Supremes Back Detained Foreigners! [Breaking News] (Trees And Things)

HidingFromGoro: Re: They just don't get it.

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:30:33 EST

As with all other things; when it comes to catching drug dealers there's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way.

pO157: Re: They just don't get it.

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:51:18 EST

I read through the first five or six pages of that thread. One thing that made me laugh was somebodies (probably was you) comment about the narcs being easily identifiable and totally not blending in. This weekend I was watching Read 'em and weep.

pO157: Re: They just don't get it.

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:42:32 EST

You were in the brig? Got any cool stories?

I wish they would have done it right the first time. Brought those people to the brig (or held them in Iraq/Afghanistan) and gave them fair and public trials in the full light of the international community. N

Shy Elf: Re: logical decision

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:36:54 EST

The disappearing torturing and holding incommunicado for years on and of entirely innocent people on direct orders of the President is a relatively minor mistake? At least the Japanese got relatively decent conditions and could tell people were they

JimmyHavok: don't be stupid

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:25:01 EST

If we shoot them, then we can't give them IV fluids until they piss themselves, then make them lie in the piss for hours. The same provision applies to giving them fair trials.

jwb: Re: no rights for the unaccused

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:12:59 EST

That's the real question I have in the matter of Guantanamo. If the people being held there are our sworn, armed enemies and are so dangerous that we can't even allow them a trial by law, then we should just shoot them. If they're not that dang

jwb: Re: False Pedantry

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:11:20 EST

Perhaps one can be less ruthful?

uncarved block: Really?

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:48:45 EST

You can't think of "more ruthless" as an idea, whether applied to a military setting or not? I can think of at least three examples off the top of my head, though your definition of "ruthless" will decide a lot in a discussion like this

HidingFromGoro: Re: They just don't get it.

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:01:07 EST

military brig in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Hopefully that's where these dudes end up going. They're talking about Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston, the si

skeptic: Re: False Pedantry

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:29:31 EST

I think that you can have comparative degrees of ruthlessness depending upon the range of situations in which a given person displays the characteristic of ruthlessness. I am not sure that there is anybody who chooses to be ruthless in all situations

zyxwvutsr: Re: False Ruthotomy

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:16:28 EST

Oh, and another thing: In high school, I was a member of the school's jazz band for a couple years. There was a young lady named Ruth who played piano in the band. The year after Ruth graduated I sometimes referred to us remaining dilettante instrumentalis

zyxwvutsr: Re: False Pedantry

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:09:13 EST

The major advantage that terrorists seem to have in general, over conventional military forces, is that they are more ruthless

I don't think, strictly speaking, that one can be "more ruthless." Either one is rut

skeptic: Re: False Dichotomy

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:13:12 EST

From a military standpoint, summary execution of all Taliban prisoners would now seem to be advantageous. Even aside from the issue that such people might be granted some kind of due process of law and then freed by the courts, it is also true that t

thefadd: Re: What happened to "originalism"?

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:01:30 EST

But we're being inv4d3d by m0sl!m0rs!!!

JimmyHavok: Re: What happened to "originalism"?

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:24:32 EST

Gosh, what part of "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" don't you originalists understand?

Shy Elf: Re: It could have been a class act

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:23:38 EST

In Bushspeak, this means "We intend to ignore this decision until the next court decision against us."

thefadd: Re: It could have been a class act

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:01:43 EST

What are you even talking about?

gerrymander: Re: It could have been a class act

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:35:25 EST

Huh. Here I thought dissent was the true mark of a patriot. Has the mantra changed?

gerrymander: Re: One Republican's Answer.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:31:51 EST

Senator Lindsey Graham (R - SC) is upset with the Supreme Court over this and he thinks he has an answer -- do away with habeas corpus by amending the Constitution.

It would also be possible to amend the Constitution in less extreme ways, you kno

thefadd: Re: reflecting on the history of habeas corpus

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:07:27 EST

The entire problem with the "not a suicide pact" line of thinking is that it actually is a suicide pact. At least one state still prints that pact on its license plates--"Give me liberty or give me death."

gerrymander: Re: False Dichotomy

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:27:38 EST

Because we treat all combatants taken on the field of battle as POWs and possibly go above and beyond the Geneva conventions our enemy has no incentive to follow the rules themselves? I don't get it.

The Geneva Conventions grant specific allowanc

pO157: Re: False Dichotomy

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:38:34 EST

Huh? Because we treat all combatants taken on the field of battle as POWs and possibly go above and beyond the Geneva conventions our enemy has no incentive to follow the rules themselves? I don't get it.

Are you saying naked prison pyramids are require

Jackkeefe: Re: What happened to "originalism"?

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:32:20 EST

I think you're seriously misreading Scalia and the other dissenting opinions. The point about being at war is simply party of the background or statement of the facts that all opinions contain and are designed to provide context to future generations

gerrymander: Re: False Dichotomy

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:30:26 EST

Or, we could treat enemy prisoners taken on the field of battle as Prisoners of War and grant them all the rights and restrictions afforded them under international law instead of doing an end run around everybody's civil liberties.

If, like a bu

wetkarma: stranger in a strange land

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:14:05 EST

I think the UK's detention without charge for a deinfed limited period is a slippery slope; but that it is far better than the US which ditched the slope and jumped into the deep end without even the fig leaf attempt at moderation. I am -especially- please

uncarved block: What A Dimwit

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:08:45 EST

A constitutional amendment? The legislature has the power to suspend habeas any time they want-- as long as they state clearly that's what they're doing, and take the political consequences. What Kennedy and the rest are demandin

zyxwvutsr: Re: reflecting on the history of habeas corpus

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:25:22 EST

Given that I myself tend to prize my liberty more than I prize the existence of the state -- I choose neither security nor liberty...I choose to leave

What, then, may I inquire, do you make of the new 42-day detention plan ov

MayorBob: One Republican's Answer.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:43:04 EST

That would be the introduction of a new building block of constitutional rights --

thefadd: Re: logical decision

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:13:51 EST
Is seasickness a torture device? ;-)

tomc: It could have been a class act

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:35:56 EST
What I find disconcerting about this is Bush's reaction: he was visibly pissed off when interviewed. Shouldn't he be saying something like, "Well, we made our case, and the Supreme Court saw it otherwise, so let's respect their decision and move on."

tomc: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:29:09 EST
It seems clear to me that any guarantee of legal rights would be meaningless if a given person's rights could be canceled by the simple expedient of putting that person in Guantanamo Bay.
Location, location, location.

pO157: False Dichotomy

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:13:07 EST
Or, we could treat enemy prisoners taken on the field of battle as Prisoners of War and grant them all the rights and restrictions afforded them under international law instead of doing an end run around everybody's civil liberties.
That and not buy "en

Lou: Somewhere in the desert

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:46:53 EST
"But sarge...if we just capture these rag-head bastards, they'll be back on the street in as little as 6 or 7 years!"

gerrymander: no rights for the unaccused

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:23:46 EST
This ruling will certainly resolve the question of detainees -- though, I posit, not for the better. Think about it: if you're a soldier in the field, are you more likely to attempt to capture a potential enemy combatant after this ruling, or just kill him

port1080: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:21:55 EST
but that still does not make it right.
I never said it did. I just don't think it deserves quite the level of rancor that you've displayed. Gitmo was a mistake, but compared to the past I'd say it's been a relatively minor one.

gerrymander: Re: They just don't get it.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:16:12 EST
It doesn't matter where they are holding these people without charge, simply that they are.
Until this decision, it did matter. As Scalia writes in his dissent, the Johnson v. Eisentrager decision in 1950 held that US-detained foreigners h

pO157: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:20:09 EST
Spare me your moralizing on this. These aren't, for the most part, just random Arabs pulled off the street, if for no other reason than this - what would the purpose be? Why spend all that money, risk the bad public opinion, etc, just to ha

port1080: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:26:44 EST
Really? What court determined this?
Spare me your moralizing on this. These aren't, for the most part, just random Arabs pulled off the street, if for no other reason than this - what would the purpose be? Why spend all that money, ri

MayorBob: Meanwhile, Across The Pond.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:21:42 EST
British lawmakers in Commons opted to make the Great Charter into a Not So Great Charter by further abridging habeas corpus in allowing the gover

pO157: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:45:34 EST
The situation is probably inverse at Guantanamo - while there certainly probably are some innocent people, most are probably guilty of something.
Really? What court determined this?
At least the Japanese Americans weren't held in soli

port1080: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:16:15 EST
I don't think this is quite on par with the detention of Japanese Americans. For starters, there were a lot more Japanese Americans detained, and second, the vast majority of Japanese Americans were loyal citizens who were guilty of nothing at all ot

pO157: They just don't get it.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:05:23 EST
From the updated CNN article:
The White House has said it is considering whether to close the Guantanamo prison, suggesting some high-level al Qaeda detainees could be transferred to the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, and to a military

pO157: Re: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:56:47 EST
Which is why, decades from now, this horrific administration will be reviled and the detention of these inmates will be recalled as on par with the arrest and internment of Japanese citizens during WWII.
But until then, it's "Why do you hate America?"

port1080: What happened to "originalism"?

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:40:43 EST
I thought Scalia, Roberts, et. al. were only interested in decisions decided by what was in the documents themselves? If so, why is the dissent in this decision all based on the fact that "we're at war with Islamic extremists" and that this decision

skeptic: logical decision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:37:14 EST
It seems clear to me that any guarantee of legal rights would be meaningless if a given person's rights could be canceled by the simple expedient of putting that person in Guantanamo Bay. If rights have meaning, then they apply in all locations. &nbs