Supreme Court Ruling - Gitmo detainees can appeal to U.S. court system

[DaddyTorgo]

Can't believe there's no thread on this yet!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
<!-- /PURGE: /2008/US/06/12/scotus/art.gitmo.justice.afp.gi.jpg --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2008/US/06/12/scotus/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',1,1);//CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');</SCRIPT><!--endclickprintexclude-->The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.
The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges. Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."
Kennedy, the court's swing vote, was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, generally considered the liberal contingent.





The Bush administration has urged the high court not to get involved in the broader appeals, saying the federal judiciary has no authority to hear such matters.
Four justices agreed. In a sharp dissent, read in part from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority "warps our Constitution."
The "nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia said.



Discuss!

[RedKingGold]

Tough call. On a micro level, I can get with all of the "respect that individuals under American control have rights....blah, blah, blah" However, on a macro level, the "Living Constitution" argument (i.e. Constitution evolves with time) is getting a little scary.

However, the decision today was not too surprising considering the trend of Court thinking towards these issues.

[molson]

Inevitable, but really, really bizzare. Our Supreme Court just gave Habeas Corpus rights to our enemies in an ongoing war. They're asking the militiary to publically provide wartime intelligence to justify detaining war prisoners.

The result will be more terrorists running around. Scalia pointed out how many freed Gitmo detainees have gone on to commit terrorist acts - these are guys the government released on their own terms, based on the current standards, before this legal hurdle.

I don't get it. It's dangerous stuff. I don't know how a military conducts its duties while trying to build habeas defeneses and criminal cases at the same time. They'd have to fly military personnel back and forth for court appearances. But they won't do that. The long term solution is to hand the prisoners to a regional ally. They'll wish they were at Gitmo.

Al-Qaeda must find this hillarious. They're probably scrambling to get Westlaw accounts to see what other constitutional rights they have.

[RomaGoth]

I am no fan of the Bush administration, but this decision makes me physically ill. I served in the Navy and thus maybe I am somewhat biased, but I just don't understand how any self-respecting American citizen can allow our enemies the same rights that we have as citizens. Would they give us the same treatment? Of course not. They kill us on sight.

I am becoming more and more worried for my children's future.

[molson]

I'm sure some people have some sypmathy for the detainees at Gitmo and I understand that to a degree. But providing Constitutional rights is not the right remedy.

[rowech]

I guess I don't understand how these guys aren't considered POWs. If we had declared war on someone they would be. The problem is we don't have a country to declare war against.

[RomaGoth]

I'm sure some people have some sypmathy for the detainees at Gitmo and I understand that to a degree. But providing Constitutional rights is not the right remedy.

I have no sympathy for those who seek to kill my family and destroy my way of life. For those who do, please move to the middle east, I am sure they will welcome you with open arms. Abusing someone just for the sake of abuse is of course wrong, but detaining someone because they are a threat to your existence is completely different.

I agree with you, this is not the right remedy. I could go on and on about this type of stuff, the entire state of the world right now frustrates me. But I will spare all of you that lecture.:(

[molson]

I have no sympathy for those who seek to kill my family and destroy my way of life. For those who do, please move to the middle east, I am sure they will welcome you with open arms. Abusing someone just for the sake of abuse is of course wrong, but detaining someone because they are a threat to your existence is completely different.

I agree with you, this is not the right remedy. I could go on and on about this type of stuff, the entire state of the world right now frustrates me. But I will spare all of you that lecture.:(

Well, what they would say is, "you don't know who's a terrorist and who isn't, you might have innocent people locked up there". Which is true. But that's kind of Scalia's point - that's exactly why it's impossible to prosecute/defend habeas actions. I have zero problem with some amount of "collateral incarceration" if it exists. All the more incentive to stay away from trouble.

[cartman]

The ruling in no way gives them the same rights as an American citizen. The ruling was limited to habeas corpus petitions. The administration painted themselves into a corner with their actions. They were hellbent to create a legal limbo, where no laws at all applied. If they are so certain these people are dangerous and deserve to be locked up, a habeas corpus petition sets a pretty low bar to keep people in custody. Based on what we've been told about these people, the habeas corpus hearing should be a slam dunk for the government. Prove there is a reason you are keeping them in custody. If they would have just held these people under the Geneva Convention, instead of insisting the detainees were not eligible, then there would have been no review possible by the Supreme Court.

[molson]

Prove there is a reason you are keeping them in custody.

What if that's sensitive information?

Though I'm sure if it's too sensitive they'll just hide him away where he doesn't have access to the courts.

It's kind of surreal to see old guys in robes telling the miltary what to do. It's actually pretty cool that our country is that strong.

[Flasch186]

The fact that Bush said that Geneva didnt necessary apply because their not soldiers but enemy combatants seemed to me to be the start of skirting the laws as they stood. So now it seems that is catching up to them. They couldve held them for as long as the "war on terror" was going on but had to follow the Geneva Conventions but they chose the other card to play.

no one ever claimed the admin were legal geniuses they just needed to be able to delay decisions for 8 years.

[cartman]

What if that's sensitive information?

Then the courts must treat it as such, as they do in other habeas corpus hearings that involve ongoing investigations.

[John Galt]

Inevitable, but really, really bizzare. Our Supreme Court just gave Habeas Corpus rights to our enemies in an ongoing war. They're asking the militiary to publically provide wartime intelligence to justify detaining war prisoners.

I don't get it. It's dangerous stuff. I don't know how a military conducts its duties while trying to build habeas defeneses and criminal cases at the same time. They'd have to fly military personnel back and forth for court appearances. But they won't do that. The long term solution is to hand the prisoners to a regional ally. They'll wish they were at Gitmo.

I served in the Navy and thus maybe I am somewhat biased, but I just don't understand how any self-respecting American citizen can allow our enemies the same rights that we have as citizens. Would they give us the same treatment?

Under no fair reading of the opinion are any of these statements true.

[molson]

Under no fair reading of the opinion are any of these statements true.

I have no doubts about your legal expertease (and would love to hear you elaborate), but I wonder about the practicalities of war and how the supreme court can undertand them.

I haven't read the whole opinion yet - went right to the dissent :)

[cartman]

I have no doubts about your legal expertease (and would love to hear you elaborate), but I wonder about the practicalities of war and how the supreme court can undertand them.

But that's the thing. By excluding the coverage of the Geneva Convention, the administration took the wartime considerations out of play.

[Drake]

All I can say is: It's about time.

[John Galt]

But that's the thing. By excluding the coverage of the Geneva Convention, the administration took the wartime considerations out of play.

That's not really true, either. The declaration of war actually has little to do with this case. Instead, the basic question is whether habeas corpus applies to persons held in territory over which the US has de facto sovereignty. It has no application to the battlefield or battlefield prisons. It might have relevance to a few other odd places (like US embassies, places like the Panama Canal when the US had control, etc.). The question had never been addressed by the court. If Congress and the President disagree with the decision, they are free to pass a law "suspending" habeas corpus for those persons in the prison under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. To do so would require that a declaration that the US is under invasion or rebellion, but if they did, I doubt the Supreme Court would intervene.

And for those who are Scalia fans and believe that judicial activism is some horrible thing plaguing our country, then Scalia's dissent presents a problem. This was a par of the beginning of his dissent:
America is at war with radical Islamists.... The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Yeah, that has a lot to do with the law.

[molson]

Instead, the basic question is whether habeas corpus applies to persons held in territory over which the US has de facto sovereignty.

So the only real effect may be that Gitmo gets shut down and prisoners are kept under less favorable conditions closer to the battlefield?

[molson]

And for those who are Scalia fans and believe that judicial activism is some horrible thing plaguing our country, then Scalia's dissent presents a problem. This was a par of the beginning of his dissent:
America is at war with radical Islamists.... The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Yeah, that has a lot to do with the law.

To be fair, he's not making law in a dissent. He just loves to be quoted in newspapers.

[cartman]

That's not really true, either. The declaration of war actually has little to do with this case. Instead, the basic question is whether habeas corpus applies to persons held in territory over which the US has de facto sovereignty. It has no application to the battlefield or battlefield prisons. It might have relevance to a few other odd places (like US embassies, places like the Panama Canal when the US had control, etc.). The question had never been addressed by the court. If Congress and the President disagree with the decision, they are free to pass a law "suspending" habeas corpus for those persons in the prison under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. To do so would require that a declaration that the US is under invasion or rebellion, but if they did, I doubt the Supreme Court would intervene.


Gotcha. I wasn't looking at it from that angle, and I see your point.

[John Galt]

So the only real effect may be that Gitmo gets shut down and prisoners are kept under less favorable conditions closer to the battlefield?

If they had put the prisoners in Afghanistan or Iraq to begin with, the opinion today wouldn't apply. However, now that they are in Gitmo, they probably can't be moved until they get to exercise their habeas rights. The administration this problem by putting them at the Cuba base. It won't matter anyway if McCain or Obama are true to their word - they both say they will close down Gitmo and move the prisoners to the U.S.

[DaddyTorgo]

The ruling in no way gives them the same rights as an American citizen. The ruling was limited to habeas corpus petitions. The administration painted themselves into a corner with their actions. They were hellbent to create a legal limbo, where no laws at all applied. If they are so certain these people are dangerous and deserve to be locked up, a habeas corpus petition sets a pretty low bar to keep people in custody. Based on what we've been told about these people, the habeas corpus hearing should be a slam dunk for the government. Prove there is a reason you are keeping them in custody. If they would have just held these people under the Geneva Convention, instead of insisting the detainees were not eligible, then there would have been no review possible by the Supreme Court.


but if they did that they couldn't have their fun with waterboarding, etc

[molson]

How much power should we give to the federal government to fight a war that might never end?

A lot.

What are the alternatives? Putting legal roadblocks in place that make war itself more difficult? That's not what this case is about, but is that what public support for these kinds of decisions is about? We don't like the war so we want to try to help the other side where we can? (Again, that's not what today's decision is about, but I think that vibe from ultra-liberals sometimes.) Certainly if this was a popular war/president the public opinion would be different.

You could vote for another president. But once they're there, they need power.

[Buccaneer]

I like how they interjected (which I can't find now) Lincoln and his battles with the Peace Democrats regarding his suspension of the Great Writ and other unconstitutional acts. Those were "extraordinary times", were they not?

[rowech]

This is an honest question: For those that are arguing that these are POWs and should be treated as such, do you have any fears of what then is essentially a completely open-ended war against non-nation that could conceivably go on for an extremely long time? How much power should we give to the federal government to fight a war that might never end? Do the parellels to 1984 give any of you pause? Endless war the reason for giving up rights (not this decision per se since whether these men have rights is up for debate, but the Patriot Act comes to mind) to an increasingly powerful federal government.

The war has been going on for decades and some would argue centuries. Lately though, only one side was fighting. The other side just sat around and took it on the chin over and over.

[JW]

I think Bush screwed up from the start by creating a unique status for those people and then housing them at GTMO. I think we should have treated them like POWs, with all the rights afforded POWs, from the start, even if you want to argue that technically they are not POWs. I think that would have placed us in a better position internationally and morally and legally.

[cartman]

I like how they interjected (which I can't find now) Lincoln and his battles with the Peace Democrats regarding his suspension of the Great Writ and other unconstitutional acts. Those were "extraordinary times", were they not?

Yes, those were extraordinary times, but the reason habeas corpus was suspended then was to stifle political dissent, because Lincoln didn't think that the civil courts in certain locations would convict the war protesters. When one of them, (I want to say Merriman) was arrested by the military, the Chief Justice at the time issued the habeas corpus writ that Lincoln and the military ignored. Afterwards, the court ruled that military trials were illegal in places where the civil courts were able to operate.

[Buccaneer]

I think Bush screwed up from the start by creating a unique status for those people and then housing them at GTMO. I think we should have treated them like POWs, with all the rights afforded POWs, from the start, even if you want to argue that technically they are not POWs. I think that would have placed us in a better position internationally and morally and legally.

+1

[ISiddiqui]

I applaud this ruling and, really, it's nobody's fault but the administration's. They wanted to create this legal limbo, so they wouldn't have to protect the prisoners under the Geneva Convention and do all sorts of shady crap (ie, torture). Now, the Supreme Court has stepped in and said, bull, if they are on US territory, they need some legal status, whether that be POW status or have the right for habeus petitions to determine if they should be there in the first place (I know if I was just some goat hearder who got snapped up and haven't been charged in 6 years, I may want to prove that fact).

[Dutch]

I think Bush screwed up from the start by creating a unique status for those people and then housing them at GTMO. I think we should have treated them like POWs, with all the rights afforded POWs, from the start, even if you want to argue that technically they are not POWs. I think that would have placed us in a better position internationally and morally and legally.

I do agree that the lifespan of Guantanamo is pretty much done. Relatively little information can be gleaned anymore from these unlawful combatants.

As for giving them POW status from the start, that would have been a huge mistake. A number of additional terrorists were picked up because of the information we obtained from them. Being a POW means you don't have to say shit.

Also, it would have been a huge mistake to leave these traitors in the hands of their local host nations. They would all have been tried and shot by now.

[Flasch186]

Being a POW means you don't have to say shit.



They dont have to say shit anyways, and it's been proven that under duress people will say anything, truth or lies, to stop the torture. Some of these airstrikes int he wilderness that we have to apologize for later when the "target" wasnt there and we killed a family couldve come from some BS info. Shit, you dont even have to be under duress to tell a lie, see: Ahmed Chalabi.

[flere-imsaho]

It's taken longer to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to trial than R. Kelly. The mind just boggles.

[Dutch]

They dont have to say shit anyways, and it's been proven that under duress people will say anything, truth or lies, to stop the torture. Some of these airstrikes int he wilderness that we have to apologize for later when the "target" wasnt there and we killed a family couldve come from some BS info. Shit, you dont even have to be under duress to tell a lie, see: Ahmed Chalabi.

Interrogation teams are collecting a TON of information that has proven to be extremely reliable. And they aren't torturing anybody, most is done by or under the care and guidance of the regular US Military. What has been proven is that a lot of bad guys aren't going to do what they wanted to do because of information we received from other bad guys.

[molson]

Interrogation teams are collecting a TON of information that has proven to be extremely reliable. And they aren't torturing anybody, most is done by or under the care and guidance of the regular US Military. What has been proven is that a lot of bad guys aren't going to do what they wanted to do because of information we received from other bad guys.

It will never be 100% perfect, it's an inexact science, but I'm always so impressed by our military. It's not fair to make parallels to things like domestic criminal prosecutions or incarcerations, which more and more people do as these issues come up.

People always want to cite the mistakes in intelligence or anything that's less than 100% efficient and then at the same time want to complicate matters by involving civilian courts where ANYTHING can happen.

[molson]

It's taken longer to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to trial than R. Kelly. The mind just boggles.

Kelly won't be executed after his trial's over, and he can't give us any useful information before then.

Mohammed is a worse villain than Bin Ladin. Some have argued for a civilian trial for him, which boggles my mind.

[Flasch186]

Interrogation teams are collecting a TON of information that has proven to be extremely reliable. And they aren't torturing anybody, most is done by or under the care and guidance of the regular US Military. What has been proven is that a lot of bad guys aren't going to do what they wanted to do because of information we received from other bad guys.

I have no doubt that information is gleaned, some good some bad but to use Waterboarding (which we admitted in a slip of the tongue) or other techniques that we agreed to label as torture when we signed on to Geneva, is wrong because we signed that. Waterboarding in and of itself, I haave no problem with it's usage or any other technique for that matter (results of info left out of the equation) but the hypocrisy of signing on to Geneva and then the debacle of denying than admitting, then mislabeling than miscategorizing said techniques is deplorable.

Unfortunately when you talk about results and the actions taken due to them you get mixed results. I agree and am sure that some events have been stopped due to some info but I am also sure that entire families of innocents worldwide have been eradicated due to misinformation on top of those that have been utter mistakes and bad aim.

How many families are expendable in the war on terror? That I dont know, and that number probably varies depending on who you ask.

[st.cronin]

Kelly won't be executed after his trial's over.

Which is really a shame.

[flere-imsaho]

Kelly won't be executed after his trial's over, and he can't give us any useful information before then.

That really wasn't my point, though.

KSM's trial should be open-and-shut easy. He both admits guilt and isn't interested in an insanity plea. Plus he's about as "high-value" as they come. There should be mountains of evidence on him, if Intelligence are doing their job.

I don't know where you're going with "getting useful information". You can still interrogate someone after they've been convicted. Just don't kill him. And anyway, we shouldn't be giving KSM the death penalty anyway since it's his stated aim to become a martyr. The worst possible punishment for him is life imprisonment.

So try him, convict him, and sentence him to life and continue to pump him for information (though I'm skeptical as to how much relevant information he has at this point).

To me, it doesn't seem to be rocket science.

[molson]

That really wasn't my point, though.

KSM's trial should be open-and-shut easy. He both admits guilt and isn't interested in an insanity plea. Plus he's about as "high-value" as they come. There should be mountains of evidence on him, if Intelligence are doing their job.

I don't know where you're going with "getting useful information". You can still interrogate someone after they've been convicted. Just don't kill him. And anyway, we shouldn't be giving KSM the death penalty anyway since it's his stated aim to become a martyr. The worst possible punishment for him is life imprisonment.

So try him, convict him, and sentence him to life and continue to pump him for information (though I'm skeptical as to how much relevant information he has at this point).

To me, it doesn't seem to be rocket science.

I don't understand the military prosecution process as well as our own system. I know that it's completely different and it's not particularly meaningful to draw paralells.

So I don't understand why it takes so long to try a KSM, but I'm certainly not concerned about it and assume there's a damn good reason for it. I don't doubt that it can take years to prepare for a "trial" that involves hundreds of charges and thousands of victims. I would assume that the families of every single one of those victims have to be involved/informed to some capacity. Are you assuming that there's some kind of unjust motive? If not, what difference does it make? Why are you concerned about it? He's never going to be a free man again, under any scenerio.

[RomaGoth]

I have no doubt that information is gleaned, some good some bad but to use Waterboarding (which we admitted in a slip of the tongue) or other techniques that we agreed to label as torture when we signed on to Geneva, is wrong because we signed that. Waterboarding in and of itself, I haave no problem with it's usage or any other technique for that matter (results of info left out of the equation) but the hypocrisy of signing on to Geneva and then the debacle of denying than admitting, then mislabeling than miscategorizing said techniques is deplorable.

Unfortunately when you talk about results and the actions taken due to them you get mixed results. I agree and am sure that some events have been stopped due to some info but I am also sure that entire families of innocents worldwide have been eradicated due to misinformation on top of those that have been utter mistakes and bad aim.

How many families are expendable in the war on terror? That I dont know, and that number probably varies depending on who you ask.

While I agree with what you are saying, I am hoping that we all remember the thousands of people that died on 9/11. They were also innocent people, and their families today are still suffering I am sure. My question is really this: why do some people here and in other "free" countries continue to believe that somehow the innocent Americans that die in terrorist attacks are less important than the innocent people that die in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, etc..etc..? Not to mention the belief that our military personnel are monsters, yet when compared to the Islamic extremists, Vietcong, and North Koreans (amongst others), our soldiers actually show compassion. It just boggles my mind. :confused:

[duckman]

I have no doubt that information is gleaned, some good some bad but to use Waterboarding (which we admitted in a slip of the tongue) or other techniques that we agreed to label as torture when we signed on to Geneva, is wrong because we signed that. Waterboarding in and of itself, I haave no problem with it's usage or any other technique for that matter (results of info left out of the equation) but the hypocrisy of signing on to Geneva and then the debacle of denying than admitting, then mislabeling than miscategorizing said techniques is deplorable.

Hey, dumbass, the US Military follows the US Army manual for interrogation. Guess what's not listed as a viable method of extracting information? That's right. Waterboarding. http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/754.gif

The CIA uses waterboarding as method, but he was talking about the CIA. Work on that reading comprehension problem. k bye

[Flasch186]

duckman, Im sorry, when the military guys stand at the back of the room, hold prisoners in Military prisons but call in CIA interrogators to do the torturing (by their own definition), they're complicit. Just as if I send my son into the store to steal, I am too. Just as if one of my subs building a house screws up, it's on me to take responsibility for it. I am certain that that manual stopped the guy from torturing the puppy and kept Abu Gharaib from happening, or the thousands of other things that happen outside of training manuals in everything from corporations to military, oh wait.

Your boy Bush painted himself into this corner, no one but himself and Rumsfeld and the other idiots who played fast and loose with the law. I mean what moron calls on his own admin lawyer's to come up with interpretations of a law to get to the result he wants instead of relying on the law to craft the policy?

In regards to Roma's point above about the 9/11 families I agree that innocents dying is bad anywhere however I'd be willing to bet that in most wars each side considers themselves the victims and has the right to retaliate. That's probably why you'll always hear people say, "theyve been fighting for thousands of years." Neither side is right or wrong unless youre on one of the sides...then your side is right. The atrocities certainly happen on both sides but we shine a spotlight on our own when we use the term "good vs. evil" and "moral right" etc. I am an American so I want us to win the War on Terror just as bad as the next guy but I hope when it's all said and done we can say that we held the moral high ground.....unless of course their is a change in doctrine that says "fuck 'em all. We're going to kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out." Then if you support that, you support that and that's your right too.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't understand the military prosecution process as well as our own system. I know that it's completely different and it's not particularly meaningful to draw paralells.

I too am not interested in drawing parallels. My point is that any of the high-value targets should be such slam-dunk cases that they could have been turfed to even the stupidest civilian court ages ago and we still would have had convictions and by now have these turkeys wasting away at ADX Florence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence).

I don't doubt that it can take years to prepare for a "trial" that involves hundreds of charges and thousands of victims.

I can't imagine it's more complex than something like the Enron trial, not to mention that KSM and his co-conspirators admit guilt.

I would assume that the families of every single one of those victims have to be involved/informed to some capacity.

Why? And besides, if the U.S. military can inform and involve the families of over 4000 deceased soldiers in return & burial services over the past five years I'd imagine they (or some similar organization) can do the same for the families of the roughly 3000 9/11 victims in the same time frame (or less).

Are you assuming that there's some kind of unjust motive?

The best I can come up with is that Bush and his advisors didn't trust the court system to do their jobs and decided to try to make up their own court system from scratch. They also didn't trust Congress to work with them (although, ironically, Congress did work with them and has also gotten slapped down by the Supreme Court) to develop new procedures to deal with the issues raised by capturing and holding terrorists, so they just decided to ignore the Constitution.

Basically you have a small cabal of people deciding what's best for the country against the wishes of the other two branches of government (one of which is directly elected by citizens). And this isn't a slight difference of opinion, it's a complete 180.


This is what Bush should have done:

"Look, KSM and these other guys aren't like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. They're connected to a large international network of terrorists. In the interest of national security, we need two outcomes that aren't necessarily afforded by normal criminal proceedings. One, we need to have a time period, post-capture, when we can interrogate these individuals to inform current intelligence, and we need to be able to continue these interrogations as necessary. Two, we need to make sure that these individuals are not inadvertently released from a maximum secure custody during and after their criminal trials. My administration plans to work closely with leaders in Congress and representatives from the Supreme Court over the next few weeks to work out a framework that will ensure these objectives but not compromise the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded."

If Bush had approached this problem this way, I'd be very surprised if a workable solution wasn't quickly developed and the last 7 years of wrangling was far behind us.

Why are you concerned about it? He's never going to be a free man again, under any scenerio.

Let's be clear: I could not care less what happens to KSM and his cronies. My recommendation is that they not get the death penalty solely because that's exactly what they want and what their supporters worldwide want. Let them rot in prison.

I have two concerns:

One, Bush created a stupid legal mess where one didn't need to be created. As a yardstick for how off-base Bush and his legal team were, remember that even Antonin Scalia disagreed with them (in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld). Dude, when even Antonin Scalia disagrees with a Conservative President, that President is just plain wrong.

Two, as we know now, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were taxi drivers, farmers, or whatever - guys who had the misfortune to be brown and in the wrong place at the wrong time. As this Souter states most specifically in this decision, it's simply inexcusable to lock people up like this for this amount of time with absolutely no movement towards dispositioning them.

[Dutch]

Two, as we know now, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were taxi drivers, farmers, or whatever - guys who had the misfortune to be brown and in the wrong place at the wrong time.


A vast majority of the people detained from Iraq and Afghanistan are brown? Are you fucking kidding me? Really? No way I vote for Bush had I realized this kind of shit was going on.

[flere-imsaho]

I think you focused on the wrong part of the sentence, Dutch.

Very AP of you, to be honest. :p

[flere-imsaho]

What if that's sensitive information?

Not to pick on you, but this seems to be part of the same argument Scalia makes.

My response if that if we could try and convict Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and other Cold War spies without giving up national secrets, I'm sure we'll be able to do the same with these guys.

Heck one spy, Clyde Lee Conrad, was even convicted in a German court without further detriment to national security secrets.

[Dutch]

Not to pick on you, but this seems to be part of the same argument Scalia makes.

My response if that if we could try and convict Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and other Cold War spies without giving up national secrets, I'm sure we'll be able to do the same with these guys.

Heck one spy, Clyde Lee Conrad, was even convicted in a German court without further detriment to national security secrets.

It's not our secrets we should be worried about. When we convicted those clowns, we dimed out the Soviets. It was pretty obvious who they worked for and it was also pretty obvious we couldn't really do anything about it.

We are in a different situation where information we get now can be relayed back to the war zone to help us find the enemy and capture or kill him. My concern is that this goes away in a public setting.

But anyway, the reality is that I think the folks remaining at Gitmo don't provide any more value and they should be tried and convicted as being unlawful combatants in a battlefield. Or set free and returned to their host country and let their governments be the judge of them.

[SackAttack]

they should be tried and convicted as being unlawful combatants in a battlefield.

I'm sorry, but that particular turn of phrase is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard.

"Unlawful combatants"? Please. The only things the Geneva Convention denies that status for are mercenaries and children.

Sure, Congress passed a law defining "unlawful combatants" in 2006, but y'know, unless I'm mistaken, the Iraq and Afghanistan conficts had been underway for sometime by then. The Constitution, in the clause immediately following that of Habeas Corpus, says that no ex post facto law shall be passed. Unlike the habeas clause, the ex post facto clause includes no exceptions. No law may be passed which retroactively criminalizes an action.

So even under the most generous interpretation of the status of the detainees, none detained prior to 2006 can Constitutionally be considered as "unlawful combatants."

Even leaving that aside, it's either a battlefield, or it's not. If it's a battlefield, and they're raising arms against you, how in the hell is that "unlawful combatants"? Either you're fighting a war, in which case they're lawful combatants and should be treated as such, pursuant to the Geneva Convention, or you're prosecuting a police action, in which case there's no damn battlefield, and standard criminal procedures ought to apply.

[NoMyths]

McCain attacks Guantanamo ruling, calling it "one of the worst decisions in the history of the country" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68bdeeb4-3987-11dd-90d7-0000779fd2ac.html)

One of the worst decisions in the history of the country? Really?

Full Text:
McCain attacks Guantánamo ruling
By Andrew Ward and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: June 13 2008 21:44 | Last updated: June 13 2008 21:44

John McCain on Friday described the decision by the Supreme Court to allow Guantánamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in US courts as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”.

The Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.

He criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. His remarks represented a hardening of his position from his more moderate initial response to the ruling on Thursday, signalling a strategic decision by the McCain campaign to make it an election issue.

Mr McCain’s stance appeared designed to demonstrate his toughness on national security, while casting Mr Obama as soft on terrorists. It also looked calculated to spark debate on the future of the Supreme Court – one of the most important election issues for many conservative voters.

But his support for President George W. Bush’s position on Guantánamo risked undermining his appeal among moderates and reinforcing his association with the unpopular president.

Mr McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had previously sought to distance himself from Mr Bush on the treatment of detainees, arguing for Guantánamo to be closed and torture to be banned. He said he stood by those positions on Friday but insisted the Supreme Court ruling would weaken national security. “These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,” he said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.”

The debate surrounding Guantánamo has been a complex issue for Mr McCain, a former navy pilot tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. While Mr McCain has been one of the loudest critics of the Bush administration over interrogation policies, he has supported legislation that stripped prisoners at Guantánamo of habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in federal court.

Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said the Arizona senator’s willingness to support the legislation contradicts his overall position on Guantánamo.

“To this day, he strongly believes Guantánamo has hurt the US and should be closed,” said Mr Malinowski. “And yet he has not been able to distance himself from the principle [of] detention without charge.”

[Flasch186]

Not to get sidetracked but I think this decision by McCain, if signalling the direction his camp intends to take, will spark the demise of any real shot he had at contending for the Presidency. He is just making it so easy for Obama's camp to lump him in with Bush that it's unreal.

[Raiders Army]

Yeah, standing for something even though you know people will "lump you in with Bush" is bad. He should've taken the Obama approach and stood for nothing but some nebulous "change".

/threadjack

[Drake]

If McCain had been so philosophical about immoral incarceration of national enemies when he was a POW, he could have saved himself a *ton* of post-traumatic stress treatment.

[NoMyths]

I'm positive that our country doesn't need another president whose understanding of American history is so ignorant as to declare this one of the worst decisions in history.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm positive that our country doesn't need another president whose understanding of American history is so ignorant as to declare this one of the worst decisions in history.

I'll bet a big chunk of his potential conservative supporters don't even view this as the worst SC decision of the decade. Kelo, for instance, springs to mind.

[NoMyths]

I'll bet a big chunk of his potential conservative supporters don't even view this as the worst SC decision of the decade. Kelo, for instance, springs to mind.

Unquestionably. Bush v. Gore was striking as well (though certainly not poorly viewed by his supporters).

[Flasch186]

Yeah, standing for something even though you know people will "lump you in with Bush" is bad. He should've taken the Obama approach and stood for nothing but some nebulous "change".

/threadjack

because unwavering ingnorant steadfastness has served our country so well.

[Dutch]

I'm sorry, but that particular turn of phrase is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard.

"Unlawful combatants"? Please. The only things the Geneva Convention denies that status for are mercenaries and children.

Sure, Congress passed a law defining "unlawful combatants" in 2006, but y'know, unless I'm mistaken, the Iraq and Afghanistan conficts had been underway for sometime by then. The Constitution, in the clause immediately following that of Habeas Corpus, says that no ex post facto law shall be passed. Unlike the habeas clause, the ex post facto clause includes no exceptions. No law may be passed which retroactively criminalizes an action.

So even under the most generous interpretation of the status of the detainees, none detained prior to 2006 can Constitutionally be considered as "unlawful combatants."

Even leaving that aside, it's either a battlefield, or it's not. If it's a battlefield, and they're raising arms against you, how in the hell is that "unlawful combatants"? Either you're fighting a war, in which case they're lawful combatants and should be treated as such, pursuant to the Geneva Convention, or you're prosecuting a police action, in which case there's no damn battlefield, and standard criminal procedures ought to apply.

Here is an interesting case from 1942.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=317&page=1

The entire ruling is quite amazing and with much history and thought put into it. Here are some notable parts, but I encourage you or anybody to read the entire ruling.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. 8 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=317&page=1#f8)The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. See Winthrop, Military Law, 2d Ed., pp. 1196-1197, 1219-1221; Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, approved by the President, General Order No. 100, April 24, 1863, sections IV and V.

This court decision was based not upon precedent either, but previous rulings (1914?).

'Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.' And Paragraph [317 U.S. 1, 33] 84, that 'Armed Prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads, or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.'

Our Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who though combatants do not wear 'fixed and distinctive emblems'. And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'.

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law12 that we think it must be regarded as [317 U.S. 1, 36] a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied.

[Dutch]

because unwavering ingnorant steadfastness has served our country so well.

The ruling effectively overturns FDR (WWII) and Woodrow Wilson (WWI) as well.

[Dutch]

I'm positive that our country doesn't need another president whose understanding of American history is so ignorant as to declare this one of the worst decisions in history.

I haven't seen what Obama's reaction was. What were his comments?

[Buccaneer]

OpEd from one of the largest libertarian papers:


HIGH COURT MOVES TOWARD JUSTICE
Decision holds administration at bay

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, decided that those detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp can challenge their imprisonment using the ancient writ of habeas corpus. It was the right decision and goes a long way toward changing some extremely dubious practices used during the war on terror.

The writ of habeas corpus (Latin: "you have the body") has roots hundreds of years old in the English common law, which serves as the basis of our judicial system. It is a significant check on the tendency of governments to sometimes use power in abusive ways. It allows somebody who has been imprisoned to go before an impartial magistrate and require the government to explain why it has the authority to keep him imprisoned.

Proper use of the writ can handle cases of someone who doesn't fit into a category that justifies imprisonment. It's not a trial; the standard of proof is not all that high; but the government does have to give a plausible reason for holding this particular person. Some legal authorities believe it is the most effective check on the kind of arbitrary detention that is often characteristic of tyrannical regimes.

The Bush administration has argued that since those held at Guantanamo are aliens designated by the president as "illegal enemy combatants," and since Guantanamo is on Cuban rather than U.S. soil, those prisoners do not have the rights guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution.

In this case the court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, decided that those detainees have a right to go to a federal court and ask for a habeas corpus hearing. For starters, the unusual treaty by which the U.S. controls that little corner of Cuba has given the U.S. full civil and military control of Guantanamo for more than 100 years. And under the Constitution, the writ can be suspended only in an emergency brought about by invasion or rebellion. Therefore the laws that Congress passed to provide a semblance of due process but not full access to habeas corpus hearings in a U.S. court are invalid.

This is clearly the right decision. What distinguishes the United States and other civilized countries from the barbaric terrorists who seek to harm us is precisely our devotion to the rule of law and orderly procedures. As Kennedy wrote: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Radio and TV talking heads say the decision will free the very thugs who would slit your throat. Not so. This ruling does not provide that those at Guantanamo should be released, or even that they must get habeas hearings, simply that they must be able to apply for a hearing. Courts have a great deal of discretion in such matters. And given that there are only 270 detainees at Guantanamo, this will hardly overburden the system.

It's also important to remember that those held at Guantanamo might not all be hardened terrorists. Administration critics argue that some are innocent victims of overzealous bounty hunters. That's one more reason it's important they receive access to the courts.

The U.S. government has declined to designate the Guantanamo detainees as prisoners of war, for whom different procedures are specified, but has held some for up to six years without filing charges. That is shameful, not at all the way an American government devoted to protecting liberty should operate. The high court has shown that even though it took a while to kick in, our constitutional separation of powers still works.

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/scouts_37298___article.html/boy_guantanamo.html

[Flasch186]

The ruling effectively overturns FDR (WWII) and Woodrow Wilson (WWI) as well.

I have no problem with things changing over time. Flip flop to me can mean results from further analysis and critical thinking.

[NoMyths]

I haven't seen what Obama's reaction was. What were his comments?

From: Obama, McCain Respond to Guantanamo Bay Ruling (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/12/obama_mccain_respond_to_guanta.html) by Michael D. Shear on the Washington Post website.

Democrat Barack Obama issued a statement expressing support for the decision, saying that it strikes the proper balance between fighting terrorism and "protecting our core values."

"The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo -- yet another failed policy supported by John McCain," Obama said. "This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

Obama said he voted against the Military Commissions Act, which created the extra-judicial system of hearings for detainees at Guantanamo, because of "sloppiness" that would lead to the kind of decision the court announced yesterday.

"The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend," he said. "Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values."

[Dutch]

I have no problem with things changing over time. Flip flop to me can mean results from further analysis and critical thinking.

I am more interested with the charge that President Bush based his ruling out of thin air with no precedent. Seems if we hate people misleading, we shouldn't practice it ourselves.

[Flasch186]

I am more interested with the charge that President Bush based his ruling out of thin air with no precedent. Seems if we hate people misleading, we shouldn't practice it ourselves.

From '01, Bush knew, KNEW, he was skirting. He was absolutely not relying on precedent but was crafting some halfbaked interpretation of "war-time". The "war" I believe we're in is incomparable to the war's in the past that have been cited. The scary part is that if found innocent the administration has stated it doesnt have to release the innocent.

Bush's Tribunals Under Fire
Declan McCullagh Email 11.16.01
During World War II, German marines carrying explosives landed on this beach in Ponte Vedra, Florida, hoping to sabotage U.S. efforts.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's decision to try civilians before secret military tribunals could lead to the kind of showdown between the Army and the judiciary not seen since the Civil War.

Bush quietly signed an executive order this week that says any suspected terrorist "who is not a United States citizen" can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced by the U.S. military.

The two-page order, drawing on the president's authority as commander-in-chief during wartime, says a secret military tribunal may impose sentences as harsh as death on illegal visitors to the United States, green-card holders or tourists who are accused of terrorism.

By filing a so-called writ of habeas corpus, attorneys representing someone facing a tribunal could petition the civilian courts to take up the case, a move that could lead to a rare tussle between civilian and military authorities.

A safeguard of liberty dating back to English common law and England's Habeas Corpus Act of 1671, the writ of habeas corpus says that authorities must bring a person they arrest before a judge who orders it. The U.S. Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus -- a decision that led to a showdown between the military and U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney. After the U.S. Army arrested John Merryman on charges of destroying railroad bridges and imprisoned him in Fort McHenry, Merryman's lawyer drew up a habeas corpus petition that Taney quickly signed.

When the Army refused to bring Merryman before the high court, Taney said the U.S. marshals had the authority to haul Army General George Cadwalader into the courtroom on charges of contempt -- but Taney wouldn't order it since the marshals would likely be outgunned by the regular army. Instead, Taney protested and called on Lincoln "to perform his constitutional duty to enforce the laws" and the "process of this court."

That's not likely to happen again, says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

"The likelihood that the marshal of the federal court would be literally stiffed by a military commander, in this day and age, is slim to zero," Fidell says.

But, says Fidell, it's not clear what the present-day Supreme Court would do if confronted with the same request. "I think they would entertain it, and they would have to make a decision about whether that individual was an enemy belligerent," Fidell says.

During World War II, the Supreme Court bowed to military authorities and refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus.

In June 1942, FBI agents nabbed a squad of disguised German saboteurs who landed at Ponte Vedra, Florida, with explosives and fuses and plans to interfere with the American war effort. President Roosevelt immediately appointed a military tribunal and ordered it to try the case.

Roosevelt's order said that people sneaking into the United States who had ties to the Axis powers "and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals."

...and it wasn't by following a law or following a Congressional declaration of war, but by Executive Order. How does one of the people prove or disprove "Ties" when it's a secret military tribunal.

further down the article:
David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, says Bush's executive order is unprecedented for two reasons: Tribunals will be used when America has not declared war, and they are not limited to terrorists who are members of al-Qaida.

Bush could have written his order to apply only to al-Qaida members, but instead chose to include non-citizens who have harbored terrorists, are terrorists or have "conspired" with terrorists.

So Bush threw a blanket over millions of people....horrible decision that of course would backfire, and has.

But after the deadly terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, Congress didn't go quite that far. Instead of declaring war, Congress enacted a one-paragraph resolution that authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" when responding to the hijacked airplanes that slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"To adopt this military tribunal is essentially to throw out the window all of the protections we have for 200 years considered critical to a fair determination of guilt," says Georgetown's Cole. "It throws out the requirement that the trial be public, that the evidence that the government relies on be revealed to the defendant, that there be any judicial review. It throws out the requirement that the government provide exculpatory evidence."

Cole says that "these are the bottom-line constitutional principles that we have concluded are necessary to give a criminal judgment legitimacy."

Congress didn't declare war but gave Bush specific authority to react to the 9/11 events. Here we are many years later with people picked up in all parts of the world with no way of showing that they dont even meet the standards set by that which you cite as precedent. Luckily the courts agree that making a person disappear forever without proof or action is against our standing.

From a different article in 2002, editorial:

The New York Times reported that the detainees may be held indefinitely—even if they are acquitted in a military tribunal. The Times report quotes Pentagon lawyer William J. Haynes II: “If we had a trial right this minute, it is conceivable that somebody could be tried and acquitted of that charge but may not necessarily automatically be released.”

Let that sink in: acquittal would not mean release. Why? Because these are “dangerous” people, Haynes says. How’s that a for a commitment to “this nation’s ideals, including the rule of law.” It appears the critics of military tribunals were not premature in voicing their concerns.

[Dutch]

And liberals have known, KNOWN, that the terrorists are killing civilians and abusing the laws of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the liberals have known, KNOWN, that takes away their rights to be prisoners of war. Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare. The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Sorry to parrot your argument, but you get my drift.

[NoMyths]

The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

[John Galt]

And liberals have known, KNOWN, that the terrorists are killing civilians and abusing the laws of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the liberals have known, KNOWN, that takes away their rights to be prisoners of war. Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare. The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Sorry to parrot your argument, but you get my drift.

Dutch, the case you quote has to do with the domestic distinction between unlawful and lawful combatants. It has nothing to do with the Bush administration's interpretation of the Geneva Convention (which is really indefensible). Nothing the Court said in the recent decision contradicts the holding in Ex Parte Quirin. Plenty of prisoners in the present war can still be tried in military tribunals (in fact all of them can be if the administration handles it right). You just can't relocate prisoners to territory where the U.S. has de facto or de jure sovereignty and then deny habeas rights. The attempt by the Bush administration to create a land without law has, thankfully, failed.

[Flasch186]

And liberals have known, KNOWN, that the terrorists are killing civilians and abusing the laws of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the liberals have known, KNOWN, that takes away their rights to be prisoners of war. Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare. The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Sorry to parrot your argument, but you get my drift.

I do, but I dont think Al Qaeda or it's cohorts have claimed to have signed on to the Geneva Conventions. We wouldnt be having this argument if the admin wouldve or would just say We are not following the Geneva Conventions with these people but when pressed on it they said, they didnt have to but will. That was a mistake IMO. They shouldve said, we're fighting a gang and Geneva wont apply, IMO.

and then, "What John said." not JonIMGA either, that guy's cukoo. ;)

[John Galt]

I do, but I dont think Al Qaeda or it's cohorts have claimed to have signed on to the Geneva Conventions. We wouldnt be having this argument if the admin wouldve or would just say We are not following the Geneva Conventions with these people but when pressed on it they said, they didnt have to but will. That was a mistake IMO. They shouldve said, we're fighting a gang and Geneva wont apply, IMO.

and then, "What John said." not JonIMGA either, that guy's cukoo. ;)

The problem is that the Geneva Conventions apply in ALL war scenarios. There are varying degrees of protection (with groups like Al Qaeda receiving the lowest level of protection). And the Geneva Conventions have been used repeatedly in occasions with irregular, non-uniformed armies (usually in civil wars or border wars). The Bush Adminstration argued that this conflict wasn't covered by the Geneva Conventions, but that was just plain wrong. Al Qaeda prisoners are not entitled to POW status, but they are entitled to minimal, irregular army protections.

However, all of the talk of Geneva Conventions really has no relevance to the Court's recent decision. This was just a straight constitutional ruling regarding the scope of habeas rights.

[Dutch]

The Bush Adminstration argued that this conflict wasn't covered by the Geneva Conventions, but that was just plain wrong. Al Qaeda prisoners are not entitled to POW status, but they are entitled to minimal, irregular army protections.


I'm going to have to argue your wording. Bush has never said the war doesn't have to follow Geneva Conventions. US Soldiers follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War as explicitly as possible. What Bush has argued is that the enemy refuses to follow the laws of war and their continued targetting of civilians highlights the claim.

However, all of the talk of Geneva Conventions really has no relevance to the Court's recent decision. This was just a straight constitutional ruling regarding the scope of habeas rights.

Well, I think we can agree that the Geneva Conventions don't really give a strong interpretation of where Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighters fall in the spectrum. It really only goes so far as to say what they are not (neither lawful combatants nor non-combatants).<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Flasch186]

I'm going to have to argue your wording. Bush has never said the war doesn't have to follow Geneva Conventions. US Soldiers follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War as explicitly as possible. What Bush has argued is that the enemy refuses to follow the laws of war and their continued targetting of civilians highlights the claim.

I think you're going to have to define "enemy"

Geneva Convention Applies to Taliban, not Al Qaeda
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2002 – President Bush said the United States would regard the Geneva Conventions as applying to Taliban detainees under U.S. control -- but not Al Qaeda detainees.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the United States would continue to treat all detainees humanely and in accordance with standards set by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush's decision does not materially change the way all detainees will be treated by the United States nor does it confer prisoner of war status on Taliban members. U.S. officials will continue to call both Taliban and Al Qaeda members "detainees."

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention of 1949. U.S. government lawyers determined the convention applies to Taliban captured since the war on terrorism began.

Another problem arises because Bush has painted, it would seem, a lot of our "enemies" as either Al Qaeda or their sympathizers whether applicable or not.

[Dutch]

I think you're going to have to define "enemy"



Another problem arises because Bush has painted, it would seem, a lot of our "enemies" as either Al Qaeda or their sympathizers whether applicable or not.

And to further clarify why the Taliban fighters ultimately end up in the same boat as the Al Qaeda (and just another reason why those scumbags couldn't get any legitimate nation on this Earth to recognize them).


Fleischer said the Taliban fighters do not qualify as prisoners of war because they did not meet certain standards of Article IV of the conventions -- that they wear distinctive uniforms and conduct military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/07/ret.bush.detainees/

[Flasch186]

Ok, so Geneva doesnt apply to them either? Flip flop from the Admin? Im fine with that but if theyre not POW then the ruling on this court case is exactly correct by the Supreme court that they should be tried in Civilian courts under the writ. I agree with you that Al Qaeda, The Taliban and many others are the scum of the earth but I see a lot of hyperbole, misinformation, and general bias of interpretation (let's call it) to get to the ends desired.

So as you said, in this case we don't have to follow Geneva but I can show you a ton of statements where the administration says we will and are, so which is the statement that is true as compared to how we are truly going to act?

oh, and I think youre confusing me.

[flere-imsaho]

Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare.

As opposed to conservatives, who dig to the deepest, darkest recesses of judicial precedent to come up with a shred of justification for the kangaroo courts set up by their hero Bush.

One way makes a mockery of American "justice" and makes KSM a martyr to his supporters. The other executes a slam-dunk criminal case and locks KSM away in Max-Secure for the rest of his life where he fades from popular remembrance.

The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Prove it.

[SFL Cat]

This is a ridiculous assertion.


Actually, based on their obsessive, almost illogical hatred of Bush (much like the right's feelings toward Clinton), I think it is pretty spot on. The left seems willing to do anything they can to thwart or claim victory over Bush policy, regardless of whether it makes sense or not concerning U.S. national security

[Flasch186]

will the cycle ever end? Only when the Religious Right are firmly in power?

I know it's a hijack of the thread but it's silly to think that the two sides, right and left will fight forever where each side, every 8 or so years, uses the same argument to claim victim that they used to create the victim just a few years before. no?

[SFL Cat]

Like it or not, that has been the pattern for the past 20 years, and I see no signs of it changing in the near future.

[miked]

I don't see why people think this is some liberal plot to slap Bush down and will result in terrorist going free and hurting intel or something. Are we that obsessed with fear tatics? Maybe I'm just rational and normal, but doesn't this just mean the government has to go in front of a judge and give the tiniest shred of evidence that the person needs to be detained?

I just don't get the whole...OMG LIBERALZ HATE BUSH AND WANT TERRORISTS FREE TO SPITE HIM. THEY R MAKING UR COUNTRY UNSFAE OMG!!!11!11

[Flasch186]

but there is a large swell of those, well, people who buy into that crap and therefore will vote accordingly. Some of them are on here. But they are consistent: anyone who is against Bush, even those that were once a part of his innercircle, become untrustworthy liars the minute they leave. Anyone Pro-choice is also Pro-Death. Anyone against Bush doesnt love America. anyone who doesn't vote Republican is voting for Al Qaeda. etc. etc. etc.

[flere-imsaho]

Actually, based on their obsessive, almost illogical hatred of Bush (much like the right's feelings toward Clinton), I think it is pretty spot on.

Except for the fact that neither you nor Dutch have cited a single liberal who wants KSM or his cohorts to go free to "spite" Bush.

On the other hand, I can cite many conservative commentators who advocate or have advocated actions born out of illogical hatred. For instance, one encouraged people to shoot federal agents in the head during the Clinton Administration (G. Gordon Liddy). Another advocated the poisoning of moderate or liberal Supreme Court justices (Ann Coulter).

How about you provide some evidence?

The left seems willing to do anything they can to thwart or claim victory over Bush policy, regardless of whether it makes sense or not concerning U.S. national security

You keep repeating this meme, hoping that with repetition it'll become true. Faux News would be proud of you.

Ironically, of course, it's the policies of the Bush Administration, not random liberals, that have compromised national security (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1159070400&amp;amp;amp;en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin).

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

But maybe you know better than the sum total of U.S. intelligence agencies.

[flere-imsaho]

It's not our secrets we should be worried about. When we convicted those clowns, we dimed out the Soviets. It was pretty obvious who they worked for and it was also pretty obvious we couldn't really do anything about it.

That wasn't my point.

A key problem conservatives are fond of bringing up is this falsehood that you can't convict someone in a civilian court where significant pieces of evidence are Top Secret. If this was true, we never would have been able to try and convict the various Cold War spies.

[larrymcg421]

I'd just like to point out that three Republican appointees made up the 5 person majority in this case.

[sterlingice]

Kindof scary that the two most recent are so far to the right that they were abandoned by previous conservatives.

SI

[Dutch]

That wasn't my point.

A key problem conservatives are fond of bringing up is this falsehood that you can't convict someone in a civilian court where significant pieces of evidence are Top Secret. If this was true, we never would have been able to try and convict the various Cold War spies.

I'm certain (as many conservatives and liberals alike are) that the civilian court system has done a pretty good job of convicting lots of folks. Check our prison over-population if you need clarification. So we are tied, that's not my point either.

[Dutch]

I'd just like to point out that three Republican appointees made up the 5 person majority in this case.

This is a cool little chart that provides some clarity. I'm sure the chips don't always fall this way, but they sure did this time. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal-Cover_score

[DaddyTorgo]

This is a cool little chart that provides some clarity. I'm sure the chips don't always fall this way, but they sure did this time. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal-Cover_score

that's pretty cool. History geek in me wants to look at the pdf chart in there

[DaddyTorgo]

what I find interesting in the current list and the list of past (back to 1937) is how many of them were relatively "unqualified" - it's kind of scary

[larrymcg421]

The chart is interesting because it's based on editorials during their confirmations. There has certainly been some jockeying around since then. For example, there is no way Kennedy is more liberal than Souter and Stevens, and also Thomas is definitely the most conservative of the bunch.

[SFL Cat]

Except for the fact that neither you nor Dutch have cited a single liberal who wants KSM or his cohorts to go free to "spite" Bush.

If he gets the same calibre of lawyers O.J. had, who knows...


On the other hand, I can cite many conservative commentators who advocate or have advocated actions born out of illogical hatred. For instance, one encouraged people to shoot federal agents in the head during the Clinton Administration (G. Gordon Liddy). Another advocated the poisoning of moderate or liberal Supreme Court justices (Ann Coulter).

Oh, please, I've seen equal vitriol toward Bush.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+'assassinated'+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do
Assassination of a President "Docu-Drama," The Bush-hating crowd's wet dream.

Leading up to the 2004 election, Laurie David (wife of "Seinfeld" creator Larry David) hosted an event in La-La Land called "Hate Bush 12/2."

The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledged leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."

Left-wing activist and writer Fran Lebowitz said that the Bush administration is a "criminal enterprise, pure and simple."

Sandra Bernhard, the wannabe actress and comedienne, was asked during an online Washington Post chat for her thoughts on terrorism. "The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs."

Michael Moore has accused Bush of being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. George Soros said the president's policies reminded him of the Nazis. Cameron Diaz warned that if Bush was reelected in 2004, rape would become legal. Randi Rhodes told her radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken out and shot (can't say I've ever read a story where Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative talk show host has advocated the same for a Democrat). Whoopi Goldberg headlined a New York fund-raiser in which Bush was called a "thug" and a "killer." Howard Dean speculated publicly about the "interesting theory" that Bush knew what was going to happen on Sept. 11 but kept silent.

So, please, be careful about casting stones in a glass house.

[John Galt]

This is a cool little chart that provides some clarity. I'm sure the chips don't always fall this way, but they sure did this time. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal-Cover_score

The Segal Cover scores are interesting, but have some major limitations. First, they give no historical context. This means a Court could be radically liberal, but the least liberal judge will still appear conservative. Second, there are some major scoring difficulties. A lot of cases don't bring up a clear liberal or conservative position. In fact, it can be argued that most of the docket has no clear political bent. Scores from hot-button political issues can show greater polarization.

The scores do highlight the ridiculous notion that Justice Stevens is some crazy liberal. Throughout his career, he has been one of the most conservative justices on certain issues. Ginsburg isn't even that liberal by historical standards.

A recent book by Posner discussing past research (including Sunstein's interesting study) provides a lot better understanding of our modern court trends, IMO.

[Buccaneer]

JG, wouldn't that argument (historical perspective) imply that the index for conservatism and liberalism be somewhat constant? Or would it be era-adjusted?

[molson]

You keep repeating this meme, hoping that with repetition it'll become true. Faux News would be proud of you.



The commonly cited support of this decision in this thread and this thread and elsehwere is essentially "Bush deserved it because of how he screwed this whole thing up". Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think most people give a shit about the plight of a handful of "innocent" Afghans. Many more than that have suffered much worse around the globe in places where nobody's yelling to get involved. The real energy in support of the decision is that it goes against Bush.

The other support is that "a habeas defense requires only a shred of evidence". That's not true, but if people think that, why are they so fired up about this decision? What difference will it make?

Bush has been an awful president. The trendy hate though is way over the top and not at all productive in either a discussion or in a practical sense. I don't think this backlash was the basis of the decision itself, and I don't think anti-Bush folk in courts will actually conspire to set anyone free (though anything can happen in front of a single federal judge on a habeas case). But civilians court are wildly unpredictable, and they has no expertease or perspective of international and military law.

[John Galt]

JG, wouldn't that argument (historical perspective) imply that the index for conservatism and liberalism be somewhat constant? Or would it be era-adjusted?

There are a few problems. First, cases are not random and consistent over time. Parties decide to appeal certain issues based upon how they think the Court will decide. The Court often only takes cases when a split between circuits develop. Also, case decisions are built on prior cases so law has an evolutionary quality. And the issues being litigated today are not the same as those being litigated years ago. An example to illustrate many of the problems would be in analyzing exclusionary rule cases. The exclusionary rule didn't exist until the middle of the 20th Century. The finding that illegally seized evidence should be excluded was considered a "liberal decision." However, how do you deal with the numerous decisions since? There may be a conservative and liberal outcome relatively. However, all of those decisions fundamentally accept a liberal exclusionary rule. Most every area of law operates that way. And most exclusionary rule decisions never reach the Supreme Court because the Court doesn't grant cert.

It is extremely difficult to analyze legal holdings via politics over any lengthy time frame. Going back to early 20th Century or before is virtually impossible as you really have an apples and oranges comparison.

[John Galt]

I don't think this backlash was the basis of the decision itself, and I don't think anti-Bush folk in courts will actually conspire to set anyone free (though anything can happen in front of a single federal judge on a habeas case). But civilians court are wildly unpredictable, and they has no expertease or perspective of international and military law.

Where is there any evidence of this? In the criminal law context, habeas petitions fail at an unbelievable rate (even excluding all of the horrible jail house lawyer petitions). A large majority of the federal judiciary is composed of Republican appointees. Every decision to grant a habeas petition is subject to appeal so there is no risk that a "single federal judge" can make a maverick decision without review. Federal courts have proven extremely hostile to habeas petitions outside of the terrorism context - what possible reason is there to think they will be friendlier to Gitmo detainees?

This decision was merely about access to federal courts. I don't think that these petitions will have much success. But this access is extremely important. In an Afghanistan prison, the prisoners will have whatever habeas rights that the Afghani government chooses to provide. Same for Iraq. And same for every other country in the world. That is why Gitmo was scary. The US denied that prisoners had rights to petition the Cuban government (which is fine), but wouldn't give access to any US court. That is about creating a land without law. And that is something that should scare everyone.

[larrymcg421]

The commonly cited support of this decision in this thread and this thread and elsehwere is essentially "Bush deserved it because of how he screwed this whole thing up". Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think most people give a shit about the plight of a handful of "innocent" Afghans. Many more than that have suffered much worse around the globe in places where nobody's yelling to get involved.

I don't really care what most people think. The constitution doesn't change based on what most people think unless a long amendment process is followed, which hasn't happened here.

The real energy in support of the decision is that it goes against Bush.

Yeah, I don't see that at all. I think it's more like people that don't like Bush are more likely to support this decision. Hating Bush and praising the decision is just a win-win situation.

The other support is that "a habeas defense requires only a shred of evidence". That's not true, but if people think that, why are they so fired up about this decision? What difference will it make?

You don't understand. I think most people in Guantanamo probably deserve to be there (or in captivity somewhere). For those, I want them to have their habeas petition reviewed and denied. If there's one person in custody that doesn't deserve to be there, then I think it's worth it.

Bush has been an awful president. The trendy hate though is way over the top and not at all productive in either a discussion or in a practical sense.

I've hated Bush for a long time because I think his policies are destroying this country, not because it's trendy. Do you think there are people in this thread that just suddenly started hating Bush because it's trendy? If so, then please point those people out, because I'm tired of this random grouping of people to make an argument.

[Buccaneer]

The trendy hate though is way over the top

I think his policies are destroying this country

There you go. Trendy does not necessarily mean "suddenly" but aslo an irrational hyperbole. But we've seen this before and will see this again.

[larrymcg421]

There you go. Trendy does not necessarily mean "suddenly" but aslo an irrational hyperbole. But we've seen this before and will see this again.

I've never heard it defined that way before, but I'll admit that "destroying" is too strong. I do think Bush's presidency has seriously hurt this country, and alot of the damage will take a long time to repair.

[sterlingice]

There you go. Trendy does not necessarily mean "suddenly" but aslo an irrational hyperbole. But we've seen this before and will see this again.

Bucc, I know you were the guy who actually held John Hancock's pen after he signed the Declaration of Independence so you've seen a lot. It always seems like your perspective on these things is that this is no different than it's always been and it's the 357th verse, same as the first. And maybe that's right.

But you can at least see where we are coming from, right? I mean, Bush I was disliked for "Read my lips, no new taxes", having an idiot for a Vice President, and throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister. Clinton, well, I think we know too much about Willie's willie, as well as Whitewater and failed health care legislation. This Bush is most disliked for abuse of power- lying to start a war and strongly abrogating individual rights as well as not being very bright and being in bed with big oil. Of the three, it seems the two most dangerous of any of the allegations to the state as a whole come from the current president.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Bucc, I know you were the guy who actually held John Hancock's pen after he signed the Declaration of Independence so you've seen a lot. It always seems like your perspective on these things is that this is no different than it's always been and it's the 357th verse, same as the first. And maybe that's right.

But you can at least see where we are coming from, right? I mean, Bush I was disliked for "Read my lips, no new taxes", having an idiot for a Vice President, and throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister. Clinton, well, I think we know too much about Willie's willie, as well as Whitewater and failed health care legislation. This Bush is most disliked for abuse of power- lying to start a war and strongly abrogating individual rights as well as not being very bright and being in bed with big oil. Of the three, it seems the two most dangerous of any of the allegations to the state as a whole come from the current president.

SI

SI, several off-the-cuff responses. 1) Lying to start a war has been done (e.g., LBJ) but that doesn't excuse him from stupidly going into Iraq and to even more stupidly prosecute the post-war. But I will still contend that in the future, the Iraq mess will be insignificant compared to much more serious problems that will develop. 2) As far as abrogating individual rights, it's what the federal govt has done and will continue to do. It probably has accelerated after 9/11 but that's what the general public wanted and still wants. Many people have not realized the powers they allowed Washington to take over the years because they demanded them to "do something" instead of taking more personal responsibilities locally. It will only get worse because that's what we want and expect. 3) Not being very bright. That's certainly true but in a matter of perspective, neither were many other presidents. All this means that he has to delegate more. One can argue, as with any leadership position, where's the line between mindless delegation and self-centered wonking. 4) Ah. The Big [Fill-in-the-blank] argument. Every president in our lifetimes have been in bed with a number of Bigs. Is one worse than the other? We all demand oil and energy and its products and we never seemed to care to look ahead, whether alternatives or domestic production. Every analysis I've read suggests multiple reasons for the situation now, many outside the control of a president who alledgedly controls the world's oil markets. But like I said, it always has to be Big Something - that's the power we have given to Washington, to allow all of these special interests to act on our behalf.

So as a matter of perpsective, yes, I have seen many examples of irrational hatred solely because of what the person looks like, whom he is associated with, how he got elected and plain opposition just for the hell of it. It happened with JFK and LBJ, as I have studied, and experienced it with Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. It's part of the partisan nature that always have been there and now with the ever-increasing power of the federal govt that we demand, the stakes will be higher and thus, the partisanship will be even greater here on out.

CAVEAT: Irrational partisans will believe that if you don't hate person A, then you must love him. For me, it is neither. I don't like Bush2, the neo-cons, etc. But I don't like its opposition either. Too many people believe that if we keep swinging the pendelum from one extreme to the other and back again, that somehow each swing will make things better. It doesn't, it makes things worse because "fixing" things entails more powers taken as expectations for them to do rise.

[sterlingice]

3) Not being very bright. That's certainly true but in a matter of perspective, neither were many other presidents. All this means that he has to delegate more. One can argue, as with any leadership position, where's the line between mindless delegation and self-centered wonking. 4) Ah. The Big [Fill-in-the-blank] argument. Every president in our lifetimes have been in bed with a number of Bigs. Is one worse than the other? We all demand oil and energy and its products and we never seemed to care to look ahead, whether alternatives or domestic production. Every analysis I've read suggests multiple reasons for the situation now, many outside the control of a president who alledgedly controls the world's oil markets. But like I said, it always has to be Big Something - that's the power we have given to Washington, to allow all of these special interests to act on our behalf.

Well, this is why I made the comment mentioning "the two most dangerous"- these two are kindof small potatoes. They aren't but they are in the grand scheme of things.

CAVEAT: Irrational partisans will believe that if you don't hate person A, then you must love him. For me, it is neither. I don't like Bush2, the neo-cons, etc. But I don't like its opposition either. Too many people believe that if we keep swinging the pendelum from one extreme to the other and back again, that somehow each swing will make things better. It doesn't, it makes things worse because "fixing" things entails more powers taken as expectations for them to do rise.

Well, and this is why I phrased it the way I did. I know you don't have much love for the guy (tho I will argue that you're more partisan than you want to let on) and I got the answers I was curious about.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Well, and this is why I phrased it the way I did. I know you don't have much love for the guy (tho I will argue that you're more partisan than you want to let on) and I got the answers I was curious about.

SI

TroyF taught me that. If one can get both sides thinking you are against them, then you must be doing something right. :)

I love to study American History and one of the things I focus on is change (in all aspects of life). Perhaps one of the key ideas I look for is the control - how much would change happen if thing were different at the time? This has led to my in-depth studies as to the causes and lead-up to the Civil War - as no greater change since the Constitutional Congress had ever happened in our history. But even at that such change, many aspects of life continued on as if there were no war happening. That fascinates me to no end.

[Grammaticus]

what I find interesting in the current list and the list of past (back to 1937) is how many of them were relatively "unqualified" - it's kind of scary

If you are smart and can read the constitution, you are as qualified as the bunch. ;)

[larrymcg421]

Here are some voting stats from the 06-07 term:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/AgreementFinalOT06.pdf

Some interesting numbers from this set...

*Supposedly liberal Kennedy's agreement in order: Roberts (85%), Scalia (79%), Alito (79%), Thomas (79%), Souter (75%), Breyer (74%), Ginsburg (73%), Stevens (66%)

*There were 19 5-4 decisions where Kennedy cast the deciding vote. 13 of them he sided with the conservaties and 6 of them he sided with the liberals.

[flere-imsaho]

If he gets the same calibre of lawyers O.J. had, who knows...

O.J. didn't admit guilt. Try again.

To recap, Dutch said this:

The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

NoMyths said this:

This is a ridiculous assertion.

To which you responded:

Actually, based on their obsessive, almost illogical hatred of Bush (much like the right's feelings toward Clinton), I think it is pretty spot on. The left seems willing to do anything they can to thwart or claim victory over Bush policy, regardless of whether it makes sense or not concerning U.S. national security

Prove to me that the "left" wants Khalid Sheik Muhammad released to "spite Bush". Further, please clarify if you mean "leftist wingnuts", "liberals", or some other group and if said group includes people posting in this thread.

I'm going to assume for the moment that you're actually above accusing members of FOFC of being in league with terrorists, but I have to say it is sometimes difficult to make that assumption based on your rhetoric.

[flere-imsaho]

Randi Rhodes told her radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken out and shot (can't say I've ever read a story where Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative talk show host has advocated the same for a Democrat).

I find it humorous that you post this in response to a post where I cite Ann Coulter (certainly much better known than Randi Rhodes) exhorting people to poison members of the Supreme Court.

So, please, be careful about casting stones in a glass house.

How about you learn to read first?

I've hated Bush for a long time because I think his policies are destroying this country, not because it's trendy. Do you think there are people in this thread that just suddenly started hating Bush because it's trendy? If so, then please point those people out, because I'm tired of this random grouping of people to make an argument.

Quoted for emphasis.

[molson]

Let's be clear: I could not care less what happens to KSM and his cronies. My recommendation is that they not get the death penalty solely because that's exactly what they want and what their supporters worldwide want. Let them rot in prison.

I have two concerns:

One, Bush created a stupid legal mess where one didn't need to be created. As a yardstick for how off-base Bush and his legal team were, remember that even Antonin Scalia disagreed with them (in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld). Dude, when even Antonin Scalia disagrees with a Conservative President, that President is just plain wrong.

Two, as we know now, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were taxi drivers, farmers, or whatever - guys who had the misfortune to be brown and in the wrong place at the wrong time. As this Souter states most specifically in this decision, it's simply inexcusable to lock people up like this for this amount of time with absolutely no movement towards dispositioning them.

These are the two reasons you've cited why you're so fired up about this. #1 is clearly just Bush backlash, isn't it? "He created a legal mess". So what? If he handled it "correctly" from the start, you'd be against this decision? The detainees aren't suing for POW status, they're suing for more. If POW status is the "correct' way to handle these detainees, why are you for Habeas Corpus rights (which POWs don't have). People are just giddy over the fact that this blew up in Bush's face.

#2 doesn't hold up with everything else people have said about how everyone's admitted guilt and that a Habeas defense is basically a rubber stamp. If that's true, that sole "innocent" farmer at Gitmo is still going to be there. And don't forget that many detainees that the US has freed have gone on to commit terrorist acts. Those people presumably would have been freed by a Habeas petition because there wasn't concrete enough evidence to keep them. That's because concrete evidence can be difficult to obtain in this environment. It's not like investigating a murder in a Chicago. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time should be evidence enough to detain someone in wartime - you shouldn't need to prove he pulled a trigger or threw a grendade - how could you? Or are you for a lower standard than that?

If Habeas Corpus was this magical remedy that seperated the innocent from the guilty, it'd be a whole different story.

[flere-imsaho]

These are the two reasons you've cited why you're so fired up about this. #1 is clearly just Bush backlash, isn't it? "He created a legal mess". So what? If he handled it "correctly" from the start, you'd be against this decision?

If he handled it correctly from the start, this decision (nor Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld nor Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld) would not be necessary.

If that's true, that sole "innocent" farmer at Gitmo is still going to be there.

Not necessarily.

And don't forget that many detainees that the US has freed have gone on to commit terrorist acts.

If by "many" you mean "maybe 10 out of 517".

Further, numerous reports indicate that of those who have later engaged in terrorist activities, most became suicide bombers and had no jihadistic tendencies prior to Guantanamo. One possible conclusion? Being thrown in Gitmo for 6 years without rationale and without recourse to justice makes one somewhat depressed, angry, and an easy target for jihad recruiters.

Being in the wrong place at the wrong time should be evidence enough to detain someone in wartime - you shouldn't need to prove he pulled a trigger or threw a grendade - how could you? Or are you for a lower standard than that?

I don't have a problem with detaining someone under reasonable suspicion (although even that litmus test wasn't always used by the CIA) during military operations. I do have a problem with detaining them for over 5 years without any sort of hearing whatsoever.

Besides, what do you mean by "lower standard"? "Being in the wrong place at the wrong time" is a pretty low standard. By that standard you could justify arresting any able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 45 in Afghanistan any time between 2002 and 2004 (to pick some dates at random). And in many cases it appears that this is exactly what was done.

Look, if you can't make a case for keeping a guy after you've had him in custody for 5 years, then maybe there isn't a case to be made for keeping a guy.

And this still doesn't explain why it's been so long and KSM & his immediate cronies (all of whom have admitted guilt) only just got arraigned last week.

[Anthony]

i don't have a prob with keeping detainees for 5+ years with no chance of a hearing. it shows the US has balls and aren't some nation of pussies who need to farm out interrogations to other nations cuz we're too faggish to do it ourselves.

why does anyone care - these aren't Americans that are being detained. they're foreigners, and possible terrorists to boot. i think in wartime its perfectly ok to take a "we don't know why you're here in Guatanimo Bay, but we'll hold you indefinitely until we can find a valid reason to keep you here" approach.

[molson]

Further, numerous reports indicate that of those who have later engaged in terrorist activities, most became suicide bombers and had no jihadistic tendencies prior to Guantanamo.

So none of them became suicide bombers before they were detained at Quantanamo? :)

That's one possible conclusion, another is that we just didn't have evidence of any jihadistic tendencies. It doen't mean they weren't there. These people aren't being detained for the purpose of "building cases" against them, and just because they're little/no case to be built, it doesn't mean it's unjust to keep them (that's the #1 disagreement here I guess). Even "reasonable suspicion" can be an unrealistic standard in wartime, in a foreign country, with limited resources and police infrastructure.

If 420 detainees have already been released, there's a reason that 270 are still there. That's good enough for me.

[molson]

If by "many" you mean "maybe 10 out of 517".


The Pentagon says that 36 are "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism".

If there was another 9/11 tomorrow that involved any of these 36, you'd be all over Bush and the military for releasing them. Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of guilt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7411862.stm

(The US also says they'd love to release more but the home countries won't take them back in many cases).

[Flasch186]

but life imprisonment with lack of guilt would be pretty awful and I'd say against our moral fabric.

To pile on, no Lefty or liberal American that I know wants anyone guilty to go free. That is just fear mongering at its best.

[molson]

but life imprisonment with lack of guilt would be pretty awful and I'd say against our moral fabric.

To pile on, no Lefty or liberal American that I know wants anyone guilty to go free. That is just fear mongering at its best.

It's unfortunate in the same way that civilians dying in air strikes is.

The only way to guarantee that there's no innocent people in domestic criminal jails is to set everyone free and not punish anyone (and that's with our expansive rights for defendants). I'm just willing to "miss" a lot more in the terrorist context than I am in the domestic one (and I think most people are).

Talking outside of this opinion, what's the appropriate "standard of proof" to keep someone detained? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Reasonable suspicion? What if there was an eyewitness account but those eyewitnesses are now dead? I'm sure your standard would keep at least a handful of innocent people detained (unless you're saying free everybody who doesn't admit). I don't know why we don't have the stomach for that.

A lot of people crtiticized Bush (including Michael Moore) for not detaining anyone related to Bin Ladin in the US after 9/11 - would that have been OK?

[Flasch186]

well we can start with when they admit guilt (outside of torturing to get the admission) the trial should be based on a much lower standard than when they dont admit it. We can start there.

[larrymcg421]

It's unfortunate in the same way that civilians dying in air strikes is.

The only way to guarantee that there's no innocent people in domestic criminal jails is to set everyone free and not punish anyone (and that's with our expansive rights for defendants). I'm just willing to "miss" a lot more in the terrorist context than I am in the domestic one (and I think most people are).


I'm willing to miss alot more, too. I don't disagree that national security concerns should come into play, but I think we've gone well beyond that point in these cases.

Talking outside of this opinion, what's the appropriate "standard of proof" to keep someone detained? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Reasonable suspicion? What if there was an eyewitness account but those eyewitnesses are now dead? I'm sure your standard would keep at least a handful of innocent people detained (unless you're saying free everybody who doesn't admit). I don't know why we don't have the stomach for that.

I think there should be some standard. You seem to be arguing that there should be no check against the executive branch in this case, and I think that goes against the very nature of our republic.

A lot of people crtiticized Bush (including Michael Moore) for not detaining anyone related to Bin Ladin in the US after 9/11 - would that have been OK?

It's a long, long way from letting Bin Laden's family fly away immediately to detaining them for 6 years without a trial.

[flere-imsaho]

So none of them became suicide bombers before they were detained at Quantanamo? :)

I know you have a smiley, but that's not what I said. I said "had no jihadistic tendencies prior to Guantanamo".

Exactly how many times are my words going to be wilfully misrepresented, misconstrued or just outright re-written in this thread? :banghead:

That's one possible conclusion, another is that we just didn't have evidence of any jihadistic tendencies. It doen't mean they weren't there. These people aren't being detained for the purpose of "building cases" against them, and just because they're little/no case to be built, it doesn't mean it's unjust to keep them (that's the #1 disagreement here I guess).

For 5 years? Really? So you hold a guy for five years, you get intel from his native country, maybe even question his friends and family, and even waterboard this guy until he's a limp dishrag, and you still don't have a shred of justification to continue to hold him. I'd say at that point there's probably not much of a case to keep him locked up. You may have the wrong guy at this point.

The Pentagon says that 36 are "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism".

The Pentagon's numbers have been challenged by a number of sources.

If there was another 9/11 tomorrow that involved any of these 36, you'd be all over Bush and the military for releasing them.

So let's sacrifice any principle we have to, in order to save ourselves from terrorists. For fun, let's start with the 2nd Amendment.

Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of guilt.

1. Except that for the majority of those put in Guantanamo, this turned out to be exactly the case.

2. :eek:

A lot of people crtiticized Bush (including Michael Moore) for not detaining anyone related to Bin Ladin in the US after 9/11 - would that have been OK?

Ironically, some members of the Bin Laden family may have proven more useful to U.S. Intelligence after 9/11 than the dozens of farmers, students and cab drivers who were instead arrested and tortured.

[molson]

For 5 years? Really? So you hold a guy for five years, you get intel from his native country, maybe even question his friends and family, and even waterboard this guy until he's a limp dishrag, and you still don't have a shred of justification to continue to hold him. I'd say at that point there's probably not much of a case to keep him locked up. You may have the wrong guy at this point.



You're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't supported. A criminal investigation is actually much harder as time goes on, it doesn't get easier. Memories fade, people die or dissapear. You've made the assumption that Cold War spy prosecutions are identical or similar to terrorist prosecutions in terms of practacality. You've assumed that "delays" are not warranted, and provide no reasonable purpose. You're assuming that some kind of mililtary trial of a suspected terrorist "should" happen at least as quickly as one for a US civilian in a domestic court (R Kelly/Enron).

If I was sold on any of those assumptions, I'd probably change my mind.

You've also objected to "grouping" people but have yourself grouped "conservatives" several times in this thread. And you've scoffed at other people's unsuported assertions citing a lack of proof. All people can do is state opinions.

The US wants to close this place - no question about it. Do you think they hold on to a portion of the detainees there because they get off on torture? What's the US strategy here?

[BishopMVP]

Just to clear up some misconceptions.It's a long, long way from letting Bin Laden's family fly away immediately to detaining them for 6 years without a trial.They didn't fly away immediately. The flight left September 19, the FBI was questioning the people on it before they left and it was approved by Richard Clarke, not exactly a Bush lackey.Ironically, some members of the Bin Laden family may have proven more useful to U.S. Intelligence after 9/11 than the dozens of farmers, students and cab drivers who were instead arrested and tortured.First, I don't see how that's ironic at all, but more relevantly the members of the bin Laden clan in the US (and Europe) were the westernized portion that pushed for the severing of ties to Osama close to a decade earlier (back when Osama himself was offered to Clinton by Hassan al-Turabi, but he turned the offer down because we barely even knew the name). But hey, if you want to alienate the pro-western/pro-US portion of a rich and influential Saudi family, I'm sure it wouldn't backfire at all.

[flere-imsaho]

You're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't supported.

Let's see about that.

A criminal investigation is actually much harder as time goes on, it doesn't get easier. Memories fade, people die or dissapear.

All the more reason to get it done and over early, which is what I was suggesting.

You've made the assumption that Cold War spy prosecutions are identical or similar to terrorist prosecutions in terms of practacality.

That's not what I said at all.

Let me quote myself again: "A key problem conservatives are fond of bringing up is this falsehood that you can't convict someone in a civilian court where significant pieces of evidence are Top Secret. If this was true, we never would have been able to try and convict the various Cold War spies."

You've assumed that "delays" are not warranted, and provide no reasonable purpose.

That's not what I said at all. To quote myself again:

The best I can come up with is that Bush and his advisors didn't trust the court system to do their jobs and decided to try to make up their own court system from scratch. They also didn't trust Congress to work with them (although, ironically, Congress did work with them and has also gotten slapped down by the Supreme Court) to develop new procedures to deal with the issues raised by capturing and holding terrorists, so they just decided to ignore the Constitution.

Basically you have a small cabal of people deciding what's best for the country against the wishes of the other two branches of government (one of which is directly elected by citizens). And this isn't a slight difference of opinion, it's a complete 180.


This is what Bush should have done:

"Look, KSM and these other guys aren't like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. They're connected to a large international network of terrorists. In the interest of national security, we need two outcomes that aren't necessarily afforded by normal criminal proceedings. One, we need to have a time period, post-capture, when we can interrogate these individuals to inform current intelligence, and we need to be able to continue these interrogations as necessary. Two, we need to make sure that these individuals are not inadvertently released from a maximum secure custody during and after their criminal trials. My administration plans to work closely with leaders in Congress and representatives from the Supreme Court over the next few weeks to work out a framework that will ensure these objectives but not compromise the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded."

If Bush had approached this problem this way, I'd be very surprised if a workable solution wasn't quickly developed and the last 7 years of wrangling was far behind us.

You're assuming that some kind of mililtary trial of a suspected terrorist "should" happen at least as quickly as one for a US civilian in a domestic court (R Kelly/Enron).

I never said that either. To quote myself again:

It's taken longer to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to trial than R. Kelly. The mind just boggles.

and

That really wasn't my point, though.

KSM's trial should be open-and-shut easy. He both admits guilt and isn't interested in an insanity plea. Plus he's about as "high-value" as they come. There should be mountains of evidence on him, if Intelligence are doing their job.

I don't know where you're going with "getting useful information". You can still interrogate someone after they've been convicted. Just don't kill him.

and

I too am not interested in drawing parallels. My point is that any of the high-value targets should be such slam-dunk cases that they could have been turfed to even the stupidest civilian court ages ago and we still would have had convictions and by now have these turkeys wasting away at ADX Florence.

and


I can't imagine it's more complex than something like the Enron trial, not to mention that KSM and his co-conspirators admit guilt.


If I was sold on any of those assumptions, I'd probably change my mind.

It seems to me you're arguing against your own projection of an argument instead of, you know, mine.

You've also objected to "grouping" people but have yourself grouped "conservatives" several times in this thread.

To make a direct contrast to a post that "groups" liberals and then attacks them arbitrarily. I'm well aware that not all "conservatives" share the same views as "Bush apologists", in much the same vein that not all "liberals" share the same views as "terrorist sympathizers". Which was, basically, my point.

And you've scoffed at other people's unsuported assertions citing a lack of proof. All people can do is state opinions.

If people were just stating opinions, that would be one thing. I have asked for proof where an assertion is presented as fact. I am still waiting for that proof.

And lest we forget, that assertion was that "liberals", which is a group of which I'm a member, want Khalid Sheik Muhammad set free. Which is a pretty disgusting accusation to make without proof, if you ask me.

The US wants to close this place - no question about it.

President Bush doesn't want to. Or did I miss an announcement?

Do you think they hold on to a portion of the detainees there because they get off on torture?

Please, this is beneath you.

What's the US strategy here?

I don't know, I'm not President Bush. Perhaps you could ask him.

First, I don't see how that's ironic at all

Bush applied an extra-judicial and interrogative process to farmers, students and taxi drivers that, had it been applied to certain members of bin Laden's family, may have supplied more useful information than the information derived from the farmers, students and taxi drivers.

To whit: Who's likely to know more about bin Laden's general whereabouts or general proclivities? A relative, even an estranged relative, or some random farmer?

In reality, neither probably had much info. However, one's ushered out of the country with kid gloves while another's taken to Gitmo and drowned for 5 years straight.

[flere-imsaho]

Just to clear up some misconceptions.They didn't fly away immediately. The flight left September 19, the FBI was questioning the people on it before they left and it was approved by Richard Clarke, not exactly a Bush lackey.

Which wasn't the point.

It's still a long, long, long way from letting bin Laden's family fly out of the country on 9/19 after questions from the FBI to holding someone in Gitmo for 6 years.

[molson]

That's actually a famous Michael Moore trick, state something that clearly implies something, and then deny the implication. I can't read your mind obviously, but it's not so much a stretch, for example, to assume that:

"It's taken longer to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to trial than R. Kelly. The mind just boggles"

is implying that

"You're assuming that some kind of mililtary trial of a suspected terrorist "should" happen at least as quickly as one for a US civilian in a domestic court (R Kelly/Enron)."

Why would it boggle your mind if you don't think the KSM trial should happen just as or more quicky? How is that implication unreasonable?

And I said Bush was an awful president, and I certainly never said that anyone would love to see KSM freed to spite Bush. (And I realize you're not tagging those things on me, I just want to further distance myself) I'm not even a Republican. I would just love to hear any spectulation on WHY the white house does what it does - if nobody can come up with anything, (flere: "Perhaps you could ask him (Bush)"), than I'll just assume that there's a damn good reason we've freed or prosecuted most detainees but have kept some. That's why I mentioned how criminal cases are harder to prove over time - if we're STILL taking our time, and there's no reasonable unjust explanation to the contrary, it's easier for me to assume there's a good reason for it, than simply that we're doing it for fun or whatever. Your assumption (I THINK), is that the delays are unjust and/or unnecessary (disclaimer, you didn't say exactly those words, but you're clearly against the delays).

I actually trust the military far more than I trust the civilian courts in this context. That's just based on MY ideal of military discretion v. collateral damage. Everyone's a different place on that scale.

Edit: I looked back and you did theorize that Bush simply didn't trust the civilian courts or Congress. Personally, I think that's a great reason to do what they did, and we just (apparently) disagree on that.

I really do have an open mind on this, because I know so little of about how the world works in this area (though I do have experience prosecuting domestic criminal cases).

You said something about me arguing my own projection of an argument, and that may be true, because I'm challenging my own views and don't think that I could be unquestionably "right" about anything.

Here was your solution of what Bush "should have done".

"Look, KSM and these other guys aren't like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. They're connected to a large international network of terrorists. In the interest of national security, we need two outcomes that aren't necessarily afforded by normal criminal proceedings. One, we need to have a time period, post-capture, when we can interrogate these individuals to inform current intelligence, and we need to be able to continue these interrogations as necessary. Two, we need to make sure that these individuals are not inadvertently released from a maximum secure custody during and after their criminal trials. My administration plans to work closely with leaders in Congress and representatives from the Supreme Court over the next few weeks to work out a framework that will ensure these objectives but not compromise the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded."

First of all, the Supreme Court is prohibited from working in any kind of advisory capacity and doesn't have "representatives". And if he "worked with Congress", I have no doubt that things would have been delayed even further. The result probably still would have been overturned by the Supreme Court, because the administration wasn't going to budge much. The "solution" would presumably be some kind of new hybrid civilian/military court - clearly they couldn't be tried under US law with all US rights in a federal criminal court (unless it's a true US crime, like 9/11 - and I can see why the US wouldn't be comfortable simply handing KSM's fate over to a jury), and apparently people aren't satisified with a military court. Setting up a new court system would take some serious time.

The whole thing could have been more organized - no question, the biggest (OK, maybe one of the biggest) failures of this administration is its inability to communicate effectively with the people.

[Flasch186]

...but by not critically being skeptical of those in power you instead have a King, which is why the burden of prove relies on the prosecution in this country, not the defendent (they tried that for awhile).

[WVUFAN]

Many of you have said that continuing to detain those in Gitmo without due cause causes the moral fabric of the US to fall -- the idea that despite the fact that any US prisoners, citzens or no, would not be afforded the same (see: Daniel Pearl), and I get that -- but it's not practical.

My problem with what many of you say is that the enemy knows this too -- they know that given enough time, they're going to get their "due right". They know that since the US really isn't going to perform torture in the "classic" sense, and they certainly won't kill them, they're in no true danger, not compared to what would happen to them if they spoke. It's like a game of poker -- no matter how well you bluff, eventually if you don't have the ability to have the hand to force your opponent out, you're not going to win; you'll get your bluff called eventually.

This ruling is, in my opinion, allowing terrorists to call our bluff. They know our own people, in some stupid sense of morality, will not allow us to do what is necessary to get information (including torture), but are instead ACTIVELY PROTECTING the enemy.

This isn't a morality play. This isn't "we're better than that, so we shouldn't do it". We should be doing anything and everything in our power to win and get the information needed to permanently end the threat. No other enemy country or organization will follow the Geneva Convention, whether they signed it or not. When the only people who benefit from it are the enemy, it's useless to us.

Morality be damned. This ruling is one the worst rulings in recent memory, and it's effectively cutting the hamstrings of our military and our intelligence gathering.

[miked]

Firstly, Daniel Pearl was not arrested detained by a government, he was captured by terrorists and killed. It was not sanctioned by any president, and probably wholly inappropriate for the conversation at hand. I understand you are obviously trying to invoke some sort of fear and disgust, but at least keep it to the topic at hand.

Secondly, the doesn't do a thing to our military, it doesn't put our soldiers in harms way, and don't think for a second that are considering our supreme court while fighting. The ruling simply states that the government has to show a shred of evidence when they detain these people. Otherwise, it's no better than other governments that throw people in jail for crimes they believe to be endangering their people/way of life.

[Anthony]

Many of you have said that continuing to detain those in Gitmo without due cause causes the moral fabric of the US to fall -- the idea that despite the fact that any US prisoners, citzens or no, would not be afforded the same (see: Daniel Pearl), and I get that -- but it's not practical.

My problem with what many of you say is that the enemy knows this too -- they know that given enough time, they're going to get their "due right". They know that since the US really isn't going to perform torture in the "classic" sense, and they certainly won't kill them, they're in no true danger, not compared to what would happen to them if they spoke. It's like a game of poker -- no matter how well you bluff, eventually if you don't have the ability to have the hand to force your opponent out, you're not going to win; you'll get your bluff called eventually.

This ruling is, in my opinion, allowing terrorists to call our bluff. They know our own people, in some stupid sense of morality, will not allow us to do what is necessary to get information (including torture), but are instead ACTIVELY PROTECTING the enemy.

This isn't a morality play. This isn't "we're better than that, so we shouldn't do it". We should be doing anything and everything in our power to win and get the information needed to permanently end the threat. No other enemy country or organization will follow the Geneva Convention, whether they signed it or not. When the only people who benefit from it are the enemy, it's useless to us.

Morality be damned. This ruling is one the worst rulings in recent memory, and it's effectively cutting the hamstrings of our military and our intelligence gathering.

no , but you don't understand. everyone is equal and we need to be fair to everyone. even our enemies. it's important that we have the upper hand with regards to morality and ethics, because even when future terrorists continue to threaten our safety and way of life we'll be able to hold our head up high and know that we didn't stoop to their level, regardless of how many schools they blow up or buildings they bomb. always remember, safety should always take a backseat to morality. :)

[Toddzilla]

How dare we subject people we consider criminals of the highest form to our own justice system. :rolleyes:

[Flasch186]

Morality be damned.

ahhhhhhhhhhhh, WWJD? Other than be ashamed of what you just said.

[cartman]

The mafia doesn't afford legal protections to the folks they take and kill either. We seemed to have not destroyed ourselves as a country or put ourselves in more danger by prosecuting them in the legal forum, and giving the mafia folks legal protections they didn't give the people they killed.

[Flasch186]

For the first time in the history of the board Im going to use this term:

The idea that trying these people and the shred of a possibility that one of them could be found to be wrongly imprisoned is a Strawman. It actually boils down to a Republican hate thing, IMO. It's a support for continuing on the path we've been on in spite of overwhelming evidence that we've done more harm than good thus far and in light of keeping alive the tenants of checks and balances, accused rights, and moral character and an unwillingness to be open-minded due to a fear of having to reflect on the past and admit that perhaps it couldve been done differently and better. I had a friend who was engaged to the wrong girl and he said later that breaking the engagement off was hard not because it was the right thing to do but because of having to admit that he made a prior mistake.

IT's ok to claim moral high ground when its convenient but when its not its, "Morals be damned."

[flere-imsaho]

molson - thanks for the response, I appreciate your thoughts.

[flere-imsaho]

This ruling is, in my opinion, allowing terrorists to call our bluff. They know our own people, in some stupid sense of morality, will not allow us to do what is necessary to get information (including torture), but are instead ACTIVELY PROTECTING the enemy.

I fail to see how convicting the high-value terrorists and dumping them in a SuperMax facility is a "win" for them. The only "win" KSM and his buddies have to hope for now is that we kill them so they can become martyrs.

This isn't a morality play. This isn't "we're better than that, so we shouldn't do it". We should be doing anything and everything in our power to win and get the information needed to permanently end the threat.

Morality be damned. This ruling is one the worst rulings in recent memory, and it's effectively cutting the hamstrings of our military and our intelligence gathering.

General David H. Petraeus: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001963.html)

The top U.S. commander in Iraq admonished his troops regarding the results of an Army survey that found that many U.S military personnel there are willing to tolerate some torture of suspects and unwilling to report abuse by comrades.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.

Lieutenant General John Kimmons (Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 2006): (http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3712)

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under -- through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.

Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized, humane interrogation practices, in clever ways that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. So we don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.

[Buccaneer]

ahhhhhhhhhhhh, WWJD? Other than be ashamed of what you just said.

Jesus would say to let Caesar and its human-based morality be damned. ;)

[Flasch186]

Jesus would say to let Caesar and its human-based morality be damned. ;)

It was poster specific.

Flere's retorts in this thread are spot on with citing of those in high positions of the administration or military branches that simply contradict those in the thread who say otherwise. The Patreus quote above is just the Gorilla Glue to seal that coffin shut.

[Flasch186]

appropriate that this hits the tape tonight:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainees_treatment

Military lawyers objected to harsher interrogation

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Military lawyers warned against the harsh detainee interrogation techniques approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, contending in separate memos weeks before Rumsfeld's endorsement that they could be illegal, a Senate panel has found.
ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee also has confirmed that senior administration officials, including the Pentagon's then-general counsel William "Jim" Haynes, sought information on a program involving military psychologists early on to devise the more aggressive methods — which included the use of dogs, making a detainee stand for long periods of time and forced nudity, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released. Details, including the names of the service lawyers who objected to the interrogation techniques, were to be discussed at an open committee hearing Tuesday.

Rumsfeld's December 2002 approval of the aggressive interrogation techniques and later objections by military lawyers have been widely reported. But the November protests by service lawyers had not, and the interest by Pentagon civilians in military psychologists has surfaced only piecemeal.

The lawyers' objections were sent to the Joint Staff, which would have relayed the messages to civilian leadership. There is no proof, however, that Rumsfeld or Haynes personally saw the memos.

Tuesday's hearing is the committee's first look at where the harsher methods — used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq — originated and how policy decisions on interrogations were vetted across the Defense Department.

The review fits into a broader picture of the government's handling of detainees, which includes FBI and CIA interrogations in secret prisons.

Ultimately, Democrats say the Senate investigation will prove that abusive conditions in some military prisons were not — as the administration contends — the result of a few "bad apples" but rather the consequence of senior defense civilians anxious to extract intelligence in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who will preside over Tuesday's hearing as Armed Services Committee chairman.

The panel is expected to hold further hearings on the matter and release a final report by the end of the year.

Haynes, who resigned in February after nearly seven years as the military's top civilian lawyer, is expected to testify Tuesday. He is now chief counsel to the Chevron Corp. in San Ramon, Calif. Also present will be Richard Shiffrin, Haynes' former deputy on intelligence matters, as well as legal advisers at the time to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Alberto Mora, former general counsel for the Navy, will be the only service lawyer to testify.

According to the Senate committee's findings, Haynes became interested in using harsher interrogation methods as early as July 2002 when he sent a memo inquiring about a military program that trained Army soldiers how to survive enemy interrogations and deny foes valuable intelligence.

Officials who taught the methods — known as "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape," or SERE techniques — were well schooled in the art of abusive interrogations.

Jerald Ogrisseg, a former top military psychologist, is expected to testify Tuesday that the SERE program was designed for defensive training purposes and was never intended to be reverse-engineered as a means of finding tougher ways to interrogate U.S. prisoners.

Shortly after requesting more information about the use of SERE techniques, Haynes traveled in September 2002 to Guantanamo Bay with other administration lawyers, including then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington.

A month later, in October the military commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay, Gen. Michael Dunlavey, asked his superiors at U.S. Southern Command for approval to employ harsher interrogations. His request was based in part on a legal review by Air Force Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a lawyer assigned to the task force running the Cuban prison.

Beaver also is expected to testify Tuesday.

According to officials familiar with the Senate investigation, the proposal prompted protests from the services' uniformed lawyers. Each of the service lawyers told the Joint Staff that the techniques warranted further study, and the Air Force and Army specifically warned that the methods could be illegal.

Their objections were ignored. Several weeks later, in December 2002, Rumsfeld approved more than a dozen interrogation techniques that went beyond those authorized in the Army Field Manual, which is based on Geneva Convention standards for the humane treatment of war prisoners. His approval was based on a recommendation from Haynes.

In a statement provided through his lawyer, Haynes said that dealing with the terrorist threat after Sept. 11 "presented the United States with urgent, unprecedented and complex challenges."

"One of my goals as chief legal officer of the Department of Defense was to support the department's efforts to gather critical intelligence lawfully in order to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," he said.

Rumsfeld later rescinded his own memo and issued new guidance in April 2003.

Mora was among those military lawyers who logged objections to the administration's treatment of detainees in that 2002 and 2003 timeframe, according to a February 2006 article in The New Yorker. In a July 2004 memo, shortly after images surfaced of abuses at Abu Ghraib, Mora detailed his 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he said was illegal and cruel.

and not to bring up old arguments but in this article above it discredits some people's arguments that:

It was a few bad apples acting on their own
Rumsfeld didnt know or it didnt go to the top
Military people follow the army manual only

[sterlingice]

I think this all boils down to how comfortable you are with collateral damage. Some are, some aren't.

An interesting way of putting it.

SI

[WVUFAN]

It was poster specific.

Flere's retorts in this thread are spot on with citing of those in high positions of the administration or military branches that simply contradict those in the thread who say otherwise. The Patreus quote above is just the Gorilla Glue to seal that coffin shut.

I'm not a highly religious man, so I don't know why it was poster specific. And note that while Jesus did take the higher ground, he was killed for it.

[WVUFAN]

Firstly, Daniel Pearl was not arrested detained by a government, he was captured by terrorists and killed. It was not sanctioned by any president, and probably wholly inappropriate for the conversation at hand. I understand you are obviously trying to invoke some sort of fear and disgust, but at least keep it to the topic at hand.

You missed my point entirely, or dismissed it by arguing semantics. We are not in war with a specific nation, but rather an organization. My point is that that organization isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention, will not abide by it, and when you're bound by a document intended to apply to both sides of a war, and only one side follows it, you probably shouldn't abide by it.

THEY will torture to get information if needed. We should do that same.


Secondly, the doesn't do a thing to our military, it doesn't put our soldiers in harms way, and don't think for a second that are considering our supreme court while fighting. The ruling simply states that the government has to show a shred of evidence when they detain these people. Otherwise, it's no better than other governments that throw people in jail for crimes they believe to be endangering their people/way of life.
In my opinion, it's handcuffing our government's ability to get information.

[WVUFAN]

General David H. Petraeus: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001963.html)



Lieutenant General John Kimmons (Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 2006): (http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3712)

I have a strong feeling (but no proof to match it) that those two statements were made for a political reason, and not the two individuals' true opinion. And I would ask you to note one CIA quote that says the same, since the CIA are the ones primarily doing the interrogating.

[Grammaticus]

Many of you have said that continuing to detain those in Gitmo without due cause causes the moral fabric of the US to fall -- the idea that despite the fact that any US prisoners, citzens or no, would not be afforded the same (see: Daniel Pearl), and I get that -- but it's not practical.

Morality be damned. This ruling is one the worst rulings in recent memory, and it's effectively cutting the hamstrings of our military and our intelligence gathering.

Well, it may just inspire soldiers to shoot the enemy on the battlefield rather than capturing them. Of course that does not help intelligence gathering. Prolly best to go the route of buying information and paying others to do the dirty work from a rogue perspective.

Firstly, Daniel Pearl was not arrested detained by a government, he was captured by terrorists and killed. It was not sanctioned by any president, and probably wholly inappropriate for the conversation at hand. I understand you are obviously trying to invoke some sort of fear and disgust, but at least keep it to the topic at hand.

The Pearl example seems to belong in the conversation as much as anything else. Besides we are not fighting a country with a president or any formal structure anyway. Also, if you are comparing to the US, the President doesn't sanction wars, Congress declares them. This is not a war and the US may never fight in another war. Our Congress is too weak to exercise their responsibility because they can "give" it unofficially to the President and skirt any real consequences.

[Flasch186]

I have a strong feeling (but no proof to match it) that those two statements were made for a political reason, and not the two individuals' true opinion. And I would ask you to note one CIA quote that says the same, since the CIA are the ones primarily doing the interrogating.

If this is the case then you would agree that Scott McLellan was lying strictly for political reasons while in office and since leaving now is telling the truth about the administration and it's lying rush to war. Then I would also say you would agree that the other people to leave the administration and write books and articles slamming it, Dick Clarke, Colin Powell, etc. are now telling the truth since they were lying for political reasons while in office.

Just because the CIA is doing the interrogating 10 feet away from the military guys doesnt mean the military isn't complicit ESPECIALLY considering that it was Rummy himself of the DOD who wrote the book (or the addenda) regarding the types and methods of interrogation.

I apologize for the WWJD, I assumed from other threads that you were slanted in that direction. I apologize.

[JPhillips]

THEY will torture to get information if needed. We should do that same.

This is the absolute end point of morality.

[flere-imsaho]

I have a strong feeling (but no proof to match it) that those two statements were made for a political reason, and not the two individuals' true opinion.

Was Petraeus lying about the surge as well? Who, exactly, do I have to quote that you will believe? God? :banghead:

And I would ask you to note one CIA quote that says the same, since the CIA are the ones primarily doing the interrogating.

Robert Baer, former CIA Case Officer: (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1668971,00.html)

But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.

When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.

The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.

Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.

Vincent Cannistraro, 27 veteran with the CIA, including leading clandestine units: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Cannistraro)

Detainees will say virtually anything to end their torment

Merle Pribbenow (CIA) (http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1119nj1.htm):

A similar stance was articulated last year by Merle L. Pribbenow, a 27-year veteran of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations. Writing in Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's in-house journal, Pribbenow recalled that an old college friend had recently expressed his belief that "the terrorist threat to America was so grave that any methods, including torture, should be used to obtain the information we need." The friend was vexed that Pribbenow's former colleagues "had not been able to 'crack' these prisoners."

Pribbenow sought an answer by revisiting the arcane case of Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Vietcong prisoner captured and interrogated by both South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam War. Re-examining in detail the techniques used by the South Vietnamese (protracted torture that included electric shocks; beatings; various forms of water torture; stress positions; food, water, and sleep deprivation) and by the Americans (rapport-building and no violence), Pribbenow reached a stark conclusion: "While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's admission of his true identity, it did not provide any other usable information," he wrote. In the end, he said, "it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided."

But perhaps most noteworthy was Pribbenow's conclusion: "This brings me back to my college classmate's question. The answer I gave him -- one in which I firmly believe -- is that we, as Americans, must not let our methods betray our goals," he said. "There is nothing wrong with a little psychological intimidation, verbal threats, bright lights and tight handcuffs, and not giving a prisoner a soft drink and a Big Mac every time he asks for them. There are limits, however, beyond which we cannot and should not go if we are to continue to call ourselves Americans. America is as much an ideal as a place, and physical torture of the kind used by the Vietnamese (North as well as South) has no place in it."

Frank Snepp (CIA): (http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1119nj1.htm)

From 1972 to 1975, Frank Snepp was the CIA's top interrogator in Saigon, where he choreographed elaborate, protracted sessions with Nguyen Van Tai and, at one point, seven other senior Vietcong captives. To the question of whether torture or abusive behavior by interrogators is justified, Snepp's answer is unequivocally no. And the fact that this point isn't understood at the agency today, Snepp says, is a sign of serious problems.

"One of the big lessons for the agency was that the South Vietnamese torturing people got in the way of getting information," he says. "One day, without my knowledge, the South Vietnamese forces beat one of my subjects to a pulp, and when he staggered into the interrogation room, I was furious. And I went to the station chief and he said, 'What do you want me to do about it?' I told him to tell the Vietnamese to lay off, and he said, 'What do you want me to tell them in terms of why?' I said, 'Because it's wrong, it's just wrong.' He laughed and said, 'Look, we've got 180,000 North Vietnamese troops within a half hour of here -- I can't tell them, don't beat the enemy. Give me a pragmatic reason.' I said, 'He can't talk. He's a wreck. I can't interrogate him.' He said, 'That, I can use with them.'

"The important lesson for me was that moral arguments don't work," Snepp says. "But if you have pragmatic reasons, that will work. But the most important thing is that the only time you can be sure that what you're getting from someone is valid is through discourse. In Tai's case, the idea was to develop absolute trust, which you do not do by alienating and humiliating someone. He liked poetry; I brought him books of poetry, and in many sessions we sat and discussed poetry, nothing else. The most extreme thing I did was a disorientation technique, where I would keep jumping from one subject to another so rapidly that he might not remember what he'd told me the day before, or not remember that he had not, in fact, told me what I was saying he'd told me. Little by little, I drew him into revelations. And I was highly commended for this work."

Jack Cloonan, FBI Special Agent (full article in link, description/summary below): (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/cloonan.html)

An FBI special agent from 1977 to 2002, Cloonan started working Al Qaeda cases in the mid-1990s. In this interview, he explains why he believes the FBI's method of interrogation is successful. He describes how the FBI cultivated former Al Qaeda operatives Jamal al-Fadl and Ali Mohammed as cooperative sources in the years before 9/11. Cloonan also recounts the FBI's battle with the CIA over custody of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who was one of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives captured in the first months of the war in Afghanistan. Cloonan says al-Libi was revealing information that could have been useful in the prosecutions of Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, before he was transferred to CIA custody, duct-taped, put in the back of a truck, and sent to Egypt for more aggressive interrogation. Cloonan also discusses the FBI's role at Guantanamo and why he believes little good intelligence came out of there. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on July 13, 2005.

Brigadier General David R. Irvine (Retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School): (http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/)

No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain attacks Guantanamo ruling, calling it "one of the worst decisions in the history of the country" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68bdeeb4-3987-11dd-90d7-0000779fd2ac.html)

One of the worst decisions in the history of the country? Really?

Even George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602041_pf.html)doesn't agree with McCain:

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.

Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court's decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the "complete and total" U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas right from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? Are habeas rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trials by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?

Roberts's impatience is understandable: "The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date." Ideally, however, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by courts.

McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, "quote 'First Amendment rights.' " Now he dismissively speaks of "so-called, quote 'habeas corpus suits.' " He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as "the great writ of liberty."

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims?

As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

[molson]

Stating things in such superlatives just opens one up to being proved wrong, but it's tough to compare supreme court cases from 100+ years ago, if you believe in the "living constitution" idea.

Regardless, McCain was definitely over the top there - he has a way of dropping quotes that come back to hurt him.

[flere-imsaho]

Regardless, McCain was definitely over the top there - he has a way of dropping quotes that come back to hurt him.

If nothing else this election season: McCain + YouTube = Instant Hilarity

:D

[Brian Swartz]

And for those who are Scalia fans and believe that judicial activism is some horrible thing plaguing our country, then Scalia's dissent presents a problem. This was a par of the beginning of his dissent:
America is at war with radical Islamists.... The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.Yeah, that has a lot to do with the law.

I've read a lot of this type of stuff recently, and frankly it has nothing to do with the emphasis of Scalia's dissent. It was, as is his usual bent, a powerful explanation of the judicial irresponsibility of the court's ruling. And he also, before this section, stated the following:

"I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today."

One could ignore the entirety of what he says about those consequences without damaging the legal arguments he makes. And because of this, to claim his dissent is somehow made with disregard to the law is totally absurd. And indeed, IMMEDIATELY AFTER his statement about more Americans being killed, he wrote this:

"That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today."

And then of course he goes on to expand on this in most of the balance of the dissent, using among his precedent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(2006), with four of the five justices voting with the court in this most recent case agreeing with the majority then. You can say what you want about the legal issues involved here, but it's more than a little silly to accuse Scalia of being a hypocrite or basing his opinion on the prosecution of the war on terror.

In his summary, he lists the following as his objections to the decision: it 'warps our Constitution', 'blatantly misdescribes important precedents' -- citing Johnson v. Eisentrager specifically -- , 'breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law', and also mentions the burden added to the military.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot there that has to do with the law.

[Toddzilla]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080618/spo080618.gif

[Fighter of Foo]

My point is that that organization isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention, will not abide by it, and when you're bound by a document intended to apply to both sides of a war, and only one side follows it, you probably shouldn't abide by it.

THEY will torture to get information if needed. We should do that same.


Fuck that. Torture is an act of cowards too pussy to fight a proper fight.

[Toddzilla]

Didn't John McCain, while he was being tortured as a POW, renounce the United States and make a bunch of statements he clearly didn't believe in and were outright lies? (link (http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter3.html)) So shouldn't he realize that, *obviously*, the information you get form torture isn't reliable?

[molson]

Didn't John McCain, while he was being tortured as a POW, renounce the United States and make a bunch of statements he clearly didn't believe in and were outright lies? (link (http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter3.html)) So shouldn't he realize that, *obviously*, the information you get form torture isn't reliable?

That link was a great read, but ya, McCain actually has realized that and is anti-torture.

[Flasch186]

Have no idea the legitimacy of the group behind the report but it flies in the face of the military being uninvolved in events that may have occurred as some have claimed on here and I am fairly certain that the claims in the report, coupled with the evidence we've seen with our own eyes, bears out that not all military personell follow the manual or the addenda those in charge come up with, both written and verbal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/detainees_rights_report

[Raiders Army]

I wonder how many people actually care. Not care like "I'm gonna post my opinion on an internet messageboard" but care like they would do something such as write their congressman. I'd guess that group of people is pretty damn small and nobody who's posted in this thread (pro or con) has done anything about the ruling or done anything about their rights prior to the ruling.

A lot of times y'all take intent into account in other threads. Was the intent of this "prisoner abuse" wrong? Is the intent of keeping them without trial wrong?