Good Old Arch-Conservative, Me!

The Libs around here don't believe that I'm independent and was actually pretty liberal myself, once. While I don't do much biographical stuff on the blog, came across this old image of me from college and thought I'd post it. Actually, this was taken during my conversion from Lib to Con because of my encounters with liberal academia.

I went into college with a beard and carrying a guitar and came out with short hair and a briefcase, as a direct result of the intolerance I saw in the academy. It taught me to fear the Left, far more than the Right. And that has never changed.

So, this look is either the result of my more liberal college attitudes at the time. Or, it was a great look/image to score with those really hot-assed liberal chicks I loved so much in college.

Come to think about it, maybe it was a bit of both those factors. Heh!

View this photo

Comments

[jharp]

"I personally find that six years should have been enough time to determine the guilt or innocence of these terrorists, after having extracted whatever intel they had, and to dispose of them accordingly."

I agree. Charge them and bring them to trial.

And why this hasn't happened I don't know. Could it be a lack of evidence?

"They are much more a tax burden than anything else now"

And here all of this time I thought they were a national security threat.

Go figure.

"and now they will have the ability to press lawsuits against the government, where tort lawyers will be salivating at the chance to give these hajis a pretty good shot of gaining billions of dollars of taxpayer money which naturally, will get funneled back to Al-Qaeda."

Hold on there, seek. Aren't these the folks known to be guilty? All this insures is they get their day in court as every human being deserves. What are you afraid of? Their innocence?

I, like you, have no idea if they are guilty or not. Let justice take it's course and we'll find out soon enough.

"Good job there, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. Another stellar decision."

Yes it was a good job. Freedom loving people everywhere should rejoice that our legal system is back into place.

[templar knight]

Uh, jharp, I'm trying to follow your logic, which ain't easy I might add, but were German soldiers captured during WWII given trials? Or charged with crimes, even though they were incarcerated in POW camps? Did habeus corpus exist for them?

Does anyone know?

[jharp]

templar,

Germans captured during WW2 were classified as prisoners of war. And no they weren't given trials, they weren't charged with crimes, and were not entitled to challenge their captivity through writs of habeas corpus.

And I suppose it could be argued the guantanamo prisoners are POW's except one thing. George Bush and the U.S. department of Justice have made it clear they are not.

The only reason I can see that for this is to deny them protections under the Geneva convention.

[SpaceCat]

Ha ha ha. You look like a complete square. And those were your "cool" years?? LOL!

[templar knight]

You know, jharp, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly have no intimate knowledge of the particular treaties that might apply to Gitmo, but one thing I do know. I have a son in the US Army, who is soon to be deployed to Afghanistan, and if one of these bastards down in Gitmo is released, and he happens to be from Pakistan or Afghanistan, and happens to be somehow involved in the death of my son, there will be hell to pay. And there should be.

I hope these people sitting on that particular court took this into consideration before making this decision. Took the lives of young men and women in the military into consideration before making this kind of decision. Because I don't see how it is against the law for someone from a foreign country to fight the US. That is why we have always left it up to the military to deal with combatants. It is not a domestic law enforcement issue, nor should it be.

[chris]

"there will be hell to pay"

No there won't. Case closed. You lose. Thank you for playing.

[templar knight]

chris "the mouse" has spoken. And yes, there damn sure will. I guarantee that, asshat.

[jharp]

First and foremost I hope your son stays safe.

"and if one of these bastards down in Gitmo is released"

If they are guilty they won't be released and if they are innocent they will be. I think every human being deserves the same. All this does is allow them to challenge their detention in a court of law.

"and he happens to be from Pakistan or Afghanistan,"

It doesn't matter where they are from. And it doesn't seem very American to imprison people because of the the country they are from.

"Because I don't see how it is against the law for someone from a foreign country to fight the US. That is why we have always left it up to the military to deal with combatants."

I think this argument has some merit. And I can't for the life of me figure out why Bush and the Justice Dept. don't argue they are POW's.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo say: "Think, Fred. Think."

Fed say: "Curse, Harpo. Curse." Because you cannot think. If you can recall the subject was death rates. Counting deaths. Not preventing them.

But Harpo say: "I'd recommend mental health treatment be more readily accessible to prevent suicide. Dumbfuck.
You know. Like providing better and more mental health treatment to returning veterans suffering PTSD.
And faster access and more emergency treatment centers would save more accident victims."

What a load this bird is! I wonder what his bird call is. Probably: "Too wit. Too woo. Terwilliger."

[templar knight]

I have another thought or two on this decision, jharp. Does this decision now open domestic courts to foreign nationals not in the United States or its territories? For example, freedom of speech rights have been trumped in Great Britain by court decisions initiated by foreigners, particularly Muslims from the Gulf Region, who are flush with cash and ready to use Western legal systems when available. Does this decision by the SCOTUS open up domestic courts to foreigners?

For example, does this decision open the gates for citizens in Iraq to now sue the US for damage inflicted on property by the US military? Can they bring wrongful death lawsuits? Etc.

I believe this to be one of the most far-reaching decisions ever made by the SCOTUS.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo write: "A new Harris poll finds that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are now registering their lowest approval ratings ever."

But not as low as the Dem-controlled congress. Honk honk.

[chris]

Wooo. Tough talk! Them there libruls must be right afeared!

[jharp]

templar,

No, no, and no.

This allows people who have had their freedom taken, some for 6 years, to challenge their detention in a courtroom. They cannot be imprisoned simply because George Bush says so.

That's all it is.

[jharp]

"If you can recall the subject was death rates. Counting deaths. Not preventing them."

No Fred, the subject was mortality rates in the U.S. of which we rank 45 th.

You posted some fiction about not counting suicides and accidents because they skew the data.

I say they don't skew the data because the role of our health care system is to prevent such deaths. Whether it be through mental health treatment or more accessible emergency treatment.

You really are dense, Fred. In the past I thought you were just pulling my chain but through your last post I see you really do not have the reasoning ability of a 5th grader.

[jharp]

"But not as low as the Dem-controlled congress."

I see you still haven't enrolled in Civics class.

49-49-2

[IslamoLlama]

"-- You know, jharp, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly have no intimate knowledge of the particular treaties that might apply to Gitmo, but one thing I do know. I have a son in the US Army, who is soon to be deployed to Afghanistan, and if one of these bastards down in Gitmo is released, and he happens to be from Pakistan or Afghanistan, and happens to be somehow involved in the death of my son, there will be hell to pay. And there should be. --"

If your son gets shot out in Afghanistan, I'm sorry to say but its you who put him there. Your votes. Your political selfishness and cowardice. Your backing of an incompetent and foolhardy administration.

If your son dies, his blood will be on your hands.

But of course, knowing your kind, you'll just blame the nebulous "Democrats" while you cry yourself to sleep.

I feel a great deal of pity for your son. You don't deserve him.

[BobInStamford]

The heroism and selflessness shown by the part-time oil baron/private school supporter is inspirational. Godspeed against those wicked, wicked brown folks. Know that George Bush supports you. Jenna and Barbara as enlisting as we speak!!

[seekeronos]

"--- This allows people who have had their freedom taken, some for 6 years, to challenge their detention in a courtroom. They cannot be imprisoned simply because George Bush says so. ---"

This also presumes that these non-US citizens are:

(a) under the same presumption of innocence as US citizens when accused of a crime

(b) not prisoners of war and thereby subject to US courts.

This is a difficult thing to deal with, if only because the facts on the ground are that most of these detainees were caught "in flagrante delicto", pointing weapons or using weapons against US and allied military forces, or otherwise planning and supporting and providing succor to terrorists.

Now if Bush had been willing to class them as Geneva Conventions detainees, or even better, summarily executed them as is perfectly allowable under the GC's for francs-tireurs (as they most certainly were), we would not be in this mess of potentially having a precedent where foreign nationals can now escape justice via the manipulations of overpriced lawyers and the oil sheikhs who pay them.

[seekeronos]

And the other part of this is that their due justice (termination or freedom) has been delayed for far too long, since any intel they have had has long since been outdated.

[jharp]

More news on the greatest health care in the world. Though our resident moron Fred I'm sure won't be able to connect that health care includes preventative care. As in Mom getting the proper care before the child is born.

"The percentage of underweight babies born in the United States has increased to its highest rate in 40 years, with Georgia ranking seventh from the bottom in delivering healthy infants."

[jharp]

This also presumes that these non-US citizens are:

(a) under the same presumption of innocence as US citizens when accused of a crime

You tell me seek. If you are outside the United States and get arrested do you think you are entitled to a presumption of innocence?

(b) not prisoners of war and thereby subject to US courts.

George Bush and his Justice department have been quite clear on this.

"This is a difficult thing to deal with"

No it is not. We have a judicial system set up that is specifically designed to address these issues. It's only been the past five years that King George has decreed they aren't allowed access.

"if only because the facts on the ground are that most of these detainees were caught "in flagrante delicto", pointing weapons or using weapons against US and allied military forces, or otherwise planning and supporting and providing succor to terrorists."

If this is true and it very well might be, lets hear the evidence.

"Now if Bush had been willing to class them as Geneva Conventions detainees"

You tell me why he didn't. So they could be tortured?

"or even better, summarily executed them"

Now your talking. And you call yourself a Christian? How about nuking the whole place? Oh, wait, we've there to spread democracy.

"foreign nationals can now escape justice via the manipulations of overpriced lawyers and the oil sheikhs who pay them."

It has nothing to do with escaping justice. It has everything to do with bringing them to justice within the greatest legal system in the world.

Why do you hate America?

[jharp]

Keith Olberman.

"John McCain has said many a stupid thing during this general election campaign. But when he told Matt Lauer on The Today Show that bringing our troops home was just not that important, he crossed a line from stupidity to being unforgivable:"

"You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is… not… that… important."

That, Senator McCain, is context.

[SacTownMan]

Harpo, Please tell me your not quoting Keith Oberfuhrer!

This guy is the king of the spittle flecked diatribe.

A worthless sports broadcaster he turned his attention to politics. This guy has the same guests that are all as BDS deranged as he is. The only thing this guy debates is a camera and a teleprompter.... Wow that sound a lot like Barry!

That "Mr. Bush" video on youtube is absolutely the funniest moonbat rant I have ever seen. I swear I thought that loser was gonna pop a vein in his neck!

Great role model!

Dude, you really need to put links to the original author in your posts unless you're the source.

Also,

Lame-O, your comments to Fred about his son were wrong and over the top. It's pussy's like you that benefit from the freedoms he has signed up to fight for!

You are a complete asshat, but I'm sure that doesn't come as a suprise to you!

[seekeronos]

"--- It has nothing to do with escaping justice. It has everything to do with bringing them to justice within the greatest legal system in the world.

Why do you hate America? ---"

What makes you think I "hate America" ? (I realize that this is a rhetorical question).

Rather, I have a desire to see that our enemies are prevented from causing catastrophic damage to our fellow citizens and to our property, as a great many of these detainees are sworn to doing.

Most of these people (the Gitmo detainees) are captured francs-tireurs. Under the conditions and circumstances that they were apprehended, they are neither American (US) citizens nor are they ordinary criminals.

They are a very exceptional class of detainee called "enemy combatants", also known as "francs-tireurs", also known as un-uniformed civilian irregulars, against whom summary judgment and execution may e carried out in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

This point has been tirelessly repeated over and over on this blog.

Therefore, a military tribunal would be more than sufficient to determine innocence or guilt; this matter is entirely outside the purview of US courts, beyond what the SCOTUS just ruled.

"--- Now your talking. And you call yourself a Christian? How about nuking the whole place? Oh, wait, we've there to spread democracy. ---"

No, "nuking the place" isn't reasonable or even called for. In fact, the "war" itself is not necessary, and in my opinion, illegal.

However, I function on principle: to the degree that we are fighting this "war", or more accurate (allowing for the nuance that this "war" is in fact, unauthorized by the Congress in lieu of a formal declaration of war) but is an "armed conflict", and to the degree that we operate according to the Laws of Armed Conflict, gives us the leeway to treat these francs-tireurs with a wide degree of latitude.

Which include actions up to summary execution.

These men are too great a security risk to be simply let go, much less enriched by our civil justice system.

Yet Bush and his men have dug themselves to great a hole; by sticking to his guns and ensuring swift tribunals and executions for the guilty terrorists under the appropriate circumstances of the LoAC and GCs _several_ years ago once the valuable intel had been sweated out of them, that would have been the end of the matter.

But detaining them for over 5 years and denying them the opportunity to be heard at tribunals is a breach of justice, not due to the lack of correct application of LoAC and the GCs to these prisoners, but by the sheer unreasonableness of the length of their detention (which is a big "grey area" in the LoAC/GCs) - and a lack of designation as POWs now openns them to the opportunity to be tried with rights nearly equal to US citizens.

[jharp]

Harpo, Please tell me your not quoting Keith Oberfuhrer!

Yes, I am. I'll try to more clear when I quote a source. It is not my intention to claim it as my own.

You might not care for Olberman but try to stay focused on what he said.

And what he said was my point.

"But when he told Matt Lauer on The Today Show that bringing our troops home was just not that important, he crossed a line from stupidity to being unforgivable:"

What is with the right wingers blind support for the wrong about everything crowd?

[seekeronos]

Oh, and this:

"--- You tell me seek. If you are outside the United States and get arrested do you think you are entitled to a presumption of innocence? ---"

Well, here is what it is: If I am outside the USA and get arrested for attacking the armed forces of another power whilst not in the uniform of a duly constituted militia, military, or similar body, but rather in the guise of a private citizen who does so in order to engage in hit-n-run tactics while easily dropping off my weapon somewhere so as to deal deceitfully outside the generally accepted LoAC, then YES, I probably deserve to be treated with all due prejudice.

Rule of thumb: Avoid the appearance of evil, particularly when in a foreign country where I am less likely to be protected by Western-style laws.

[jharp]

seek,

It's late and I'm heading to bed.

"The military trials against U.S.-held detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will not be affected by a Supreme Court ruling that the detainees have the right to appeal in U.S. civilian courts, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday."Why do you hate America? ---"

"Rather, I have a desire to see that our enemies are prevented from causing catastrophic damage to our fellow citizens and to our property,"

Same.

"And most if not all Americans agree as a great many of these detainees are sworn to doing."

And you know of this how?

Most of these people (the Gitmo detainees) are captured francs-tireurs. Under the conditions and circumstances that they were apprehended, they are neither American (US) citizens nor are they ordinary criminals.

And you know this how?

They are a very exceptional class of detainee called "enemy combatants", also known as "francs-tireurs", also known as un-uniformed civilian irregulars, against whom summary judgment and execution may e carried out in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

And you know this how?

"This point has been tirelessly repeated over and over on this blog."

Yes it has. And how do you know any of it is true?

"Therefore, a military tribunal would be more than sufficient to determine innocence or guilt; this matter is entirely outside the purview of US courts, beyond what the SCOTUS just ruled."

I don't believe this affects them being tried by military tibunals.

"--- Now your talking. And you call yourself a Christian? How about nuking the whole place? Oh, wait, we've there to spread democracy. ---"

No, "nuking the place" isn't reasonable or even called for. In fact, the "war" itself is not necessary, and in my opinion, illegal.

However, I function on principle: to the degree that we are fighting this "war", or more accurate (allowing for the nuance that this "war" is in fact, unauthorized by the Congress in lieu of a formal declaration of war) but is an "armed conflict", and to the degree that we operate according to the Laws of Armed Conflict, gives us the leeway to treat these francs-tireurs with a wide degree of latitude.

Which include actions up to summary execution.

No it doesn't. The term "enemy combatants" is a made up term by King George to leave the detainees in legal limbo. Either they are POW's who have certain rights or they are to be charged with crimes against the United States.

These men are too great a security risk to be simply let go

And you know this how?

Yet Bush and his men have dug themselves to great a hole; by sticking to his guns and ensuring swift tribunals and executions

So six years is swift?

for the guilty terrorists

And you know this how?

under the appropriate circumstances of the LoAC and GCs _several_ years ago once the valuable intel had been sweated out of them

Sweated huh? Do you mean tortured?

But detaining them for over 5 years and denying them the opportunity to be heard at tribunals is a breach of justice, not due to the lack of correct application of LoAC and the GCs to these prisoners, but by the sheer unreasonableness of the length of their detention (which is a big "grey area" in the LoAC/GCs)

No it is not a "grey area" it is the law under the U.S constitution.

[jharp]

Oh, and this:

"--- You tell me seek. If you are outside the United States and get arrested do you think you are entitled to a presumption of innocence? ---"

Well, here is what it is: If I am outside the USA and get arrested for attacking the armed forces of another power whilst not in the uniform of a duly constituted militia, military, or similar body, but rather in the guise of a private citizen who does so in order to engage in hit-n-run tactics while easily dropping off my weapon somewhere so as to deal deceitfully outside the generally accepted LoAC, then YES, I probably deserve to be treated with all due prejudice.

And how in the fuck are you planning to tell your side of the story when you are sitting in a jail cell without any due process? No lawyer, no hearing, no red cross, and as a matter of fact no one even knows you are being held.

"Rule of thumb: Avoid the appearance of evil, particularly when in a foreign country where I am less likely to be protected by Western-style laws."

Hey. We're spreading democracy at a cost of $12 billion per month. Why dont; we start by practicing it at home.

[jharp]

Correction.

"Rather, I have a desire to see that our enemies are prevented from causing catastrophic damage to our fellow citizens and to our property,"

Same. And most if not all Americans agree.

"as a great many of these detainees are sworn to doing."

And you know of this how?

[LOL]

just because you failed in school, it doesn't mean your teachers had a strong close-minded liberal bias.

[Fred Beloit]

You can't make guys this goofy up. Harpo says:

"'If you can recall the subject was death rates. Counting deaths. Not preventing them.'
No Fred, the subject was mortality rates in the U.S. of which we rank 45 th."

From Wiki:
"Mortality is the condition of being mortal, or susceptible to death; the opposite of immortality.
It may also refer to:
* Mortality rate, a measure of the number of deaths in a given population."

And he says: "...mortality rates in the U.S. of which we rank 45th."
By "we" I am forced to assume he means goofy people.

To sum up he says "death rates" are not a measure of the number of deaths in a population and that the death rate in the U.S. for goofy people ranks 45th. Now I understand????????????

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo asks: ""as a great many of these detainees are sworn to doing."
And you know of this how?"

Well, a great many of them were captured on the battlefield with weapon in hand, like that American Jihadist. I'll never forget what's his name. Oh yes, John Walker Lindh. (He never should have put that useless h at the end of his name.)

[Fred Beloit]

From StarTribune.com:

"Appearing on NBC's "Today Show," McCain was asked if he has a better estimate for when U.S. troops could leave Iraq.

"No, but that's not too important," McCain said. "What's important is casualties in Iraq.

"Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."

The answer was in keeping with McCain's long-stated argument that as Iraqis take more control of security in their country, the number of killed and wounded U.S. soldiers should decline. He has said he could envision troops withdrawing around 2013 but has refused to fix a date."

Keith Olberman is a lousy, stinking, filthy liar."

[seekeronos]

"--- And you know of this how? ---"

This is exactly what the military tribunals would have proved.

The presumption of innocence does not exist under battlefield conditions; if you are a soldier and someone comes out at you using a weapon or a munition aimed in your general direction, the presumption follows that he wished to do you harm.

And in the case of the majority of these unlawful enemy combatants (by definition: "combatants", people who take up weapons and fight, "unlawful" in that they do so outside the Law of Armed Conflict [LoAC] and the Geneva Conventions, "enemy" in that many of these fighters are linked to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda), most of them are devoted to an extremist form of Islam that is built upon the murdering of infidels (non-believers in Islam, especially Jews and Americans and allied peoples), and the violent overthrow of Western democracies (a focus of Jihad, to make the entire world the "House of Islam".

What you and others forget here is that these jihadists are NOT citizens of these United States, and if you do not like the use of the term "unlawful enemy combatant", then the older term "francs-tireur" (from the Franco-Prussian war and WW1) apply just as well.

As non-citizens, they are not entitled to the same protections as are US citizens; their status as francs-tireurs and/or mercenaries do not entitle them to GC protections.

This is the basis of the Bush administration's decision to deal with the Gitmo detainees as they have done.

"--- And how in the xxxx are you planning to tell your side of the story when you are sitting in a jail cell without any due process? No lawyer, no hearing, no red cross, and as a matter of fact no one even knows you are being held. ---"

You don't. You are, in that particular case, squarely and completely at the mercy of your captors, and can only appeal to the Most High God. Of course, Jesus forgives sins, and were they to give up their moon idol and embrace the Son in sincerity and truth and in love, that might go a long way to at least securing a better material position whilst in captivity.

However, the fact remains that these men were caught fighting as mercenaries and irregulars not under the command of a national or subnational uniformed militia or even an organized command, but rather using the cell structure common to terrorists and francs-tireurs. "Shoot, scoot, and blend in with the locals, and pretend you weren't just trying to engage and kill soldiers".

They are in quite a different status than say, members of the Iraqi Republican Guards, or the Iraqi regular army, or even the Iranian Quds Force operatives suspected of operating in Iraq, who would be afforded POW status if caught.

"--- Sweated huh? Do you mean tortured? ---"

Probably so, if you count waterboarding.

"--- No it is not a "grey area" it is the law under the U.S constitution. ---"

I said it was a grey area under the LoAC and GC's (particularly 4th GC Art. 4 and UN Mercenary Convention Art. 1)

There is no constitutional test for these detainees insofar as they are not US citizens, and also because of their combatant status.

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Xczc6Yp_Y

[seekeronos]

Keith Oblerdoofus is an ultra-leftist who is so far in the tank for the liberal democrats, it is laughable.

He is a good fit for the Democraticic Party "Truth Agency" (also known as MSNBC)

[Fred Beloit]

Good comment, seek. The implications of what five befuddled members of the SCOTUS have done are potentially fatal to the efforts of our country to defend itself. We now have 17-year-olds and up firing at the savages they see are trying to kill them. How can our forces "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the enemy they are firing at deserve to be killed? Or, if an enemy is captured, how can a PFC defend against an order of habeas corpus? There is nothing like the ruling of these judges in the Constitution nor in any precedents, as I understand it. They just made this up as all good old activist wheezers do.

[Fred Beloit]

seek, how would you like to see a mutt with egg all over his face try to excuse a big lie he told with an even bigger lie he tells again, and again, and again?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25126582/

[Fred Beloit]

Olberman calls for the immediate return of American troops from all over the world. Says leaving them overseas is heartless because soldiers belong in their barracks where they cannot be wounded. But, he calls McCain's desire to prevent casualties unimportant and "madness".

See link below.

[Fred Beloit]

seek, we need a man like Olberman on the Supreme Court, doncha think?

[seekeronos]

"--- seek, we need a man like Olberman on the Supreme Court, doncha think? ---"

I think I'd sooner lobotomize myself with a Sawzall (reciprocating saw) than have Olberninny replace even the arch-leftist Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the SCOTUS.

[templar knight]

There is a no-good little cowardly college puke who posts on this thread who has no business even mentioning my son. And thanks for your lack of support, it makes me feel all the better about my opinion of your kind. Luckily, most people in this country still support the military, other than POS like chris/Boob and Islamollama.

And jharp, I'm not a lawyer, but presumption of innocence is not available in most European countries, much less the World, so your point is moot. Whether you would have a reasonable expectation of receiving due process would of course depend on where you are.

[chris]

The truth hurts, huh? If you don't like it why not move?

[jharp]

from juancole.com

The US Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The Constitution diary says,

"The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution"

And we don't know if they were were captured on the battlefield. That, is what needs to be determined.

And how many have been released? Which proves that point that we don't know?

[Worst President Ever]

Fred, Defender of the Constitution, is ready to rip up another part of it because a terrorist, someday, might, somehow, attack us. Habeas corpus, who needs it.

[jharp]

Glenn Greewald at Salon.

"How and why would any American object to the mere requirement that our Government prove that someone is guilty before we imprison them indefinitely or execute them?"

"That is all that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling required -- not that detainees be released, but that their guilt be proven in a fair proceeding."

"The fact that the Right is so enraged by this basic requirement vividly reveals the authoritarian impulses which define them."

[seekeronos]

Where this applies to cases against *_US_citizens_* ... this is perfectly and absolutely applicable.

Such would be the case with Jose Padilla: though he is likely a terrorist, as an US citizen, he is still entitled to due process treatment, and the right to be treated humanely throughout his detention.

Unfortunately for the Gitmo detainees, they are not US citizens. And worse, those detainees were mostly seized for actions related to unlawful combat and/or acts of terrorism; therefore, they should not have any reasonable expectation of habeas corpus from a US court.

The Constitution is above all, a governing contract between the federal government and the many states -- to ensure that powers are properly divided between the states and the federal government (with a particular emphasis on limiting the accumulation of centralized power in federal hands) as well as the separation of powers between the three established branches of federal government.

The Bill of Rights and its subsequent fellow amendments generally limit the powers of the federal government, or provide a scope for the exercise of those powers.

The Constitution therefore, has everything to do with the people of the United States, namely, "We, the People", as in the citizens of the many states as Americans.

By contrast, non-citizens have no expectation of these same rights, although in most cases, we grant due process to non-citizens because of our relationships with the nations with which those aliens have their citizenship.

As has been most tiresomely pointed before, the detainees at Gitmo hail from countries with whom we have either poor or no diplomatic relations, or are persons with no citizenship at all, on top of being mercenaries/unlawful combatants.

In similar manner, if armed Blackwater contractors (mercenaries) were to be captured by Iranian forces and detained/mistreated, there is little remedy for them under current international law.

Even worse typically, is the fate of any American captured by Al-Qaeda (regardless of that American's combatant status) -- usually that American will be relieved of his head in short time.

However, the SCOTUS, being composed of humans, is not a perfect machine. As such, we shall now bear witness to their terrible judgment, and see what sort of self-devouring litigious rot-a-tort they have wrought upon our lower courts as more activist judges re-write the laws, and skillful shysters ply their trade to free the terrorists to wreak their vengeful havoc once more.

[jharp]

"Such would be the case with Jose Padilla: though he is likely a terrorist, as an US citizen, he is still entitled to due process treatment, and the right to be treated humanely throughout his detention."

Not according to King George. Jose Padilla was held for 4 1/2 years with no charges, no lawyer, no trial. And the wingnuts, yes the wingnuts here, defended our King.

"And worse, those detainees were mostly seized for actions related to unlawful combat and/or acts of terrorism"

Please, how do you this? Because George Bush says so? How can we know. There has been no evidence presented.

"The Constitution therefore, has everything to do with the people of the United States, namely, "We, the People", as in the citizens of the many states as Americans."

Wrong. Non citizens also have rights. Biggest one is the right of due process.

"By contrast, non-citizens have no expectation of these same rights, although in most cases, we grant due process to non-citizens because of our relationships with the nations with which those aliens have their citizenship."

Wrong. Non citizens do have these same rights.

[seekeronos]

"--- Please, how do you this? Because George Bush says so? How can we know. There has been no evidence presented. ---"

Specifically, under an executive order issued by Pres. Bush, the SecDef can name certain persons who are operating as terrorists or other unlawful combatants (see details downthread) ... this is based upon those combatants' lack of status as POWs or other protected classes of captured warriors due to them either being mercenaries or unflagged civilians engaging in (typically asymmetrical) warfare.

So yes, until and unless Congress uses a 2/3 supermajority to override this particular executive order, or the SCOTUS rules that order as unconstitutional, that definition sticks.

As for this one:

"--- Wrong. Non citizens do have these same rights. ---"

They simply do not. They may receive the *_privilege_* of a due process trial, but are not explicitly granted thus in the Constitution.

To try to apply the 14th amendment to the case of non-citizen residents of the USA in terms of due process may be a quite stretch, on account of the original intent of that amendment was to prevent injustices against the then-recently freed Negroes (that had been formerly) slaves; it was a direct rejection of the results of (Dred) Scott v. Sanford.

But for argument's sake, we can run with that, since these resident aliens are here either on visas or have residency status (green cards).

However, these detainees aren't even legal residents of any state or organized territory of the United States. And that is likely the reason for keeping them at Gitmo, or in military prisons overseas, or afloat in international waters on board brigs (prison barges).

[Worst President Ever]

"However, these detainees aren't even legal residents of any state or organized territory of the United States. And that is likely the reason for keeping them at Gitmo, or in military prisons overseas, or afloat in international waters on board brigs (prison barges)."

That's certainly a generous description. Some might be able to posit other reasons.

Really, what's wrong with granting these people habeus corpus? We have a legal system that deals with millions of people every year. Considering half of the detainees in Gitmo haven't actually been charged with any sort of crime against the US, it might be problematic for the Bush Administration.

As for Gitmo, what's going on there is closer to show trials than justice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802982_pf.html