16
Nightmare on Gitmo Street
Weekly Standard, Cliffs Notes Edition. The Gitmo Nightmare:
The Supreme Court’s decision is bad. Compromises between the executive and legislative branches, when done in good faith, are inherently constitutional. Neither lawyers nor judges should have any real influence over the conduct of the war on terror. Proper deference means never disagreeing. Anyone detained by the government on suspicion of terrorism is necessarily guilty. The Supreme Court should write laws for the legislative branch if the latter is unable to come up with something constitutional. The Supreme Court failed to outline every possible result of granting habeas rights to suspected terrorists. That’s a bad Supreme Court!
Meanwhile, from the department of questions asked in bad faith one could have answered by reading the decision one is criticizing, Continetti writes:
In 1950 the Court ruled in Johnson v. Eisentrager that foreign nationals held in a military prison on foreign soil (in that case, Germany) had no habeas rights. But, without overruling Eisentrager, Kennedy said the Guantánamo detainees are different from the German prisoners 58 years ago.
Why? Kennedy wrote that Eisentrager had a unique set of “practical considerations,” and the United States did not have “de facto” sovereignty over Germany as it does over Guantánamo Bay. That territory, “while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government.” But these slippery distinctions only raise more questions. [Emphasis added]
No, they don’t. Here are the practical considerations and “slippery” distinctions given by Kennedy:
The prisoners were detained at Landsberg Prison in Germany during the Allied Powers’ postwar occupation. The Court stressed the difficulties of ordering the Government to produce the prisoners in a habeas corpus proceeding. It “would require allocation of shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting and rations” and would damage the prestige of military commanders at
a sensitive time. In considering these factors the Court sought to balance the constraints of military occupation with constitutional necessities. [...]Unlike its present control over the naval station, the United States’ control over the prison in Germany was neither absolute nor indefinite. Like all parts of occupied Germany, the prison was under the jurisdiction of the combined Allied Forces. [...] The United States was therefore answerable to its Allies for all activities occur ring there.
Bonus Scalia:
And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
I’m not sure which is more disturbing: that Scalia thinks proving to a court that evidence supports confinement is an impossible task — or that he obviously doesn’t think such evidence need be provided.
javafascist said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:08
Why choose? We can apply the Goldberg Corollary and define it as such to Scalia: This opinion is the most disturbingly evil, anti-human opinion ever rendered by the court until the next time he offers an opinion.
kenga said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:09
Well, which one goes to constitutionality?
I’m OK with idiots on the Court, anti-constitutionalists - not so much.
He’s 71. Getting up towards that life expectancy thing.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:14
The whole of Afghanistan will stay after class until we can sort out who put that tack on my chair.
PGE said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:14
Would the crackpots who pretend to believe that we don’t have effective sovereignty over Guantanamo please tell us who does? If we don’t, then presumably Cuba does, and we have no right to prevent prisoners access to Cuba’s judicial system.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:18
Also: Later courts must closely abide by the rulings of previous courts, therefore we get to crap on the Bill of Rights!
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:19
I’m telling on you guys. I’m gonna tell Schlussel what you jihadi-loving bastards are up to and boy are you gonna get it!
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:21
Crabs?
DAS said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:22
Of course, the point in bringing up Germany is to get people to equate the terrorists with the Nazis. Which makes our job easier — we need only point out that we did in fact give pretty much full due process to the Nazi leadership … we didn’t lock the Nazis away indefinitely at Landsberg, Gitmo or anywhere else; we tried them at Nurnburg!
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:25
Crabs?
Hah! Exactly, because for the 64th consecutive season, the Humboldt Crabs, the nation’s oldest continuously operating collegiate summer baseball team are back on the field. In fact, Crabs games are the most fun one can have at the ball park, within reason.
Check ‘em out ….
http://www.humbodtcrabs.com
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:25
http://www.humboldtcrabs.com
guess it helps to spell it correctly
WereBear said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:27
It’s a friggin’ impossible task?
Did he just admit there doesn’t have to be a reason for locking people up?
As time rolls on, their masks slip more and more.
I’m not saying I’m wishing necrotizing hemorrhoids on him.
That would be wrong.
The thought just occurred, that’s all.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:27
All this talk of Schlusshels crabs and ball parks is making me itch.
But I digress…
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:27
… And forget to stick an apostrophe in Schlussel’s.
Doc Washboard said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:34
My first year of college up in Arcata, my family (me, my teenaged wife and two children under 18 months of age) lived in an apartment complex which also happened to be where a lot of the Crabs were living at the time.
Holy toledo.
The noisier it was–and the more difficult a time we had getting the babies to sleep–the dimmer a view I took of the team.
Yes, it has been almost twenty-five years, but I know how to hold a grudge.
Doc Washboard said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:35
Did he just admit there doesn’t have to be a reason for locking people up?
Not brown people, silly!
robert green said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:37
i feel like “schlusshelcrabenschiedt” is german for “crab walking across several continents to crush your muslim enemies”
but i may be wrong.
Bitter Scribe said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:42
What is it with these guys and habeus? They think their entire War on Terrah is going to fall apart if they have to give reasons for locking people up?
Snorghagen said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:45
From the Weekly Standard piece:
After years of arguing otherwise, he asks if anyone has ever argued otherwise.
My viscera are myopic? I better consult my intestinal optometrist.
justbrent said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:54
The best part of the Scalia dissent is when he explains that “Americans will die as the result of this decision.”
First of all, how does he know that?
Secondly, what does he think that the opinion does? The government will only have to release Gitmo detainees if it can’t—after a long judicial process—provide probable cause for keeping them. That’s not a high standard. And do you know what we call people for whom the government can’t make that case? We call them “innocent.”
But the dumbest thing about the Scalia dissent is that there is no constitutional test based on whether “Americans will die!” Let’s put it another way. I am 100% certain that Americans have died at the end of the barrell of a gun that someone was able to own because of the Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions. I am sure that Americans have been killed by criminal who were released based on violations of their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
Right now, in the Supreme Court building, there are two versions of history—the real version and the Scalia version. In the real version, the Constitutional Convention got together and asked “How can we ensure freedom for ourselves and our posterity?” In the Scalia version, they asked “What can we do to make sure that no American dies…ever?”
J— said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:56
What? The Government at Gitmo doesn’t face undue difficulty in presenting prisoners? You’ve heard Colonel Jessep. He’s got 400 Cubans trained to kill him just 300 yards from his breakfast table. He’s out on that wall. We need him on that wall. We want him on that wall, not playing delivery boy for some court.
Meanjink said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:57
Dangerous Judicial Power Grab!
Sounds like the mistranslated title of a quite tedious foreign gameshow.
On a side note, I just discovered that the “blink” tag works.
I decided to spare you all, though.
You’re welcome.
J— said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:58
On a side note, I just discovered that the “blink” tag works.
Prove it.
Meanjink said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:59
Prove it.
you.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:01
The fact is, all of you can go to hellk!!
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:04
Wank wank wank.
I believe “wank” tag is working fine.
PeeJ said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:07
Yeah, c’mon mister fancy pants. Show us a blinking comment.
PeeJ said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:08
And somewhere in the heartland, a voice is shreiking “Curses! Foiled by preview again!”
PeeJ said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:08
shrieking as well
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:13
Blink tag does not work in comments, even if it does work in preview.
I have found this to be true to my deep disappointment.
And Gary? I’ve been to hellk. There’s just nothingk leftk they can do to mek.
And as to the gitmo decision, Newt-boy is threatening that as a result we will “…lose a city.” What the fuck’s up with this asshole and his losing cities? The only city we’ve lost so far is New Orleans, and we pretty much did that on our own. But the Newt-who-walks-upright is convinced that if we were to merely offer habeus reviews for our detainees, we’re gonna, what, turn around and St. Louis would be gone? “Dammit, I’m SURE I saw Newark around here last week”….
mikey
a concerned citizen said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:14
Scalia’s decision in this case sounds like he is trying to make up his own Chuck Norris facts. There is no legal precedent, only laws that Scalia lets live…
Blink tag said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:14
The fact is, Wordpress hates
Americame.Meanjink said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:14
Fine.
here.
blink
god, I loathe myself.
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:15
My viscera are myopic? I better consult my intestinal optometrist.
Nice catch. I think that there must be a wingnut thesaurus out there somewhere and I would pay a hefty sum for a copy of it.
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:15
#
Doc Washboard said,
June 17, 2008 at 0:34
My first year of college up in Arcata, my family (me, my teenaged wife and two children under 18 months of age) lived in an apartment complex which also happened to be where a lot of the Crabs were living at the time.
Holy toledo.
The noisier it was–and the more difficult a time we had getting the babies to sleep–the dimmer a view I took of the team.
Yes, it has been almost twenty-five years, but I know how to hold a grudge.
It was that way last year as well Doc, because so many of the players were underage. This year however, only a few are under 21, so they take the party where it belongs, to the bars on the plaza.
I still loves me some Crabs … umm, not that way silly …
Meanjink said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:16
Thankfully, foiled by preview.
My self loathing is unchanged, however.
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:20
Dangerous Judicial Power Grab!
Sounds like the mistranslated title of a quite tedious foreign gameshow.
Latest addition to the list of recalled Chinese-made toys.
In my day we made our own judicial power grabs using cardboard boxes and lengths of string.
ifthethunderdontgetya™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:24
“Americans will die as the result of this decision.”
From the Michelle Malkin book of Supreme Court opinion-makering.
jim said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:28
Scalia’s “logic” would require a Supreme Court ban on bathtubs, given the heinous toll in human life being exacted by these shiny white menaces every day. Methinks bad brain-chemicals are afoot. Roll that man a fat one.
the prisoners at Camp Delta can now file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. district courts seeking reprieve. Hence lawyers, judges, and leftwing interest groups will have real influence over the conduct of the war on terror. Call it the Gitmo nightmare.
No, call it the Geneva Convention, or The UN Charter Of Human Rights & Freedoms, you sociopathic little asshat.
Secret torture rooms are just “fraternity hazing” fun, & illegal wars are “regrettable mistakes” that noone’s accountable for - but applying juridical standards that’ve been in play for 800-plus years is a “nightmare”? Yeah, thanks for sharing, Herr Doktor Goebbels.
The pity is that the two-legged pubic lice that advocate such barbaric non-standards, robotically barking their pseudo-patriotic slogans, are well beyond the nauseated shame they should feel from so completely surrendering any prospect of developing a conscience to unmitigated depravity. History will not be kind to them.
J— said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:29
In their visceral, myopic hatred of President Bush
My hatred of President Bush is viceregal and gyroscopic.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:30
My first year of college up in Arcata…
Sorry. I didn’t get any farther than that, overcome as I was by powerful memories of huge bowls of fried chicken, mashed potatoes with a heavenly gravy and hot fresh dinner rolls passed down the table at the Samoa Cookhouse. Any mention of Arcata does that to me…
mikye
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:33
I have never seen, I think,
A tag as lovely as a blink.
A tag whose “open” sits right next
To sweetly fulminating text;
A tag that blinks out “God” all day,
Should we desire to virtually pray;
A tag that may in summer swear
“IT’S TOO HOT TO FUCKING CARE”;
Upon whose closure sweet relief
For snobby coders with a beef.
Lou Montulli made the blink,
But only you can make it stink.
ifthethunderdontgetya™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:34
mikye
Food is a drug!
ifthethunderdontgetya™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:35
That’s it, RB.
What kind of food are you high on now?
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:36
Here ya go Mikey ….
http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/6604/United_States/California/Eureka/Samoa_Cookhouse
WereBear said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:36
In the Scalia version, they asked “What can we do to make sure that no American dies…ever?”
Unless, of course, they can do it.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:39
Bob Dylan’s Toad Punch
Ingredients:
1 portion toad amniotic fluid, painfully strained
1 gallon infused vinegar
1 antisocial Zin
4 ounces tiger foot, braised
1 tablespoon sugar
6 ounces fat
Pick over the ingredients contrastingly and discard excess butter. Place the toad into a medium saucepan. Stir the infused vinegar with the Zin over low heat in a bag. Drizzle resulting goo over the toad. Grate - very exhaustively - the tiger foot, sugar, and the fat. Heap the latter combination on to the former. Do not bake for 91 minutes. Instead, stir as if your equality depended on it. Serves 1.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:40
Thet thar’s a good-lookin’ poem.
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:45
I drank a pint of nitroglycerine.
It helped my vision intra-viscerine.
J— said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:45
From the Wikipedia entry on the precious tag:
Say it ain’t sou, Lou!
"Oh Stewardess, I Speak 'Nut" said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:55
OK Snorhagen beat me to it, but’s it worth repeating:
“The Supreme Court . . . piously reminded the people that ‘the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.’ No kidding. Has anyone ever argued otherwise?”
That truly would have been the shockingest & aweiest of all Cheerios up-through-the-nose moments.
All that was missing was the Cheerios. And milk.
PeeJ said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:57
Cool! I’m going to be in Eureka in a couple weeks. The cookhouse looks like the right place for breakfast.
Now what about a good place for dinner for 8 or 10 gay sportbikers? Someplace tasteful, you know?
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill_of_Rights_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:00
Say it ain’t sou, Lou!
The Klink tag was a total failure.
Great October Socialist Revolution™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:02
I had trouble with blink tag, but I assumed it was some capitalist trick.
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:05
Cool! I’m going to be in Eureka in a couple weeks. The cookhouse looks like the right place for breakfast.
Now what about a good place for dinner for 8 or 10 gay sportbikers? Someplace tasteful, you know?
For tasteful, but expensive (for me at least) Hurricane Kate’s in Old Town is a good spot. For Mexican food I like Pachanga, there’s also a good Irish pub in Old Town and you can get some good Thai at a little place a few blocks up.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:12
PeeJ, the Samoa Cookhouse is a particular kind of “dining experience” that truly doesn’t really exist anymore. It was a logging camp dining hall, and it remains functionally that. Community seating, no menu, just GOBS of delicious food in giant bowls they just keep bringing to the head of each table and you hand it down. Seconds? Hell yeah. Desert? Of course. It’s a little uncomfortable at first, but then everybody just starts to glow and laugh and you walk outta there saying “Damn, if you opened a restaurant like this in a big city, and you could get people to TRY it, it would be a sensation!”
mikey
Doc Washboard said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:13
Sorry. I didn’t get any farther than that, overcome as I was by powerful memories of huge bowls of fried chicken, mashed potatoes with a heavenly gravy and hot fresh dinner rolls passed down the table at the Samoa Cookhouse.
Now you have torn open an old wound. I’ve only been to the Samoa Cookhouse twice, and both were after years of begging my wife to go. I don’t know why I can’t go on my own, but I can’t. Things just aren’t fun without her.
I like the breakfasts.
El Cid said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:19
It’s liberals what want to kill us by making courts & trials and what not all complicated, with judges having to like figger out ‘facts’ and stuff and like one side’ll say ‘oh this is true’ and the other side’ll say ‘no it ain’t’ and then you’re like stuck there goin’ back & forth until we let ‘em blow a damn city up.
Back in the old days a Supreme Court judge would be a full time farmer and would just go to Washington for like 3 days a year and they’d just all hear a bunch a damn cases and be like “Yes” “Yes” “No” and that’s all, it’s not like they had to spend all the time with the god d*** lip that the dang liberals like hearin’ from the judges and other secularists.
HumboldtBlue said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:23
I like the breakfasts.
Funny, I don’t go by myself either. I think it’s guilt in consuming so much good food that’s so bad for me. But every now and then the G/F tags along and we get some breakfast. And Mikey is right, it’s not the same, but the food is still damned good.
Me said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:24
Not that you haven’t heard this before, but this election is particularly crucial to the future of the Supreme Court. Five of the SCOTUS judges will be 70 or older by the time Obama (hopefully) takes office. Three of them are over 75. Not that I’m wishing any of them anything but a long life, but if Obama were to serve two terms, it is quite likely that at least two or three of them would die or retire during his administration. Perhaps even all five.
It would be sweet indeed to see Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas reduced to a permanent, grumbling minority, forever writing dissenting opinions.
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:24
“The worst thing I’ve ever done for the Internet.”
It is not necessary to take this as a challenge, RB.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:28
The fact is, I’m gonna fuck you up!
Snorghagen said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:31
From the Wikipedia link:
Scalia has urgent needs, hot and throbbing judicial compulsions that cannot be controlled, and constitutional restrictions must submissively give way and yield to his insatiable desires.
Great October Socialist Revolution™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:33
Scalia has urgent needs, hot and throbbing judicial compulsions that cannot be controlled, and constitutional restrictions must submissively give way and yield to his insatiable desires.
If only Dick Cheney and Scalia would just get their business done, and skip over fucking the rest of the world in the process.
tigrismus said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:36
Hence lawyers [and] judges
, and leftwing interest groupswill have real influence over theconduct of the war on terrorfair trials of possible war criminals.As, you know, they should.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:37
If only Dick Cheney and Scalia would just get their business done, and skip over fucking the rest of the world in the process.
More to the point, isn’t it a pity that the fulfillment of their twisted lust requires such a huge volume of blood and severed body parts.
If only they were into, oh, I dunno, big furry cartoon animal suits?
mikey
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:50
Scalia has urgent needs, hot and throbbing judicial compulsions that cannot be controlled, and constitutional restrictions must submissively give way and yield to his insatiable desires.
That would read well as the subtitle or teaser on the front page of a Harlequin book.
zeppo said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:51
You know, I understand that when you get older, you start becoming forgetful and you start misplacing things. But, how in all that is holy can you lose a CITY? Oops! Damn, I was just following route Highway 84 and I KNOW that Lubbock used to be here! Where did it go? Did my wife move it when I was at work? I TOLD her not to do that! New Mexico? What the hell is it doing in New Mexico?
Maybe we could just sort of “lose” Las Vegas. It’s pretty tacky anyway…
tigrismus said,
June 17, 2008 at 2:59
That would read well as the subtitle or teaser on the front page of a Harlequin book.
A real “codpiece ripper,” to steal a phrase.
Oregon Guy said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:00
WOWZERS
Hey! It SO DOES NOT WORK IN PREVIEW!
Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?
Antonin Scalia said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:01
Hey! You!
Yeah, you!
Vaffanculo.
And go fuck your mother, too.
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:01
A real “codpiece ripper,” to steal a phrase.
I visualise the cover art in the sub-Franzetti style. Scalia in Regency costume.
I think my eyeballs just bled a little.
Oregon Guy said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:03
// Before you reuse this script you may want to have your head examined
//
// Copyright 1999 InsideDHTML.com, LLC.
function doBlink() {
// Blink, Blink, Blink…
var blink = document.all.tags(”BLINK”)
for (var i=0; i < blink.length; i++)
blink[i].style.visibility = blink[i].style.visibility == “” ? “hidden” : “”
}
function startBlink() {
// Make sure it is IE4
if (document.all)
setInterval(”doBlink()”,1000)
}
window.onload = startBlink;
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:04
How ’bout Scalia in a turban with a scimitar, raving about Allah?
Sure, it doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t relate to anything in the real world, but it’s a funny visual, and hell, I’m having a cocktail and it works for me….
mikey
J— said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:05
You all don’t understand. Habeas corpus is a drug for Islamofascists, a powerfully addictive narcotic. They need it; they crave it. They’ll cross the seven seas to get it. They’ll do whatever it takes to get to Gitmo to get the chance to get it. They will not stop. Not only will we lose a city, but they will make one in our midst, a giant city of jonesing HC fiends, waiting for the hook up.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:05
setInterval(”doBlink()”,1000)
setInterval(”doBlink()”,0001)
JarJar CRAZY!!
mikey
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:06
Is there perchance a kink tag?
Barney said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:11
Maybe Continetti wants to hand over control of Guantanamo to a joint US-British-French-Russian commission (the whole base, not just the prison) so that the earlier precedent can stand. That’d be worth it, I think - The Weekly Standard starting an argument that ended up giving the
SovietsRussians the corner of Cuba they thought was forever Yankee …Mitt Romney said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:14
Hey! What about me? I am just as crazy as this Scalia, guy, you know!
Show some REZPEKT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEJCf7xx2QU
Oregon Guy said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:15
What would the kink tag entail?
Change the font to patent leather?
Krassen said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:17
Here is a “lovely” new study, makes you proud don’t it?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
The first comment says it all:
“I am a combat veteran of this nation I served honorably in the US Army 40 years ago. I am ashamed of my country at this time.”
I guess he won’t be so ashamed when we lose a city, huh? What?
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:19
How ’bout Scalia in a turban with a scimitar, raving about Allah?
That’s a whole different set of fantasies & stereotypes.
Behind Scalia’s impassive desert-bronzed features there are dark passionate needs, hot and throbbing judicial compulsions that he will slake upon constitutional restrictions within the privacy of his seraglio.
Great October Socialist Revolution™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:20
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:06
Is there perchance a kink tag?
Tag, you’re it. With poetry.
~
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:21
“I’m not sure which is more disturbing: that Scalia thinks proving to a court that evidence supports confinement is an impossible task — or that he obviously doesn’t think such evidence need be provided.”
I don’t think this was necessarily they way his comment should be interpreted. Given that you took two sentences of his dissent and then provided no convincing argument on your behalf, it’s not too difficult to assume Scalia’s dissent would be lost on you. I don’t mean that to flame, but it’s the designated status of the unlawful enemy combatants that preserves the Geneva conventions rights to those in the future.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
This decision (IMO) is a disgrace to the Geneva conventions given the definition of what a POW is supposed to be. In my view, the Conventions were to be viewed as a dterrent to the atrocities of non-uniformed guerrilla warfare, torture pracitce, hostage taking, etc. which are all tactics of the Al Queada/Taleban members held captive. The point being if they want the protections of the Geneva conventions, act according to them. This is a lopsided ruling and a knee jerk reaction to the definition of how to handle non-uniformed, non noational groups fighting within a civilian structure.
Sorry add that into the shuffle, and in no way is it a defense of things like torture, waterboarding, and any crap the administration allegedly has been up to. It specifically targets the designation and respect of the POW status accordingto the definitions outlined in the Geneva.
Anne Laurie said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:26
What is it with these guys and habeus? They think their entire War on Terrah is going to fall apart if they have to give reasons for locking people up?
Yes.
Installment #1,347,982 of “Simple Answers to Simple Questions”.
Remember, in Scalia/Roberts’ world, the War on Terrah is defined as Shutting Up or Locking Down Every Single Person Everywhere Who Does Not Agree with *US*. Because in Scalia/Roberts/Cheney’s world, there is nothing so terrah-fying as a mind not subservient to them and their twisted goals.
Snorghagen said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:26
Antonin Scalia definitely upholds the kink tag and all it stands for.
Snorghagen said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:29
Allegedly?
Great October Socialist Revolution™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:29
The point being if they want the protections of the Geneva conventions, act according to them.
Good point, reason. Now go suck Cheney’s cock while he explains why the Geneva conventions aren’t important to rich white tycoons in Murka.
Krassen said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:30
reason you are not!
Habeas corpus (probable cause) protects innocent people. Read this study:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
The question of how we treat real terrorist is a different one. There shouldn’t be a question of how we treat innocent people with brown skin and funny names.
If you want to cut the tongues and ears of proven terrorists with a dull knife, I will respectfully disagree with your view.
However, if you claim that you can detain and enhancely interrotorture innocent people, then you are a scumbag…
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:32
CRAP!!
A nation does not extend Geneva Convention protections selectively to nations that act in the same way. There is not a threshold judgement that some POWs have somehow EARNED that level of protection.
A nation proffers Geneva Convention guarantees to POWs because it is a reflection of the society they WANT to be, and an expression of the values they, as a society, hold.
Oh, and you’ll notice the cowardly thugs in the bush/cheney administration were never willing to designate any of these so-called “detainees” as prisoners of war because that might just OBLIGATE them to honor a few of the international commitments the US has entered into over the decades and has been somewhat vocal in supporting.
For me? I’ve been down in “Indian Country”. It was only a dozen hours, and I knew if I was captured I was not going to be treated with compassion. Fine. I still didn’t want the US government to become the barbarians who I feared. One of the things that sustained me was the belief that we really were the “good guys”.
A belief that is today, utterly unfounded…
mikey
Fozzetti said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:34
If Gingrich & Scalia are so concerned about cities being “lost” they should be in Illinois and Iowa right now helping the dozen or more cities and towns being lost to flooding.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:38
Said we’re from Texas and we do things quick,
So take this and take that from my Texas-sized dick.
Blo. Dee. Hell. I hope Cash’s estate sues the horse out from under them.
Bullsmith said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:39
What about the innocent ones?
ifthethunderdontgetya™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:41
Upon further review, “reason” sounds just like Matt McMahon etc., and other faux trolls.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:41
Tsk. It only counts when brown heathens destroy a city. Natural disasters are a sign of God’s wrath. Clearly Iowa has been harboring gay abortionists and the people hauling sandbags will be in big trouble come judgment day.
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:43
Have I been banned?
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:44
Habeas corpus (probable cause) protects innocent people. Read this study:
Habeas Corpus protects the American citizens. Big distinction, and that is the angle Scalia is coming from. These are not American citizens held captive.
As for your link, I get a little weary of reading articles that are ripe with “anonymous” sources. That said, I’ve seen this article and wonder why it isn’t front page news? Perhaps, it’s all sizzle and no steak? Do you also know who recently became one of the largest investors in the “news source” you just linked to? I’ll let you google for a little bit.
The question of how we treat real terrorist is a different one. There shouldn’t be a question of how we treat innocent people with brown skin and funny names.
This is ad homenim, and belongs in a City college megaphone rant. It has no place in the discussion I am trying to have.
If you want to cut the tongues and ears of proven terrorists with a dull knife, I will respectfully disagree with your view.
Again with the ad homenim. No response is necessary.
However, if you claim that you can detain and enhancely interrotorture innocent people, then you are a scumbag…
three ad homenim strikes. You’re out.
I am speaking specifically about the “designated status” of the detainees.
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:48
What about the innocent ones?
Exonerated in a military tribunal. Many detainees already have been tried and released. A number of them went back and again picked up arms with the Taleban or AIQ.
The reason they are held “idefinitely” or whatever nonsense is sexy news of the day is because we can’t knowingly release them to a nation that would release them without trial (this has already been done in Kuwait) and some of them are so bad thier host country’s don’t want to have them returned.
kc said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:50
Mikey rules.
ifthethunderdontgetya™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:50
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:43
Have I been banned?
Why spamalittle, when you can Spamalot™?
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:57
Have I been banned?
Of course not! Sadly, No! would never ban someone for their beliefs.
Instead, we’ll just call you an asshole, a prick, a know-nothing loser who is a miserable excuse for a human being.
It’s a lovely system here.
Oh, and go fuck yourself and your discussion, fuckwit.
The Truth™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:02
It hurts!
It really hurts!
Snorghagen said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:07
Non-citizens don’t have any rights that an American court is obliged to respect? Damn! Someone changed the whole fucking legal code without telling me.
And by the way, it’s ‘ad hominem’, not ‘ad homenim’, you ignorant cumstain.
Rugged in Montana said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:12
Upon further review, “reason” sounds just like Matt McMahon etc., and other faux trolls.
Now hold on a gol danged minute!
WereBear said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:18
Faux trolls?
Are they the ones with the fluffy, wildly colored hair?
Ran around naked, as I recall.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:23
Sadly, No. What you have described, in fact, is me.
Let’s say it all together.
EEEWWWWW!!!!
Sorry.
mikey
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:25
Scope
The writ of Habeas Corpus was originally understood to apply only to those held in custody by officials of the Executive Branch of the federal government and not to those held by state governments, which independently afford habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws. The United States Congress granted all federal courts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody in the following circumstances:
Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial.
In 1950s and 1960s, decisions by the Warren Supreme Court greatly expanded the use and scope of the federal writ, and the most publicized use of the writ of Habeas corpus in modern times has been to allow federal courts to review death penalty proceedings; however, far more non-capital habeas petitions are reviewed by the federal courts. In the last thirty years, decisions by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts have somewhat narrowed the writ, though the number of habeas petitions filed has continued to rise.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 further limited the use of the federal writ by imposing a one-year statute of limitations and dramatically increasing the federal judiciary’s deference to decisions previously made in state court proceedings either on direct appeal from the conviction and sentence, or in a state court habeas corpus action and the associated second round of state appeal (both of which, in the usual case, occur before a federal habeas petition is filed).
Not when you are a terrorist and you can thank your good buddy Bill for the measure. It was further amended later to piggybacking the 1996 ruling to arrive where we are today. If you don’t like powers being exploited or enhanced, don’t elect politicians that do so.
And by the way, it’s ‘ad hominem’, not ‘ad homenim’
Ahh, spelling smears. Well, I’m sure it wouldn’t be too difficult to find them in here, either. Thanks for the heads up.
Of course not! Sadly, No! would never ban someone for their beliefs.
Instead, we’ll just call you an asshole, a prick, a know-nothing loser who is a miserable excuse for a human being.
Yeah I couldn’t even respond to one commenter because it was so rotten with profanity it wouldn’t pass the spam filter. Amazing!
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:26
I’m surprised you can read the site then, fuckwit.
justme said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:28
Methinks our ironically misnamed troll is conflating Geneva with Habeas, and choking on his semiotic blancmange of post-structural teakettle barbecue hatstand fishmonger.
The two are quite separate. Of course, if you are dead set against the concept that humans, by the very dint of existing, have certain inviolable rights that are not given to them by the powerful, but are inherent in their being itself, it’s easy to toss the two together into the woodchipper and hope nobody notices.
Ad Hominy Grits said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:28
Try me with butter and a little brown sugar!
dim-witted badger said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:31
fucking pelicans
Krassen said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:33
Overheard at the Annual Causes-of-Death Convention:
2nd Amendment: Hey guys, did you hear, they want to suspend Habeas to save AmericanLives ™
Traffic: Who the heck is Habeas? Is that one of them fancy new cancers?
Cancer: Nope, never heard of the guy…
2nd Amendment: Don’t know much myself, but they say he could lose a city just like that
Traffic: Must be some new nuclear bomb then…
Nuclear Bomb: Bullshit! A) Never heard of such Habeas bomb, and B) they would never outlaw nuclear bombs in America, are you crazy?
Cancer: eeeh, it’s all hype… We’ve heard it all. West Nile, Chicken Flu, all talk no body counts, I bet this Habeas is another one of them fad tropical diseases
Ebola: OK, we get it, cancer, you are number one, you da man! geez, what an ego!
Cancer: Damn right! And no stinking laws can’t touch me. What scares me is universal health care, early detection, affordable pharmaceuticals, you know shit like that…
Traffic: I am doing very well myself, a little worried about gas prices…
Choking Hazard: Guys, who’s the keynote speaker this year?
Nuclear Bomb: The IraqWar, you know she hit the 4,000 mark this year, better than 9/11, and that’s not counting the brownies…
Ebola: Good for her! There’s a city all by itself, he-he,
Cancer (looking through a booklet): Is this Habeas guy even on the agenda? I don’t see him…
Tobacco: Oh, screw that guy already, I bet it’s a hapless dude who took the fall for some big hitter. Remember, it’s like with me and marijuana: I kill, she gets outlawed…
High Voltage: did you say hitter or Hitler? Speaking of, where is that old fart?
dim-witted badger said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:33
Thanks, mikey. I’ll be putting off dinner for a little longer now.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:34
Don’t forget the Terrorist Fist Jab chaser.
emoHitler said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:37
Who, me?
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:37
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 further limited
This one has absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo.
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:40
The two are quite separate. Of course, if you are dead set against the concept that humans, by the very dint of existing, have certain inviolable rights that are not given to them by the powerful, but are inherent in their being itself, it’s easy to toss the two together into the woodchipper and hope nobody notices.
Not anymore! I was trying to explain why they entered the system given the status they have, and what legal process do they need to peitition for to obtain the rights you mentioned.
Of course, now it’s just a given. Good show, chaps! Rest easy that these guys will sit forever on death row and not tried and released in a military tribunal. Not only that, but we can get KSM swiftly sent back to Allah since has already confessed to his crime and will most likely be tried in a state with the death penalty.
Problem solved!
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:41
This one has absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo.
It set the stage for the legal precedent for the status of the detainess.
WereBear said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:43
mikey!
You’re cute as heck, and bring good luck, but a few more situps… might do you some good.
(rub rub)
Fer luck! I have a Significant Other!
Oregon Guy said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:45
Is reason one of those pseudo-English trolls?
I bet he listens to the Smiths.
GOPnot4me said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:46
Good opinion piece in the NYT, pointing out how fragile a thread supports Habeus and what McCainocrats risk by being spiteful and shrill.
http://gopnot4me.blogspot.com/2008/06/justice-5-brutality-4-nyt-op-ed.html
Let’s win in the fall, too much is at stake. Obama wasn’t my first choice, either. But I know my own self-interest.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:47
It set the stage for the legal precedent for the status of the detainess.
It blah blah blah. That’s nice thank you.
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:50
From this:
AEDPA
In 1996, following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed (91-8-1 in the Senate, 293-133-7 in the House) and President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA was to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.”
The AEDPA contained one of the few limitations on habeas corpus. For the first time, its Section 101 set a statute of limitations of one year following conviction for prisoners to seek the writ. It limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. It generally but not absolutely barred second or successive petitions, with several exceptions. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, to ensure that such an exception was at least facially made out.
To this:
War on Terror
The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of United States citizens to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay “violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions.” In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Congress’s attempts to strip the courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), “Procedures for Status Review of Detainees Outside the United States”:
“(1) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
“(2) The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination … was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government’s evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[4][5] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[6]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an “unlawful enemy combatant” is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any non-citizen.
With the MCA’s passage, the law altered the language from “alien detained … at Guantánamo Bay”:
“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
Oops. Did the above just have the words “Clinton” and “terror” and detention of “unlawful combatant” in them? There goes partisan moral high ground!!
I also wanted to expand on the absurd notion that these people are granted “our” rights. There is no Habeus Corpus rights for Iraq or Afghanistan, and none in almost any middle eastern nation. There also is a legal precedent set in 1996 that paved way for the expansion of suspending habeus corpus after 9/11. Therefore, the actions taken above have been in legally sound whether you like them or not emotionally.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:52
Then the law’s wrong, fuckwit.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:54
Oops. Did the above just have the words “Clinton” and “terror” and detention of “unlawful combatant” in them? There goes partisan moral high ground!!
I admit when you put one passage with “Clinton” in it next to one without, the two passages together contain the word “Clinton”. Good research there.
Horny said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:55
“Habeas Corpus protects the American citizens.”
Hey let’s gang rape Nicole Kidman, she’s an Aussie. Who’s with me?
Snorghagen said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:57
Reason - Thank you for the many trenchant and thought-provoking quotes on habeas corpus. Let me respond with this lucid clarification of its fundamental significance, written by Justice Brandeis in 1928:
La hamburgero (anka? konata kiel burgero a? hamburga?o) estas vianda hakita (pli precize hakvianda) man?a?o. ?i estas kradrostita a? fritita kaj ofte man?ata en bulko kiel sandvi?o.
Still, I think Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s summed it up best when speaking to a joint session of Congress in January, 1937:
Fuck shit cock piss dick. Motherfucker! Shit shit shit. Big fat dildo, you stinking turdbiting stumphumping blaggard. No pie for you! Goddamn.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:57
Oh my. Were you in Ringlers? I don’t remember you.
Kinda like Negative Skid Row or something…
mikey
The Truth™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:58
Reason, could you please change your name to “snivelling right-wing coward”?
I’m sure we’d both feel better, afterwards.
Antonin Scalia said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:01
Hey, I’m liking this reason guy.
Hey, reason. Wanna blow job?
Allienne Goddard said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:04
Reason, I’m afraid you have posted nothing showing that habeas corpus rights do not apply to foreigners who are being held by the United States. If you disagree, please be specific.
justbrent said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:05
hey “reason,” being reasonable but ignorant is no virtue. Nothing in the Constitution indicates that habeas corpus only applies to “citizens.” Nor would it make any sense for it to be so limited. Among other things, limiting habeas corpus to citizens would create the opportunity for the executive branch to simply deny the benefit of the writ by claiming that the applicant is “not a citizen.”
You apparently don’t understand what a writ of habeas corpus does. You see, if you are a person who has been stuck in far away hole by the government, you have the right to file this thing called a writ of habeas corpus in the courts. The government must then come forward and show why it is holding you. Generally speaking, the burden on the government isn’t that great. Federal prisoners file them all the time and the U.S. Attorneys swat them like gnats.
In the case of Gitmo, the position of the Bush administration has been that it can hold the “enemy combatants” indefinitely and never have to account to anyone for their detention.
Deliberately or accidentally, you have engaged in the same disingenous position advanced by the SCOTUS dissenters. If the Gitmo prisoners are really so dangerous, then it shouldn’t be that hard to defeat their habeas applications. If it would be that hard to defeat their habeas applications, then how does the government know that they are so dangerous?
And before you go off all half-cocked and point out the Section 9 exceptions that permit the suspension of habeas corpus, save it. The U.S. has not been invaded and there is no rebellion. If Lincoln’s suspension of habeas was only barely acceptable during the freaking Civil War, there is no way that it can be justified under the present circumstances.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:05
Look buddy, you’re asking for a terrorist fist jab. Not everyone who listens to The Smiths is an obnoxious fapmeister with a copy/paste fetish.
The Truth™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:06
(Considerably) Shorter Antonin Scalia:
Hey, reason. Wanna blow job?
~
PeeJ said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:16
Sumbawdy sed: Not that I’m wishing any of them anything but a long life,
Not me. Nope, I hope Scalia chokes on a hairball and suffers an agonizing death. For Thomas, I’m hoping he has a leetle accident during auto-erotic asphyxiation. Wet suits and dildos would be a nice touch but aren’t necessary. Roberts, I don’t care, he can just die. Alito though, ahhh, in my dreams little Sammy eats shit and suffocates while crawling through a sewer.
What a wonderful world it would be.
Note that I’m not advocating anything, just hoping. I’m a bad person.
justbrent said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:18
Oh yeah, one more thing, “reason.” If you are going to pretend to be making legal argument, you might not want to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about.
An act of Congress is not legal “precedent,” it is a statute. In the American legal system, “precedent” refers only to court decisions. In addition, subjecting habeas corpus with a statutory limitation period does not violate Section 9 of Article 1. Congress can limit habeas corpus, but it can’t suspend it.
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:39
I’m a bad person.
Well, at least you aren’t threatening to poison their creme brulee.
Personally, I would rather see Roberts die in the wetsuits, preferably choking on Lindsey Graham’s dick. That way we get another Senate pickup out of the deal, and one less homophobe closet case in government. Clarence Thomas can chase a gum wrapper out a 14th-story window. Scalia can asphyxiate on his own shit after Dick Cheney shoots him in the face on a duck hunt.
I guess we all have our own unique fantasies.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:48
I’m not sayin’ chain saw daisy chain.
I’m just sayin’.
Krassen said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:02
“Note that I’m not advocating anything, just hoping. I’m a bad person.”
Well, when the U.S. Constitution hinges on a single vote, I’d say your thoughts are rather patriotic…
noen said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:11
I think our “Reason” troll gets his reasoning the same as any other troll does, cut ‘n paste. After eating some of the paste. Marty Lederman probably banned his ass. Is that you Bart?
reason said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:01
hey “reason,” being reasonable but ignorant is no virtue. Nothing in the Constitution indicates that habeas corpus only applies to “citizens.” Nor would it make any sense for it to be so limited. Among other things, limiting habeas corpus to citizens would create the opportunity for the executive branch to simply deny the benefit of the writ by claiming that the applicant is “not a citizen.”
Why, that is EXACTLY the basis for making them apply! Domo! A right is granted, a privilege or ruling must be rendered by an authority. Like the “Miranda” you guys howl over.
In the case of Gitmo, the position of the Bush administration has been that it can hold the “enemy combatants” indefinitely and never have to account to anyone for their detention.
Surely a study of law would understand the concept of heresay, and an even better study of law would know that this hasn’t happened at all. Study much?
Deliberately or accidentally, you have engaged in the same disingenous position advanced by the SCOTUS dissenters. If the Gitmo prisoners are really so dangerous, then it shouldn’t be that hard to defeat their habeas applications. If it would be that hard to defeat their habeas applications, then how does the government know that they are so dangerous?
I believe they were dissenting over which body gets to decide how dangerous these people are. you know like how someone like the disparity between how Saclia would rule, and how Kennedy would rule.
I would also add that there are demostrated examples (numerous as Scalia points out) that many have been tried in the construct of the law, been released and then gone on to murdering people again in both campaigns. It begs for some scrutiny. If you don’t have the examples I will be happy to provide them for you.
That said, no I am not a constitutional attorney. If you are enlighten me more on this decision.
And before you go off all half-cocked and point out the Section 9 exceptions that permit the suspension of habeas corpus, save it. The U.S. has not been invaded and there is no rebellion. If Lincoln’s suspension of habeas was only barely acceptable during the freaking Civil War, there is no way that it can be justified under the present circumstances.
This I have never heard of. If this is indeed the case, I understand how they could find this point in history to seek a judgement. However, if they did traul back to Lincoln for a decision, I’d be interested to see what you can dig up.
Oh yeah, one more thing, “reason.” If you are going to pretend to be making legal argument, you might not want to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about.
An act of Congress is not legal “precedent,” it is a statute. In the American legal system, “precedent” refers only to court decisions. In addition, subjecting habeas corpus with a statutory limitation period does not violate Section 9 of Article 1. Congress can limit habeas corpus, but it can’t suspend it.
Interesting. Shouldn’t you add indefinitely Mr/Ms. Attorney? Heheh.
Percyprune said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:11
I think you’ll find Habeas Corpus applies to everyone, not just US citizens, otherwise you are claiming that tourists and other guests under American jurisdiction are not protected by it, which is simply untrue. In practice and in law Habeas Corpus has historically been a protection that all people in US custody enjoy, regardless of nationality status. As the majority justices pointed out in Boumediene that a failure to apply habeas in effect creates an unprecedented parallel legal system into which people can be disappeared.
‘Reason’, though we commend you for your zeal in wanting to ensure people are locked up without writ or trial, I rather think what you appear to desire is profoundly unAmerican. I shake my head in disappointment.
Oregon Guy said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:11
“heresay”… is that like “look here?”
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Pretty sure you’re not a Smiths fan now. Mebbe bow wow wow.
Can we get a reason bot?
justme said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:21
Hrmm, beaten to it, but I’ll throw in…
Yes, two utterly unrelated things, one of which says “Clinton” (a virtual guarantee that wingnuts such as yourself will be on the verge of expectorating their livers), and one of which says “unlawful combatant” (a previously weakly defined term retailored from whole cloth by this administration to deny people the protections of either Geneva, should they be fighters, or Habeas, should they be criminals, the two classes which happily covered every circumstance up until the idiot king deciderered that he needed to rule by fiat). It’s not really so much that we’re holding the high ground as it is that you all keep digging the ditch and wallowing in it.
As I mentioned before, if you do not believe, as our Founding Fathers did, that human beings have rights unto themselves (not “granted”, not “ours”, but Rights that exist beyond the ability of idiots, particularly idiots with crowns or the presumption thereof, to deny), then tossing all these silly bits into the bonfire with the books and the faggots and the commies isn’t a problem at all, and twisting all logic to blame it on teh Clenis is just bonus cash. On the other hand, if one reads and appreciates said Fathers at their finest…
(I’ll double-quote the Declaration for clarity.)
torching Habeas and Geneva becomes a more difficult task. That to secure these rights. Not grant. Not allow. Not give. To secure. They are already there. That, Sir, is what our Nation is built upon. Of course, to President “It’s Just A God Damned Piece Of Paper” and friends, this doesn’t seem to be a big sticking point.
Aaaaaaand here comes the tortured English and flailing irrelevancy. Right on schedule. Good thing that decision didn’t say shit about Iraq or Afghanistan. They are, however, along with virtually every other “middle eastern nation”, signatories to Geneva. Just thought I’d point that out.
Sadly, no. How one can “expand” something not yet done is sort of a mystery. Little if anything this administration has done has been “legally sound”, largely by their own design. If they started to do that, they might be expected to provide some consistency. Everything they have done has been a grab for more power, a stretch of the envelope, a “Let’s fuck with it and see how far we can go until it breaks”.
Of course, to these assclowns who would deny any and all rights to anybody, other than themselves, there must be a whole alternate history for them to believe. Decency=Weakness. Fear=Strength. The only way to beat the horrible, inhuman horde of our enemy massing at the door is to become yet more horrible and inhuman than the illusory fable we tell.
One of our Founding Fathers said something about this not being a Nation of Fearful Men. I like that history, thanks. I’ll live it, too.
Krassen said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:02
“Habeas Corpus protects the American citizens. Big distinction, and that is the angle Scalia is coming from. These are not American citizens held captive.”
Yeah, baby!!!!! Let’s capture and torture us some forinerz!!! Hi Fiiiiiive!!!!!
Magda Carter said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:20
Still the only person to be “convicted” by the military tribunal for Gitmo detainees is David Hicks, the Australian whose indefinite detention was becoming a political inconvenience for John “poodle” Howard, who went on to lose government, exit the stage at a time when not a single government in the whole country was (is) run by his party, and was voted out in his own electorate by people who passed protestors in orange jumpsuits in their way into the booth at the last state election.
David Hicks is walking the streets of Adelaide.
Justice and democaracy took a while to work, but it was worth the wait.
Skullhunter said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:34
justme has hit on the basic point of rights that eludes sniveling right-wing cowards like reason.
We don’t need your Big Daddy Government to GIVE us rights, reason. We have them. We’re born with them. They need to be secured FROM government encroachment, not begged for from government. The failure of government to recognize those rights doesn’t mean they magically cease to exist.
reason, you can content yourself with being a simpering whipped dog for authority, taking whatever scraps of your freedom they toss you without complaint, secure in the knowledge that what they do to you and those around you is just and wise and for your own good and to the detriment of those you hate. The rest of us demand better from those who are supposed to serve us.
Percyprune said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:59
A right is not granted. People are endowed with unalienable rights.
CK said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:21
Completely OT, but Pam Atlas has finally scaled the Olympian heights of Mount Batshit Crazy and launched herself into her own unique Pammyverse - a special place where people have their brains sucked out by flesh-eating monsters:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/why-wasnt-aq-kh.html
Scroll down to the bottom of the post and see where she breathlessly declares:
“I’d rather we blow up the whole world than surrender it to Islam”
Mein Furher, I can valk!
lobbey said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:27
Exonerated in a military tribunal. Many detainees already have been tried and released. A number of them went back and again picked up arms with the Taleban or AIQ.
Ah, reason, thoughtcrime, wondered how long that would take. So, just because some folk after being released picked up arms , means that no-one can be released, good logic, dickwad. If I had been locked up in Gitmo without trial for 6 years, and was released without a word, or an apology, then, i may be a little pissed, and might just consider a little revenge. This is where your dumb arsed logic have got us….
And Oregon Guy, i must have missed a meeting, whats wrong with The Smiths?
owlbear1 said,
June 17, 2008 at 11:32
Key to understanding Scalia:
Suffering is the path to Heaven…
Antonin is just doing his part helping everyone reach eternal bliss.
And raisin once you finish there at LU I am sure you’ll have long and prosperous career as a boot licker in DC.
El Cid said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:15
If it’s necessary for the mouth-breathers, habeas corpus can nearly equally be seen as a “right” belonging to individuals as it can be a Constitutional restriction on government authority.
Note the wording:
There’s nothing in there about us having to beg the authorities not to suspend it, in this or that case. It’s pretty clear. Except in the case of rebellion or invasion, habeas corpus shall not be suspended. Even though it apparently still requires someone — the detained, or any other party — to present a petition of habeas corpus, there’s not any sort of leeway there.
It’s almost like the people founding the nation were worried about what might happen if a government were granted the ability to selectively detain people without charge or hearing, and were sufficiently worried about that possibility to include in the founding legal document of the nation a quite incontrovertibly clear statement to the effect that the government may not do that.
The Right has conducted a 40 year struggle to convince people that any restriction on the power of government to coerce individuals must be spoken of in terms of the rights and needs of the accused.
The last thing they want people remembering is that 8 million years ago when the Constitution was being written by alien gods from outer space who all lived in a pre-9/11 moment and thus were stupid, apparently people were demanding that their government act honorably without regard to debates about the worthiness of the individuals it was dealing with.
So, you have trials whether the accused is agreed to be a wonderful person or a psychopathic serial rapist & killer.
That’s because in the America of 800 billion years ago, some people first asked “how should an honorable government act,” and then they set down rules about that.
There’s nothing in the Constitution which addresses the question of how the government can get out of its obligations to act honorably and legally by defining the accused as bad or worthless individuals. There’s no checklist in there about how to tell if the background of an accused individual means the government must act honorably, Constitutionally, and openly, or when the government gets a “get out of Constitution free” card.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:49
And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
Sounds like Scalia’s been talking to the Admin folks. Sure habeas corpus is a good idea in principle but do you know how many people we have sequestered away? No? Well, of course you don’t, national security means that we have to keep that information limited only to a handful of low level interpreters and interrogators, the ones that’ll be accountable if America ever gets her head out of her ass. But let me assure you that it’s so many that it’s be really hard to argue for each one individually that we need to keep them locked up.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:51
Oh and by the way, I found the blink tag. Unfortunately, it’s the manual version. Just scroll down continuously.
PENIS
PENIS
PENIS
PENIS
Cockburn!
PENIS
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:19
“We do not know how,” said Hansel and Gretel to the Wicked Old Witch. “Can you go first and show us what to do?”
“Stupid children!” the witch shrieked. “Any idiot knows how to do this! You just place the Semtex here, take these two wires … ”
Hansel and Gretel hid behind the oven until the smoke cleared and they all lived happily ever after.
El Cid said,<