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

[nowinger]

Its straightforward. Compare the winger positions of today with the writings of the founding fathers on democracy, executive power, freedom of the press, due process. The inescapable conclusion is despite the rhetoric about American values and freedoms, wingers do not support the majority views of the fathers of our country. Crystal Clear.

[RoonDog]

k-night,

Padilla. Now, please, STFU.

[RoonDog]

nowinger,

the problem is that the wingers don't view TJ, GW, JA, AH, JM, et alii, our founding fathers. They think the Puritans are our founders which is why they can't get their head around things like liberty for all, the separation clause, democratic government, religious plurality, innocent until..., etc. They believe they have the right to set up their own little religious sects with the blessing of the king and burn anyone suspected of witchcraft which is defined as anyone not hewing to the very strict lines they have imposed on personal behavior. They believe that curtains are evil because they may hide what people are doing from the purity police.

[Fred Beloit]

Listen, guys, why don't you try some new tactics. Just insulting people over and over isn't all that effective. Why don't you mix in a lot of outrageous exaggerations with your old false charges? Exaggeration is the mother of excoriation. Some of you have gotten this already. Some examples: From Tom: "They will ask why did we fight the Revolutionary War if all you want is a King?" Tom, don't feel lonely, I'am embarrased you are an American too. From Zifnab: "Why, by the US definition of "enemy combatant", I'm pretty sure your average bank robber, - no uniform, carrying a gun - qualifies as a terrorist enemy combatant who can be indefinitely detained, tortured, and thrown into a military tribunal." (I especially liked "thrown into a military tribunal", Zif. Emotions running wild.) From RoonDoggiedog: "Sorry, AntiAmerican Yellowbelly..." He is addressing me. For all he knows I could be a Medal of Honor winner. Of course I'm not, but he knows absolutely zip about me. Now I could return in kind, but he is the one who now looks like a reckless individual. Why should I change that well-deserved impression? Though I might be tempted to give him the old double-Beloit Barrels if he doesn't stop.

[Evil Progressive]

Templar Knight is one of those moronic right-wingers who could not find his ass in the dark with both hands and a torch in his teeth. It does not seem to register with that low I.Q. twit that habeas corpus no longer exists in this country. And that is a dangerous thing because it can be abused by autocratic Presidents. That means that U.S. citizens who are political opponents could be labelled "enemy combattants" and shipped off into oblivion without any recourse whatsoever. Just like in the old USSR, the new Russia, China, and a host of unsavory countries that the US piously condemns every year for their contempt of civil and human rights... Get it now, stupid? Anyone nursing a grudge against you, dimwit, could fabricate stories about you, and have you thrown in jail forever, with no access to legal counsel, and with no knowledge of the charges.

[nowinger]

THe core problem with the wingers is they live in a world of absolutes. A perfect world where government oversight is not necessary because the government would never misuse its power or make a mistake. The citizens don't need protection from government, because government is good and right. Similarly, the enemy is all bad all the time and so, must be crushed. All enemies are exactly the same, it is why they wishe for Nancy Pelosi to be hung in public, for rat poison in the coffee of the USSC justices and torture and death for terrorist suspects. They are equal opportunity haters. If you disagree with them you are bad and must be destroyed. It is also why there is no debating or discussion with the wingers, as soon as they are challenged by facts, history, precedent, anything they start screaming and frothing at the mouth, calling you a terrorist and a traitor. All heretics must die.

[Fred Beloit]

Thomas Jefferson believed in limited government. Ted Kennedy believes in unlimited government. Benjamin Franklin believed non-profit groups freely participated in by citizen volunteers can do great service to a community. Sen. Schumer believes government has the answer to and should handle all problems.

[Fred Beloit]

The heroes of the Left all believed in Big Government with total power, after a suitable violent revolution: Castro, Che, Lenin, Mao.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh, I forgot Ho Chi Min. Sorry Jane Fonda.

[Fred Beloit]

nowinger, son (or daughter), you are loosing it. You are screaming nonsense and frothing at the mouth. Take it easy.

[nowinger]

A society that gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Who said that? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Ted Kennedy.

[Thomas Paine in the neck]

There, Mr Beloit is the problem. Rather than deal in a serious manner with the disagreements at hand the resorting to caricature. As with some previous posters denigration within the argument is an EMOTIONAL reaction rather than an intellectual one.
The point is that no one wants to admit that their opposition has a point worth noting. It is all or nothing and it is a voluminous waste of time.

[ME]

Which rebellion or invasion justifies the suspension of habeus corpus by our president?

[Fred Beloit]

Slogans, how they love them. Slogans are easy; thinking is hard. Now who said that? Remember those apes in hoods who were burning an American soldier in effigy? I can't recall their chants exactly, but it was something like this "Soldiers are baddies; kill their daddies." Marvelous.

[nowinger]

I guess you aren't able to grasp the meaning behind the words, the sentence is far from a slogan. Benjamin Franklin wrote it. What a liberal piece of shit he must have been.

[Fred Beloit]

Well Thomas, you can read. Did you read "There is no longer habeus corpus in the US" and sentiments to that effect. Only one problem. It isn't true. Those who said it know it isn't true but they wrote it anyway. There is a name for such activity. It is called lying.

[Fred Beloit]

Here is a better one, no. Without security there can be no liberty.

[Fred Beloit]

Well my worthy fellow Americans, I must temporarily bid you farewell. Looking for more keyboard action, though one hopes not quite as much, tomorrow

[RoonDog]

I have gone one better, Fred. My insult is backed up by a rhetorical proof. It is clear that those who call themselves conservatives today, which is what I called myself until about 25 years ago, no longer believe in limited government. Nor do they believe in the power of the citizenry. The conservative movement lost its way about the time I left it when it joined itself at the hip with the religious right. At that point, it became an authoritarian cult and it hasn't looked back since then. Conservatives used to have plenty of thinkers at the top but sadly for America that is no longer the case. Now, we have one party that occasionally makes sense and one that is completely off its rocker, in that order specifically since we read left to right (since these things must be pointed out).

[Tom]

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.

Actually, the bigger idiot is one where the answer does not speak to the question. The bigger idiot ignores the question and spits back at the questioner. The bigger idiot ASSumes you know all - just like Dumbya. Actually you may know as much as Dumbya - which explains the mistakes being made by your administration. The bigger idiot has nothing of substance to offer - except for vitrol. The discussion did happen, the words were said. I believe I found the start of the right wing becoming a little more lucid considering the pounding our poor country has endured by your boy-king. It takes a while to admit you were (and are) wrong about your dictator. I know it hurts your feelings to maybe consider your self duped by the Rovian machine. Sanity and maturity could be just around the corner - presuming you don't drink anymore kool-aid.

[jim]

- 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. -

Here's how it is: cases going to court helps EVERYBODY.

1) It shows to nations that doubt us, that the US can be trusted; it disproves foreign propaganda.

2) It forces the US gov't itself to concentrate on facts, and get convictions, which then lead to further convictions.

3) Last but not least, it's morally right.

- See...the libs worldview is that the US is never to be trusted. -

Let me explain it for you, as a 'lib' - *No government* is ever to be trusted.

Ours or anyone else's.

Or have you forgotten the very reason for the American revolution? THe Constitution has lasted us so well for so long, because our founding fathers were so INCREDIBLY foresighted and wise to build mistrust for the government INTO the Constitution itself. So the government is forced itself to keep the govermnent honest, and the American people provide a further check on the government, that the government can't ignore...but you know all this. Just please apply it.

[jim]

Please try this on, as a thought experiment:

Your worst possible nightmare comes true, and Hillary Clinton becomes President.

Hillary Clinton has the power to take anyone she wants and throw them into Guantanamo, or really any other legal black hole - including American citizens;

Hillary Clinton can do this for any reason she wants;

Hillary Clinton never has to justify to ANYONE why she chose to do this;

The person who is thrown down the hole can be treated in any way that Hillary Clinton wants, with no impartial observation. They can be thrown in solitary confinement or waterboarded or beaten every day for 1 year, 5 years, 8 years - as long as Hillary Clinton wants.

The person who is thrown down the hole has no rights for legal redress whatsoever. They can't even see the charges against them. They can't see the evidence against them. They don't have the right to appear before any impartial court. They can not even contact any people at all if Hillary doesn't want them to.

Does that make you feel comfortable?

That's what we're talking about here.

It's not just about Bush. It's about the power of the Presidency. No matter what the partisan divide about whether or not we can trust the *Current* president, I think we can all agree that someday there may be a President who we cannot trust - do we want that President to have this power with NO checks? I should think not.

[templar knight]

Yeah, cases of foreign combatants having access to US Courts helps everybody, especially trial lawyers and the ACLU, as they will expect the US taxpayer to pay huge legal fees to them. The large amount of time they will spend on research and discovery will have to be reembursed at what rate, I wonder. Yep, it's all about the boodle.

[jim]

Beloit, I've edited your version of the present so it conforms a bit better to known facts:

- Thomas Jefferson believed in limited government. George Bush believes in unlimited government. Benjamin Franklin believed non-profit groups freely participated in by citizen volunteers can do great service to a community. Dick Cheney believes corprorations have the answer to and should handle all problems. -

[templar knight]

Oh, and hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of these people filing court cases will become an industry in itself, and American citizens are sure to get speedier access to the judicial system as it is clogged by foreign combatants. Please, someone get me a drink. Quick.

[templar knight]

Uh, Evil Dummy, I give you two words-Abraham Lincoln.

[nowinger]

Bush could have avoided all of that if he had used the current military code of justice as a guideline, which itself allows for due process, lawyers, charges and trials instead of creating a legal no mans land for anyone he chooses to call an enemy combatant. Don't forget your government aserted the right to confine an American citizen captured on American soil to the same legal limbo as people caught outside of the US, non citizens and people who really were waging war against our soldiers. The fact that the activist supreme court forced the Bush government to accord this American citizen and these combantants with SOME rights doesn't change the fact that Bush's position was that he and he alone was the decider of their rights.

[ME]

The right wings response to libs here:

You just want to make money defending terrorists in court - (conspiracy theory)
You're just going to clog the courts with foreign combatants - (grasping for anything)
One of you said Habeus corpus doesn't exist at all anymore, therefore all of you are lying - (still not engaging in the central argument)
You're sloganeering - (prevarication)
You must think all the terrorists are innocent (false choice: trials are not reserved for people you believe are innocent)

(if you think regular, run of the mill alledged criminals should have trials, does that mean you think all alleged criminals are innocent?)

Not a single point of defense actually deals with the substance of the libs argument here...the last one on the list is actually quite revealing, as it betrays the underlying belief that makes it possible for the right wingers to defend gitmo: they are convinced that all the people locked up in Gitmo are terrorists who deserve to be there. Just by calling the inmates "terrorists", they betray their stupidity. I don't have to think all the "terrorists" are innocent in order to demand they get a fair trial....but you do have to believe all the detainees are terrorists (um, in your words, that all the terrorists are guilty - a bit redundant, no?).

Which comes down to believing that the government, contrary to much public knowledge about it's activity, has been perfect when it comes to figuring out who's guilty of what, and without the help of a trial!

Furthermore, the hundreds of detainess who have been let go must be totally reformed USA Supporters!!! Because they were obviously terrorists, and we wouldn't just realease hundreds of terrorists!!

See? those last 3 sentences were NUTS...I mean, on their face, NUTS...but that's what the right wing has to believe to keep supporting this crap unconditionally.

[nowinger]

The wingers never connect the dots, because when the dots are connected the idiocy of their position on Gitmo and the detainees is made clear. We've released dozens of people from Gitmo without charging them. Most have gone back to their home countries where no charges have been brought. Either the released people were not terrorists to begin with, meaning they had been held wrongly, OR, they are terrorists who we released without charging them, letting dangerous terrorists back out with no constraints on them at all. Logically, the release of so many from Gitmo means there was never any evidence EVEN TO CHARGE THEM with crimes, let alone convict them even in a miltary kangaroo court.

[nowinger]

It also seems pretty obvious that since hundreds of people have been exonerated in US criminal court after being wrongfully convicted, even with all the many, many defendant friendly rules we have--miranda, probable cause, free lawyers, open trials, etc.--that it should not be impossible to imagine that some of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent. However, the wingers can't admit even to this possibility, scary.

[templar knight]

It does not matter, nowinger. No foreign combatant has ever had the right to participate in US Courts. Are you advocating that we give an entirely new class of non-citizens access to the Court system? Do you have any idea of the precedent that would set? Any idea at all?

And logically, if they are being released from Gitmo, then the process set up by the Congress and military must be working. So there. You have it. They got their due process.

[HighPlainsJoker]

Just one question. Is your position "indicative" of the policy that you would apply to illegal immigrants? I am totally on the right's side in that regard, but I don't think we should put them all in prison without legal redress or access to the judicial process, where warranted....

[Fred Beloit]

Enemy combatants (enemy soldiers out of uniform) have got nothing to do with illegal immigrants, as far as I can see. If they were to surrender in thousands, which could theoretically happen (history shows over and over that winning armies are often completely unprepared to handle large numbers of surrendering enemy), it would be very hard to go through Miranda rights and all the other protections for our citizens. Also, it would be difficult and expensive to provide "dream team" defenses for them. That's why they need to be handled in the way captured enemy have always been handled and not treated as innocent until proven guilty. The Libs have their heads up there where the sun don't shine on this issue. Their view, as best I can understand it is anything for the beheaders, nothing to help American troops win.

[templar knight]

HPJ, I am totally against giving illegal aliens access to the US Court system, however, I do believe there should be hearings adjudicated to determine whether some are here legally. I would give them due process, just not access to our courts.

That is exactly the way I feel about foreign combatants. They deserve due process, but not entry into the US Courts. That would be a precedent ripe with the formula for disaster.

Frankly, the US Court system would come to a halt if 30 million aliens and thousands of foreign combatants were allowed to enter it. Anyone should be able to see that, and project what the consequences of such an act would be.

[Hard Right]

Ah yes, the leftards trot out the old lies again. Here's some of the major claims I found by the loony leftards "studies".

1) Most of those at Gitmo are innocent

Saw who had been making this claim. It comes from the Gitmo inamtes, their attorneys, and their sympathizers. Or in others words, very questionable sources.

2) 94% of Gitmo inmates have no ties to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Even IF you believed this insanely high number, we all know that there are terrorist organizations OTHER than Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

3) 86% of Gitmo inmates were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Funny how the breakdown on what percentage came from where wasn't given by the author. Probably because it would have proved the next claim to be BS.

4) The majority of Gitmo inmates are from Pakistan who were caught by bounty hunters who didn't care who they grabbed as long as they got paid for them.

Pakistan said they turned over approx 350 or so of those captured by bounty hunters and their military to the U.S. I saw that the claims did not specify how many of them had ended up in Gitmo or even how many might still be there.

I saw where we captured some 8-11,000 enemy combatatnts/terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan when some of the Taliben fled there. Of that number a fraction of that wound up in Gitmo. They have screening processes in place to determine who should go to Gitmo and who should continue to stay at Gitmo. The left deliberately fails to mention this.

They also deliberately overlook info taken from Jihadi handbooks found in Afghanstan and elsewhere.

1) Never admit you are connected to/a member of a terrorist group. Claim that you are innocent.
2) Claim abuse, torture, etc.

Folks, it's no accident that the lefties automatically take the side of the enemy. In their minds America= Evil and Jihadists (what we call evil)= Misunderstood, rightfully angry at America, victims.

[templar knight]

That's a pretty good synopsis, HR, don't think I need to add anything to it.

[bobdevo]

Riehl Stoopid:

When Hillary Clinton is elected president and decides that rightwing gasbags like you are a pain in the ass, how comforting it will be to know that under the Military Commissions Act she will be able to accuse you of aiding enemy noncombatants, have you seized and flown to Gitmo with a burlap sack over your head, and you will have no access to a system in which you might assert your rights to habeas corpus.

Bye-bye!