I Got Your Civil Rights

Update: See Analysis at the SCOTUS blog.

The usual unqualified to serve Justices, unqualified as they can't keep to interpreting the Constituion, as opposed to assuming power for themselves, weighed in with their usual anti-American positions.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented from the denial. Breyer and Souter also said they would not only grant review, but expedite it.

Right here!

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want to challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

Of course, they'll keep trying with the help of terror loving activist lawyers and unpatriotic liberals. The notion that enemy combatants are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution is ridiculous.

This effort is indicative of the similarly misguided policy liberals would apply to illegal immigrants. The Constitution serves to protect the rightful citizens of the United States, it was never meant as some moral guide post in all international affairs and certainly has nothing to do with war fighting.

Only a lack of respect for American tradition and Americans allows liberals and Democrats to pursue protections Lincoln himself actually took away from Americans during the Civil War for foreign enemies.

Comments

[Darth Malice]

Give them amnesty the liberals cry out!

[nowinger]

Why are you so scared of letting prisoners go to court to challenge their status? If you are 100% convinced every one of these prisoners is a terrorist and was picked up on a battlefield, then what are you scared of? You must be scared because in your heart you know there are innocent people at Guantanamo Bay and you know that the evidence against them doesn't exist. That is the only reason why Bush would have wanted to deprive the Gitmo prisoners of all their rights including lawyers and access to evidence against them.

If you really believed these people were as guilty as the government says they are you should welcome giving them due process. Not the same rights as Americans have but something that approximates a fair trial, lawyers, access to evidence, hearings and trial dates. You are afraid, just like Bush is afraid, that if the socalled evidence against these people is made public American will see the truth, and will also know the truth of exactly what techniques have been used against these people.

[Zifnab]

Horray! More brown people in jails! We're protecting ourselves from goat-herders!

Boo! Evil Unqualified Justices! If only we could replace them all with Harriet Miers, then the world would be a safer place.

[templar knight]

Who's scared of them going to court? They have no right to go to our courts for redress. That is stupid, and dangerous as well. Our courts could be tied up for years with this silliness, thereby depriving American citizens of our right to speedy redress of grievances, and for what? The liberal ideal that everyone in the World should have access to our Courts. Stupid, assinine, lunacy is what this is, and a formula for a complete disaster in our judicial system.

[templar knight]

Hm....Ziffy, BrainlessBob is your sock puppet, huh, or you and he think exactly alike. Scary.

[nowinger]

We are scared of them going to anything but a kangaroo court, the Guantanamo Bay set up doesn't even meet USMCJ standards, but I doubt you've read any comments from the JAGS who were finally, after several years, assigned to represent the detainees, and if you have, you disregarded them as liberal traitors who somehow infiltrated the military as career officers. What about Padilla, or did you forget about him? He IS an American citizen and the government has sought to deprive him of rights that he DOES have as an American citizen captured on US soil. Do you not understand how precedent works?

[Zifnab]

"What about Padilla, or did you forget about him? He IS an American citizen and the government has sought to deprive him of rights that he DOES have as an American citizen captured on US soil. Do you not understand how precedent works?"

IOKIARDI

If Clinton talked about half the shit Bush has already implimented, Republicans would have impeached him a dozen times by now.

But when a Republican President wants to throw a guy in jail and torture him for a couple of years for no clear reason other than "protectin ya from da terr'rists" suddenly all those limited government, anti-police state, civil-rights-for-white-Americans politicians do a full 180. Amazing how you can lock a guy in a torture cell and win praise from the same people who claimed your predecessor's wife wanted to do the exact same thing to the rest of America.

[templar knight]

I see you've morphed into the BrainlessBob character, Ziffy, you just forgot to change your nick. Sick.

[Zifnab]

Temp, do you have anything else to say besides "OMG! SOCKPUPPETZ!" or is this the rhetorical tactic you fall into when you can't stomach defending torture anymore?

[templar knight]

Oh, whenever I criticize your stupidity, I am somehow defending torture? Is that all you have, Ziffy? Is that it? No quotes of me defending torture. Just a stupid accusation that I am defending torture. Great, you're a genius, Ziffy.

[RoonDog]

Conservative = AntiAmerican Yellowbelly

That has to be the case since Bush supporters (and don't try to argue Bush isn't conservative, he is the very apotheosis of what has been conservative strategy for years, i.e., a dimwit bible thumper who uses bully tactics to strengthen the executive) are terrified that our system isn't strong enough to deal with bad guys and want some rhetorical coverage for the fact that they're quivering under Bush's skirt. So, they use a case like this to 'show' how tough they are when in fact it shows exactly how chicken they are of the world and how little they understand our legal system (what's left of it after a group of incompetents subverted more than 200 years of justice).

[nowinger]

But you do defend torture. You defend torture every time you claim the US doens't have to abide by the GenCon or that the president has the right to define torture however he sees fit. Bush has said he has the authority to torture prisoners and you have all agreed this is correct; he also says the US doesn't torture, a strange position that he has taken then, to proclaim the right to approve something he says he would never approve. The same goes for the Yoo definition of torture as only something that would cause pain similar to that from organ failure and that must be administered with the INTENT of causing that much pain. Anything less and it isn't torture. You also defend what would be construed as abuse by a normal person, I guarantee you that if I was taken out of my house, stripped naked, shackled with a blag bag over my head and then interroraged for 20 or 40 hours I would feel I was abused and I would be right. We wouldn't do what has been done to these detainees to the worst, sickest serial killer child rapist, but you are okay with doing it to hundreds of men, some teenagers, who haven't even been charged with any crime and when you have no idea what kind of evidence, if any, exists that they are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place or having the wrong enemies back in Pakistan.

[ET]

It always fascinates me how our liberal friends start with the assumption that our enemies are decent, innocent folks who have been abused by the big bad US of A. I could turn around all of nobrainer's rhetorical questions...

-- Why are you so scared of letting prisoners go to court to challenge their status? If you are 100% convinced every one of these prisoners is a terrorist and was picked up on a battlefield, then what are you scared of?

Why are you so convinced that these people should have a day in court? You must be 100% convinced that none of these prisoners is a terrorist and none were picked up on the battle field and that the US randomly selects goatherders to lock up at considerable expense for some unknown reason.

See...the libs worldview is that the US is never to be trusted. They never back down even when confronted by the stupidity of their positions. For instance, how exactly does the US gain from detaining innocent people? Doesn't the fact that we still hold these guys (after releasing many others) indicate that we have some reason to consider them dangerous? After all, we are detaining them in the face of considerable pressure from american libs and others to let them go or bring them to court. Do you believe that we would risk negative world opinion to cover up some massive effort to torture prisoners we know to be innocent?

Seriously, nobrainer, you've got to stop taking your talking points from Rosie. There is no logic behind your positions, only ignorance.

And you never answered my earlier question from another post, one that also illustrates the ignorance of your viewpoint...If the Bush Admin lied about WMD in a massive conspiracy to justify war in Iraq, why didn't they go the next step and plant some there to cover their tracks? Answer: because they never lied. They were wrong, just like the entire intel community. Yet your kind continue to rant about 'bush lied people died." Again, your ignorance seems to know no bounds.

[templar knight]

Are you goofs(RoonDog, is that a mushroom tea drinking dog, sure sounds like he is on the mushroom juice) so stupid that you want these people to have access to our judicial system, which is already overwhelmed by trial lawyers trying to make a quick buck?

Oh, I get it now. You libs are figuring on making many millions of dollars defending these people in US courts. You will want the US government to pay you for representing these people, won't you? Now we know why you are trying so hard. It's all about the money.

[Phoenix]

Zif,

I've got a great idea for you. Why don't you start an online petition to send to the powers-that-be and demand these prisoners be given equal rights as Americans? That would sure be action instead of just getting mad about it on a blog. Do something! You've got the energy for sure!

[nowinger]

If the Bush Admin lied about WMD in a massive conspiracy to justify war in Iraq, why didn't they go the next step and plant some there to cover their tracks?

Because planting evidence would mean an acknowledgement at the highest levels that they were wrong, and the Bush Administration does not admit they were wrong unless they are forced to. The same reason the strategy in Iraq stayed the same for 4 years and only changed after the Dems took back Congress.

Of course the military did not knowingly pick up innocent people or torture innocent people. But the institutional pressures are such that they can now not admit this, it is the reason they wanted the tribunals secret and to deprive the detainees of lawywers or due process, in the long run, keeping a few dozen innocent people at Gitmo is an easier strategy than letting the world know what you have done. It is also human nature not to want to admit terrible mistakes, like the idea that you might have mistreated an innocent person who you wrongly believed to be a terrorist, even to the point of killing them. It was only after the government has been forced to give the detainees SOME rights that they started releasing prisoners, not before. They must have known the people they released were not terrorists but they weren't giong to do it until they saw that some form of trial was inevitable. Either David Hicks is a dangerous terrorist who deserved life in prison or he's an Australian dumbass who was never dangerous to begin with. You can't square life without parole with a nine month jail term.

[ET]

--you have no idea what kind of evidence, if any, exists that they are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place or having the wrong enemies back in Pakistan.

Just because you don't have access to the evidence you assume there is none. Nobrainer, you have made my earlier point once again...You assume that the US is abusing these people. You are aware that the international red cross has an office at Gitmo, right? If there was abuse, don't you think they would be coming forward with evidence? Of course they want the place shut down, don't bother countering with that. But the fact remains they are not presenting hard evidence that these prisoners are being mistreated. they worship, eat three square meals a day, excercise. Our captured service men and women would be lucky to get the same treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran. They would be more likely to have their heads removed with a dull knife. Try to remember whose side you are supposed to be on.

[Fred Beloit]

"Sometimes I wonder why I spend the lonely night..." begins an old song, Stardust. But sometimes I do wonder what happened to yyy. yyy seems to have been replaced by much inferior debaters and newcomers fresh from the Kos training camps. They are full of high sentence but a bit obtuse, bringing up the same old tired and disproven charges and just as fast dropping new ones. But Senator Feinstein has certainly put the damper on "Bush can't fire his political appointees who won't follow his priorities " charge. But I predict this one will come back. It doesn't matter how absurd the charge, they keep dragging them out for a new airing.

[RoonDog]

ET, are you serious? That's your argument that you think destroys any thoughts to the contrary? You want us to just trust the WH to do the right thing? Given the fact that we know they are largely political animals with little policy ability, as one insider 5 years ago told us - as if some of us didn't see it before the election, it never occurred to you that this may be propaganda? You want us to just trust the WH... no questions asked? As I said, you are antiAmerican since no one who knows our history and the reasoning behind the Constitution as originally written could conceive of such a ludicrous stance.

knight, actually, you don't see the hypocrisy, do you? We want to export American-style democracy through this little (misad)venture in Iraq, correct? I mean Bush has said it's all about an aggressive push for American democracy and freedom for people oppressed the world over to show dictators that we mean business, i.e., after the other justifications for the war fell by the wayside. That being said, how can we push American-style democracy which is all about a nation of laws not men, correct (if you don't understand the reference, ask your teacher to give you an assignment on John Adams) if we ourselves won't abide by those very principles?

[ET]

-- Because planting evidence would mean an acknowledgement at the highest levels that they were wrong, and the Bush Administration does not admit they were wrong unless they are forced to.

So you admit that the bush administration did not knowing lie to justify the iraq invasion. They were wrong. That is quite different from a deliberate lie.

Be careful, nobrainer. Rosie is gonna pull your libtard card.

--Of course the military did not knowingly pick up innocent people or torture innocent people. But the institutional pressures are such that they can now not admit this...keeping a few dozen innocent people at Gitmo is an easier strategy than letting the world know what you have done.

Hey. consider another scenario. The people still detqained there are fucking dangerous! We have really good reasons for not letting them see a courtroom, and they have nothing to do with covering up mistakes. Try to squeeze that possibility into your brain and maybe you will stop proclaiming the innocence of people you know nothing about. Let the US military do their job at gitmo...they are more qualified and informed than you are.

[ET]

shroomdog, are you serious? What the fuck are you trying to say?

[nowinger]

The Red Cross and other humanitarian groups have said repeateldy they are denied access to the detainees. If they can't talk to the detainees in private how are they going to document abuses? If the only people the detainee can complain of abuse to are their own jailers it isn't a surprise that no abuse has been documented.

I assume there is no evidence because there isn't any other reason why the government refuses to let the detainee see the evidence against them and I assume there is no legitimate evidence when the government says it is okay to admit evidence obtained from torture. I assume there never was any evidence when people who were held at Gitmo are released back into their home countries and no charges are filed against them.

[nowinger]

Re WMD, this is the problem with idealogues, they BELIEVE. I am sure they all convinced themselves, even Wolfowitz and Feith that the CIA and the state department really were too arab friendly and that what they were doing was uncovering the 'truth' behind the intelligence, it how they justified turning non credible reports into credible ones, forgeries into truth. Sure they thought there would be WMD in Iraq, at least enough to justify the invasion. Same way they thought they could install Chalabi as the head of Iraq and declare victoy. THis why our system has checks and balances and why the government is supposed to run on facts not ideological ferver. When you take away the checks and balances and you compound the error by putting ideologues and hacks in charge of things, it shouldn't be surpirsing that they will find what they expected to find, it could be no other way. And when the ideologue is confronted with an objective reality that does not confirm to his beliefs he does what ideologs have done since the beginning of time, he goes deep into denial and doubles his efforts to attack anyone who believes differently.

[templar knight]

As you can all see for yourselves, not a one of these liberals is denying my charge that they will want to be paid by the US Government for defending these guys in US Courts, where these people are not allowed to be in the first place. Habeus Corpus does not exist for foreign combatants of any kind. I can see it now, the Nazis at Nuremburg would have been allowed into the US Courts under the plans envisioned by these liberals. Unfuckingbelievable.

[RoonDog]

Knight, ET,

They may very well be dangerous but we won't know that unless they are given hearings and trials. The Nazis were allowed real representation. What have you to fear? And, I don't know anyone who is insisting on a US court but a court based on US principles would be a nice example of how the US does serve justice. We don't even have to know about it but if we can have trials of these people, in US-styled trials, where the military's proffered defense attorneys don't walk out and complain that we are railroading the defense would be a good start.

Except for people like Padilla, of course, who is an American citizen and cannot be detained indefinitely without representation, without access to the charges against him, without reasonable access to human conditions, without being tortured. Again, ask your teacher(s) to assign some reading for you on the Constitution and get back to me when you have learned something along these lines. The Constitution may be a good place to start reading and it is easy to read and quite short.

[carol H]

It's not in the Constitution but it is in the Declaration of Independence. This country was founded on the idea that all men have rights inherent in them, not given to them by the state. We should treat people in the decent way because it is the right thing to do and because as Americans we are a decent people.

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

[Fred Beloit]

Nowinger, may I ask you why you are so concerned with non-American prisoners in Gitmo, most of whom are living comfortably (perhaps more comfortably than many in American prisons), but who were captured on a battlefield with weapons but without uniforms, which makes them ineligible for GenConv protections. There is absolutely no reason to give them such protections, yet Bush ordered that they be given. The UK military, who were captured illegally by Iran, receive no such protections though they were captured in uniform. Those poor unfortunate civilians in Iraq who are captured by the enemy are routinely beheaded, a most barbarous practice. (Have you noticed that evil Bush, as you see him, has never even considered suggesting anything like such a treatment for our prisoners. I hate to even mention such a thing, but you apparently must hear it.) This says so much about you Libs that you never, never express any outrage concerning any people but those at Gitmo, who are quit healthy, even those who go on hunger strikes and have to be force-fed.

[Victor]

Such conservative anger on here. You people should be angry at that idiot you voted for (TWICE!!) and pissed away billions and still managed to lose his silly little war. What morons...

[nowinger]

If we had evidence against the Gitmo detainees we would not have gone to such lengths to deprive them of the basic tenants of justice: lawyers, evidence, charges, appeals, trials. If we had the evidence against them trials and convictions would have already happened. If no abuse was occuring at Gitmo we wouldn't be forcing detainees into gag orders or redacting what they say about their interrogations. The process is tainted and so are the confessions. In effect, we handed the terrorists another tool to use against us. If we had not abused them and if we had granted them the basic rights a civilized society gives to its worst, we would have proven to the world the rightness of our position and their detentions. We did the opposite.

[Fred Beloit]

Prisoners of war, Roon and Carol, that is, soldiers captured in uniform, do have certain rights. For example, they have a right not to have their photos taken. You may notice the prisoners at Gitmo have blurred faces in photos from there. But the captors have rights as well. They have the right to hold these prisoners in confinement until the war is over.

[Zifnab]

"Nowinger, may I ask you why you are so concerned with non-American prisoners in Gitmo, most of whom are living comfortably (perhaps more comfortably than many in American prisons)"

http://machineoverlords.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/gitmo.jpg
http://www.yopyop.com/citizens/images/uploads/gitmo-prisoners01.jpg

"but who were captured on a battlefield with weapons but without uniforms, which makes them ineligible for GenConv protections."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0425/dailyUpdate.html

"The Los Angeles Times said the US plans to release about one-third of the men being held at the prison because they pose no threat to the United States."

"Earlier this month, Agence-France Press reported on the six Algerian detainees who were sent to Guant�namo. The men were seized in 2002 by Bosnian police and turned over to American officials after the Bosnian Supreme Court dismissed charges against them that they had plotted to blow up the US embassy in Sarajevo."

[Fred Beloit]

Hahahaha. Victor says there is conservative anger here.

[templar knight]

Victor should take his sorry ass to Kos.

[Zifnab]

Some of the Gitmo boys aren't POWs because they were arrested by the police of foreign governments. Of course, that would make them standard, run-of-the-mill alleged criminals. But I guess run-of-the-mill criminals aren't really "criminals" so much as "enemy combatants".

Why, by the US definition of "enemy combatant", I'm pretty sure your average bankrobber - no uniform, carrying a gun - qualifies as a terrorist enemy combatant who can be indefinitely detained, tortured, and thrown to a military tribunal. But why are you complaining? Just like stoopid libruls to stick up for bankrobbers.

[nowinger]

Its a lie that the Gitmo detainees were all captured on the battlefield with weapons. From what I have read, a good portion of them were taken into custody on the say so of Pakistani and Afgani bounty hunters or on the world of informants. That would be like me calling up the FBI and saying my neighbor was a terrorist and then my neighbor being taken off to prison, never even being told where the allegation came from.

[Victor]

My sorry ass? Aren't you one of those idiot 'surge-supporters'?? Considering that you supported a war that was initiated on a lie (WMD) and humiliatingly lost over then next 4 years perhaps it is time to STFU? No?

[Fred Beloit]

Well that was pretty fast reaction from Zifnab, Ltd. But what are you trying to demonstrate Zif? That you are the victim of propaganda? I don't know what the first picture is. I do know that when moving prisoners around in the US, dangerous ones are often handcuffed and shackled. The second photo is the inside of a large aircraft, designed to transport large numbers of men-at-arms, not prisoners. You may notice the US soldiers do not have 1st-class seats. These prisoners can't be allowed to roam around on a plane like the flying Imams. And they must be protected from getting knocked around by rough weather. Therefore, the jury-rigged aircraft arrangements. Now, Zif, how about some pictures of some of these types of prisoners hacking or sawing civilians heads off? BTW, what are you serving today at the Zif Company cafeteria for lunch today? Not pork chops I bet.

[Tom]

To Templar and the rest like him: The one thing I do not want to hear is your whining about our soldiers (or allied soldiers) being treated unfairly by their captors. Since the Bush administration has basically torn up the Geneva Conventions and our own Bill of Rights, we have no moral ground on which to stand. None. Because you folks like to see yourselves as bullies and policeman of the world, it would seem we should hold higher standards as a goal for everyone else. Bush - being the uniter that he is - has undermined our entire 200+ year history of legal process and procedure. I cannot fathom why disregarding legal history since about 1215, makes you proud of 'His Chimpness". Bush destroyed something. That hardly seems deserving of your blantent worship. It takes much more brains and brawn to BUILD something. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush couldn't build a fart without staff assistance.

[Fred Beloit]

Tom, I'm afraid you are completely full of anger. Do you see how angry Tom is, Victor. He is so angry he is writing nonsense. Now please calm down, Tom, and make sense.

[Victor]

Ahh, yet another defeat for Bush and friends.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/scotus.greenhousegas.ap/index.html

Damn commie judges!!! hahaha.

[Fred Beloit]

Nowinger, I never said ALL were captured on a battlefield. You said that.

[Devil's Advocate]

Maybe it's time to denounce Dan Riehl to the NSA, DHS, and the FBI as a supporter of Muslim terrorism. Anyone can denounce anybody about anything these days... If your landlady is a pain in the ass, all you need to do is scream "terrorist lover".

Since there is no longer such a thing as habeas corpus, Riehl can be arrested, declared " an enemy combattant", denied access to legal counsel, denied the right to even know what charges are being levelled against him, and held for life in some hellhole, where he'll be in solitary confinement...

He'll be forced to wear goggles and earmuffs every time he has to go from one end of the place to the other, lest he would catch a glimpse of human life or sound, and of course, he'll be appropriately shackled.

[Devil's Advocate]

By the way you don't have to be a dirty brown "furriner" to enjoy the hospitality of the Bush regime sans habeas corpus. Anyone -- including US citizens and permanent residents -- can be declared an "enemy combattant" even if you have never set foot abroad, let alone on a battlefield.

I think I may denounce my neighbor. She steals my newspaper every morning. That'll teach her!

[Tom]

Tom, I'm afraid you are completely full of anger. Do you see how angry Tom is, Victor. He is so angry he is writing nonsense. Now please calm down, Tom, and make sense.

Not nearly as angry as your own children and grandchildren will be at you folks for propping up this all hat and no cattle preznit. When history gets written, you will have lots of explaining to do. They will ask why did we fight the Revolutionary War if all you want is a King? Why would we spend hundreds of years building good will around the world, only to have ONE MAN destroy it all? A right wing guy offered an opinion to me the other day: His opinion was that if the supporters of this administration were in the majority back in 1773-4, we never would have fought the War for Indepenance. His reasoning was that you folks who are scared of your own shaddows would be too frightened of your own harm (cowards) to break away from England. It would have hurt too much, and you just as soon would want to live under the thumb of an authoritarian anyway. Its too bad you all feel that way. It makes my embarrased to be an American.

[RoonDog]

Fred Beloit,

So, instead of 200+ years of American jurisprudence and 700+ years of what we define as the basic founding of Western legal systems, you are willing to hold us to the standard that we are better than the people we call the most evil and threatening on the planet? Sorry, AntiAmerican Yellowbelly, but I love my country enough to hold her to a higher standard than those terrorists whose jurisprudence is in line with our homegrown Dominionists.

[templar knight]

Tom, WTF are you lying about? A right wing guy offered an opinion to me the other day. That was almost as stupid a story as the idiot who is telling it. Right wing guy saying such a thing, bullshit, you made that story up. Don't come here with those fairy tales and expect to be taken seriously. You're an idiot.

[templar knight]

...you are willing to hold us to the standard that we are better than the people we call the most evil and threatening on the planet?

Why, yes, I am. We are better than them. Enough said.

[nowinger]

I beg to differ. The wingers would have never supported the American revolution. They would have turned the founding fathers over to the crown for treason. They owuld have adamently agreed that the crown had the right to put seditionists in jail and hold them as long as they wanted. They would have supported the closing down of printing presses that printed anti government [the crown] statements. The wingers have shown they desire a strong, centralized, authoritarian government with almost all of the power vested in the leader and his supporters. Having a king is much closer to the form of government the wingers desire than the government designed by the founding fathers, one where the majority of power is in Congress, not the executive branch.

[templar knight]

RoonDog, back on the mushroom juice, I see. And show me where the United States has ever, and I mean EVER granted Habeus Corpus to foreign combatants. And I mean even under your demi-god, FDR. Show me or STFU. So much for your stupid opinion that America is throwing away 200+ years of jurisprudence. If we did grant it, that would throw away 200+ years of jurisprudence, you dummy.

[templar knight]

Now nowinger is a seer. He goes back in history and projects his stupidity there. Is any place or time safe from your ignorance, nowinger? Don't answer that. The answer is obvious.