Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[Larry]

Becuase they should be tried by a military tribunal which Bush has been trying to do and hasn't been able to. he has been told that is unconstitutional.

Uh, as long as we're in the land of simple declarative insults without support . . .

You've obviously been living in an alternate universe for quite some time. in fact, while I'll recognize that your partisan credentials are challenged by few on this board, I'm rather stunned that even you could type this with a straight face.

Suffice it to say that the only reason tribunals are (slowly) approaching is because Bush lost a Supreme Court decision in which he announced his authority to hold people forever with no proceedings whatsoever. When the court ordered him to hold some form of due process, Bush consented and announced that he would permit Congress to pass some rules, if he agreed with them.

Congress did so.

Huh, what. I kinda lost my place. Your one of those evil, bush administration conspiricy types, huh?? We don't agree. nuff said!

Now, me, I'd leave off the insults and attacks. But I would have a sneaking suspicion that these events he's describing are some heavily-spun versions of events which I suspect would likely turn out to be somewhat different if more information were provided. Like, a link to some stories.

(Yes, that's a hint to please back up your rather hard to believe claims.)

[Larry]

Rif???????

Reading Is Fundamental

(I'm assuming that was a question to me.)

[ACW]

Reading Is Fundamental

(I'm assuming that was a question to me.)

:yes: Thanks. I prefer RTF[whatever]: Read the ****ing [article, etc].

[81artmonk]

Uh, as long as we're in the land of simple declarative insults without support . . .

You've obviously been living in an alternate universe for quite some time. in fact, while I'll recognize that your partisan credentials are challenged by few on this board, I'm rather stunned that even you could type this with a straight face.

Suffice it to say that the only reason tribunals are (slowly) approaching is because Bush lost a Supreme Court decision in which he announced his authority to hold people forever with no proceedings whatsoever. When the court ordered him to hold some form of due process, Bush consented and announced that he would permit Congress to pass some rules, if he agreed with them.

Congress did so.

Now, me, I'd leave off the insults and attacks. But I would have a sneaking suspicion that these events he's describing are some heavily-spun versions of events which I suspect would likely turn out to be somewhat different if more information were provided. Like, a link to some stories.

(Yes, that's a hint to please back up your rather hard to believe claims.)

Whoa, you consider, what I said to be an insult and an attack. Boy you are the sensitive type. I've had worse thrown at me than that and been called a wussy boy for it. I've never made hard to believe claims with regard to this thread. Would you care to point them out, outside of the bush tribunals??

[Larry]

Whoa, you consider, what I said to be an insult and an attack. Boy you are the sensitive type. I've had worse thrown at me than that and been called a wussy boy for it.

You trying to claim that "Your one of those evil, bush administration conspiricy types, huh??" wasn't intended to be insulting?

(And I'll point out that I agreed with you. I simply said that I wouldn't have said it.)

I've never made hard to believe claims with regard to this thread. Would you care to point them out, outside of the bush tribunals??

Does claiming that "Your one of those evil, bush administration conspiricy types, huh??" isn't an insult, count as "hard to believe"?

(My statement that you've made a hard to believe claim, specifically references the hard to believe claim you made. Your response was "Oh, yeah? Well, try to find another one!"? I didn't say you'd made another one. I said that that one was. And it is.)

Edit: Now I see what you're talking about.

Sorry. Sloppy grammar.

My statement "(Yes, that's a hint to please back up your rather hard to believe claims.)"

Was intended to say "(Yes, JMS, that's a hint to please back up your rather hard to believe claims.)

I agree with you that his stories of people being framed are really tough to believe.

(Although, the statement does apply to your claim that Bush has really been trying to give his prisoners fair due process, but the other two branches of government have been blocking him for years, too.)

[81artmonk]

You trying to claim that "Your one of those evil, bush administration conspiricy types, huh??" wasn't intended to be insulting?

(And I'll point out that I agreed with you. I simply said that I wouldn't have said it.)

Does claiming that "Your one of those evil, bush administration conspiricy types, huh??" isn't an insult, count as "hard to believe"?

(My statement that you've made a hard to believe claim, specifically references the hard to believe claim you made. Your response was "Oh, yeah? Well, try to find another one!"? I didn't say you'd made another one. I said that that one was. And it is.)

Edit: Now I see what you're talking about.

Sorry. Sloppy grammar.

My statement "(Yes, that's a hint to please back up your rather hard to believe claims.)"

Was intended to say "(Yes, JMS, that's a hint to please back up your rather hard to believe claims.)

I agree with you that his stories of people being framed are really tough to believe.

(Although, the statement does apply to your claim that Bush has really been trying to give his prisoners fair due process, but the other two branches of government have been blocking him for years, too.)

Oh. My opinion............. just like his opinion is, that the bush admin is evil.

I believe he did ask for a tribunal. how or why is just opinion.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

A few quick and dirty points:

According to the Constitution, we are not at war. So, the argument that "in a time of war" has no constitutional basis. We haven't declared a war since 1941.

It should also be pointed out that we are rapidly approaching the conclusion of Year 7 on "The War on Terror." This is longer than our involved in WWI, WWII, and Korea combined (I think...I may be off by a few months...just making a point). There is no day in site where we can declare victory. It's likely that we will still be figthing the "War on Terror" 20 years from now. Do we suspend parts of the Constitution for 27 years?

[Sarge]

A few quick and dirty points:

According to the Constitution' date=' we are not at war. So, the argument that "in a time of war" has no constitutional basis. We haven't declared a war since 1941.

It should also be pointed out that we are rapidly approaching the conclusion of Year 7 on "The War on Terror." This is longer than our involved in WWI, WWII, and Korea combined (I think...I may be off by a few months...just making a point). There is no day in site where we can declare victory. It's likely that we will still be figthing the "War on Terror" 20 years from now. Do we suspend parts of the Constitution for 27 years?[/quote']

Who said it was suspended? Name one person that is not a terrorist nor has broken the law that has had their rights suspended

[Larry]

A few quick and dirty points:

According to the Constitution' date=' we are not at war. So, the argument that "in a time of war" has no constitutional basis. We haven't declared a war since 1941.[/quote']

I disagree with your opinion.

There hasn't been a declared war (using that word) anywhere in the world since the UN was formed. That's because one requirement of UN membership is for the country to renounce war.

Therefore, everybody in the world still fights wars, they just don't call them that.

Yeah, IMO, having Congress declare "AUMF" isn't really Constitutional. But it's a bit of doubletalk I can live with. When Congress voted, they were voting on a War. They just changed the word at the top of the form they filled out.

IMO, "it's not officially a war" has about as much traction as complaining about 'the Florida election". Get over it.

It should also be pointed out that we are rapidly approaching the conclusion of Year 7 on "The War on Terror." This is longer than our involved in WWI, WWII, and Korea combined (I think...I may be off by a few months...just making a point). There is no day in site where we can declare victory. It's likely that we will still be figthing the "War on Terror" 20 years from now. Do we suspend parts of the Constitution for 27 years?

Agreed. "The War on Terror" has the same odds of ending as the Wars on Poverty and Drugs do.

[Larry]

Who said it was suspended? Name one person that is not a terrorist nor has broken the law that has had their rights suspended

Ah, still sticking to the "Keep claiming that the Constitution has invisible disclaimers and escape clauses built into it, and pretending that nobody's ever asked you to find them. Every time somebody points out this fact, pretend like you don't understand, then quote part of a sentence (and pretend that the rest of the sentence doesn't exist). Then hide for a few days, then come back and pretend like your wishes are facts again." strategy.

A classic.

[Sarge]

Ah, still sticking to the "Keep claiming that the Constitution has invisible disclaimers and escape clauses built into it, and pretending that nobody's ever asked you to find them. Every time somebody points out this fact, pretend like you don't understand, then quote part of a sentence (and pretend that the rest of the sentence doesn't exist). Then hide for a few days, then come back and pretend like your wishes are facts again." strategy.

A classic.

DOn't have to hide anything. Says it all in the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Do we really have to diagram it?

"We". Possesive pronoun

".............for the United States of AMerica"

Not for England or Yemen or any other country or their citizens.

ANd sorry I have a life

[Tulane Skins Fan]

DOn't have to hide anything. Says it all in the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Do we really have to diagram it?

"We". Possesive pronoun

".............for the United States of AMerica"

Not for England or Yemen or any other country or their citizens.

ANd sorry I have a life

Sarge, like I've pointed out several times, it is simply untrue that the U.S. has never conferred rights in the Constitution to people who are not US citizens.

And once again, this is NOT a question of whether or not the prisoners have habeas corpus rights in Guantanamo. The U.S. government did not even CONTEND that this was a question of habeas corpus. The government contended that Gitmo was a place where no U.S. Court had jurisdiction, but the U.S. president had sole authority. Hence, the separation of powers problem.

In fact, the Supreme Court urged that Congress could suspend habeas corpus for these criminals, so long as they did as the Constitution allows.

[Larry]

DOn't have to hide anything. Says it all in the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Do we really have to diagram it?

"We". Possesive pronoun

".............for the United States of AMerica"

Ah, he's as good at diagramming sentences as he is at civics.

Are you smarter than . . . ?

I know this is gonna be tough, but I'll try to explain it.

The phrase "for the United States of America", up there? It modifies the words "this Constitution". (That's why you had to deliberately highlight half of the phrase. Still it's better than you last attempt, of just ignoring the entire phrase. Maybe soon, we'll get you to actually admit that there are more than a dozen words in there.)

See, the title of the document is "The Constitution of the United States".

-----

I guess the quickest way of responding, though, is to go back a whole page, to the last person who tried to claim that the words "We the People" somehow mean that 2/3 of the document are written in disappearing ink.

Sorry for chiming in late to this thread, but the fundamental issue is that we are at war.

Ah the "the Constitution doesn't apply when we're at war" excuse.

Again. Either the Constitution applies (in which case there are things which the government cannot do), or it doesn't (in which case, the government has no powers whatsoever. In fact, without the Constitution, the government does not exist.)

There is no redacted Constitution. No "In case of [insert excuse], the following parts don't count (but these other parts do)."

In wartime, those we capture, especially abroad, have never had constitutional rights.

There is no such thing as constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Constitution creates a government, and specifies the things which the government can and cannot do.

You only have to read three words into the constitution to realize that -- "We the people . . . ."

". . . do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution".

Not "do hereby grant the following rights to ourselves (but not to anybody else."

The Constitution wasn't written for the purpose of giving white male landowners (remember, when it was written neither women, blacks, nor Indians were "people") Freedom of Speech. They already had Freedom of Speech. The Constitution (the word is another way of saying "the making") was written for the purpose of creating a government that didn't have the power to take away Freedom of Speech.

The Constitution is written in black and white. It isn't written with parts in red ink, parts in blue, parts in green. There is no note at the bottom that says "Non citizens, please hold a red piece of cellophane in front of your face, and see which parts disappear."

or, on the same page, from the last time you tried that lame imitation of reasoning:

Again, RIF.

"We the People of the United States, . . . , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not "do hereby grant these rights (but only to ourselves)"

"We the People, hereby form a government".

That's the stated purpose of the Constitution. Form a government. Not grant rights. (The People already had those Rights.)

If the Constitution disappeared tomorrow, the People would have Freedom of Religion. They just wouldn't have a (federal) Government.

Getting rid of the Constitution doesn't get rid of the right to keep and bear arms. It gets rid of Congress. (Hey, I like the sound of that. )

The Constitution didn't create Habeas Corpus. It created a President. And it specified that that President cannot ignore Habeas Corpus. (But that Congress can, in emergency, suspend it.)

The word Constitution comes from "to make, or to create".

What you and the rest of the "The Constitution doesn't apply to [insert excuse]" crowd are really trying to achieve is "The parts of the Constitution that limit government power don't count if [insert excuse]"

You're trying to claim that "In case of [insert excuse], the 'probable cause' part doesn't exist, but the 'Commander in Chief' part still does."

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Who said it was suspended? Name one person that is not a terrorist nor has broken the law that has had their rights suspended

This is such a dangerous idea.

First of all, I don't know what the people in Gitmo are or what they have done since they haven't been tried or even indicted.

Secondly, can you say this about any common criminal? Name one person beaten by the police who wasn't a criminal?

I probably can't. I learned in my first day of Criminal Law that if you are going to be a defense attorney, you had better be comfortable with dealing with criminals. Because there aren't a lot of Perry Mason defendents out there. I learned during my first summer as a law clerk that I did not like having conversations with criminals (and that is all we dealt with) so I did not go that direction.

I would estimate that 96 percent of the people indicted for crimes actually committed the crimes and probably 4 worse ones that no one knows about. Should we just stop giving them a right to trial?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I

There hasn't been a declared war (using that word) anywhere in the world since the UN was formed. That's because one requirement of UN membership is for the country to renounce war.

Therefore, everybody in the world still fights wars, they just don't call them that.

Yeah, IMO, having Congress declare "AUMF" isn't really Constitutional. But it's a bit of doubletalk I can live with. When Congress voted, they were voting on a War. They just changed the word at the top of the form they filled out.

You are probably correct. But if I was making an argument, I would want to get this on the record.

And while congressional authorizations may be similar to the act of declaring war, they tend to be open-ended, which I think is the real problem here.

But the real issue is one of jurisdiction.

[Larry]

I learned in my first day of Criminal Law that if you are going to be a defense attorney' date=' you had better be comfortable with dealing with criminals. Because there aren't a lot of Perry Mason defendents out there. [/quote']

Remember hearing an interview with F Lee Baily during the OJ trial. He said that he always admired Perry Mason.

• Every one of his clients was innocent.
  
• He won every single case.
  
• He won every case with an acquittal. He didn't "win" by plea bargaining down to a lower charge.
  
• And he didn't get his clients off using technicalities. He didn't get the murder weapon with the client's fingerprints on it thrown out because the search warrant had a typo in the address. He never attempted to suppress evidence.
  
• He got every single client off by figuring out who the real murderer was, putting them on the stand, and getting them to confess on the stand.
  

(I've always wondered where we get this image of the rich defense attorney. How many criminal defendants do you figure have a lot of money?)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

To all outraged at the opinion... here is an article by that pinko George Will which sums up basically what those of us who have read and/or researched the opinion have been saying:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/was_it_really_the_worst_decisi.html

WASHINGTON -- 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?

* * *

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 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.

[Larry]

Liberal. Commie. Terrorist.

[ACW]

Will can be a bit pompous at times, but he's an old-school, libertarian-ish conservative.

[Larry]

Will can be a bit pompous at times, but he's an old-school, libertarian-ish conservative.

I've noticed him using a lot more big words, and being a lot more libertarian, for the last year or two. My theory is that he's trying for Bill Buckley's old position of The Only Conservative Who Thinks.