Yon: Ruling Extends Habeas Protections to All Detainees Worldwide

World • Views: 2,105

Michael Yon reports from Afghanistan on a disturbing development.

UPDATE at 8/6/09 11:11:27 am:

I realized that some readers will probably assume that the idea of granting habeas corpus rights to all battlefield detainees comes from the Obama administration, so please note: the administration is opposed to the ruling.

Our amicus brief must be filed by September 7. The government’s brief is due on August 31; since we are supporting the government’s position that Judge Bates’ decision should be overturned, we have to file within 7 days of the government’s filing.

Jump to bottom

335 comments
1 Buck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:28:51am

Great… next week CSI:KABUL

2 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:29:12am

I guess we’ll be taking fewer prisoners.

3 shiplord kirel  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:32:16am

Good thing these definitions didn’t apply during WW2. We would have had a quarter of a million German and Italian soldiers roaming the country after activist judges ordered their release from PoW camps.

4 John Neverbend  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:32:53am

re: #2 Leonidas Hoplite

I guess we’ll be taking fewer prisoners.

Either that, or you’ll have to see a copy their birth certificate before taking them into custody.

5 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:33:44am
The teams/personnel effecting these captures would have to collect forensic and other evidence sufficient to enable DOJ to prevail in the habeas process, often under fire. All things being equal, complying with these requirements would cause special forces personnel to spend more time in the target area and complicate operational planning, increasing the prospects of additional casualties and even mission failures.

F***.

6 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:33:56am
7 zombie  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:34:51am

So, we are to treat all people worldwide as if they were U.S. citizens?

OK — but first they gotta pay taxes, defend the US, and in general act like Americans.

Otherwise — why do they deserve to be treated like Americans?

8 doppelganglander  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:34:54am

Why do the lawyers who represent these thugs hate America so much? Extending rights to non-Americans who are trying to kill us will only help them succeed.

9 Ringo the Gringo  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:35:33am

Leftists have been pushing for such a ruling for a long time, precisely because they see this as a way to make it nearly impossible for the United States to ever successfully prosecute any war.

10 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:35:56am

re: #2 Leonidas Hoplite

Why’d you shoot him 6 times?

11 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:36:04am

Looking at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, they have an excellent organization. No unsavory elements at first glance.

This looks like a situation that needs correcting immediately.

12 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:36:25am

Makes take no prisoners more attractive I think

13 VegasRick  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:36:58am

re: #10 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Why’d you shoot him 6 times?

Cause I didn’t have seven rounds

14 Scion9  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:37:08am

re: #7 zombie


OK — but first they gotta pay taxes, defend the US, and in general act like Americans.

Otherwise — why do they deserve to be treated like Americans?

Your not suggesting that the Taliban should be appointed cabinet positions are you?

15 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:37:10am

re: #7 zombie

So, we are to treat all people worldwide as if they were U.S. citizens?

OK — but first they gotta pay taxes, defend the US, and in general act like Americans.

Otherwise — why do they deserve to be treated like Americans?

Everybody on earth get to apply for food stamps?

16 shiplord kirel  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:37:26am

Actually, I knew a gentleman in Texas back in the 70s who had first come to this country as a prisoner of war. He had been a diesel mechanic on a U-boat that run afoul of allied depth charges. He was fortunate enough to be sent to Amarillo rather than the briny deep (though some might dispute this order of preference) and eventually was allowed to work outside the camp on daily parole.
Given his skills, he was put to work at a railroad shop and they decided to keep him on when the war finally ended. He did have to return to Germany for a while to get the paperwork straight though.

17 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:37:27am

Judge John D. Bates.

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

18 JohnnyReb  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:37:37am

re: #3 shiplord kirel

Good thing these definitions didn’t apply during WW2. We would have had a quarter of a million German and Italian soldiers roaming the country after activist judges ordered their release from PoW camps.

Actually the writ was suspended during the Civil war and WWII. It was supposed to have been suspended during the global war on terror, but somehow that just got nerfed.

19 buster  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:37:57am

re: #2 Leonidas Hoplite

I guess we’ll be taking fewer prisoners.

The law of unintended consequences.

20 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:38:29am

Yep, they’re only criminals, nothing to see here.
Fucking unbelievable.

21 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:38:40am

re: #7 zombie

So, we are to treat all people worldwide as if they were U.S. citizens?

OK — but first they gotta pay taxes, defend the US, and in general act like Americans.

Otherwise — why do they deserve to be treated like Americans?

Because the rest of the world says we have to, and our employees in govrnment agree with that. Forget US Sovereighty.

22 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:38:51am

What part of NON-UNIFORMED ENEMY COMBATANTS dont they understand?

FUCK

23 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:38:58am

re: #16 shiplord kirel

He was from a western culture though.

24 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:39:07am

Maybe these judges should have to go fight for a year so they understand the realities that our guys face when they fight.

I think American soldiers are the most restrained, professional, and effective fighting force ever. Not perfect, but way better than a lot of previous armies. (I’m not being jingoistic, I have studied history.)

25 philip  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:39:18am

I’m a civil libertarian so this is music to my ears.

:: does happy dance ::

26 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:39:28am

re: #22 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What part of NON-UNIFORMED ENEMY COMBATANTS dont they understand?

FUCK

But following the Geneva Conventions is not feel-good.

27 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:40:09am
The Court of Appeals needs to understand that extending habeas to people captured through special forces operations (which is the most likely scenario for captures outside of Afghanistan) will cause severe “practical difficulties.” The teams/personnel effecting these captures would have to collect forensic and other evidence sufficient to enable DOJ to prevail in the habeas process, often under fire. All things being equal, complying with these requirements would cause special forces personnel to spend more time in the target area and complicate operational planning, increasing the prospects of additional casualties and even mission failures.

Real world consequences of judicial rulings.

28 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:40:15am

re: #22 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They live in a dream world where peace is maintained by idealism not strength, but they will not be able to maintain this illusion forever.

29 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:40:52am

Next: Military will have to adopt Law Enforcement Use of Force Continuum.

Level One - Officer Presence.
Level Two - Verbal Commands.
Level Three - Empty Hand Control.
Level Four - Pepper Spray, Baton, Taser.
Level Five - Less Lethal.
Level Six - Deadly Force.

30 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:41:24am

re: #24 EmmmieG

Bates was in the army and did a tour in Vietnam.

31 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:41:29am

re: #25 philip

The expression “dancing on the end of a rope” just occurred to me.

Writ them then, then execute them.

How’s that?

32 zombie  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:41:40am

But in a strange unintended backhanded way, what we are doing is expanding the influence of the U.S. to a much larger audience.

We already hear that jihadis in Iraq MUCH preferred to be captured and/or detained by U.S. forces than by their own Iraqi government forces. Which means that underneath these jihadis’ veneer of hating America, they actually like us better than they like themselves.

Since most governments worldwide are very nasty when it comes to prisoners, we might get a lot of America-haters begging to be detained by US forces just to escape the clutches of their own kind.

One is reminded of the 16-year-boy who was let out of Guantanamo Bay and then asked to be let back in, because it was like a vacation resort to him compared to his life in Afghanistan!

Maybe the whole world will now be filled with people like that boy.

(Then again, maybe I’m being too optimistic. They’ll probably use their free ACLU lawyers to get out and return to the battlefield to shoot at Americans again.)

33 Buck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:41:54am

re: #7 zombie

So, we are to treat all people worldwide as if they were U.S. citizens?

OK — but first they gotta pay taxes, defend the US, and in general act like Americans.

Otherwise — why do they deserve to be treated like Americans?

There are a lot of Americans who don’t pay taxes, defend the USA, and act like Americans…

You might just have to high a bar there…

34 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:41:55am

*repeated headdesk*

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID…

When are these people going to get their heads out of the clouds and into the real world? Things just don’t go down like that.

35 JohnnyReb  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:42:00am

re: #10 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Why’d you shoot him 6 times?

You are more right than you know, this will come back and open up possible federal charges against our guys who do not “obey due process” rules. The DOJ can prosecute anyone who they even remotely think violated civilian rules. We have already seen that in a small way with the Hadithia Marines.

36 Ringo the Gringo  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:42:42am

re: #2 Leonidas Hoplite

I guess we’ll be taking fewer prisoners.

I’m sure their are American lawyers who would gladly represent the families of those killed by the US Military by bringing ‘wrongful death’ lawsuits against our armed forces.

37 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:42:51am

re: #28 Ojoe

They live in a dream world where peace is maintained by idealism not strength, but they will not be able to maintain this illusion forever.

[deleted]

38 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:42:54am

re: #19 buster

The law of unintended consequences.

Rule 303

39 dahveed  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:43:33am

Perhaps they’ll also be given healthcare courtesy of our country. As long as we’re extending constitutional protections, we might as well go all the way.

40 zombie  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:43:33am

re: #15 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Everybody on earth get to apply for food stamps?

We’re almost there already:

Under Obama, 34 million Americans now on Food Stamps.

41 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:43:49am

re: #27 Sharmuta

Real world consequences of judicial rulings.

Makes me think that was the INTENDED consequences left unuttered.

42 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:43:53am

re: #30 MandyManners

Bates was in the army and did a tour in Vietnam.

Then I don’t understand how he can rule this.

Where and how did he serve? On the ground, or in an office?

43 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:43:53am

re: #37 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Plenty of people said (deleted) inside the twin towers.

44 Born Again Republican  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:44:24am

The US is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism.” Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.” President Obama’s top homeland security and …

Can’t get to Washington Post to read the rest of that story.

45 Spider Mensch  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:44:36am

re: #25 philip

I’m a civil libertarian so this is music to my ears.

:: does happy dance ::

heh. civil libertarian…the joke writes itself…

46 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:44:52am

re: #32 zombie

To them, our justice is a weakness which they can exploit. Nothing good will come of this and there will be a body count to prove it.

47 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:45:02am

Anyone we want to “disappear” is still going to go down the memory hole with no trace of existence. This is much ado about nothing.

48 midwestgak  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:45:06am

FBI are now joining special force teams in order to read Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants. Seesh.

“… the government is appealing Judge Bate’s decision. This underscroes just how much a decision by a single district court judge may impair military operations.”

The “government” is appealing his decision? How effective is that going to be?

Don’t make a reservation it the Bate’s hotel.

49 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:45:23am
50 ROPMA  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:45:23am

re: #10 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

A TRUE STORY FROM…

“THE HOUSTON HERALD NEWSPAPER”

IN HOUSTON , TEXAS

MARCH 5th, 2009

~

Last Thursday Night Around Midnight,

A Woman From Houston , Texas Was Arrested,

Jailed, And Charged With Manslaughter

For Shooting A Man 6 Times In The Back

As He Was Running Away With Her Purse.

~

The Following Monday Morning,

The Woman Was Called In Front Of The

Arraignment Judge, Sworn In,

And Asked To Explain Her Actions.

~

The Woman Replied,

“I Was Standing At The Corner Bus Stop

For About 15 Minutes, Waiting For The

Bus To Take Me Home After Work.

I Am A Waitress At A Local Cafe…

~

I Was There Alone,

So I Had My Right Hand On My Pistol,

That Was In My Purse, That Was Hung

Over My Left Shoulder.

~

All Of A Sudden I Was Being

Spun Around Hard To My Left.

As I Caught My Balance, I Saw A Man

Running Away From Me With My Purse.

~

I Looked Down At My Right Hand And I Saw

That My Fingers Were Wrapped Tightly

Around My Pistol.

The Next Thing I Remember Is Saying Out Loud,

“No Way Punk! Your Not Stealing My

Pay Check And Tips.”

~

I Raised My Right Hand, Pointed My Pistol

At The Man Running Away From Me With My Purse,

And Squeezed The Trigger Of My Pistol 6 Times!

~

When Asked By The Arraignment Judge,

“Why Did You Shoot The Man 6 Times?

~

The Woman Replied Under Oath,

“Because, When I Pulled The Trigger Of

My Pistol The 7th Time, It Only Went Click.”

~

The Woman Was Acquitted Of All Charges.

And She Was Back At Work,

At The Cafe, The Next Day!

Now that’s Gun Control…

51 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:45:25am

re: #17 MandyManners

When he was young, did they call him Master - oh never mind.

52 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:45:49am

White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over
‘Jihadists’ and ‘global war’ no longer acceptable terms

It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism.” Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.”

President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.

53 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:04am

re: #35 JohnnyReb

You are more right than you know, this will come back and open up possible federal charges against our guys who do not “obey due process” rules. The DOJ can prosecute anyone who they even remotely think violated civilian rules. We have already seen that in a small way with the Hadithia Marines.

Couple that with this administration trial balloon of joining the International Criminal Court, and just serving in the US Armed Forces could become a war crime.

54 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:18am
While challenging Judge Bates’ ruling, the Obama Administration is unwilling to raise the difficulties of having to treat special forces operations like police raids. For ideological reasons, it can never admit that applying the habeas framework to any aspect of wartime operations is other than a cost-free exercise. Hence, this point needs to be raised by “friends of the court” or amici.

So the administration is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons- or at least doesn’t want to concede the point. This position is hopelessly impractical, and will hopefully be stopped.

55 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:19am

re: #47 drcordell

Then we are not “disappearing” enough of them.

I WANT MORE MEMORY HOLE!

56 Idle Drifter  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:35am

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, OVER!

57 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:49am
58 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:50am

re: #47 drcordell

Anyone we want to “disappear” is still going to go down the memory hole with no trace of existence. This is much ado about nothing.

Probably true, unless someone needs a scapegoat. I’m sure it won’t have any effect on how our troops conduct operations.

59 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:46:52am

re: #55 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Then we are not “disappearing” enough of them.

I WANT MORE MEMORY HOLE!

I have no doubt that you do.

60 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:47:20am

re: #41 FurryOldGuyJeans

Makes me think that was the INTENDED consequences left unuttered.

Judges aren’t supposed to think of the real world implications of their decisions, supposedly.

61 zombie  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:47:29am

re: #50 ROPMA

A TRUE STORY FROM…

“THE HOUSTON HERALD NEWSPAPER”

It’s not a true story — it’s an old urban legend. But it’s a funny joke anyway…

62 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:47:30am

re: #59 drcordell

I have no doubt that you do.

Are you up for housing some of the terrorists in Cuba in your house? Next door?

63 Spider Mensch  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:47:36am

re: #32 zombie

But in a strange unintended backhanded way, what we are doing is expanding the influence of the U.S. to a much larger audience.

We already hear that jihadis in Iraq MUCH preferred to be captured and/or detained by U.S. forces than by their own Iraqi government forces. Which means that underneath these jihadis’ veneer of hating America, they actually like us better than they like themselves.

Since most governments worldwide are very nasty when it comes to prisoners, we might get a lot of America-haters begging to be detained by US forces just to escape the clutches of their own kind.

One is reminded of the 16-year-boy who was let out of Guantanamo Bay and then asked to be let back in, because it was like a vacation resort to him compared to his life in Afghanistan!

Maybe the whole world will now be filled with people like that boy.

(Then again, maybe I’m being too optimistic. They’ll probably use their free ACLU lawyers to get out and return to the battlefield to shoot at Americans again.)

I heard one of the Marine guards showed the kid a Playboy magazine..he saw a nude girl…he liked it. most 16 year old boys do.

64 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:47:57am

re: #52 jcm

Ignoring reality worked so well for us after the first World Trade Center, didn’t it?

65 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:48:03am

re: #50 ROPMA

HELL YEAH!

66 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:48:28am

re: #47 drcordell

Anyone we want to “disappear” is still going to go down the memory hole with no trace of existence. This is much ado about nothing.

Would the Obama administration let that happen?

67 turn  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:48:33am

re: #47 drcordell

Anyone we want to “disappear” is still going to go down the memory hole with no trace of existence. This is much ado about nothing.

It’s a concern that our guys might “disappear” because of the extra time and hassle it would take on the battlefield to capture detainees stooopid.

68 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:48:55am

re: #59 drcordell

Good. You know precisely where I stand.

69 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:48:55am

re: #47 drcordell

Anyone we want to “disappear” is still going to go down the memory hole with no trace of existence. This is much ado about nothing.

you’re living proof that that is not true

70 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:49:34am
71 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:49:37am

re: #7 zombie

So, we are to treat all people worldwide as if they were U.S. citizens?

OK — but first they gotta pay taxes, defend the US, and in general act like Americans.

Otherwise — why do they deserve to be treated like Americans?

I’m just guessing here, but it may have something to do with certain truths being self-evident.

Frankly, holding people indefinitely without bringing charges and offering them absolutely no recourse through which to challenge their imprisonment doesn’t sit well with me. Even if applied with an even hand in the few extraordinary circumstances where suspension of habeas may be justified, it opens the door to unprecedented abuse once someone less noble takes control. It is an extremely dangerous practice, and it’s scope needs to be severely limited in both scope and duration.

Put this sort of power in the hands of those who ask neighbors to inform on neighbors, or who cast their opposition as enemies of the state, and things begin to look very grim, indeed.

72 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:49:40am

re: #60 Sharmuta

Judges aren’t supposed to think of the real world implications of their decisions, supposedly.

They are also supposed to base decisions on US law and the Constitutions, state and Federal, instead of lifestyles and world opinion.

73 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:49:50am

re: #57 buzzsawmonkey

When in the history of the world were “civil liberties” extended to enemy combatants in wartime?

And why should they be now?

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

74 turn  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:49:57am

re: #69 _RememberTonyC

LOL

75 JohnnyReb  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:49:59am

re: #53 FurryOldGuyJeans

Couple that with this administration trial balloon of joining the International Criminal Court, and just serving in the US Armed Forces could become a war crime.

I am so glad I am retired and have my 30 year certificate.

76 Rexatosis  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:50:08am

This is without a doubt one of the most misguided, stupid policies possible. Why not give them loolipops while reading them their rights.

77 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:50:18am

re: #25 philip

I’m a civil libertarian so this is music to my ears.

:: does happy dance ::

You must have misheard it over Terrance’s farts.

78 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:50:20am

re: #69 _RememberTonyC

you’re living proof that that is not true

Every time I see him pop up I hit the delete key. Nothing seems to be happening though.

79 JohnH  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:50:22am

This is why you cannot let the left govern for ore than a few years. We, well you idiots who voted for this guy, elect people like this every 15 years or so and then recoil in horror at how bad they are.

As Dennis Prager said yesterday, what Obama is doing is no surprise. If you voted for him thinking that all of the take about remaking and transformation was just political rhetoric, then you are an idiot.

But, hey, Eric Holder can help all of the guys captured AND convicted through the pardon process.

80 zombie  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:50:34am

re: #52 jcm

White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over
‘Jihadists’ and ‘global war’ no longer acceptable terms

The reason being, of course, is that we’re switching sides. Obama supports Ahmedinejad, who has been sending arms and men to kill Americans; he favors letting jihadists out of Gitmo; he doesn’t want us to detain terrorists on the battlefield…etc.

So I guess we’ll have to chnage the name from “The War on Terror” to “The War in Cooperation with Terror.”

81 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:50:50am

re: #62 EmmmieG

Are you up for housing some of the terrorists in Cuba in your house? Next door?

If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. Are you really stupid enough that you think we can’t handle terrorists in prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has?

82 dahveed  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:01am

re: #52 jcm


“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.

This White House sees it as just a bunch of college kids and their crazy college pranks.

83 Rancher  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:01am

Seriously, this can’t be a surprise to anyone here. Many of us said this was a logical conclusion to the ruling that enemy combatants have constitutional rights. Consider not just the danger to soldiers who have to gather evidence on the battlefield but also the loss of intelligence when we have to Mirandize the terrorists. If Western Democracy fails it will be because we no longer know how to fight a war.

84 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:20am

re: #79 JohnH

Maybe you missed it, but the Obama administration is fighting this.

85 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:37am

re: #42 EmmmieG

Then I don’t understand how he can rule this.

Where and how did he serve? On the ground, or in an office?

I have no idea. His bio is in No. 17. The link will take you to more information about his court.

86 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:47am

re: #70 buzzsawmonkey

So you bought the TCM DVD Conspiracy-Pak?

You don’t think we have the power to make high value terror suspects disappear off the face of the earth?

87 Scion9  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:48am

re: #73 drcordell

No one sees it because it’s not factual.

88 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:51:58am

re: #73 drcordell

We have EXCEEDED the Geneva Conventions. If we applied full conventions to them they wouldn’t be getting fat.

/two slices of bread and a liter of water per day.
/certain number of persons restrained in a 10x10 cell.

89 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:52:09am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

German prisoners of war were taken while in uniform. Is that not one of the rules? You need to be wearing a uniform to be treated as a POW? As I recall, the German’s caught wearing our uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge were summarily executed. Was that wrong?

90 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:52:29am
91 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:52:44am

re: #81 drcordell

If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. Are you really stupid enough that you think we can’t handle terrorists in prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has?

What else is Guantanamo Bay? If we move them to US prisons, there is a very real chance they will recruit and convert American citizens, who will then be released into the general population.

92 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:52:50am
Another consequence of the Maqaleh case will be a reduction in the tempo and effectiveness of special forces operations in the Afghan theater. In this regard, we understand that FBI agents are now being tasked to join special force teams when they go out on missions, both to help in evidence-gathering and to read Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants.

Great. So the FBI (who chase after criminal rings and crimes after they happen) are expected to read Miranda rights to a terrorist who isn’t even wearing a uniform, dropped his RPG and raised his hands because he knows how badly we treat them.

Pure man of genius, this judge is.

93 That's Mr. President to you  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:52:53am

I think everyone needs to look at this cooly and take in a little perspective. These decisions have impacts on real people with real stories.

During the campaign, I was approached by a woman who works in the entertainment industry with the initials “BS”. She told me a horrific tale that still keeps me up some nights.

In 2004 she was vacationing at one of her villas in the south of France. As she would normally do, she went out one evening into town to have a bite to eat at a local cafe and then to go pick up some Chevre cheese and some Arugula.

Well on this one night, the waiter at the cafe refused to serve her because of, and I quote, “Zat barbaric George Bush”.

This cannot stand. We cannot live in a world where our entertainers, producers and moguls can’t enjoy their pretentious lives to the fullest while in Europe. Having Europeans dislike Americans is heavy cost of the Bush years and I have pledged to reverse that.

With Habeas Corpus now extended to anyone that the US military and law enforcement takes into custody worldwide, we are taking the small steps needed to ensure that America’s elite are never refused service in Europe again.

As for the security implications, we all must be mindful of how our higher moral standing is worth any added risks. So if you find yourself bleeding to death from a car bomb that just exploded, or your skin is burning due to a nuke going off, remember that those who brought that upon you will be treated with the utmost deference and respect. And, who knows, maybe your life will be immortalized by an actor who plays out your death scene where your last words are “At least we didn’t humiliate anyone.”

94 John Neverbend  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:53:03am

re: #52 jcm

White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over
‘Jihadists’ and ‘global war’ no longer acceptable terms

There’s a line in King Lear that was written for the White House.

“I have no way, and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I saw.”

95 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:53:06am
Our amicus brief must be filed by September 7. The government’s brief is due on August 31; since we are supporting the government’s position that Judge Bates’ decision should be overturned, we have to file within 7 days of the government’s filing.

The administration is fighting this.

96 Born Again Republican  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:53:50am
97 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:12am

re: #86 drcordell

You don’t think we have the power to make high value terror suspects disappear off the face of the earth?

Sure we do, they are called predator drones and hellfire missiles. In rare and appropiate cases JDAMs as well.

/smoking craters…

98 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:21am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

International conventions allow for military tribunals and execution of non-uniformed enemy combatants.

We’ve been skipping the executions, which has been a major mistake.

99 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:23am

re: #95 Sharmuta

The administration is fighting this.

You’re right — this needs to be pointed out, because people are going to assume this is an Obama administration idea. It’s not — the Obama administration is opposed to this ruling.

100 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:30am

re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite

German prisoners of war were taken while in uniform. Is that not one of the rules? You need to be wearing a uniform to be treated as a POW? As I recall, the German’s caught wearing our uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge were summarily executed. Was that wrong?

No. I have no problem with summarily executing prisoners. Quite frankly it’s humane compared to some of the treatments that captured terror suspects have been forced to endure. Either kill them, or lock them up. Torturing them is a propaganda victory for the terrorists.

101 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:32am

re: #70 buzzsawmonkey

So you bought the TCM DVD Conspiracy-Pak?

He sure did!

102 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:35am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

We treated them as POWs held for the duration. POW status is conferred on those those who wear a uniform and report to a recognized command structure.

The Jihadist enemy is defined by GC as illegal combatants, and GC rules for POWs do not apply.

If we do apply POW status we can hold those we capture until the enemy the conflict ends, no hearings, no trials stick them in Gitmo until the Jihadists world wide quit.

103 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:39am
104 Rancher  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:41am

re: #84 Sharmuta

Maybe you missed it, but the Obama administration is fighting this.

Obama has rethought allot of this crap, including closing Gitmo. However we have yet to see him really stand up to Pelosi and gang. I wonder how his new Justice will rule on these sorts of things.

105 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:54:50am

If other nations want constitutional protections let them write it into their own constitutions.

BTW- did anyone else have trouble logging in on the home page?

106 Land Shark  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:55:08am

This madness shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s what Obama and the Democrats have wanted from the get go. They are far more concerned with the rights of our enemies than the safety of our citizens and nation. Or than the ability of our men and women in uniform to accomplish their mission.

Like shiplord kirel said in comment #3, can you imagine if WWII had been run like this? Seriously, we’d all be celebrating Hitler’s birthday as our biggest national holiday. Mandatory holiday, of course.

107 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:55:33am

re: #86 drcordell

You don’t think we have the power to make high value terror suspects disappear off the face of the earth?

Have the power? Yes. Have the will? Nope.

108 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:55:48am

re: #96 Born Again Republican

Who won?

If you have to ask it must not have been us.

109 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:55:55am

In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

110 Rexatosis  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:56:10am

RE # 73 drcordell

Neither the Taliban nor Al-Q are signers, nor do they follow either the Geneva Convention or other International law as such neither the Geneva Convention not International law applies. Treaties, like contracts, require the agreement of both parties.

111 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:56:34am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

Those motherfrakkers didn’t wear uniforms representing a specific country. Until SCOTUS ruled otherwise, they didn’t fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

112 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:56:40am

re: #99 Charles

You’re right — this needs to be pointed out, because people are going to assume this is an Obama administration idea. It’s not — the Obama administration is opposed to this ruling.

And once again, I support the administration. This is a bad idea, and I’m glad they’re fighting it.

113 turn  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:57:15am

re: #105 DaddyG

If other nations want constitutional protections let them write it into their own constitutions.

BTW- did anyone else have trouble logging in on the home page?

Yes this morning, and the auto thingy didn’t work either.

114 Son of the Black Dog  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:57:26am

re: #36 Ringo the Gringo

I’m sure their are American lawyers who would gladly represent the families of those killed by the US Military by bringing ‘wrongful death’ lawsuits against our armed forces.

Some bleeding heart liberal lawyer has filed a $500 million wrongful death suit in a US court against Blackwater over the “civilian” casualties incident, and opened an office in Baghdad trolling for more wrongful death cases.

115 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:57:36am

re: #100 drcordell

No. I have no problem with summarily executing prisoners taken while not in uniform. Quite frankly it’s humane compared to some of the treatments that captured terror suspects have been forced to endure. Either kill them, or lock them up. Torturing them is a propaganda victory for the terrorists.

Is that what you meant?

Yeah, Gitmo is a terrible experince for Johnny Jihad. Three square meals, medical treatment, a roof over his head, and a fresh Koran whenever he wants one. I weep.

116 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:57:36am

re: #103 buzzsawmonkey

I think that your belief that this is done is evidence of an unhinged mind.

Having the ability—possibly—to do something is not evidence, and certainly not proof, that it ever has been done, let alone that it is done routinely as you seem to think.

It has happened, and I’m sure it will happen again. I’m not just making this shit up. Feel free to continue making ad hominem arguments however.

Source


Source

117 turn  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:57:46am

re: #106 Land Shark

see #99

118 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:58:18am

re: #112 Sharmuta

And once again, I support the administration. This is a bad idea, and I’m glad they’re fighting it.

My question is, and perhaps a legal lizard can answer me, is the Administration bound by the effects of this ruling in the meantime? Do they have to get an injunction issued against them in order for this to take effect, or will our armed forces be effectively handicapped until someone finally applies the cluebat?

119 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:58:29am
120 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:58:33am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

nope…as soon as they put on uniforms, stop killing civilians, abide by those same Geneva conventions and we can find someone to meet on an aircraft carrier to sign a surrender document that means something, I would support treating them like POW’s…as of now, they are rogue terrorist’s that simply cannot be released…to release them would be to assume that they are either reformed or have given up the fight.

121 SFGoth  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:58:54am

re: #3 shiplord kirel

Good thing these definitions didn’t apply during WW2. We would have had a quarter of a million German and Italian soldiers roaming the country after activist judges ordered their release from PoW camps.

Doubt that. Many of them wanted out of the war. During the Bulge, ambulances full of uninjured Soldaten would surrender to cooks, corpsmen, any American they could find. Sure, there were a lot of fanatics (even excluding the Waffen SS), but if it had been up to the rank & file, Germany wouldn’t even have invaded Poland.

122 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:59:35am

re: #113 turn

Yes this morning, and the auto thingy didn’t work either.

I just sent Charles and e-mail. For a moment there I thought I’d said something naughty yesterday and got put on 24 hour corner time.

123 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 10:59:55am

re: #115 Leonidas Hoplite

Is that what you meant?

Yeah, Gitmo is a terrible experince for Johnny Jihad. Three square meals, medical treatment, a roof over his head, and a fresh Koran whenever he wants one. I weep.

When did this turn into a discussion about Gitmo? When have I stated that Gitmo is the problem? I think Gitmo should be closed because of the bad publicity it creates, and the image it holds in the international community. Just stick the fuckers in that Montana max security prison that is completely empty and begging for terrorists to hold.

124 zombie  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:00:05am

re: #99 Charles

You’re right — this needs to be pointed out, because people are going to assume this is an Obama administration idea. It’s not — the Obama administration is opposed to this ruling.

Ah, interesting.

125 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:00:17am
126 SFGoth  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:00:33am

Wouldn’t happen with this prez, but it’d be great to tell that judge that his bailiwick is now the Northern District of Afghanistan (“N.D. Hell” in legal parlance) and he has to go there.

127 turn  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:00:35am

re: #122 DaddyG

haha I understand things got pretty heated after I left yesterday.

128 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:00:39am

re: #123 drcordell

When did this turn into a discussion about Gitmo? When have I stated that Gitmo is the problem? I think Gitmo should be closed because of the bad publicity it creates, and the image it holds in the international community. Just stick the fuckers in that Montana max security prison that is completely empty and begging for terrorists to hold.

Excuse me, I thought that’s what you meant.

129 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:01:08am

First Hamas-made movie begins Gaza Strip run

The audience in the Gaza Strip clapped and cheered as the actor delivered the movie’s most memorable line.

“To kill Israeli soldiers is to worship God.”

“Imad Aqel”, which had its premiere on Saturday, is the first feature film produced by the Islamist Hamas movement and the title is the name of a Palestinian fighter whom Israel held accountable for the deaths of 13 soldiers and settlers.


In accordance with strict Muslim tradition, men and women sat in separate sections of the theatre to view what Hamas officials termed the “Cinema of Resistance”, referring to what it describes as a fight against Israeli occupation.

“Imad Aqel” was filmed on a set built inside the former Jewish settlement of Ganei Tal in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

It depicts Hamas’s founding in the 1980s, attacks Aqel mounted on the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the signing of the Oslo peace accord between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993.

130 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:01:10am

If you want an example of “memory hole,” I recently listened to a podcast interview with a man who was born in the eastern half of Germany before WWII. They only found out about his father’s death years after the war (his father had been drafted into the German army). His father starved to death in a Russian POW camp. They way they found out was that the prisoner in the bunk next to him pledged to find the man’s family and tell them, so at least they would know what happened to him. There was never an official notification, so they would not otherwise have known.

People disappearing down the memory hole happens all the time around the world in other countries, but I’m unaware of it happening in this country. Anyone have an example?

131 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:01:44am

re: #99 Charles

You’re right — this needs to be pointed out, because people are going to assume this is an Obama administration idea. It’s not — the Obama administration is opposed to this ruling.

Nice to see them get something right once in a while.

132 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:02:00am

re: #125 buzzsawmonkey

That’s good.

Of course, had Obama and his ideological allies not helped lay the groundwork for the “law-enforcement conducting of war” in the first place, the Administration wouldn’t have to fight it, because the issue wouldn’t have come up.

Anything can happen that you disagree with and you find some way to blame it on the “libruls.” The judge who made the ruling was appointed by none other than JOHN ROBERTS. The man is the most conservative judge the Supreme Court has seen in years. This has nothing to do with Obama.

133 Spider Mensch  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:02:02am

speaking of POW’s..I must have brain farted, forgotten, missed it, whatever.. butwhat happened to the young Army private that the taliban had?? the one all the questions about.. did he desert? was he captured? the last i remember was a video they released of him about 2 weeks ago.

did this just fall off the radar, or did I totally miss something???

134 formercorpsman  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:02:57am

It will be interesting how this plays out given his dismissal of the Plame lawsuite.

135 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:03:12am

re: #99 Charles

You’re right — this needs to be pointed out, because people are going to assume this is an Obama administration idea. It’s not — the Obama administration is opposed to this ruling.

do you know if this is a change?

136 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:03:55am
137 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:04:03am

re: #135 Charpete67

do you know if this is a change?

Could be hope as well. Or maybe hope and change all rolled into one.

138 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:04:26am

re: #125 buzzsawmonkey

That’s good.

Of course, had Obama and his ideological allies not helped lay the groundwork for the “law-enforcement conducting of war” in the first place, the Administration wouldn’t have to fight it, because the issue wouldn’t have come up.

We can hope having to fight their own policies will give them cause to reflect. This is a case where standing back and allowing leftists to distort themselves defending this or not is warranted. Let our enemy fight amongst itself- I support the administration’s appeal.

139 JohnnyReb  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:05:03am

re: #116 drcordell

It has happened, and I’m sure it will happen again. I’m not just making this shit up. Feel free to continue making ad hominem arguments however.

Source


Source

Try again, your sources have people listed as missing that are sitting in GITMO. I just did a quick google search and found two in your first link.

140 doubter4444  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:05:39am

re: #17 MandyManners

Judge John D. Bates.

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Sounds like a commie, leftist, activist judge to me.
Thanks for looking that up.
That’s the problem with labeling judges “activist”. They are only activist if you don’t like how they rule. This time it seems he has pretty solid republican credentials… so what now? Is he still “activist”, or do we need to “review the case, and learn more about it”?
We don’t really know much about the case, or the ramifications and yet,people jump to the conclusion another leftist ploy to sell America down the river.
God Almighty.

141 JohnH  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:05:54am

re: #84 Sharmuta

Maybe you missed it, but the Obama administration is fighting this.

How hard are they fighting it?

142 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:05:58am

re: #133 Spider Mensch

speaking of POW’s..I must have brain farted, forgotten, missed it, whatever.. butwhat happened to the young Army private that the taliban had?? the one all the questions about.. did he desert? was he captured? the last i remember was a video they released of him about 2 weeks ago.

did this just fall off the radar, or did I totally miss something???

Fell of the radar, still held.

On the subject of POWs the remains of Capt. Scott Speicher from GWI have been IDed.

143 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:06:13am
144 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:06:58am
145 Buck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:06:59am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

If you allow militants who are dressed like civilians to have all the rights of a uniformed soldier YOU ENDANGER CIVILIANS!

146 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:01am

re: #125 buzzsawmonkey

That’s good.

Of course, had Obama and his ideological allies not helped lay the groundwork for the “law-enforcement conducting of war” in the first place, the Administration wouldn’t have to fight it, because the issue wouldn’t have come up.

Actually, the rulings regarding habeas as they pertain to current detainees were handed down during the Bush Administration. The ruling mentioned in Yon’s article flows directly from the June 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.

147 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:09am

re: #140 doubter4444

My link goes to links to his court.

148 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:09am

re: #143 buzzsawmonkey

The issue would not have come before the judge in the first place had there not been agitation from leftist loons to apply civilian law to the conduct of war.

There you go, bringing facts into the rant. He won’t tolerate that.

149 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:16am

re: #132 drcordelre: #125 buzzsawmonkey

That’s good.

Of course, had Obama and his ideological allies not helped lay the groundwork for the “law-enforcement conducting of war” in the first place, the Administration wouldn’t have to fight it, because the issue wouldn’t have come up.

The real reason why the courts are just now being forced to address these issues is because it was simply not addressed during the Bush administration. The entire reason for the existence of Guantanamo Bay’s Camp X-Ray is because it is outside international jurisdiction, and technically not U.S. soil. Bush didn’t know what to do with the prisoners, and didn’t know how to prosecute them. So he simply stuck them in a legal black hole, and never made the hard decisions necessary regarding how to legally process the prisoners.

Because Bush kicked the can down the road, now the decisions are being made during the Obama administration. Not that Obama has any power over the rulings the judiciary makes. But it makes it very easy for legal rulings that should have been made during the Bush administration (had he chosen to address the issue) to be pinned on Obama.

150 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:30am

re: #136 buzzsawmonkey

You’re quoting Human Rights Watch? As a reliable source?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaaahahahahahahahah a

1,000,000 updings!

151 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:33am

re: #141 JohnH

How hard are they fighting it?

Does your spin machine go to 11?

152 reine.de.tout  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:07:50am

re: #81 drcordell

If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. Are you really stupid enough that you think we can’t handle terrorists in prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has?

drcordell - can you just talk to people without the “are you really stupid enough …” business?

Could you not just say, “If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. I believe that we can handle terrorists in the prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has”.

You’ve said the same thing … Is it really necessary to insult people?

153 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:08:05am

re: #146 SixDegrees

Actually, the rulings regarding habeas as they pertain to current detainees were handed down during the Bush Administration. The ruling mentioned in Yon’s article flows directly from the June 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.

No matter when it was ruled on, it still is as wrong as upholding slaves as property was wrong.

154 cartoonboy  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:08:27am

One needs alot of crazy ideas and people in a bus that only moves forward by tossing said craziness underneath. Obama’s bus is stalled now due to a glut craziness and a dearth of tossers.

155 Born Again Republican  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:08:58am

re: #108 jcm

If you have to ask it must not have been us.

Personally I don’t believe the war on terrorism is over. Wall Street journal expresses their doubt.

Wall Street Journal

156 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:09:01am

re: #154 cartoonboy

What in the world are you talking about?

157 Son of the Black Dog  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:09:06am

re: #81 drcordell

If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. Are you really stupid enough that you think we can’t handle terrorists in prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has?

Are you really stupid enough to believe that certain federal judges and/or justice department and/or president won’t grant some of these people release and the right to remain in this country?

158 Spider Mensch  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:09:30am

re: #142 jcm

Fell of the radar, still held.

On the subject of POWs the remains of Capt. Scott Speicher from GWI have been IDed.


thanks. maybe thats the best way to handle it..don’t give it the publicity the taliban seeks…amazing how the gov’t can stop information to the press when they really want to. memory holes indeed…

159 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:09:46am

If the Burka doesn’t fit…you must aquit.

160 cartoonboy  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:10:02am

re: #154 cartoonboy
(corrected post)
One needs alot of crazy ideas and people in a bus that only moves forward by tossing said craziness underneath. Obama’s bus is stalled now due to a glut of craziness and a shortage of tossers.

161 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:10:49am

re: #143 buzzsawmonkey

The issue would not have come before the judge in the first place had there not been agitation from leftist loons to apply civilian law to the conduct of war.

If it were simply a matter of loons, they would have lost their case; more likely, it wouldn’t even have proceeded to trial in the first place. People are free to bring suit over any matter they like, but winning is another matter. The fact that they prevailed indicates that their cases had legal merit.

162 JustABill  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:10:49am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

Damn right, apply the Geneva Conventions. They are combatants, they are not in uniform, therefore they are spies. Summary executions all around.

163 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:11:02am

re: #141 JohnH

How hard are they fighting it?

The very fact that there is ANY opposition from the administration to the ruling speaks volumes. OMO is shifting right and leaving his far left base behind.

164 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:11:05am

re: #160 cartoonboy

Tossers of what?

165 cartoonboy  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:11:44am

re: #164 Macker

tossers of crazy people/ideas.

166 debutaunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:11:44am

re: #136 buzzsawmonkey

You’re quoting Human Rights Watch? As a reliable source?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaaahahahahahahahah a

You are so cute when you laugh!

167 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:11:51am
168 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:12:31am

re: #162 JustABill

Damn right, apply the Geneva Conventions. They are combatants, they are not in uniform, therefore they are spies. Summary executions all around.

The problem is it is hard to get intel from a dead spy.

169 SFGoth  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:12:40am

From today’s Washtimes:
It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism.” Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.” President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.
The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is “at war with al Qaeda.”
“We are at war with al Qaeda,” he said. “We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”

Actually, I rather agree with this as I found the whole “War on Terror” crap to be just that - crap. Maybe it’s all Bush could pronounce, or his daddies in Saudi Arabia told him not to be specific. Dunno. I am really warming up to a Romney/Giuliani ticket in ‘12. I think for once the GOP gets to rehash failed candidates given the circumstances. This is what the ticket should’ve been (and Rudi has to be #2 b/c he just doesn’t have Romney’s demeanor).

170 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:12:56am

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

Had we actually applied the Geneva Conventions to the terror suspects, this wouldn’t be an issue now either, but not how you expect it. These folks are termed “unlawful combatants” in the Geneva Conventions. They are not entitled to anything, and the punishment is left up to the detaining state. That means we could’ve treated them anyway we wish from release to execution. Instead, we’ve allowed them a sort-of POW status.

171 yesandno  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:13:06am

re: #15 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Everybody on earth get to apply for food stamps?

By the time they are finished, the “rich” in America will be paying the salary of everyone in the world. I’m thinking that eventually they will force us to move to some third world country and have people take over our lives that are more deserving.

172 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:13:09am
173 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:13:12am

re: #168 FurryOldGuyJeans

The problem is it is hard to get intel from a dead spy.

..unless they are only slightly dead…///

174 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:13:14am

re: #127 turn

haha I understand things got pretty heated after I left yesterday.

I got in a lot of GAZE time.

175 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:13:24am

re: #143 buzzsawmonkey

The issue would not have come before the judge in the first place had there not been agitation from leftist loons to apply civilian law to the conduct of war.

What part of this do you not understand. America is a nation of laws. These laws (and our Constitution) prevent us from simply holding people indefinitely with no legal consideration. We either must treat them using international norms such as the Geneva Convention, or take them into our own legal system for prosecution. Doing neither, and simply holding them outside all legal jurisdiction is what Bush chose to do. Unfortunately, there is no legal basis that allows this. Therefore, the issue is being addressed by the courts.

Had the Bush administration chosen to start formulating a legal strategy back in 2002, this problem could have been easily addressed before we had hundreds and hundreds of prisoners. Instead, they took prisoners for 6 years and just threw them into Guantanamo, and figured they’d just let the next President figure it out.

176 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:13:50am

re: #167 buzzsawmonkey

What are you talking about when you say “legally process the prisoners?” Why do they have to be “legally processed?” The German prisoners you cited as an example upthread were incarcerated for the duration of the war. If the war had lasted fifteen years, they would have stayed in their prison camps fifteen years.

Using your own example, therefore, there was no reason whatsoever to “legally process” the Gitmo detainees. The very fact that it was raised at all was the work of unhinged lefties who are hell-bent on shunting captured prisoners into the civilian justice system.

The US Left wants to do one better than the rest of the world. Other countries don’t want to have to deal with the “prisoners”.

177 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:14:18am

*Attention DC area lizards. If you can go bring a video camera.

Howard Dean to Join Rep. Moran for Town Hall on Health Care Reform Efforts

When: Tuesday, August 25, 2009
7:00PM - 9:00PM
—Doors open at 6:00PM

Where: South Lakes High School, Auditorium
11400 South Lakes Dr.
Reston, Virginia

What: Town Hall meeting hosted by Rep. Jim Moran featuring Governor Howard Dean, M.D., former Governor of Vermont, Democratic National Committee Chair Emeritus, author, and national grassroots leader on health care. The meeting will discuss current efforts in Congress to reform our nation’s health care system.

Why: Congress is attempting to craft the first major reform of our nation’s health care system in 45 years. With over 47 million Americans uninsured, medical costs rising everyday, and obtaining quality insurance coverage becoming more and more difficult, the time for action has come.

Congressman Moran has invited Dr. Dean to speak at this forum in Northern Virginia, to reflect upon the current effort given his years of experience as a leading health care expert, governor and physician. The town hall will be an opportunity for the Congressman to hear from 8th District constituents on health care, and to clarify what the reform measures in the Congress really mean for Northern Virginians.

*This event is free and open to the public. Seating is limited, available on a first come first serve basis.

178 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:15:02am

re: #157 Son of the Black Dog

Are you really stupid enough to believe that certain federal judges and/or justice department and/or president won’t grant some of these people release and the right to remain in this country?

Have the blind sheikh from the WTC bombing or any of his terrorist associates been released from prison? Was timothy mcveigh released from prison? The situation you are describing has no basis in reality.

179 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:15:24am

re: #175 drcordell

It’s already been said in a few posts. If we treated them like we could’ve under the Geneva Conventions, most of them would be in unmarked graves right now. Instead we decided to take the high road and treat them like military prisoners instead of unlawful combatants.

180 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:15:32am

re: #168 FurryOldGuyJeans

The problem is it is hard to get intel from a dead spy.

Agreed, and that’s the real problem with this ruling. We’ll have more dead insurgents and less intel, which will translate into more civilian deaths. I grow more apprehensive about going through GCT everyday. I hope Obama fights this one exuberantly.

181 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:15:40am

re: #175 drcordell

The Rule of Law also extends to the Geneva Conventions we are signatory to, which deal explicitly with war and prisoner of war matters. The US Constitution and Law don’t.

182 SFGoth  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:05am

re: #167 buzzsawmonkey

What are you talking about when you say “legally process the prisoners?” Why do they have to be “legally processed?” The German prisoners you cited as an example upthread were incarcerated for the duration of the war. If the war had lasted fifteen years, they would have stayed in their prison camps fifteen years.

We fucking declared war in WWII. We haven’t declared war here, except on an idea and then there was no declaration. This is like declaring war on time and holding prisoners until the end of it. It was an asinine idea. Either declare war on an identifiable group and hold the prisoners ad infinitum or get on with prosecuting them (in a military court).

183 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:07am

re: #170 Honorary Yooper

Hey! Haven’t seen you in a while…

184 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:11am

re: #177 NJDhockeyfan

*Attention DC area lizards. If you can go bring a video camera.

Howard Dean to Join Rep. Moran for Town Hall on Health Care Reform Efforts

I’m reporting you to flag (at) whitehouse.gov :)

185 debutaunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:17am

re: #152 reine.de.tout

drcordell - can you just talk to people without the “are you really stupid enough …” business?

Could you not just say, “If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. I believe that we can handle terrorists in the prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has”.

You’ve said the same thing … Is it really necessary to insult people?

dr got it from Obama.

186 Idle Drifter  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:20am

Military tribunals were set up by the Bush Administration to prosecute detainees were first frozen then redone by the Obama Administration.

187 That's Mr. President to you  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:21am

Here are some remarks I made last year and are still available on my website (which still needs your donations) -

But if the next President can restore the American people’s trust - if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility - then I believe the American people will be ready to see America lead again.

They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city.

That is not who we are.

If you read the whole speech (which was much admired and expertly delivered), you will see that the speech turned on “That is not who we are” and that set up “The American Moment” which is the name of the speech.

Again - much quoted and much admired.

188 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:16:58am
189 Buck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:17:03am

re: #116 drcordell

It has happened, and I’m sure it will happen again. I’m not just making this shit up. Feel free to continue making ad hominem arguments however.

Source


Source

First of all HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH only has the word of militants to go on. So although YOU are not making it up, you don’t know if SOMEONE isn’t.

Second…maybe they are not “missing”, may be they just blew up?
I don’t think they are carrying a lot of good ID that would get their bodies back to their families.

“a large percentage of those who went to Afghanistan were misguided, confused young men” Of course, that is how the family would like to make this sound. However, NOTHING is done in these various countries to discourage these ” misguided, confused young men”. We do more to discourage drinking and driving than these countries do to discourage Jihad. What responsibility does the Family and governments have in this?

Third… A young misguided, confused man goes off to fight the USA, and doesn’t come back… I wouldn’t assume he is being held incognito, or being tortured… I would assume he was DEAD. He put his trust in Allah, and got fucked up. That would be the most obvious answer (that would evade HRW).

190 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:17:09am

re: #172 buzzsawmonkey

If you’ve ever handled a case in court, you know that the loopiest things, cleverly argued, can get the attention of a seemingly rational judge.

Has anyone found that there has been an erroneous application of law in this case?

191 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:17:14am

AutoScroll is engaged.

1hr40min until vacation.

Then I’ll scream.

192 SFGoth  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:17:27am

re: #172 buzzsawmonkey

If you’ve ever handled a case in court, you know that the loopiest things, cleverly argued, can get the attention of a seemingly rational judge.

I personally know that. I got one judge reversed so hard she refused to take the case after it came back. :->

193 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:17:40am

re: #187 That’s Mr. President to you

Blah Blah Blah Yadda Yadda Yadda…

194 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:17:50am

re: #178 drcordell

Have the blind sheikh from the WTC bombing or any of his terrorist associates been released from prison? Was timothy mcveigh released from prison? The situation you are describing has no basis in reality.

…so, let’s have a trial and then hang them?…what’s the point?

the point is that it would only take one acquittal and then where do you send them to?

195 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:18:09am

re: #179 BlueCanuck

It’s already been said in a few posts. If we treated them like we could’ve under the Geneva Conventions, most of them would be in unmarked graves right now. Instead we decided to take the high road and treat them like military prisoners instead of unlawful combatants.

You don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter that they were housed in relatively humane conditions in Gitmo. The prisoners still must be accounted for legally in some way, because America is a nation of laws. The previous administration simply avoided making any substantive legal decisions with regard to how the prisoners were to be handled, whether it be under Geneva Conventions, International Law or U.S. Law. That is why these decisions are now being made. Because we cannot simply hold these people indefinitely in a legal black hole and maintain standing in the world as a nation that respects the rule of law.

196 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:18:12am

re: #142 jcm

Fell of the radar, still held.

On the subject of POWs the remains of Capt. Scott Speicher from GWI have been IDed.

Good. The family can have peace and knowledge that he was not kept as a prisoner all these years. It was nice to see the Bedouins gave him a dignified burial when they came across the crash site.

197 Son of the Black Dog  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:18:21am

re: #112 Sharmuta

And once again, I support the administration. This is a bad idea, and I’m glad they’re fighting it.

Sharm, are they really going to fight this?
Or just go through the motions?

198 Buck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:18:34am

re: #168 FurryOldGuyJeans

The problem is it is hard to get intel from a dead spy.

To the Obama Admin, it is a war crime to get intel from the live ones.

199 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:18:45am

Professional bloggers, taking turns at topics.

200 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:19:28am

re: #199 Walter L. Newton

Professional bloggers, taking turns at topics.

How can I be professional when I don’t get paid to sit on my ass and type on the computer?

201 Leonidas Hoplite  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:19:32am

I think the good dr.’s copy of the Geneva Conventions has the part about unlawful combatants clipped out.

202 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:20:20am

re: #201 Leonidas Hoplite

I think the good dr.’s copy of the Geneva Conventions has the part about unlawful combatants clipped out.

Redefined and clarified to fit an agenda, not clipped out.

203 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:20:38am

re: #195 drcordell

Inter arma enim silent leges.

204 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:21:02am

re: #181 FurryOldGuyJeans

The Rule of Law also extends to the Geneva Conventions we are signatory to, which deal explicitly with war and prisoner of war matters. The US Constitution and Law don’t.

It should be noted that extending habeas corpus to the detainees does not automatically extend Constitutional protections to them.

205 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:21:10am

re: #195 drcordell

No, YOU don’t seem to understand. Where in the U.S. Code does it say that we must take unlawful combatants captured during combat operations and process them legally? You won’t find it in there, or in the Constitution, or in the Geneva Conventions, or in any body of American or international law on the books. We could have these people hung by the neck until dead if that’s what we wanted.

206 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:21:10am

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

What part of this do you not understand:

1) Prisoners taken in combat are held for the duration—merely because they have been captured.

2) Non-uniformed combatants do not fall under the Geneva Convention. The mere fact that we extend treatment to them which falls within Geneva Convention guidelines is a volitional act of mercy on our part which we are not compelled to do.

3) The duration is not yet concluded—largely do to the obstructionisim of the left. But there is nothing wrong with holding whoever has been captured until the end of hostilities.

All of this “duration” language you are quoting comes directly from the Geneva Convention. Either the Geneva Convention applies, or it doesn’t. You can’t just cherry-pick certain clauses and ignore others. We need to decide as a nation which laws apply to these detainees and establish a legal precedent for the future regarding how to prosecute terror suspects. Bush failed to do any of this legal groundwork, and that is why the courts are now addressing the issue. Continue your ad hominem attacks…

207 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:21:50am

re: #197 Son of the Black Dog

Sharm, are they really going to fight this?
Or just go through the motions?

At this moment in time even going through the motions is a whole lot better than letting the ruling stand without opposition.

208 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:21:58am

re: #203 Macker

Inter arma enim silent leges.

is that a Def Leppard song

209 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:22:29am

re: #178 drcordell

Have the blind sheikh from the WTC bombing or any of his terrorist associates been released from prison? Was timothy mcveigh released from prison? The situation you are describing has no basis in reality.

Apples and oranges. The Gitmo detainees are unlawful combatants. The Blind Sheikh and Tim McVeigh were criminals rightly charged and convicted under the prevailing states’ laws and federal law. In the former, Geneva Conventions say we can do almost anything, really, as they leave it up to the detaining country. In the latter, those were distinctly law enforcement cases.

210 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:22:33am

re: #206 drcordell

All of this “duration” language you are quoting comes directly from the Geneva Convention. Either the Geneva Convention applies, or it doesn’t. You can’t just cherry-pick certain clauses and ignore others. We need to decide as a nation which laws apply to these detainees and establish a legal precedent for the future regarding how to prosecute terror suspects. Bush failed to do any of this legal groundwork, and that is why the courts are now addressing the issue. Continue your ad hominem attacks…

Either the Geneva Convention applies, or it doesn’t. They were without uniforms on a field of war, but engaged in combat. We have the right to shoot them.

211 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:22:39am

re: #206 drcordell

1,000,000 DOWNDINGS! buzzsawmonkey isn’t attacking you personally in that post.

212 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:22:52am

re: #204 SixDegrees

It cracks open the door leading to that room, something that should never have even been considered.

213 Spider Mensch  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:22:53am

re: #152 reine.de.tout

drcordell - can you just talk to people without the “are you really stupid enough …” business?

Could you not just say, “If they’re in a maximum security prison, sure. I believe that we can handle terrorists in the prisons that routinely hold the most violent and crazed gangbangers our nation has”.

You’ve said the same thing … Is it really necessary to insult people?

usually a sign of poor potty training…yup, the dr’s mommy and daddy left out the part about wiping..so he act’s “shitty” to everyone…

/

214 Son of the Black Dog  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:22:58am

re: #116 drcordell

It has happened, and I’m sure it will happen again. I’m not just making this shit up. Feel free to continue making ad hominem arguments however.

Source


Source

Your first example is from al-Guardian. Not necessarily a reliable source for this kind of story. Your second example was the Afghans handing somebody over to the Paks. Not our doing.

215 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:23:07am

re: #208 Charpete67

is that a Def Leppard song

No.

216 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:23:44am

re: #206 drcordell

Wow, disagreeing with you is now a personal attack.

Need some cheese?

217 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:24:27am
218 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:25:00am

re: #214 Son of the Black Dog

There you go, bringing facts in opposition to his rant. He won’t allow that.

219 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:25:14am

re: #216 FurryOldGuyJeans

Wow, disagreeing with you is now a personal attack.

Need some cheese?

Go look up the definition of ad hominem.

220 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:25:33am

re: #206 drcordell

Continue your ad hominem attacks…

Where is the “ad hominem”. I don’t see that particular fallacy in the replies.

221 beens21  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:26:03am

re: #175 drcordell

Bush set up military tribunal, that got challenged to the SCt., a new set of tribunals were drafted, thos were challenged and went to the SCt., they were in the process of trying KSMohammed when Obama stopped the trials. Get your facts straight.

222 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:26:16am

re: #219 drcordell

Go look up the definition of ad hominem.

Right after you look up the definition of “Straw Man”.

223 doubter4444  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:26:54am

re: #146 SixDegrees

Actually, the rulings regarding habeas as they pertain to current detainees were handed down during the Bush Administration. The ruling mentioned in Yon’s article flows directly from the June 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.

But to many, it’ll still be the lefts fault for trying to tie the military’s hand or something… meaning I guess, that any impingement on how the pentagon wanted to prosecute the war is wrongheaded and soft.
I’m reasonably Conservative, but I do not believe that, and I don’t believe in giving anyone group that much power, be it in the administration, the congress, or in the pentagon.

224 MikeAlv77  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:27:01am

re: #170 Honorary Yooper

Had we actually applied the Geneva Conventions to the terror suspects, this wouldn’t be an issue now either, but not how you expect it. These folks are termed “unlawful combatants” in the Geneva Conventions. They are not entitled to anything, and the punishment is left up to the detaining state. That means we could’ve treated them anyway we wish from release to execution. Instead, we’ve allowed them a sort-of POW status.

For more on this according to WWII, check the werewolf’s (german resistance after the war) who did not wear uniforms and what we did to them.

Wiki Entry

225 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:27:12am

re: #219 drcordell

I don’t have to, I already know what it is. You need to look up “Straw Man”.

You do need cheese, you have got bottles and bottles of whine.

And this all I will say on the matter, you, sir, are now ignore file material. *PLOINK*

226 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:27:27am

re: #217 buzzsawmonkey

I am merely using drcordell’s own example—one which he it relied on. You don’t like it, take it up with him it.

There, fixed that for ya!

227 Ben Hur  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:27:33am

Activist judges are bad again.

228 formercorpsman  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:00am

re: #182 SFGoth

Thus is the crux of the situation itself.

Unlike other wars, where one nation found itself fighting another, or others, this conflict defies any preconceived notion.

229 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:06am
230 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:21am

So, Mr you have the right to remain silent, would you like a spot of tea ?

231 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:28am

re: #220 DaddyG

Where is the “ad hominem”. I don’t see that particular fallacy in the replies.

Instead of attacking the legal logic behind the court case referenced by Charles in his post, he repeatedly invokes the Obama administration and “leftists” for being responsible.

232 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:31am

I’m thinking of making up a certificate for people who hog the bottom 10 all to themselves. Just not sure where to post it so that they can see it. I’ll let you all know if I succeed.

233 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:39am
234 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:40am

re: #227 Ben Hur

Activist judges are bad again.

Only, as always, when the activism goes against a D administration.

235 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:28:56am

re: #231 drcordell

GAZE

236 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:29:13am

re: #220 DaddyG

Where is the “ad hominem”. I don’t see that particular fallacy in the replies.


Never mind answer the first four replies and I will have my answer too. If you want a good reference for logical fallacy you can go here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

237 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:29:41am

re: #232 EmmmieG

I’m thinking of making up a certificate for people who hog the bottom 10 all to themselves. Just not sure where to post it so that they can see it. I’ll let you all know if I succeed.

Nah, the very fact that they are so proficient at that feat is more than enough recognition.

238 Ben Hur  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:29:49am

Careful guys.

You may be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov.

239 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:02am

anyone remember today is the anniversary of the atomic bomb dropped on Japan?

I wonder what this debate would have looked like in 1944…

240 keithgabryelski  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:09am

I replied to you-all from the previous thread about the assault on the freshmen democrat at the healthcare rally (visit there for the actual text):

re: #1424 Scion9

re: #1422 redstateredneck

re: #1431 Dianna

241 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:22am

re: #200 FurryOldGuyJeans

How can I be professional when I don’t get paid to sit on my ass and type on the computer?

Why do you think I was talking about you? I wasn’t.

242 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:23am

re: #238 Ben Hur

Careful guys.

You may be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Go ahead, report me please. I am out of the jurisdiciton. :)

243 Outrider  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:29am
…FBI agents are now being tasked to join special force teams when they go out on missions, both to help in evidence-gathering and to read Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants...

Wow. There are not sufficient words to express my disgust and disappointment with this development. Hauling non-combatants into a special operations arena merely to comply with some misguided legal rulings is going to have far reaching implications on how special operations will be conducted in the future.

Our enemies must really be enjoying this.

244 [deleted]  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:37am
245 Ben Hur  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:42am

re: #228 formercorpsman

Thus is the crux of the situation itself.

Unlike other wars, where one nation found itself fighting another, or others, this conflict defies any preconceived notion.


Acccept for all the other countries that have been fighting terror for decades…

246 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:57am

re: #219 drcordell

Sorry, I sold my English to Leftoid dictionary.

247 dahveed  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:30:59am

OT~

The United States Post Office posts net loss of $1B.

Perhaps someone smart in the government will realize that they just aren’t good at running a going concern.

Yeah, right.

248 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:31:01am

What’s the number of downdings needed for a comment to automatically disappear (without Stinky’s assistance)? Just wondering.

249 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:31:34am

re: #241 Walter L. Newton

Why do you think I was talking about you? I wasn’t.

You weren’t?!? Well, damn, you should have been? ;)

250 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:12am

re: #210 EmmmieG

Either the Geneva Convention applies, or it doesn’t. They were without uniforms on a field of war, but engaged in combat. We have the right to shoot them.

If there’s proof that they were engaged in combat, then habeas can easily be satisfied simply by presenting that proof. hc doesn’t demand a trial; it only demands that cause for detention be presented before a court of some description.

251 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:19am

Take only HIGH VALUE prisoners…
The rest…Just Corpuses…

252 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:21am

re: #248 unrealizedviewpoint

What’s the number of downdings needed for a comment to automatically disappear (without Stinky’s assistance)? Just wondering.

Isn’t AnneFrance’s post still around?

253 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:29am

re: #224 MikeAlv77

For more on this according to WWII, check the werewolf’s (german resistance after the war) who did not wear uniforms and what we did to them.

Wiki Entry

“Forced to clear minefields…” That’s a good activity for ununiformed combatants - especially those who put civillian populations at risk.

254 debutaunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:31am

re: #243 Outrider

Wow. There are not sufficient words to express my disgust and disappointment with this development. Hauling non-combatants into a special operations arena merely to comply with some misguided legal rulings is going to have far reaching implications on how special operations will be conducted in the future.

Our enemies must really be enjoying this.

Pretty soon we’ll be tying both hands behind our backs.

255 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:40am

re: #244 buzzsawmonkey

Since, historically, the antiwar left—including Barack Obama—are responsible for inventing and pushing the absurd notion that wars are to be conducted with the supervision of civilian courts.

Explain to me exactly how Obama is “anti-war” again? I’m not talking about speeches he used to get elected, I’m talking about actions. He’s upped the defense budget by 9%, maintained our presence in Iraqi cities past the SFA deadline, and just committed several divisions to Afghanistan. Anti-war what?

256 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:52am

re: #239 Charpete67

There would have been no debate.
The late Richard Pryor said it best: “Did you hear what them little yellow bastards did? Shit they bombed Pearl Harbor! We’re gonna have to clean their clocks…”

AND WE DID.

257 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:32:54am

re: #238 Ben Hur

Careful guys.

You may be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov.

I have an idea. If we can find any world wide opinion on Obama’s health care, lets send FLAG email links to all sorts of stuff all around the world.

Heck, Obama is the president of the world and I would think that he would like to know if someone was dissing him overseas.

258 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:17am

I just want to say once again that Victor Davis Hanson is a national treasure. I truly wish he was on TV so that millions could be exposed to his intellect. Here’s a recent column of his about the Gates/Crowley/POTUS affair. It is simply brilliant.

[Link: www.victorhanson.com…]

259 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:18am

re: #155 Born Again Republican

Personally I don’t believe the war on terrorism is over. Wall Street journal expresses their doubt.

Wall Street Journal

It’s a long war, the best we can do is reduce the enemies activities to low level, incapable of major acts. The only way to to that is vigorously respond to every attack, and put pressure on terror groups by hunting them down and killing them where ever they are.

260 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:31am

re: #247 dahveed

OT~

The United States Post Office posts net loss of $1B.

Perhaps someone smart in the government will realize that they just aren’t good at running a going concern.

Yeah, right.

They want to restrict delivery days and close post offices because they can’t sustain the retirement benefits at their current level, forget about actually doing the job they are required to do. Yeah, now THAT’S efficient.

261 Kragar  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:38am

Well, thank goodness this unpleasantness is over.

White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over

It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism.” Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.”

President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.

262 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:38am

re: #248 unrealizedviewpoint

What’s the number of downdings needed for a comment to automatically disappear (without Stinky’s assistance)? Just wondering.

There’s no threshold I know of.

263 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:45am

re: #249 FurryOldGuyJeans

You weren’t?!? Well, damn, you should have been? ;)

Why does that not surprise me.

264 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:47am

Every third post or ding, I get booted out to the front page. I’ve reloaded, cleared my cache, rebooted and I even unplugged my freakin’ computer.

Is this happening to anyone else?

265 Macker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:33:52am

re: #255 drcordell

GAZE

266 doubter4444  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:34:15am

re: #186 Idle Drifter

Military tribunals were set up by the Bush Administration to prosecute detainees were first frozen then redone by the Obama Administration.

There was one case tried and that was lost.
The entire system was so fucked up that several lifers in the JAG or whatever quit, and the presiding judge removed the head of the prosecuting team for unprofessional actions.
Dam right they were suspended.
Why am I having to argue for Obama?
NOT everything he does is bad, and if one thinks so them it’s not worth even reading the posts.
We have to see the picture through a clear lens, not twisted by hate and invective, it does no good.

267 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:34:36am

re: #255 drcordell

Explain to me exactly how Obama is “anti-war” again? I’m not talking about speeches he used to get elected, I’m talking about actions. He’s upped the defense budget by 9%, maintained our presence in Iraqi cities past the SFA deadline, and just committed several divisions to Afghanistan. Anti-war what?

you just called President Obama a liar.

268 debutaunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:34:38am

re: #247 dahveed

OT~

The United States Post Office posts net loss of $1B.

Perhaps someone smart in the government will realize that they just aren’t good at running a going concern.

Yeah, right.

But the US Government Healthcare and Clunker Service will be fantastically successful.

269 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:34:42am

re: #255 drcordell

Get a Leftoid to English dictionary. And try to keep up as you translate.

270 Wendya  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:35:13am

re: #175 drcordell

What part of this do you not understand. America is a nation of laws. These laws (and our Constitution) prevent us from simply holding people indefinitely with no legal consideration.

Would you kindly cite the article and section of the Constitution that grants rights to terrorists on foreign soil?

271 Dahveed  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:35:16am

re: #260 FurryOldGuyJeans

They want to restrict delivery days and close post offices because they can’t sustain the retirement benefits at their current level, forget about actually doing the job they are required to do. Yeah, now THAT’S efficient.

Sounds like the auto companies. Hmm, perhaps the post office will now be outsourced to India.

272 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:35:27am

re: #261 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, thank goodness this unpleasantness is over.

White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over

“The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is “at war with al Qaeda.”“

Right.

273 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:35:53am

re: #263 Walter L. Newton

Why does that not surprise me.

Just waking up in the morning and being able to stand up surprises me.

274 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:36:06am

re: #264 MandyManners

Every third post or ding, I get booted out to the front page. I’ve reloaded, cleared my cache, rebooted and I even unplugged my freakin’ computer.

Is this happening to anyone else?

Have you been feeding your computer pop rocks?

275 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:36:13am

re: #262 Honorary Yooper

There’s no threshold I know of.

Really? I thought…or recall some years ago Charles set some number…a high one, or so I thought at the time. musta been a dream.

276 doubter4444  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:36:25am

re: #147 MandyManners

My link goes to links to his court.

Thanks for doing that, Mandy.

277 midwestgak  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:36:31am

re: #264 MandyManners

Every third post or ding, I get booted out to the front page. I’ve reloaded, cleared my cache, rebooted and I even unplugged my freakin’ computer.

Is this happening to anyone else?

No Mandy, I’m not.

278 Pianobuff  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:36:32am

re: #264 MandyManners

Every third post or ding, I get booted out to the front page. I’ve reloaded, cleared my cache, rebooted and I even unplugged my freakin’ computer.

Is this happening to anyone else?

Nothing like that here. Better give Father Merrin a call.

279 keithgabryelski  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:36:57am

re: #264 MandyManners

Every third post or ding, I get booted out to the front page. I’ve reloaded, cleared my cache, rebooted and I even unplugged my freakin’ computer.

Is this happening to anyone else?

Does it happen in both IE and Firefox?

280 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:37:07am

re: #269 FurryOldGuyJeans

Get a Leftoid to English dictionary. And try to keep up as you translate.

Can anyone here actually address anything that is said, or just make stupid “leftist” jokes. You all seem to hate Obama, I just called him a liar and gave you an open net. Where is all the evidence of his “anti-war leftism”?

281 Dianna  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:37:18am

re: #195 drcordell

Illegal combatants have very few rights, and our laws operate under our treaty obligations. We signed some protocols of Geneva and the Hague.

I’m no authority on this, I leave that to those who know more than I do. But I do understand that your passion is mis-placed.

282 formercorpsman  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:37:19am

re: #196 DaddyG


I actually was having that conversation on Tuesday with a national guard member home on leave, and set to go back to Iraq in September.

Knowing the Bedouins buried him, reveals a certain humanity that is often left out.

What they did was honorable given the circumstance.

283 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:38:08am

re: #264 MandyManners

Every third post or ding, I get booted out to the front page. I’ve reloaded, cleared my cache, rebooted and I even unplugged my freakin’ computer.

Is this happening to anyone else?

What’s your browser? IE seems to be particularly peevish today.

284 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:38:45am

re: #283 FurryOldGuyJeans

What’s your browser? IE seems to be particularly peevish today.

When is IE not peevish?

285 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:38:46am

re: #238 Ben Hur
I thought it was White House .com…
Oh My!!

286 Dahveed  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:38:56am

re: #275 unrealizedviewpoint

Really? I thought…or recall some years ago Charles set some number…a high one, or so I thought at the time. musta been a dream.

I somehow remember someone getting a huge negative number after Palin’s speech to the RNC last year. And, I don’t think it was taken down.

I always wondered what the record downding was.

287 Son of the Black Dog  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:39:27am

re: #178 drcordell

Have the blind sheikh from the WTC bombing or any of his terrorist associates been released from prison? Was timothy mcveigh released from prison? The situation you are describing has no basis in reality.

President Clinton pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists, simply to give Hillary a boost in her Senate race. Pretty flimsy reason. And these were the people who shot up the US House of Representatives.

288 Idle Drifter  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:40:07am

re: #266 doubter4444

All I stated was that the tribunals were set up and then redone. The situation is fucked up as there is a precarious balancing act to prosecute certain detainees without giving up intelligence sources and process.

289 Buck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:40:32am

re: #255 drcordell

Explain to me exactly how Obama is “anti-war” again? I’m not talking about speeches he used to get elected, I’m talking about actions. He’s upped the defense budget by 9%, maintained our presence in Iraqi cities past the SFA deadline, and just committed several divisions to Afghanistan. Anti-war what?

Do you need to hear the recent quote about how he feels about Victory?

290 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:40:35am

re: #280 drcordell

Can anyone here actually address anything that is said, or just make stupid “leftist” jokes.

You get the same treatment back that you have slathered onto nearly everyone here previously. Calling people “stupid” or some other variant repeatedly simply because others have a differing viewpoint is not the way to win friends.

291 Dianna  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:41:01am

re: #240 keithgabryelski

Thanks. I’ve probably run out of time, though.

292 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:41:49am

re: #290 FurryOldGuyJeans

You get the same treatment back that you have slathered onto nearly everyone here previously. Calling people “stupid” or some other variant repeatedly simply because others have a differing viewpoint is not the way to win friends.

I didn’t call you stupid. I called someone stupid who asked me if I wanted terrorists running around my back yard, as if they would simply be taken from Gitmo and released into America.

293 Charpete67  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:42:15am

As was stated earlier, combatants caught in civilian clothes were summarily shot as spies on the spot. The fact that these people are even still alive shows that we have afforded them more rights than they deserved.

294 JustABill  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:42:20am

re: #251 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY

Take only HIGH VALUE prisoners…
The rest…Just Corpuses…

Every prisoner a planned and wanted prisoner?/

295 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:42:23am

re: #286 Dahveed

I somehow remember someone getting a huge negative number after Palin’s speech to the RNC last year. And, I don’t think it was taken down.

I always wondered what the record downding was.

Not that I am an expert on the subject, but it seems the content of the post is the sole criteria for whether it gets the deletion button or not, not the number of downdings.

296 formercorpsman  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:42:40am

re: #245 Ben Hur

Indeed.

297 drcordell  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:42:51am

re: #289 Buck

Do you need to hear the recent quote about how he feels about Victory?

Words, right. What has he actually done. I can call myself a vegetarian all I want, but if I do nothing but steak all day it doesn’t mean shit.

298 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:43:05am

re: #287 Son of the Black Dog

President Clinton pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists, simply to give Hillary a boost in her Senate race. Pretty flimsy reason. And these were the people who shot up the US House of Representatives.

Under the current situation, detainees are held at the discretion of the President, who can order them released at any time; they remain in custody by the President’s acquiescence. So the current situation offers no differences from any Presidential pardon.

299 MikeAlv77  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:43:17am

re: #239 Charpete67

anyone remember today is the anniversary of the atomic bomb dropped on Japan?

I wonder what this debate would have looked like in 1944…

Only thing I have to say about that is:

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

300 BlueCanuck  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:43:54am

re: #292 drcordell

I didn’t call you stupid. I called someone stupid who asked me if I wanted terrorists running around my back yard, as if they would simply be taken from Gitmo and released into America.

With the way some courts run, and the amount of activists agitating for their release, it would happen. In fact I do believe groups like ANSWER were doing that.

301 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:44:07am

re: #231 drcordell

Instead of attacking the legal logic behind the court case referenced by Charles in his post, he repeatedly invokes the Obama administration and “leftists” for being responsible.

That is a disagreement over how the policy and law are being interpreted. The doubt about how the Obama administration will persue the case is premature perhaps but not a logical fallacy given the history and platforms Obama ran on. Your citing of the Obama administration as the experts on this matter while blaming the Bush administration for not preparing a proper legal framework (when their decisions were within the Geneva Conventions and then some) could be considered an appeal to misleading authority fallacy. However, I don’t think the disagreement stems from logical breakdowns as much as a genuine disagreemnt on how Geneva applies to non-uniformed combatants or if it does at all.

302 Son of the Black Dog  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:45:00am

re: #195 drcordell

You don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter that they were housed in relatively humane conditions in Gitmo. The prisoners still must be accounted for legally in some way, because America is a nation of laws. The previous administration simply avoided making any substantive legal decisions with regard to how the prisoners were to be handled, whether it be under Geneva Conventions, International Law or U.S. Law. That is why these decisions are now being made. Because we cannot simply hold these people indefinitely in a legal black hole and maintain standing in the world as a nation that respects the rule of law.

By definition, unlawful combatants place themselves outside the protection of the law.

303 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:45:26am

re: #292 drcordell

I didn’t call you stupid. I called someone stupid who asked me if I wanted terrorists running around my back yard, as if they would simply be taken from Gitmo and released into America.

The manner you speak (type?) clearly shows your contempt for ANYONE that has a differing opinion from yours. This is an on-going issue, not just in this particular instance.

And this is all I’m saying on this issue.

/ I’m the only cranky old coot allowed at lgf. ;)

304 Pianobuff  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:46:20am

re: #280 drcordell

Can anyone here actually address anything that is said, or just make stupid “leftist” jokes. You all seem to hate Obama, I just called him a liar and gave you an open net. Where is all the evidence of his “anti-war leftism”?

As someone who has observed a number of your posts on this and other threads, your posting style is needlessly provocative. It should not be surprising that you draw fire. A more discoursive tone may yield better results, assuming that is something you truly seek.

305 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:46:42am

re: #300 BlueCanuck

With the way some courts run, and the amount of activists agitating for their release, it would happen. In fact I do believe groups like ANSWER were doing that.

Let’s not forget that if the prisoners are not permanently isolated, they will be recruiting more jihadis from among the prison population, some of whom will eventually be release. Such recruitment is already a problem. This will just make it worse.

306 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:48:08am

re: #247 dahveed

OT~

The United States Post Office posts net loss of $1B.

Perhaps someone smart in the government will realize that they just aren’t good at running a going concern.

Yeah, right.

That’s nothing the debt would be even worse if I didn’t keep buying stamps and losing them. /

307 debutaunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:48:20am

re: #287 Son of the Black Dog

President Clinton pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists, simply to give Hillary a boost in her Senate race. Pretty flimsy reason. And these were the people who shot up the US House of Representatives.

I’m trying to imagine the length of the list Obama will have of people to be pardoned.

308 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:49:33am

re: #307 debutaunt

I’m trying to imagine the length of the list Obama will have of people to be pardoned.

Who contributed to his campaign? I’d want to cross check those lists for any overlap!

309 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:49:35am

re: #302 Son of the Black Dog

By definition, unlawful combatants place themselves outside the protection of the law.

True. But even that case requires evidence of combatant status. Again, if we have such evidence, the extension of habeas corpus is trivial; there is no need to withhold it. Habeas corpus doesn’t demand a trial or cross examination or opportunity for rebuttal; it simply requires that a reason for detention be offered to a judge.

310 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:49:45am

When the rules of evidence changes, as it must when the detainees are brought into the US Court system, many will be released. The question is how many will be released directly into the US population rather than shipped to their country of origin?

311 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:50:37am

re: #306 DaddyG

That’s nothing the debt would be even worse if I didn’t keep buying stamps and losing them. /

At least the usual blather of raising postage rates is not being drug out at this time.

At least I haven’t seen it as prominently as it used to be.

312 debutaunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:51:41am

re: #297 drcordell

Words, right. What has he actually done. I can call myself a vegetarian all I want, but if I do nothing but steak all day it doesn’t mean shit.

Whoa? Meaningless words. I was correct to ignore him.

313 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:52:07am

re: #297 drcordell

Words, right. What has he actually done. I can call myself a vegetarian all I want, but if I do nothing but steak all day it doesn’t mean shit.


Words are the currency and work of executives and legislators. If you want to know what he’s done… he’s lectured, campaigned and campaigned some more. He has also failed to be decisive on many occasions where our troops overseas could have used some backing. They now have to second guess their combat operations as though they were arresting a shoplifter at the local 7-11. Obama has let his cabinet and administration make some decisions that I feel are very poor ones when it comes to ending this conflict in the most effective (and thus humane in the long run) way possible.

Words mean something coming from a presidential candidate and office holder.

314 jcm  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:52:26am

re: #195 drcordell

You don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter that they were housed in relatively humane conditions in Gitmo. The prisoners still must be accounted for legally in some way, because America is a nation of laws. The previous administration simply avoided making any substantive legal decisions with regard to how the prisoners were to be handled, whether it be under Geneva Conventions, International Law or U.S. Law. That is why these decisions are now being made. Because we cannot simply hold these people indefinitely in a legal black hole and maintain standing in the world as a nation that respects the rule of law.

Yes, we can both legally and morally, we can also put them up against a wall should we choose, again both legally and morally.

A terrorist by definition has given up on any appeal they can make to law and morality.

Applying US Jurisprudence and laws to persons who are neither in this country or are under the jurisdiction of this country, and who have taken up arms against this country in violation of every rule of warfare is nothing less than suicidal insanity.

Terrorism simply is not a criminal matter, it cannot be addressed using law enforcement and legal processes with any expectation of success.

315 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:52:53am

re: #312 debutaunt

Whoa? Meaningless words. I was correct to ignore him.

I think I shall be following your example. This one is showing very definite troll signs of arguing for argument’s sake.

316 doubter4444  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:53:00am

re: #288 Idle Drifter

All I stated was that the tribunals were set up and then redone. The situation is fucked up as there is a precarious balancing act to prosecute certain detainees without giving up intelligence sources and process.

Hum, OK. I guess I didn’t get that from the post.
The tribunals were amazingly screwed up, from the get go… and I don’t know why.
I personally think it was a disgrace and one that can’t be pinned on this administration.
Interestingly, in your quote above, you hit the nail squarely on the head of this whole thread: Were and when do individual rights and effectiveness cross purposes?
The judge may have overdone it, I don’t know, but that balance is critical, world wide. (IMO, others may disagree.)

317 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:53:39am

re: #303 FurryOldGuyJeans


/ I’m the only cranky old coot allowed at lgf. ;)

May I be your young middle aged apprentice?

318 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:55:08am

re: #317 DaddyG

May I be your young middle aged apprentice?

Membership fees are due each week, payable in cash only. ;)

319 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:55:43am

re: #318 FurryOldGuyJeans

Membership fees are due each week, payable in cash only. ;)

Tell you what, I’ll give you half of what I get paid for doing this.

320 Idle Drifter  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:55:55am

re: #316 doubter4444

No, the appology should be mine for my vague post.

321 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:55:58am

re: #294 JustABill

Yes!
Tho’s that harbor are guilty!
If I give shelter and protection to a murderous felon here
in the USA …What happens when swat batters down the door
is on my head!!
Collaterale damage in this conflict is 75% self inflicted!

322 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:58:59am

Speaking of collateral damage- it says something that our country is perfecting weapons systems that are more accurate every generation and avoid collateral damage, while our enemies go out of their ways to rig weapons that inflict the most damage to civilians as possible. I find it somewhat hypocritical that critics of our armed forces and administration(s) give these vicious thugs moral equivalence.

323 SFGoth  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:59:22am

re: #228 formercorpsman

Thus is the crux of the situation itself.

Unlike other wars, where one nation found itself fighting another, or others, this conflict defies any preconceived notion.

We *are* fighting a “nation” - the nation of radical Islam. You confuse “nation” for “country”, an understandable mistake for Americans. (A German actually explained to me the difference.)

324 SixDegrees  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:59:51am

re: #311 FurryOldGuyJeans

At least the usual blather of raising postage rates is not being drug out at this time.

At least I haven’t seen it as prominently as it used to be.

There’s another increase being proposed for next May, but it’s been in the works for a while.

Rate increases are limited to the rate of inflation. It’s hard to run a business when you’re not allowed to run it like a business.

325 doubter4444  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 12:13:42pm

re: #320 Idle Drifter

The thread is getting lost in another flame war but the point is interesting - where there is no real “Nation” to fight against, how do we do it? And with what means, and to what extent?
“Kill’em all and let God sort it out” doesn’t really work (if it ever did).
Treating prisoners like citizens of the states, as some are claiming is being/will be/could be done is obviously a terrible idea (and not happening, really).

But given that the “war on terror” is fanned out across sovereign nations,and involves not just the jihads, but affects many innocent people, many of whom are ripe for conversion in the first place, care needs to be taken. It’s a messy, messy situation, and not easily reducible to sloganeering.

That’s why not calling it a “war on terror” anymore is probably a good thing rhetorically, like the “war on crime” or the “war on drugs” it’s a slogan.
It does not signal a change in determination, but it does signal a change in the mindset of how we go about fighting terror.
Which is not necessarily be a bad thing.

326 voirdire  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 12:17:51pm

Where are they going to put all the Corpses they bring back?

327 lostlakehiker  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 12:21:18pm

re: #73 drcordell

WWII. We treated Nazi prisoners humanely even though many were the lowest form of Jew-executing scum. All we had to do was apply the Geneva Conventions to terror suspects and none of this would have become an issue.

It’s because we chose to simply ignore international conventions over the past 8 years that we are being forced to accommodate these terrorists within our own legal system. Does anyone else see this?

The way we treated Nazi combatants found out of uniform, pretending to be civilians or soldiers from our own side, was, we shot them out of hand, or, if they were taken on U.S. soil, we put them before a court martial and then shot them.

Comparing apples to apples, we treat today’s prisoners, hardly any of them taken under circumstances that entitle them to any protections under international law, be it Geneva convention or any other treaty, far, far better than we treated legitimate POW’s in WW2. And there is simply no comparison between how we treat this current batch of prisoners, and how we treated the comparable class of Nazi special forces, spies, saboteurs, and so forth in WW2.

I am not arguing that today’s prisoners should be shot out of hand. The foot soldiers of our enemies are under the impression that for them there are no rules. Young men, sometimes children, sign on for what they are told is jihad without any understanding that they are operating outside the laws of war. Mercy is appropriate.

For the high-value prisoners, those comparable to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mercy is misplaced. But there is a practical reason to treat them with a modicum of forbearance. Dead men spill no secrets, and a man tortured beyond endurance will say anything. The temperate and practical thing to do is to make their lives hard if they have nothing to say, and soft if they want to earn soft treatment with valuable information.

As to “rights”, neither class of prisoner has Geneva convention standing, nor standing to be taken under the wing of U.S. domestic criminal law. This is war, and it’s not a matter that legitimately comes before the criminal courts of the U.S. Presidents have the authority to tell meddling judges who presume to rule in cases beyond their competence and purview to stick it. Lincoln did so, and I expect others can cite precedent from other administrations.

328 Yashmak  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 12:47:57pm

re: #195 drcordell

You don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter that they were housed in relatively humane conditions in Gitmo. The prisoners still must be accounted for legally in some way, because America is a nation of laws.

Yes, but our laws apply to Americans, and those who commit crimes in America. These are foreign combatants, without uniform, taken in combat in other nations. I agree they must be accounted for in some way, but providing them with rights beyond those provided to uniformed enemies of our past is not the way to do it.

329 jvic  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 1:00:49pm

Judge Bates has decided, with no risk to himself, that he and his judicial buddies should have more power.

This working paper seems relevant:

Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?

Benjamin Barton
University of Tennessee College of Law
October 2007

Abstract:
This Article answers this question with the following jurisprudential hypothesis. Many legal outcomes can be explained, and future cases predicted, by asking a very simple question: is there a plausible result in this case that will significantly affect the interests of the legal profession (positively or negatively)? If so, the case will be decided in the way that offers the best result for the legal profession…

330 marinegrunt  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 2:34:26pm

re: #42 EmmmieG

Vietnam Veterans Database
Name: BATES JOHN D
Branch: ARMY
Rate: O02
Rank: 1ST LT
MOS: 6100
MOS Title: Finance & Accounting Officer
Entered: 6809
Discharged: 710624
Service Number:
State: NEW JERSEY
Race: CAUCASIAN

331 Dad O' Blondes  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 2:35:01pm

Habeus corpus, on the battlefield?

“This ain’t a war we’re fightin’ — this is a civil action”

.

332 tradewind  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 2:39:48pm

re: #25 philip
If your corpus is ever habeas’d by an al q’aeda type and held for ransom, we’ll be sure to call one of your ACLU reps to get you out of there.
Because if we only grant them the same rights we’d like our own prisoners to enjoy, they’ll treat our people with the same dignity and concern… right?
/Not/

333 haakondahl  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:35:03pm

This is the first glimpse, for those who refused to see it coming, of the road we started traveling in Hamdan and Boumedienne.
We mix the criminal and military aspects of our society at great peril to the civilians, the military, and the society itself.
Keep tinkering. Keep screwing around with things. It will all blow up.

334 mark2  Thu, Aug 6, 2009 11:37:12pm

The Hamdan and Boumedienne decisions are legal train wrecks, and they are going to get our soldiers killed.

To overturn these decisions, it would be expedient for the President to repudiate the Geneva Convention Treaties, rather than watch our soldiers die.

335 philip  Fri, Aug 7, 2009 10:51:44pm

re: #332 tradewind

If your corpus is ever habeas’d by an al q’aeda type and held for ransom, we’ll be sure to call one of your ACLU reps to get you out of there.
Because if we only grant them the same rights we’d like our own prisoners to enjoy, they’ll treat our people with the same dignity and concern… right?
/Not/

I don’t really care about the whole “us and them” dynamic or the GI Joe aspect of the war on terror. I’m more of an outside observer who believes in the Constitution.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
2 hours ago
Views: 67 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1