06/29/2006 04:11:14 PM EST

Bump Set Spike

posted by GQMarkDawg

Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Trials
Decision Marks Setback for Bush Administration
By GINA HOLLAND, AP

WASHINGTON (June 29) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.



Bush said there might still be a way to work with Congress to sanction military tribunals for detainees and the American people should know the ruling "won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Here is my take on what will happen in the near future. First I would like to say that I think that the court made the right ruling here and I am glad to see that the court will make the President work under the rule of law and show him that can be checked by other branches of our government. Here is how this ruling will play out politically in my mind. BUMP…The President says this "won't cause killers to be put out on the street." The president defending his illegal position with the same lame ass talking points that he always spews out of his lie hole he is doing this so the morons in the corrupt republican congress can SET… up the democrats in congress leading up to the election just as they have with cut and run. These Republicans nut jobs that for the past few weeks have been putting issues such as flag burning and gay marriage and this values agenda that the house plans to rollout. Now they have a perfect opportunity to call democrats week on the war on terror. They can say that democrats want to put killers back on the battle field or on the streets. The real test will be are democrats going to pander to this right wing unitary executive power grab as they did on the patriot act or will they hold fast and make sure that the USA will follow the Geneva conventions and give people dew process and let people have their day in court. SPIKE…The Republican noise machine and the white house under direction of Carl Rove will have the ball in the perfect spot for Frank Luntz to SPIKE the ball on face of the democrats harder than Ben Stiller did as Gaylord Fokker in the movie Meet The Parents. The republicans can do all the gays guns and god stuff but then a month or two leading up to the election they can SPIKE the democrats with a crazy piece of legislation that will let the president do anything he wants lets hope they stand for up for the constitution and stand shoulder with each other. This is the only way to avoid the vicious SPIKE that will be coming.
< A liberal and a conservative started talking imigration... | First Latin American Corporation in Global Compact Board >
 Display:
Bump Set Spike | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden)
Great Graphics (none / 0)
Dumb point.

Are you saying that people should not be afforded proper and lawful justice?  Are you authorizing the President to assume power, rather than have it granted to him bythe people in a constitutional way?  Oh yeah, you are.  Forgot who I was rapping with.

by TJD on 06/30/2006 12:33:11 PM EST

I love doing this, you know (none / 0)
I'm saying that Gitmo detainees are not U.S. citizens, and they have never stepped foot on U.S. soil, so therefore, they have no "constitutional rights".

Which is, of course, false, because they fell under our Rules of Law as soon as we detained them. They don't HAVE to "step on American soil" which, btw, they are actually doing by being held in Guantanamo, as that bit of leased land is considered a little piece of America - same as all of our international bases and Embassies are.

Five Supreme Court Justices ruled wrongly that terrorist saboteurs are covered under the Geneva Convention. As non-uniformed, unlawful combatant saboteurs, they are not covered by Geneva either.

Ken, Ken, Ken...your cart is 16 miles ahead of the horse. See, the way "justice" works (or...used to...) is people get "charged" with a "crime" and they go before a "judge" where this stuff known as "evidence" is presented by the "prosecutors" and the person is able to put on a "defense." Until they are convicted of a crime, they ain't terrorists, or saboteurs, and they certainly aren't defined by a trigger-happy pretend goat-roper and his Igor A.G.

You've been as wrong as Bush from day one.

"...Taliban and Al Qaeda were a different kind of enemy -- neither fell under the Third Geneva Convention's definition of an enemy force, which includes having an organized command structure, carrying arms openly, and conducting operations in accordance with the laws of war."

Which makes them, of course, civilians and covered under the RELEVENT part of Geneva. You, George, and Alberto like to focus on the IRrelevent parts, I know, and keep using them to bolster your (ha!) "case" but luckily even the whacko-Righties on SCOTUS see through that crap.


I know you go into super-Conservative mode with this stuff and want to just (at best) lock them away forever, but isn't there just a little part of you that thinks maybe we should find out if they are actually GUILTY of anything first? (Insert "Texas Justice" joke of your choosing here)

And when this current abomination goes before the Supremes, it will be struck down too, but the damage is done. Our "lawmakers" effectively set Democratic ideals and legal jurisprudence back 800 years in two days. (That's a Magna Carta reference - you know, that "basis of all our modern law" thingie)

You don't? Well, it says stuff like:


38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.
 

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
 

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.

#45 would include Attorney Generals and Presidents, I should think...


And, coincidentally, this was created during a Crusade! Talk about the circle of life, huh?

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 05:43:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn...another all nighter... (none / 0)
"Nope, it makes them saboteurs and spies"

What was sabotaged and what was spied upon?

This bill is exactly what the narrow majority prescribed.

Nope. If the Specter Amendment had made it through, I'd be tempted to agree with you, but that was struck down. Habeas was the focus of the decision and they didn't fix that. As the Senate bill is written (haven't read the House version), it retains all the stuff that the Supremes said was unconstitutional. Guess we'll just have to wait and see when it makes it's way back to them in three or four years.

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 08:16:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ohhh, NOW I get it! (none / 0)
I am comfortable allowing the military to make the decision as to who has been naughty and who has been nice.

THAT'S why you hate America!  I get it now.

Jesus, Ken.  You really say some scary shit sometimes.

by jarett on 09/29/2006 05:01:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Torture (none / 0)
Pilate would like you to add this portion to the bible so he can disavow torturing Christ to death. Remeber Christ was killed by the Romans. Since he was Jewish and not captured in Italy I guess that makes it O.K.

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 06:59:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Aggressive Interrogation (none / 0)

by DeCee on 09/29/2006 06:19:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX (none / 0)
Yo I don't care if you agree with the ruling or not KenTX that's not what the post is about its about what the Republicans in congress will do in its wake. What do you think will happen?

by GQMarkDawg on 06/30/2006 04:42:14 PM EST

Impressive! (none / 0)
"We have a defeatist Democrat Party that wants to retreat and surrender the field of battle to al Qaeda.  We have a treasonous New York Times that wants to publicly disclose all military and intelligence gathering secrets during time of war. We now have a group of five Supreme Court justices who want to tie the hands of the Executive in the middle of the war."

Good golly, Ken, you get an extra-special Gold Star for reciting your Republican bullshit talking points so well in this thread. You would have gotten a Platinum Star if you had just found some way to wriggle in a Michael Moore reference, and you realize that the Judges took away points from your score for not blaming Bill Clinton. Still. this will go a long way toward filling in the requirements for the "Moronic Statements" badge. At this rate, you'll become an 'Eagle Shout' in no time at all.

What war, Ken? Who are we at war with? Which country has the Congress declared upon?

My "Pre 9/11" mindset tells me that these are the same criminals they were on Sep 10, 2001. Criminals who should be picked up, charged with their crimes, sent through a legal system, and convicted if guilty.

This decision was a baby step along the path of "Sorry, George, you can't make up your own rules. There are already guidelines in place, and it's too fucking bad if you don't like them. Either play it ethically or go home." The shameful part is that it has taken this long to even take these minute measures back to the path of the REAL America, instead of George Bush and the Neo-Con's vision of Empire.

You and Alberto Gonzalez and anyone who thinks like you are dead wrong in saying that NO LAWS apply to these people. Pick one set - doesn't matter which one - but stop this "in limbo" nonsense. It strikes at the very heart of America and eats at the soul of our country.

Oh, yeah....Nyah nyah, nyah nyah!

by MedfordTim on 07/03/2006 12:58:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Geez, how did I miss this? (none / 0)
"Congress signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This is a congressional declaration of war."

What nonsense. A DECLARATION OF WAR is a declaration of war. Nothing else.

SCOTUS just said that al Qaeda detainees are POWs, and should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Close - it said that detainees should be afforded all the rights of a POW, whether or not they actually are, because we have detained them and we are a signatory to Geneva.

Bush says he is a wartime president.

He also said he would rid the White House of any known leakers...and yet, Karl baby is still there. Ken! Shhh! Don't tell anyone! Bush? He's a LIAR.


I know you'll get a kick out of this part of Hamden:

"Contrary to the Government’s assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognized that Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution and the common law of war, the President already had to convene military commissions—with the express condition that he and those under his command comply with the law of war."

Remember it the next time you're tempted to bring up Quirin again, okay?

More fun reading from the Hamdi and Hamdan decisions (It's a terrific read - you should try it sometime so when you tell people what's in it, you'll actually KNOW if it is or not.) The closest they ever come to actually saying we are at war is in their acknowledgement of AUMF still being in effect because of "ongoing military conflict" against the Taliban. They haven't even really addressed the notion of a never-ending conflict with al Qaeda yet (if they ever will).

(“[C]aptivity in war is ‘neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war’” (quoting decision of Nuremberg Military Tribunal, re-printed in 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172, 229 (1947)); Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) (“The time has long passed when ‘no quarter’ was the rule on the battlefield . . . . It is now recognized that ‘Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of vengeance,’ but ‘merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal character.’ . . . ‘A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a simple war measure.’”

(prisoners of war “can be detained during an armed conflict, but the detaining country must release and repatriate them ‘without delay after the cessation of active hostilities,’ unless they are being lawfully prosecuted or have been lawfully convicted of crimes and are serving sentences”

that Hamdan is entitled to the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention until adjudged, in compliance with that treaty, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified as a prisoner of war, the military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.



by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 07:23:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Before you get too far out there... (none / 0)
...you might want to talk your local Congressman into DECLARING A F**KING WAR so that all of your arguments will have a slight basis in reality.

It ain't legal until it's legal.

All we're doing now is running the biggest Government sponsored kidnapping ring on the planet.

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 05:51:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Treason (none / 0)
Ken, when the ADMINISTATION was leaking classified info to Judith Miller et al in the run up to the war, no one was complaining about leaks. Now some info (truth) comes out and now it is treason because it shows that Bush is a liar.
Anyone disagreeing with Bush is weak huh? Why is Iran a problem? Think Iran might be a little more compliant if our troops weren't tied down in Iraq?
The military tried to warn Bush, Rumsfeld and Company but they did it their way.
Loyalty to PARTY over loyalty to Country is not patriotism it is thre true face of treason.

Bush should have stayed in Afganastan and gotten the job done, plain and simple it is not a liberal or conservative issue it is a military one. Since you are so good finding quotes, check out what Bush I's reason for not going all the way into Iraq during the Gulf War.

Everybody knew we would win the war and lose the occupation, over a decade earlier.

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 08:10:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Makes you proud to be an American eh Ken (none / 0)

by DeCee on 09/29/2006 06:07:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe...But off the point. (none / 0)
The Supremes just ruled that military tribunals are not legal.  That means that their trials must take place in American Courts, The Hague, or the World Court.  Cases can only be tried in the hague as war criminals and that is not likely, so all other cases of international conflict would be held in the World Court.  That would not be good for Georgie Boy Wonder who may be found guilty of all sorts of shit once the US enters the WC in any form of complaint, and then referred to the Hague for guess what??? War Crimes.  He can't afford that risk.  Now back to American Courts...
Remember the right to a speedy trial...automatic constitutional violation #1.
Remember the freedom from unfair search and seizure...constitutional violation #2.
This list goes on for quite a while, but you get my point.

What the Bush Administration is going to do is drag their feet "trying" to find ways to keep those prisoners in jail, without relaeasing them, and still not taking their cases to the American courts.  Then the Dems are going to take back Congress in November, and hopefully the Senate, and they are going to have to write legislation to force the Bush Admin. to comply with the Supreme Courts decision.  Then the Repugs will have ammo for the next round of elections in 2008, when they will still be trying to mitigate or minimize their losses.  For instance they will say something like 'The Democrats let all our Talibanis go, We caught them and they just let them go without making sure the terrorists saw the inside of a courtroom.'  Seems likely that the Repubs know they are not likely to win much of anything this election season, so they are setting up the Democrats with a few horrendous problems to deal with, problems only a Republican 'Architect' would dream up.

by Love in 2024 on 06/30/2006 04:42:20 PM EST

Ken (none / 0)
Clinton caught terrorists and put them to justice, using the legal system.

Imagine capturing terrorists using the very constitutional law the terrorists wish to overthrow.

With each freedom you take away, Osama wins.

But that is your goal isn't it, that's why those internment camps are being built.

Soon all those who disagree with Bush will be labeled as terrorist sympathizers and locked away.

So cheer up soon you won't have anyone to debate with. You will long for the days when this was a free country.

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 08:20:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hindsight (none / 0)
Clinton caught terrorists and put them to justice, using the legal system.

That worked out so well.

by Twba on 09/29/2006 09:46:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
TubeYou (none / 0)
How long before you find a way for the "Star Wars Kid" videos to back you up?

Do you prefer the 9/11 Commission?

by Twba on 09/29/2006 01:08:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
worked so well (none / 0)
It was until BUSH decided to ingnore the warnings.
Rice responded so forcefully to Clintons' plans that she forgot he gave them to her.

Intel report (Osama determined to attack in U.S.)

Bush response (OK you've covered your ass)

Real patriotic Republicans should have ran these guys out on a rail.

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 06:27:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Look how right I was...on June 29 (none / 0)
Read my post Bump set Spike that I posted on June 29th

by GQMarkDawg on 09/29/2006 04:45:37 AM EST

upset (none / 0)
I Hate being right it sucks I am so upset about this I work nights so I watched the entire debate on the senate floor. Did you see the lame debates that that the rethuglicans put up aginst the Dems amendments? This changes everything. If the dems don't take controll of congress I am selling my business and moving to BC Canada. I put all I had in to this election and I will to the end. I registered pver 75 people to vote when I could have been having fun this summer I have stuffed letters for the Washington state dems and I have gone door to door this weekend I will do it again. If we loose I am not going to stay around.

by GQMarkDawg on 09/29/2006 05:16:02 AM EST

at first (none / 0)
I thought this was a post ment towards myself!

by SPIKEdaEASTONpaGONZO on 09/29/2006 10:48:40 AM EST

Dems are so lame (none / 0)
The Dems that voted for this bills should be ran out of the party on a rail. Did you all see how punk ass Lieberman voted. He is such a punk ass bitch. I heard Cenk say that he heard Harry Reid  tried really hard to get the votes to block this crap bill. Cenk said he tried really hard for Harry Reid. Not good enough he should have told them that if they don't vote they will be cut off completely and that will fund primary challengers. Senator Reid should be canned a minority leader he sucks.

by GQMarkDawg on 09/29/2006 12:25:49 PM EST

He should be dismissed (none / 0)
thank god that out of touch right wing zealot is but one voice on the court huh? Dont you have to go listen to Micheal Savage now? So that you can parrot exactly what he says here on this message board?

by LoneStarLiberal on 09/29/2006 05:06:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what a bunch of fools! (none / 0)
Being a good christian soldier I'm sure you would prefer that these terrorist be crucified on capital until they confessed their crimes or death whichever came first.

And any innocents crucified by mistake will be comforted to know that God will reserve a place in heaven for them right by behind, Bush, Cheney, Falwell et al.

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 06:32:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All stirred up again (none / 0)
Dear reader,

Ken's heart is in the right place - physiologically. I think we have to blame exhaustion for his brain short-circuiting on such a regular basis.

That's why he has trouble distinguishing between an American citizen "captured" in Afghanistan and brought back to be held in South Carolina demanding his Constitutional right to confront his accusers and evidence and non-citizens who were rounded up and taken to Guantanimo in a misbegotten effort by the Bush Administration to make them non-people.

Nor does he differentiate between Taliban fighters - obviously covered by Geneva because they were part of the current government when captured and members of the stateless group, al Qaeda.

Luckily, some of the Supremes are brighter than Ken (they are the ones who are in favor of supporting the Law).

Because a detainee who is taken prisoner on a battlefield in Afghanistan does not have a constitutional right to a hearing and a jury trial in front of an American court?

No, Ken - because this gives Bush the power to pick up your son at college, throw him in jail as a "suspected terrorist supporter," convict him in secret proceedings, and throw him in jail for the rest of his life without the possibility of putting on a defense.

Did Japanese or German or Vietnamese of North Korean POWs have the right to Habeas Corpus?

YES, Ken. If they were American Citizens.

After WW2, when the war crimes trials started, even the Nastiest of the Nazis were subject to them.

Nuremberg:

ARTICLE 16

In order to ensure fair trial for the defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

 (a) 'Me Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the defendants.  A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the defendant at a reasonable time before the Trial.
 
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a defendant he shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.
 
(c)  A preliminary examination of a defendant and his trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the defendant understands.

(d)  A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of counsel. 

 (e) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution....

We're Americans. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in our Constitution. We believe in fair treatment. We believe in equal justice under the law. And we believe prisoners should be treated the same way we treated prisoners in other conflicts. And what does the law say about it?

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain PROHIBETED at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


See, Bush tried to create a kangaroo court. That's why the SCOTUS told him it was illegal. Because it WAS.

Boy, Nuremberg sure brought back memories...do you remember what the indictments were against thos war criminals?

Indictments
Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.
Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”
Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlawed weapons.
Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.


Bush and Co have fulfilled the requirements of the first three, and I'm betting before this is over, he will have #4 bagged as well.

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 08:35:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No...you win, we ALL lose... (none / 0)
I don't understand why you are having such a difficult time keeping these cases separate - is it because you listen to Right Wing radio, where they stir it all together on purpose to make sure that people don't really understand what's going on? Sure has worked well on you.

(Yeah, I been drinkin'! So friggin' WHAT??????)

The only case where Habeas has been an issue is Hamdi - who is an American citizen.

If you want to get technical, as soon as the CIA gets their hands on someone, they fall under American law and jurisprudence. Can't have it both ways. Sorry.

The only people having problems telling the difference between citizens and non-citizens are liberals.

So you finally have come out of the closet and admit you're a Leeberal, huh? Because I KNOW you can't tell the difference, or you wouldn't be posting the inane side issues that you are.

Nazis were never tried in American courts, but some received military tribunals.

Exactly what I've been trying to get through that thick hide of Conservatism of yours. They were ALL tried by military tribunals - set up legally and following the rules which were in my last post. And your boy Bush is trying to circumvent that process, while trashing the Constitution as a side dish.

Not only did a lot of German POWs (They weren't all Nazis, you know...) stay here, the U.S. actively recruited their top scientists and gave them sanctuary here to prevent them from hooking up with the Soviets. Look at the early NASA rolls - they're all over the place.

You somehow seem to equate the al Qaeda camp cook with Osama himself - and that is as stupid erroneous as comparing a German Private with Hitler. Or, in the case of some of the detainees, a Dutch Cab driver with Hitler.

That’s what is going on here. The military apprehends large groups of terrorists. Occasionally, innocent people are caught up in the sweeps. The military determines who has important information on terrorist activity, and who is dangerous, and who is harmless. The military routinely releases harmless detainees, by the thousands.

Bullshit. Too many cases of innocents being held incommunicado for years, and the U.S. has NEVER released any Gitmos by the "thousands".

"Large groups of terrorists"....Sorry, but that is just plain stupid. No other word for it. Doesn't even live in the same neighborhood as a factual statement. It comes from your insane notion that all Muslims are terrorists. Here's an easy way to tell the difference - the "terrorist" is the one whose body parts are spread around the room via Trans-Bomb Airways. That's about the only benefit to suicide bombers...not a lot left to worry about detaining.

Well, you witnessed the Presidential signing of the Congressional law this week

And I shall witness it being struck down because it is unconstitutional...but not until AFTER the election, which is all that matters to the stupid bastards who voted for it.

But it will never remove the stain these "representatives" of America have soiled our country with.

I lose, you lose. You just don't have the wherewithall to understand that.

by MedfordTim on 09/30/2006 02:14:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Read it again. (none / 0)
the U.S. has NEVER released any Gitmos by the "thousands".

I said that thousands of detainees have been questioned and released, and this is a fact.
 
No, not exactly what you said...

"The military routinely releases harmless detainees, by the thousands."


And since the subject at hand was Gitmo, what else could one conclude than you were referring to Gitmo detainees?


On the subject of GITMO DETAINEES, the statistics are well documented.

Okay, you have accomplished your objective. My head is officially spinning at 4500 RPMs. You use the story at the end of that link to support your position? When it clearly states that 214 people - not "thousands" - have been released since Gitmo opened? When it states openly that our...our...hmmm....I'm having trouble coming up with a name for these proceedings...Obviously not "court" or anything to do with "justice" when it's reported that the person acting as "judge" says he doesn't want to hear any more about the law.

The article gives numerous examples of illegal actions by the U.S., lays bare the fact that the Bush Administration became a law unto itself and proceeded to throw out any rule of law which inconvenienced them.

And it's a FOX story detailing these illegalities? But you point to this as evidence that things have been done correctly and in a timely manner?

Orwell smiles and says "I told you so."

And the other link?


 "Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy in the Defense Department who now teaches at Ohio State University, estimated that as many as 25 former detainees have taken up arms again. "You can't trust them when they say they're not terrorists," he said."

25? Or more likely even fewer? "At least 10..." the story begins.

So are you asserting that it's perfectly all right to destroy part of what makes America AMERICA because somewhere between 10 and 25 people have either rejoined or started fighting when they were released?

Man...you must have gotten one HELL of a tax break to go along with all this other crap.

by MedfordTim on 09/30/2006 12:31:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Too easy (none / 0)
Man...you must have gotten one HELL of a tax break to go along with all this other crap.

The average tax rate for all taxpayers was 15.3% in 2000 and 12.1% in 2004, representing a 21% tax cut. The tax rate of the richest 1% fell from 27.5% to 23.5%, a 15% tax cut. For the bottom 50%, the tax rate fell from 4.6% to 3%, a 35% tax cut. Consequently, the richest 1% paid a larger share of the tax burden in 2004 than it did four years earlier, and the bottom 50% paid a smaller share. Bums who didn't work continued to get a free ride.

by Twba on 09/30/2006 01:14:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right back atcha... (none / 0)
"Therefore, AT GITMO, the government is holding some 550 terrorism suspects, while they have released 214. By anyone’s math, even a liberal’s math, that’s a pretty high turnover rate."

So, you AGREE that the correct number is 214, not "thousands." Good for you. Oh, and what you call a "high turnover rate," I call "a clear indication that they were imprisoning the wrong people at least half the time." Unless, of course, you think the Bushies would knowingly return REAL bad guys willy nilly.

Ken: Now what about my assertion that the military has released thousands of detainees?


"And since the subject at hand was Gitmo, what else could one conclude than you were referring to Gitmo detainees?"

You forgot to spin this one away while you were dredging up Iraq figures to support a statement about Gitmo detainees captured in Afghanistan.


And...well...I wasn't going to say anything (I know how touchy you are about these things) but since you posted the whole paragraph again, may I point out to you that if  "The military routinely releases harmless detainees, by the thousands,” then your claim that "The military apprehends large groups of terrorists" is in fact, untrue, wrong, misbegotten, false, and worthy of inclusion on Fox. By your statement, what "The military apprehends large groups of" are "harmless detainees," not "terrorists."

Oh! And, one of the paragraphs you didn't bother to add from this ABC source(...as in Australian Broadcasting Company, not the American Broadcasting Company which most visitors here would relate with those initials...was that a planned obfuscation, or did you not realize you were at an Oz news site?) reads:

"Probes are still ongoing into the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and also at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, home to the main prison facility for suspected Islamic radicals captured in Afghanistan."

At least they know the difference.

(By now, I would hope everyone following this thread realizes that the references and figures both Ken and I are using are very outdated. I think we telepathically agreed to use these as base figures instead of trying to get up to date numbers. We know, and we know you know.)

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 12:00:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you are morphing... (none / 0)
...into Acrosa.

State one thing, then when it's refuted, start piling on extras.

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 06:59:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you (none / 0)
Ken, thank you for very sucessfully proving the point i've been trying to make for quite a while....That we are being very sucessful at creating new terrorists! 

by alphasigmookie on 09/30/2006 02:40:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The law (none / 0)
Who wrote the law?

Remember CRIST was crucified "tortured to death" by rule of law. Basically written by Facsist like you, who didn't get enough of that kind of stuff in the bible

by LORD FOUL on 09/30/2006 06:35:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cowards...Hiding behind the "Law" (none / 0)

Supporters like the intellectually dishonest KenTX and all the other Neocons exude the false bravado that can be only had with distance from the battle field

 
The simple truth is that Bush needs this law...and all the other “laws” that hide his methods. They would never stand up to the light of day.


There goal is total independence at Gitmo — that is, no federal court interference with their “wartime” operations. Torture. Its the Christian thing to do.

“Well, you witnessed the Presidential signing of the Congressional law( other kinds of laws  presumable are signed in secret )  this week. The law agrees with me and disagrees with you.”

 
I win. You lose.”

The puerile ravings of a sad , sad man crying for attention.

 
Other “winner” laws … that KenTx and his reactionary klansmen would support

 Nuremburg Laws

Racial Integrity Act of 1924

Pig Law

Jim Crow et al

 Other Gitmo Fun Facts

 “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday his recent trip to the Guantanamo Bay detainee camp showed excellent prison conditions, including "24/7 medical care - better than many Americans" get.   I guess they need the health care after the interrogation sessions…says something about Republican priorites…

 ·  "Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

·  Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

·  The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% — are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

·  Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody."

“These captives were taken as a result of notices like (excerpt from an actual US notice) Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.”

"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life." [BBC quoting the report] M ore than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan in exchange for big financial bounties". [BBC: No Surprises in the War on Terror]”

“The report comes on heels of news reports that five men from China's northern province had been mistakenly detained in Guantanamo for more than four years. US military has found that the men, members of the besieged Uighur ethnic group, are not enemy combatants." [Christian Science Monitor] “

Pray for America….

by DeCee on 09/30/2006 11:19:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks George... (none / 0)

by DeCee on 09/29/2006 05:57:24 PM EST

impeach Bush (none / 0)
The same people who want to end terrorist interrogations and surrender in Iraq and the war on terrorism are the same people who want to impeach Bush. There is no trick here.
 http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/acroso/woncopy.jpg

by acroso on 09/30/2006 02:06:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Impeach Bush (none / 0)
Once again you have an aversion to the truth.

Bush should be impeached for violating the Constitution.

No Democrat ever said we shouldn't interrogate Terrorists

No Democrat ever said we should surrender in Iraq

No Democrat ever said we shouldn't wiretap our enemies

Those are words spoken by Republicans scared because they screwed up the entire war on terror

How out of touch with reality are you?

How many intelligence estimates, how many generals, I guess they are all a part of some democratic conspiracy to make King George look bad.

If your loyalty was to OUR COUNTRY instead of YOUR PARTY you would demand oversight from the rest of your party, impeach Bush and put an adult in charge.


by LORD FOUL on 09/30/2006 04:28:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A prouder day.... (none / 0)

by DeCee on 09/29/2006 06:24:27 PM EST

Bump Set Spike | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: