree with John McCain over I don't really consider "minor". He at least believes we should defend this nation from foreign enemies, and that I respect, but his domestic policy leaves a lot to be desired. While defense of this nation from foreign enemies is one of if not the most important job of the federal government, they also have a responsibility to honor our constitution when dealing with domestic policies, and McCain's stances on most all domestic policies leaves me concerned. (Though his recent change on Nuclear and domestic drilling is a refreshing change for him, they were still half-way commitments).

He has also said his push for comprehensive reform was vetoed by the folks and that he would respect that. As to other domestic policies I invite you to compare his tax policy vs. Obama et al.

re: #127 WrathofG-d

OT:

"Olmert Tells Jewish Agency That Israel Has Enough Jews; Stop Emphasizing Alliyah."

Good thing he'll be gone soon.

re: #186 buzzsawmonkey
Nope!
But I'm Utah......just barely got T.V......
Ha!

Sooo- anyone know any federal judges? I can't believe they're just going to sit there and let this be dumped in their laps. It's not as if they haven't anything else to do. I don't really see anyone taking action against this decision any time soon unless the legal system itself calls foul.

Although, I too am of the mind that this will simply result in many fewer prisoners being taken. Between this, the Haditha cases and the incredible Abu Ghraib tempest in a teapot, I wouldn't blame the Armed Forces if they lost the will to fight.

Let's see- can't kill in a combat situation because that could be war crime. Haditha.
But you can't take them prisoner and keep them in front-line jail because someone might put panties on their heads. Abu Ghraib.
But you can't keep them as prisoners of war in the best-run POW camp the world has ever seen. Boumediene.

My hat is off to the people of the Armed Forces. We appreciate you, even if your Supreme Court doesn't.

re: #185 The Shadow Do

He has also said his push for comprehensive reform was vetoed by the folks and that he would respect that. As to other domestic policies I invite you to compare his tax policy vs. Obama et al.

Perhaps that paragraph came off a little more critical of him than I intended.

I will be voting for John McCain, because under no circumstances do I even want to think of the alternative, believe me. I just didn't want to make light of his left leanings on domestic issues is all, because I do hold out hope that one day we will get to vote for a Presidential Candidate that we agree with on more than 1 or 2 very important issues.

re: #184 Hard RightThe shooting sport sites are a great source of info on Legislation and state and local actions for and opposed to gun rights.
I read several and am a member on many!

All this will do is make taking prisoners verboten. Torturing intelligence sources will become the responsibility of platoon commanders, and SOP will be a bullet in the enemy brain before handcuffs can get anywhere near them.

This reminds me of how hard moonbats fight against police officers' use of non-lethal weapons; getting tazers, bean-bag guns, pepper-spray, and even batons banned. Guess what's left to use on you, moonbats? If you guessed a 9mm suppository, give yourself the day off (even though you already have it off, like every other day).

Boumediene is an important case, but not in the sense that some perceive.

I wonder how many critics have actually read the damn thing, let alone understand how it applies. Thompson isn't one of them.

Clue for Thompson as well as John Yoo: walk in front of a train and--surprise!--it runs you over. Best play elsewhere.

The rest is pure hysteria.

re: #101 opnion

Justice Ginsberg has written that the age of consent should be 12 years old!

Eegads! Are you serious? Linky?

re: #41 madisonsfriend
They can be tried by the Senate and removed from office, but that's a rare bird. Think the last time it happened was Judge Pickering back in the arly 1800's (?).

Ok Everyone -

Supreme Court Decisions are easily accessible within the day they are decided - in .pdf format at [Link: www.supremecourtus.gov....] Downloaded Boumediene v. Bush the same day. Read it and couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry. Justice Kennedy, inn the decision regales us with tales of Runnymeade, the Barons and the Magna Carta. To me, it was Runny Nose, the Jihadis, and Bush Derangement Syndrome.

-S-

re: #52 reine.de.tout

When Jackson disagreed with a decision by the SC, he refused to enforce it. His attitude was "they wrote it, let them enforce it (Cherokee Nation). The Court didn't and the Indians were moved, despite the SC ruling.
Think any one has the nerve to act that that now?

re: #195 grumpy old codger

Alcee was also removed from the bench.

re: #197 grumpy old codger

"grumpy" -

Yes I do, however our next President will not be Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo.

-S-

The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, foresaw and provided for this eventuality:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec. 1.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec. 2 (emphasis added).

All Congress needs to do is to pass a law specifying that no federal court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim by any person certified by appropriate military authority to be a foreign combatant.

The Boumediene decision is a poor one for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is poorly reasoned. Ordinarily, justices cite precedent and history to inductively demonstrate the underlying principles, then deduce an appropriate ruling in the case before them. Kennedy's historical ramblings are more in the style of a college freshman who is trying to stretch too meager research into a term paper of prescribed length. After tracing the dreary historical meanderings of the opinion to the intended point, one finds that Kennedy thought the Eisentrager decision provided a set of factors to allow him to get the result he sought. The distinguishing fact that Eisentrager concerned detention following the cessation of hostilities did not seem to burden Kennedy's reasoning.

The decision is sloppy for a more important reason: it entangles the judiciary in the conduct of military operations. The exclusionary rule that most Americans are familiar with in criminal cases does not appear in the Constitution. It is a judicailly created prophylactic rule intended to protect fourth and fifth amendment rights. It uses the judiciary's authority over evidentiary issues to determine the proper procedure for law enforcement officers. If similar evidentiary rules applied in habeas corpus cases under Boumediene, that would create the situation where the judiciary prescribes procedures for troops to use while under hostile fire, an egregious infringement by the judiciary into matters explicitly reserved to the executive.

Furthermore, Kennedy left unaddressed the key issues: what is the burden of proof in such cases, and who bears it? In criminal cases, the presumption of innocence attaches, but in cases where one is apprehended on the battle field might the presumption work the other way? Should the government be able to introduce evidence does not comply with chain of evidence, hearsay and authentication considerations, because combat makes such compliance impractical? Should the government have to produce military witnesses at proceedings that are remote, and perhaps inconvenient to continued military operations? And what of the appalling possibility that a combatant may go free because the best witness against him was killed by that combatant's buddy?

Boumediene is an exercise in naive indulgence. It seeks legal precedence for a style of war for which there are few legal precedence, but the historical precedents are far more prejudicial to combatants that the accommodations given the before Boumediene. It naively assumes that even the ruthless business of war will make room for Kennedy's airy theories.

This is a sad day for America and this is deplorable decision will have far reaching implications.

A very sad day indeed.

What the fuck? This piece was also at Townhall.com! I thought we were banning anyone who has anything to do with Townhall.com, and by association, Pat Buchanan.

Dennis Prager, obviously a self-loathing jew, keeps his podcasts on Townhall.com. Disgusting lack of backbone and principles on Dennis' part.

I will never listen to Dennis Prager again.

"In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” "
- Thompson

Would that be similar in nature to the way Thompson himself "struck down" the assignment of the Senate Investigative Committee he chaired, which plum position he received due to his former Watergate Prosecutorial status, which was SUPPOSED to have investigated the Clinton's for receiving donations from the Chinese Government into their campaign coffers, and diverted it into a game to prove the GOP was as ethically challenged as the Dims, and to send John Glenn back into outer space again?

Oh, gee, how swell to have THOMPSON of McCain Feingold THOMPSON fame give us HIS opinion of the SCOTUS, after HE voted that PERJURY (in an internationally live-aired deposition for a personal injury lawsuit, before dozens of world leaders) is NOT an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE -
"according to the Founding Fathers!"

STILL barfing every time I hear his name. "After all this time."

#26 & #4,

He accomplished HIS goal, running DRAFT for Punk McNasty.

#31,

Under McCain/McCain Kennedy Shamnesty, it would ALSO no longer be 5-4, SAME BALANCE as Obama.

The man has to fortify his own legacy, doesn't he?

#41 - Impeachment is Constitutional, therefore the SCOTUS rules it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PLEASE REMEMBER - this decision has been DEMANDED for a LONG TIME by McCAIN, and to include ACLU LAWYERS APPROVAL OF THE PROCEDURES of those civilian trials.

He also demands CRASH COURSES to teach Americans and the American Military to NOT resort to TORTURE.

McCAIN! NOT OBAMA!

I don't recommend Obama by denouncing McCain - not inthe least.

Just warning you, THIS "lesser of two evils" is NOT merely a self-serving politician.

He is NOT less DANGEROUS to America, than any other flaming Liberal.