w00t w00t booyah

I've had it for *years* - and ganked from who-knows-where now. *chuckles*

From:

Word UP.

From:

McCain says it all. "These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens." They deserve no constitutional rights because they do not live under the constitution.

It's a shame these enemy soldiers were allowed to rot in jail for six years. We should have beheaded them and put their heads up on pikes at Ground Zero instead.

Now that they have their "rights", they have a shot at being released. If some of them do get out, I am sure the five Supreme Court justices who made their freedom possible will take the time to comfort the victims as these men resume killing and maiming our fellow American citizens.

From:

dracowayfarer.livejournal.com

They deserve no constitutional rights because they do not live under the constitution.

So, by your reasoning, anyone who isn't a United States citizen forfeits their chance at the same rights we claim to believe ALL people are entitled to, just because they don't live here? Instead we get to do whatever we want with them, up to and including medieval-style execution?

I hope our allies don't catch wind of this. Could be trouble.

From:

But they are being held by Americans. I guess being as bad as the enemy is just fine with you. I hold us to a higher standard - one better than the people we consider our enemies.

We respect their humanity.

We have the right to know - beyond the shadow of a doubt - whether or not these people ARE our enemies. There's only way to do that. We put it in the crucible of the courts.

Right now - it's just someone's say-so. You wouldn't appreciate that kind of treatment - neither would I.

Put up - or shut up. That's all this is about.

And you already know what I have to say about state-ordered genocides.

From:

redqueenofevil.livejournal.com

Regardless of whether they are American citizens or otherwise, they are not "Guilty until proven innocent." These people ARE innocent until proven otherwise, and nobody has bothered to try to prove anything one way or another with these prisoners.

Further, we are in violation of so many laws by detaining these people without reason. I'm amazed we haven't made more enemies by now. Countries that choose to ignore the Geneva conventions (as the US has been doing these past few years or so) are just as bad as the terrorists the US is choosing to go up against. Somehow, I think if you were in the position that some of these Guantanamo detainees are in right now, I doubt you'd be singing that song about beheading and sticking people on a pike.

By the way, not all of the detainees are soldiers, last I checked.

Out of curiosity, how do you get off feeling so high and mighty about all of this? I really want to know what makes you so certain that those detainees are all guilty as hell, and why you think you have the right to judge them so.

From:

blindgeoff.livejournal.com

Wrong.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that says that the rights enshrined within are limited to citizens. (With the exception of being President...)

If WE capture someone, they need to be treated according to OUR law. ALL OF OUR LAWS, not just the ones that the "Unitary Executive" wants to apply.

So, by your logic, any female US soldier captured by the Taliban could have legally been stoned for the immoral crime of wearing her uniform. And you would have sat back, smiled, and said "the harlot had it coming to her."

From:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From:

So, by your reasoning, every prisoner of war we took in World War II had all the rights of an American citizen, including the right to a jury trial?

Preposterous. These men are not criminals; they are foreign nationals making war on the United States. They have no more right to a trial than any other POW has ever had under our laws.

Furthermore, they are not members of a foreign military force. They wear no uniforms, carry no military identification, and answer to no government. They are unlawful combatants, and, under international law, fall outside the protections afforded to members of military forces under the Geneva Convention.

And what is an unlawful combatant? I looked it up for you. It's right there in the U.S. Code, Title 10: "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense". Under this law, these losers have already had their day in court, before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which ruled that all the remaining Gitmo detainees were "unlawful combatants" under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It is this Act that was ruled unconstitutional in the Boumediene v. Bush opinion today (and by a bare one-vote margin at that).

The results will likely be really, really bad. According to today's New York Times, "[Supreme Court] Justice Scalia said that the United States was 'at war with radical Islamists,' and that the ruling 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed. The nation will live to regret what the court has done today'.

'And to what effect?' he wrote. '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.' 1

But that's okay. Under President Osama, these fine young men will likely be ruled completely harmless, then sent home, where they will begin the important work of building bombs, killing Jews, and working on plans to put you ladies into burkas. Until then, however, we can rest easy, our liberal guilt assauged, our moral hymens intact. After all, it's better to let the Bad Guys win than to risk Not Being Nice. Thanks, Justice Kennedy!

"[This ruling] will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed. The nation will live to regret what the court has done today".
— Justice Antonin Scalia, in re Boumediene v. Bush, 12 June 2008

From:

Strawman.

From:

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with this case?

From:

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that foreign nationals have the right to a criminal trial under U.S. law.

However, under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, only enemy combatants who are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war are protected. The combatants in Gitmo meet none of these criteria, and are therefore not protected under the Geneva Convention.

And such unlawful combatants may be tried and executed by U.S. military commissions. That is settled law, upheld by the U.S, Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin (317 U.S. 1, 1942), which states

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between 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. 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." 1

The USSC ruled in 2006 that Quirin did not apply in a specific detainee's instance (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, if anybody cares), but the basic principle behind Quirin remains — namely, that non-military enemy combatants captured by U.S. forces may be tried and sentenced by U.S. military commissions, not federal courts.

From:

either there are principles beyond the letter of the law or not.

From:

dracowayfarer.livejournal.com

...President Osama...

Ad hominem, Sir. If you're going to call others on fallacies, cop to your own.

Also, speculation. You don't know what policies Obama will put into place IF he is elected so that whole paragraph is meaningless.

From:

Preposterous. These men are not criminals; they are foreign nationals making war on the United States. They have no more right to a trial than any other POW has ever had under our laws.

nice way to define a problem away...

think it will work on global warming?

From:

What global warming?

From:

exactly

From:

You misudenstand the nature of ad hominem. An argumentum ad hominem would be if I were to call you a jerk or something instead of arguing against your evidence or logic. Speculating about life under "president Obama" is just that — speculation, and (in this case) more of a humorous aside than an argument.

Our esteemed hostess

kyburg will testify that, while I tend to be a rather strident debater, I would never stoop to name-calling in an argument on the issues. My goal is to win on the basis of the facts, period. Playground tactics do not interest me.

From:

Define "global warming" and post some evidence to support that definition. Until that happens, I don't believe "global warming" exists.

From:

exactly

From:

True. There are principles beyond the letter of the law. These principles are called the Natural Law, and they are denied by the crew of legal positivists that run the world today.

I am glad to hear you acknowlege the existence of Natural Law — but be careful: once you do so, you will quickly find yourself in the philosophical camp we conservatives inhabit.

From:

Argument requires evidence. If you are not going to argue, why post?

From:

dracowayfarer.livejournal.com

I don't have any humor to offer anyone who calls Obama by the name "Osama". Period.

There are people who seriously believe he is a terrorist and/or a Muslim and I don't think it's funny to fan those flames of ignorance.

From:

argument requires evidence.

you're defining.

why argue with you?

From:

uh... you're defining things to suit yourself again.

From:

Well, I won't waste time bandying about the definition of "argument" with you. If you don't accept my definition, please look up another you like better.

"why argue with you?" you ask. "To arrive at the truth?" I reply.

Why do anything at all?

From:

That was a typo; I did not intend to type "Osama". I do not believe that Sen. Obama is either a Muslim or a terrorist.

From:

well arriving at the truth is fine, but not so useful given the way you define truth.

From:

blindgeoff.livejournal.com

Hands the hostess a fire extinguisher and exits, stage left... because flame wars in a blog are all well and good, as long as one member of the fight is the owner of the blog.

M2C, YMMV, IOKIYAR, ETC

From:

Good point. I withdraw from this discussion. Those interested in pursuing it further are welcome at

bitpig.

From:

"What is Truth?" -- Pontius Pilate.

From:

gate
gate
paragate
parasamgate
boddhi svaha

* * *

your grasp of truth is limited by your vision

From:

caitlin.livejournal.com

But yet you did not even mention it was a typo OR attempt to correct it.

Also? You have NO PROOF that the people being held at Guantanimo (no I can't spell it, so shoot me.) are guilty of ANYTHING.

Burden of proof.

C.

From:

caitlin.livejournal.com

Okay then.

Climate change.

Polar ice caps melting. Antarctic ice shelf collapsing. Glaciers receeding and disappearing.

CO2 levels in atmosphere rising.

Oh yeah... 100 year floods IN IOWA happening twice in a 4 year span, the midwest flooding badly twice in less than 20 years.

And the city of Davenport having to close down River Drive right up against the MS River twice in less than 2 months. The river is "expected" to crest at 20 feet. Flood stage? 16.5 feet.

Tornados are in record numbers. Hurricanes.... hi, how many cat 5s have there been in the last few years?

OH, forgive me. I'm arguing with a brick wall.

C.

From:

kynn.livejournal.com

You're joking about this, right?

You're not really this dumb, right?

This is all a parody, right?

From: