SCOTUS Shoots Down W's Kangaroo Court

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/



Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo
5-3 ruling in one of biggest presidential powers' cases since World War II

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 20 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.

The case, one of the most significant involving presidential war powers cases since World War II, was brought by Guantanamo prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was a driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush established special war crimes tribunals for trying prisoners held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Of about 450 prisoners at Guantanamo, only Hamdan and nine others face charges before a tribunal. Human rights groups have criticized the tribunals, formally called military commissions, for being fundamentally unfair.

Hamdan’s lawyers had challenged Bush’s power to create the tribunals and said he is covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore rules governing U.S. courts-martial should be applied.

Looks like he has to play by the rules after all.

[Sooner in Tampa]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/




Looks like he has to play by the rules after all.:rolleyes: I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to crow about this.

[Frozen Sooner]

Why do you hate America so much?

[jk the sooner fan]

johnny mack is quickly acheiving "Herr" status in my book.....

[JohnnyMack]

johnny mack is quickly acheiving "Herr" status in my book.....

How will I ever sleep knowing this?

[jk the sooner fan]

How will I ever sleep knowing this?

on your side?

i have no idea.....

[slickdawg]

Take 'em back to Iraq, set them down in the middle of a minefield, and
wish them well.

Of course, we'll already have injected pigs blood into their system.

[Hamhock]

johnny mack is quickly acheiving "Herr" status in my book.....


'cause he posted a news article about a current SCOTUS decision? :confused:

Does anyone else think of SCROTUM when you read SCOTUS?

I'm not gay. Really, I'm not.

[White House Boy]

Of course, we'll already have injected pigs blood into their system.

I've already taken care of that for you, Mr. President.

[Sooner in Tampa]

I disagree with the decision. These scumbags are NOT militia or military of a nation. They are freelance terrorists. The Geneva Convention does not apply to random @$$holes.

The highest court in the land has ruled...so let it be written...so let it be done.

[colleyvillesooner]

'cause he posted a news article about a current SCOTUS decision? :confused:


Please don't act like JM is just coming on here to "report current news"

[Sooner in Tampa]

Please don't act like JM is just coming on here to "report current news"EGGGZACRRRYYYYY

[jk the sooner fan]

Please don't act like JM is just coming on here to "report current news"

exactly

[Frozen Sooner]

So when TDTW posts articles about gerrymandering being legal and using that as a jumpoff to defend one of the most corrupt men in recent government history, that's somehow better?

[Sooner in Tampa]

'cause he posted a news article about a current SCOTUS decision? :confused: If that was all he had done...it would have been fine. But in true JM fashion, he had to throw a little smar@$$ comment about playing by the rules.

[colleyvillesooner]

So when TDTW posts articles about gerrymandering being legal and using that as a jumpoff to defend one of the most corrupt men in recent government history, that's somehow better?

Nope. I don't like anyone that posts an article just to "back up" their view, sparking an arguement. It's retarded.

[jk the sooner fan]

So when TDTW posts articles about gerrymandering being legal and using that as a jumpoff to defend one of the most corrupt men in recent government history, that's somehow better?

gee if only i had ever said or implied that

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I disagree with the decision. These scumbags are NOT militia or military of a nation. They are freelance terrorists. The Geneva Convention does not apply to random @$$holes.

I have a lib friend who was legitimately surprised when I told him the SCOTUS is still skewed to the left. He thinks it is "balanced", now, and would be excessively constructionist if a conservative judge was to replace a lib.

[JohnnyMack]

Look at all the W following red staters get their collective panties in a twist when it's pointed out that their fearless leader's cowboy antics aren't going to fly.

The SCOTUS says that the U.S. doesn't have the right to hold someone indefinitely with no right to counsel, no access to the courts and then put them on trial in a court that isn't bound by the constraints of international law and I'm somehow the bad guy?

[Hamhock]

But, nobody thinks I'm gay because of the SCROTUM comment, right?

Right?

[slickdawg]

I've already taken care of that for you, Mr. President.


There's a reason I selected you on my administration.

[Frozen Sooner]

gee if only i had ever said or implied that

Gee, if you had ever bitched about someone posting an article favorable to the administration.

You're really big on acting like people put words in your mouth, jk. It's quite silly.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'll refrain any further.....its probably best

[OCUDad]

Nope. I don't like anyone that posts an article just to "back up" their view, sparking an arguement. It's retarded.But... without taking sides on this particular issue... isn't that true of 90% of the political threads on this board, regardless of the leftness or rightness of the initiator?

Oops... that would mean 90% of us are retards. Duh. :rolleyes:

[KaiserSooner]

The SCOTUS says that the U.S. doesn't have the right to hold someone indefinitely with no right to counsel, no access to the courts and then put them on trial in a court that isn't bound by the constraints of international law and I'm somehow the bad guy?

That's because there's no "R" next to the court's decision. Around these parts, if you support something without an "R" you're a commie.

[Sooner in Tampa]

That's because there's no "R" next to the court's decision. Around these parts, if you support something without an "R" you're a commie.Nice WIDE paint brush :rolleyes:

[KaiserSooner]

I have a lib friend who was legitimately surprised when I told him the SCOTUS is still skewed to the left. He thinks it is "balanced", now, and would be excessively constructionist if a conservative judge was to replace a lib.

This should be compared to favor's attitude yesterday concerning their decision on Texas' redistricting.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hey, it's quite easy to prove me wrong JK.

Just type the words "TDTW posting an article about a Supreme Court decision supportive of something the GOP wants is, at the heart of it, the same as JohnnyMack posting an article about a SCOTUS decision that isn't favorable to what the GOP wants."

I don't know you. I have to infer what your beliefs and thoughts on things are from your posts. If I've misread you, then correct me and you have my apology. I mean, it's entirely possible that you just refrained from commenting on TDTWs thread.

[Hamhock]

I'M NOT GAY!!! :eddie:

[KaiserSooner]

Nice WIDE paint brush :rolleyes:

Hey, it's the m.o. around here. Just trying to fit in a little.

[jk the sooner fan]

Hey, it's quite easy to prove me wrong JK.

Just type the words "TDTW posting an article about a Supreme Court decision supportive of something the GOP wants is, at the heart of it, the same as JohnnyMack posting an article about a SCOTUS decision that isn't favorable to what the GOP wants."

I don't know you. I have to infer what your beliefs and thoughts on things are from your posts. If I've misread you, then correct me.

i had a response all prepared, but its not worth it

you and i will never see eye to eye on anything, and thats ok with me

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, I'm sure that there's plenty that we actually agree on. For one, pizza is delicious.

[jk the sooner fan]

actually i hate pizza

now anyway......

[NormanPride]

I hate politics.

[yermom]

Look at all the W following red staters get their collective panties in a twist when it's pointed out that their fearless leader's cowboy antics aren't going to fly.

The SCOTUS says that the U.S. doesn't have the right to hold someone indefinitely with no right to counsel, no access to the courts and then put them on trial in a court that isn't bound by the constraints of international law and I'm somehow the bad guy?

but they are terr'ists... they don't need rights

nevermind the fact that there is no way to prove or dispute whether or not they are guilty

we'd be all over Iran if they did the exact same thing to some of our people.

[jk the sooner fan]

Oh, I'm sure that there's plenty that we actually agree on. For one, pizza is delicious.

let me put it this way, you totally missed the point of my comparison

but it really doesnt matter, because i'd explain this one and it'll just happen again

[Dio]

I'M NOT GAY!!! :eddie:

methinks the lady doth protest too much

[OklahomaTuba]

but they are terr'ists... they don't need rights

nevermind the fact that there is no way to prove or dispute whether or not they are guilty

we'd be all over Iran if they did the exact same thing to some of our people.

Ugh, they are called military tribunals.

And the terrorists in Gitmo were captured on the battleground in Afganistan. Remember Afganistan?

All Bush needs to do now is go to Congress and ask for them to allow for this, which they should.

Its sad the libz want terrorists to be treated as common criminals with all the rights an American has (free cable, etc)

But hey, hurting terrorists = bad.

[Scott D]

I considered posting a temperated reply to this thread, but since I was informed yesterday/today that I apparently hate the current Administration so much that I want to kill it's puppies and rape it's livestock, I'll only state that it is nice to see that to some degree checks and balances can still be part of our Federal Government.

[yermom]

Its sad the libz want terrorists to be treated as common criminals with all the rights an American has (free cable, etc)

libz and the SCOTUS

[colleyvillesooner]

i'll only state that it is nice to see that to some degree checks and balances can still be part of our Federal Government.

Which can be overruled by Congress if what Tuba says is correct. ;)

[Scott D]

Which can be overruled by Congress if what Tuba says is correct. ;)

Congress would still have to answer to the Supreme Court as to whether or not what they would attempt to overrule is Constitutional.

[colleyvillesooner]

Congress would still have to answer to the Supreme Court as to whether or not what they would attempt to overrule is Constitutional.

Tomatoe tomato ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

I'll only state that it is nice to see that to some degree checks and balances can still be part of our Federal Government.

Yes, it is. Thank Gawd our neoKKKon masters and Bu****ler havn't taken everything away......YET!

Now if only we could fix the the shrubs lust for genocide of brown people in occupied new orleans and the middle east.

[Scott D]

Yes, it is. Thank Gawd our neoKKKon masters and Bu****ler havn't taken everything away......YET!

Now if only we could fix the the shrubs lust for genocide of brown people in occupied new orleans and the middle east.

Would it make you feel warm and fuzzy if I poste the same thing in TDTW's thread from yesterday as well?

What is the point of having a government that is designed with checks and balances if those checks and balances don't come into play?

And I would be saying the same thing no matter what administration was in place.

[OklahomaTuba]

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

Bush should do just that, since this in one of the things that has kept us safe since 9/11.

[Scott D]

Bush should do just that, since this in one of the things that has kept us safe since 9/11.

You mean that Bush should follow the legal process of going properly through our system of government to achieve the necessary goal? That's brilliant...I wish he'd have thought of that first. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Would it make you feel warm and fuzzy if I poste the same thing in TDTW's thread from yesterday as well?
I didn't read that thread, but be my guest.



What is the point of having a government that is designed with checks and balances if those checks and balances don't come into play?

And I would be saying the same thing no matter what administration was in place.

Sure.

Exactly what checks and balances havn't been happening? You seem to indicate that somewhere the process of checks and balances isn't being used.

[OklahomaTuba]

You mean that Bush should follow the legal process of going properly through our system of government to achieve the necessary goal? That's brilliant...I wish he'd have thought of that first. ;)

Until today, it was legal.

Now, he needs to go back and make it legal, before the ACLU and libz get their wish of letting the terrorists who attacked this nation and killed thousands of people are set free.

But maybe, thats what they want I suppose, since the USA is the biggest threat in the world according to some libz.

[Scott D]

I'm sure Checks and Balances come into play regularly. In most cases it's in ways so insignificant that we generally don't hear of them. However, in things that are major, we end up seeing more perception causing fractures amongst the populace.

Generally when something gets railroaded through there is either an attempt to circumvent the system, or abuse some sort of power structure. Things that the Founding Fathers were attempting to avoid.

[NormanPride]

I hate it when government gets in the way of itself.

[Scott D]

Until today, it was legal.

Now, he needs to go back and make it legal, before the ACLU and libz get their wish of letting the terrorists who attacked this nation and killed thousands of people are set free.

But maybe, thats what they want I suppose, since the USA is the biggest threat in the world according to some libz.

The legalities of this before today were in a gray area. (no this doesn't mean I support the detainees)

We agree that he needs to go back and make it legal. It also needs to be legal in such a binding way that it's uncontestable, and will be something that firmly sets precedent for the future. The question is, can the current Legislative Branch work correctly with the Executive Branch to find the proper way to go about this in a way that is Constitutional.

[BoomerJack]

From JohnnyMack:

"Looks like he has to play by the rules after all."

But it doesn't necessarily mean that he will. What was it Andrew Jackson said about a Supreme Court decision? "The Supreme Court has made its decision; let them enforce it."

[OklahomaTuba]

The legalities of this before today were in a gray area. (no this doesn't mean I support the detainees)
If its in a gray area, then I would hope a POTUS would err on the side of keeping the people safe, and these jackholes locked up in cuba.



We agree that he needs to go back and make it legal. It also needs to be legal in such a binding way that it's uncontestable, and will be something that firmly sets precedent for the future. The question is, can the current Legislative Branch work correctly with the Executive Branch to find the proper way to go about this in a way that is Constitutional.

I would hope so.

Unfortunatly, its got to be a way that allows us to extract information from them, as that is what is keeping us safe and giving us the intel we need to kill these bastards.

[OklahomaTuba]

From JohnnyMack:

"Looks like he has to play by the rules after all."

But it doesn't necessarily mean that he will.

Its sad that you actually think Bush wouldn't. His administration hasn't violated any laws before, he won't start now.

[NormanPride]

Its sad that you actually think Bush wouldn't. He hasn't violated any law before, he won't start now.

Any law, ever? Not even speeding?


;)

EDIT: OH I TOO FAST FOR YOU SNEAKY BOY! :D

[JohnnyMack]

Its sad that you actually think Bush wouldn't. He hasn't violated any law before, he won't start now.

What's funny is that W is a master at playing in shades of gray and you're so black and white about everything.

[JohnnyMack]

Any law, ever? Not even speeding?


;)

Or cocaine possession.

<ducks>

[Scott D]

If its in a gray area, then I would hope a POTUS would err on the side of keeping the people safe, and these jackholes locked up in cuba.



I would hope so.

Unfortunatly, its got to be a way that allows us to extract information from them, as that is what is keeping us safe.

If I had my druthers they wouldn't be in Gitmo, they'd be in some remote territory that doesn't have the ties of being on any sort of American soil. That way it gets around the devices of our own legal system because it's not on American property...but that's me.

Basically the SC is saying you need evidence that can provide proof that these individuals need to be locked up and are a threat to Humanity, along with the American people.

I still think that torture is kinda sketchy in getting information...you'll get soem good information, but how much bad information needs to be filtered out of it.

[Scott D]

What's funny is that W is a master at playing in shades of gray and you're so black and white about everything.

our Government has become masterful at playing in shades of grey for the most simplistic reason that lawyers have been running things for far too long.

[NormanPride]

our Government has become masterful at playing in shades of grey for the most simplistic reason that lawyers have been running things for far too long.

I'd point out here that he says "our Government" not one party or another.

[OklahomaTuba]

What's funny is that W is a master at playing in shades of gray and you're so black and white about everything.

The funnier thing is how deep your head is in the sand about things, such as not knowing who Zarqawi was, or that the Iraqi people actually elected a government. You know, hard stuff like that.

I am actually surprised you knew we had a SCOTUS. Very impressive.

[JohnnyMack]

I'd point out here that he says "our Government" not one party or another.

:les:That's cause he hates America! Keep up!

[Sooner in Tampa]

I'd point out here that he says "our Government" not one party or another.SPEK to Scott D for that too. It is the ENTIRE government not one side or the other.

[OklahomaTuba]

Any law, ever? Not even speeding?


;)

EDIT: OH I TOO FAST FOR YOU SNEAKY BOY! :D

Ya got me.

[Scott D]

I'd point out here that he says "our Government" not one party or another.

that's because some of us recognize that dems and reps are basically heads and tails :D

[NormanPride]

:les:That's cause he hates America! Keep up!

Didn't he root for Ghana aginst us in the World Cup? TEH PLOT THICKENS!

[Scott D]

Didn't he root for Ghana aginst us in the World Cup? TEH PLOT THICKENS!

dude, I was hella ****ed that we lost to Ghana. That was JohnnyMack the America hater that has been cheering for Ghana. I just want Bruce Arena to get the pink slip.

[OklahomaTuba]

If I had my druthers they wouldn't be in Gitmo, they'd be in some remote territory that doesn't have the ties of being on any sort of American soil. That way it gets around the devices of our own legal system because it's not on American property...but that's me.

I believe that is where they keep the worst of the worst.

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Resources/KSMohammed.jpg

This is one guy the left & ACLU would LOVE to see released, or at least defend and raise money for. The mastermind of 9/11 and the LA, bali attacks.

[Okla-homey]

Chill peeps. I just read the syllabus to the slip opinion. Its only 15 pages. You can too:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html

My read is that although the military tribunal thingy was closed off by SCOTUS for these dirtbags in a 5-3 decision (Roberts had to sit it out), there is no problem with a court-martial under the UCMJ and Geneva Convention.

Bottomline: Just give them a court-appointed lawyer and court-martial the d00ds. It ain't like we gotta turn 'em loose or nuthin. :D

[JohnnyMack]

The funnier thing is how deep your head is in the sand about things, such as not knowing who Zarqawi was, or that the Iraqi people actually elected a government. You know, hard stuff like that.

I am actually surprised you knew we had a SCOTUS. Very impressive.

I surprise even myself sometimes.

[JohnnyMack]

Bottomline: Just give them a court-appointed lawyer and court-martial the d00ds. It ain't like we gotta turn 'em loose or nuthin. :D

Right. Play by the rules like everyone else and stop acting like John Wayne.

[Hamhock]

The funnier thing is how deep your head is in the sand about things, such as not knowing who Zarqawi was, or that the Iraqi people actually elected a government. You know, hard stuff like that.

I am actually surprised you knew we had a SCOTUS. Very impressive.


OUMartin shaves his SCOTUS.

[NormanPride]

OUMartin shaves his SCOTUS.

Dude, how the hell do you know that? You are gay.

[JohnnyMack]

dude, I was hella ****ed that we lost to Ghana. That was JohnnyMack the America hater that has been cheering for Ghana. I just want Bruce Arena to get the pink slip.

No I was cheering for Ghana AFTER we lost to them. I wanted them to beat the stupid Brazillions.

[Tear Down This Wall]

http://luminomagazine.com/2004.03/spotlight/officespace/images/tom/tom2.jpg

"It's called, 'Jumping To Conclusions.'"

All SCOTUS said is that the terrorists at Gitmo can't be prosecuted in military tribunals without Congress' permission. So, Bush could ask the Congress for such power. Whether they would give it to him is the question. Certainly, the House of Representatives would because they represent mainstream Americans. The Senate, probably not because they're worried about what college professors and foreign states might think.

The result of the ruling will take either one of three roads:
(1) Bush will ask Congress for permission to prosecute in military tribunals
(2) There will 450+ separate Zarcarias Moussaoui-type criminal trials
(3) Bush simply frees 450+ terrorist back over in the Middle East.

I've already given you the scenario on (1). There probably less than zero chance of (3) ever happening. So, gear up for (2), hundreds of trials for terrorists in American courts with your run-of-the-mill ACLU-types defending the bad guys.

That is all. Carry on.

[slickdawg]

I hate politics.


And you're getting married?

Sharpen your political skills, you're gonna need 'em. :D

[Veritas]

I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread.

Is this another one of those where soonerscuMackfield says a bunch of ****, and then williamtubadokken says some ****, and then there's bunches of links posted, and CVS popping in periodically to make smartass comments, followed by a cameo appearance by yours truly? ;)

[soonerscuba]

You lost me at the House of Representatives represents mainstream Americans. The House of Representatives operates without unanimous consent, rendering the minority powerless. Not that this is a bad thing given it's relationship with the Senate, but to say that they represent now, or have ever represented "the average American" is quite a stretch.

I really don't see why people are afraid to give terrorists trials. If you are so sure about it, you should welcome the process.

[NormanPride]

I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread.

Is this another one of those where soonerscuMackfield says a bunch of ****, and then williamtubadokken says some ****, and then there's bunches of links posted, and CVS popping in periodically to make smartass comments, followed by a cameo appearance by yours truly? ;)

Those would be two perfect troll handles.

[colleyvillesooner]

I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread.

Is this another one of those where soonerscuMackfield says a bunch of ****, and then williamtubadokken says some ****, and then there's bunches of links posted, and CVS popping in periodically to make smartass comments, followed by a cameo appearance by yours truly? ;)

Sounds about right!

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d40/calland/owned.gif

[soonerscuba]

I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread.

Is this another one of those where soonerscuMackfield says a bunch of ****, and then williamtubadokken says some ****, and then there's bunches of links posted, and CVS popping in periodically to make smartass comments, followed by a cameo appearance by yours truly? ;)

I thought we were friends, you bastage. Oh, that's right, friends actually drop by every once and while, while you sir, are made a mod (father figure) and abandon us, we are on the verge of meth and prostitution because YOU are too afraid to live up to your responsibility. And the viscous cycle continues. You sicken me.

[NormanPride]

And you're getting married?

Sharpen your political skills, you're gonna need 'em. :D

OH SHI-

What was I thinking?! :D

[Veritas]

I thought we were friends, you bastage. Oh, that's right, friends actually drop by every once and while, while you sir, are made a mod (father figure) and abandon us, we are on the verge of meth and prostitution because YOU are too afraid to live up to your responsibility. And the viscous cycle continues. You sicken me.
I sicken myself, scuba, I sicken myself.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread.

Is this another one of those where soonerscuMackfield says a bunch of ****, and then williamtubadokken says some ****, and then there's bunches of links posted, and CVS popping in periodically to make smartass comments, followed by a cameo appearance by yours truly? ;)

I miss you. :O

[C&CDean]

Partisan politics aside, does anybody really feel/believe these murderous cocksucking sons of satan's scrotum sucking camel **** eating mother ****ers deserve a trial? Really?

They are not soldiers of any army. They have not followed any convention, Geneva or otherwise. They are not even human beings.

And if you bleeders are just dead set on a trial, how about immediate execution if convicted of terrorism. On the spot. In the ****ing chair where they're sitting.

SCOTUS, POTUS, kiss my ***. These scumballs deserve nothing. Nothing.

End. Of. Rant.

[soonerscuba]

I miss you. :O

fag.

Did we decide it was okay to use that word or not? I didn't read the memo.

[Veritas]

Partisan politics aside, does anybody really feel/believe these murderous cocksucking sons of satan's scrotum sucking profanity death destruction

End. Of. Rant.
I love dean. Does that make me a fag?

[soonerscuba]

I love dean. Does that make me a fag?

Faggier than his bull, dude.

[C&CDean]

Hey, didn't y'all get the memo? Only I can say fag. Fags.

[soonerscuba]

Partisan politics aside, does anybody really feel/believe these murderous cocksucking sons of satan's scrotum sucking camel **** eating mother ****ers deserve a trial? Really?

They are not soldiers of any army. They have not followed any convention, Geneva or otherwise. They are not even human beings.

And if you bleeders are just dead set on a trial, how about immediate execution if convicted of terrorism. On the spot. In the ****ing chair where they're sitting.

SCOTUS, POTUS, kiss my ***. These scumballs deserve nothing. Nothing.

End. Of. Rant.

I believe 100% that they deserve a fair hearing. As for the execution, not big on capital punishment. A better solution is what I like to call the Darwin approach. Convict them and set them into the general population of an American prison.

[Hamhock]

Dude, how the hell do you know that? You are gay.


Your mom told me.

Bwahahhaahaahaahaaahaa:texan:

[Veritas]

Convict them and set them into the general population of an American prison.
Hmm, you espouse being repeatedly anally raped by large black men before being stabbed to death with a shiv while showering as a way of handling these guys?

Damn, we DO have some **** in common!

[NormanPride]

Partisan politics aside, does anybody really feel/believe these murderous cocksucking sons of satan's scrotum sucking camel **** eating mother ****ers deserve a trial? Really?

They are not soldiers of any army. They have not followed any convention, Geneva or otherwise. They are not even human beings.

And if you bleeders are just dead set on a trial, how about immediate execution if convicted of terrorism. On the spot. In the ****ing chair where they're sitting.

SCOTUS, POTUS, kiss my ***. These scumballs deserve nothing. Nothing.

End. Of. Rant.

Part of being the "good guys" means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I would love nothing more than to have their balls ripped off on the spot, but we can't lower ourselves.

[Vaevictis]

Hold up, wait. The accused get a trial? What the **** guys? What. the. ****? The Framers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew people accused of crimes were getting trials, it's just horrible.

I mean, there's a reason why the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to a trial; it's obvious the Framers didn't want it.

[C&CDean]

I believe 100% that they deserve a fair hearing. As for the execution, not big on capital punishment. A better solution is what I like to call the Darwin approach. Convict them and set them into the general population of an American prison.

Ok. Let me get this straight. Dudes are terrorists. Dudes ain't american. Dudes ain't soldiers of any recognized army. Dudes do not possess a single legal right that I know of. So, we're to give them a fair trial based on humanitarian values? Nuh uh. **** them. In the mouth with my .480 mag. If you wanna coddle them then that's your right as a fag, but for my money, it's death. By ugga bugga.

[C&CDean]

Hold up, wait. The accused get a trial? What the **** guys? What. the. ****? The Framers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew people accused of crimes were getting trials, it's just horrible.

I know you can be thick, but I didn't realize until now that you can also just be plain dumb. Pity.

[Fugue]

Hold up, wait. The accused get a trial? What the **** guys? What. the. ****? The Framers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew people accused of crimes were getting trials, it's just horrible.

The Framers would have blown them away.

[NormanPride]

Ok. Let me get this straight. Dudes are terrorists. Dudes ain't american. Dudes ain't soldiers of any recognized army. Dudes do not possess a single legal right that I know of. So, we're to give them a fair trial based on humanitarian values? Nuh uh. **** them. In the mouth with my .480 mag. If you wanna coddle them then that's your right as a fag, but for my money, it's death. By ugga bugga.

I doubt there is a single male in these United States that would want to "ugga bugga" them. I recommend livestock. They don't care, do they? :D

[Fugue]

Part of being the "good guys" means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I would love nothing more than to have their balls ripped off on the spot, but we can't lower ourselves.

I disagree and think that since "having balls ripped off" is all they understand, we would save a lot of American lives later on if we just blew the shat out of them now.

[Vaevictis]

Here's a question for the lawyer types:

Under what circumstances and legal theories does the 6th amendment not apply to criminal prosecutions under the jurisdiction of the USA?

[Scott D]

Hmm, you espouse being repeatedly anally raped by large black men before being stabbed to death with a shiv while showering as a way of handling these guys?

Damn, we DO have some **** in common!

wtf...why can't they be anally raped by a gang of mexicans or skinheads?

muh****in' cornhusker bastage. :D

[Scott D]

Partisan politics aside, does anybody really feel/believe these murderous cocksucking sons of satan's scrotum sucking camel **** eating mother ****ers deserve a trial? Really?

They are not soldiers of any army. They have not followed any convention, Geneva or otherwise. They are not even human beings.

And if you bleeders are just dead set on a trial, how about immediate execution if convicted of terrorism. On the spot. In the ****ing chair where they're sitting.

SCOTUS, POTUS, kiss my ***. These scumballs deserve nothing. Nothing.

End. Of. Rant.

Do I have an issue with executing them? nope.

In fact, I think we need to execute spies, along with traitors and deserters.

[Hamhock]

wtf...why can't they be anally raped by a gang of mexicans or skinheads?

muh****in' cornhuster bastage. :D


i think he used that example because the larger peepees would hurt worse. :texan:

[Fugue]

Here's a question for the lawyer types:

Under what circumstances and legal theories does the 6th amendment not apply to criminal prosecutions under the jurisdiction of the USA?

jurisdiction in this case is an interesting issue as Congress expressly noted in the applicable statute that the Sup. Ct. di'int have jurisdiction in this case. That's why I find it interesting that Breyer wrote that Congress didn't consent to Bush using these courts. In fact, Congress didn't consent to this case being heard yet in front of SCROTUMS.

[Veritas]

i think he used that example because the larger peepees would hurt worse. :texan:
Actually, yes. :D

[Scott D]

Actually, yes. :D

that's what Mrs. V used to say...


btw, you are still a bastage.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Here's a question for the lawyer types:

Under what circumstances and legal theories does the 6th amendment not apply to criminal prosecutions under the jurisdiction of the USA?

Regarding foreigners, there was no settled law on how the 6th Amendment applied until today. Congress has passed several laws repsecting what to do about terrorist suspects, but none dealt directly with applying the Sixth Amendment.

On a side note - the U.S. Constitution was written for American citizens, not foreign nationals waging war against America. Therefore, until this morning, the 6th Amendment didn't apply to foreigners captured in combat against the United States.

For example, when the 6th Amendments passed, in the late 18th Century, there was no context for foreign fighters waging war against America without the backing of any one particular country. So, to expect that there is some black and white application is short-sighted.

What SCOTUS has done is say, "Look, these guys aren't wearing uniforms, but they're prisoners of war, but don't treat them like war criminals, treat them like our own criminals who, say, rob, murder, or rape."

So, they'll all get ACLU-type attorneys to represent them in courts before they're sent on the the Alcatraz of the Rockies to join Zacarias Moussaoui.

[Vaevictis]

jurisdiction in this case is an interesting issue as Congress expressly noted in the applicable statute that the Sup. Ct. di'int have jurisdiction in this case.

After reading what the Court wrote, I'm getting the impression that Congress left a loophole that the Court exploited to retain jurisdiction over this case.

[Vaevictis]

And, TDTW, I'm not sure the Supreme Court said at all that the 6th amendment applies.

The impression I got was that the Court was saying that the tribunals as constituted were done in a way contrary to the UMCJ (as written by Congress) and possibly GC3 (as ratified by the Senate), and so were illegal on those grounds.

I'm tired so I might have just missed it, but I didn't see them invoke any Constitutional grounds at all.

[1stTimeCaller]

legislating from the bench.

has anyone said that yet? ;)

[Fugue]

After reading what the Court wrote, I'm getting the impression that Congress left a loophole that the Court exploited to retain jurisdiction over this case.

I'm not so sure, it looked to me like Congress made it clear. Especially considering that I think the scrotus is given jurisdiction later in the appeals process. The majority did however, imo, depart from precedent.

[Vaevictis]

Well, I haven't read the appropriate legislation. I think that I didn't really make what I meant clear in my previous post, so I'll adjust it:

After reading what the court wrote, I'm getting the impression that the Court decided that Congress left a loophole in the legislation that the Court exploited to retain jurisdiction.

Whether or not that's really the case or not, I don't know. But, that's what the court seemed to be saying was their justification for taking up the case.

[Fugue]

Well, I haven't read the appropriate legislation. I think that I didn't really make what I meant clear in my previous post, so I'll adjust it:

After reading what the court wrote, I'm getting the impression that the Court decided that Congress left a loophole in the legislation that the Court exploited to retain jurisdiction.

Whether or not that's really the case or not, I don't know. But, that's what the court seemed to be saying was their justification for taking up the case.

I hear ya and agree that majority felt they had j. After reading it though, I think its a pretty weak argument. Interestingly, by simply taking jurisdiction, the SC put these matters into the U.S. Judicial system.

[swardboy]

Wow, instead of who won and who lost Dem's vs. Rep's, I just think the American people got screwed today. Un-uniformed combatants getting treated to the full rights of an American citizen? The world is crazier...

By the way, will Dem's dare applaud this decision...political suicide.

[C&CDean]

By the way, will Dem's dare applaud this decision...political suicide.

Dude, they already have/are. At least the losers who post on this board. Hell man, look at the thread title. Pathetic.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Vaevictus-

What you say is true. But, you can have a ruling that has an effect without actually mentioning the amendment. Here, the essense of the Sixth Amendment seems to be given to foreign enemies of the U.S. captured outside the U.S.

On the second point, you are also right. The Court didn't close forever the idea that there could be a military tribunal. They simply said that it couldn't be done on a unilateral decision of one branch.

None of it is surprising because it's not only a case of first impression with the court, but all along it's been a different kind of enemy to fight. In 1998, when Al-Qaeda declared war on America, no one really knew what that meant. They had no country, no officially recognized body of government, and no discernable interest other than jihad against America.

So, when faced with repeated attacks - African embassy bombing, U.S.S. Cole bombings, and 9/11 NYC attack - the decision to answer the was easy to say, but tough to actually put into action.

W. decided to take out the most visible element of the Al-Qaeda military branch, the Taliban-oppressed nation of Afghanistan. The Taliban was allowing Al-Qaeda to openly train and base in the country.

So, what to do with the enemy combatants? They didn't really belong to a country. They had no official rank, but rather a fluid command structure with Osama Bin Laden at the top.

With no real precedent to follow regarding terrorists captured during battle, W. & Co. decided to go the route of prosecuting them in military tribunals. Until this morning, the U.S. never considered terrorists as Geneva Convention material because they didn't fit the description. All the court has done is to lay out the legal boundary for everyone involved...and then guys like Patton and MacArthur rolled over in their graves.

[JohnnyMack]

Dude, they already have/are. At least the losers who post on this board. Hell man, look at the thread title. Pathetic.

But I'm not a Democrat.

[C&CDean]

But I'm not a Democrat.

Let's see, you hate Bush, you love fags, you think killing babies is groovy, you think killing killers is not - sorry mate, but you're a dem.

[1stTimeCaller]

Kinky for Guvnah!!!

Why the Hell Not?

[Tear Down This Wall]

Dean,
Just accept that some people in America would rather see W. embarrassed than to see the military protect the country from further terrorist attacks. The lawyers on the Supreme Court have simply done what lawyers always do in a pinch - declare themselves the final arbitor of what happens.

[1stTimeCaller]

Dean,
Just accept that some people in America would rather see W. embarrassed than to see the military protect the country from further terrorist attacks. The lawyers on the Supreme Court have simply done what lawyers always do in a pinch - declare themselves the final arbitor of what happens.

Isn't that the Supreme Court's job? Who else would be the final arbitor of the law?

[Fugue]

Isn't that the Supreme Court's job? Who else would be the final arbitor of the law?

this is one of those funky cases where that is a legitimate, debatable issue.

[Vaevictis]

A plain reading of the 6th amendment suggests that anyone tried by the USA has at least the rights contained in that amendment. That's why I asked if there were any circumstances where this didn't hold and what the legal theories were that permitted them.

One of the interesting things I learned recently (during a reading of GC3) was that un-uniformed prisoners are sometimes accorded POW status, particularly those "who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms". I imagine there are a good chunk of Afghani prisoners who meet that condition (although I am not convinced that they are a Contracting Party anyway).

[C&CDean]

A plain reading of the 6th amendment suggests that anyone tried by the USA has at least the rights contained in that amendment. That's why I asked if there were any circumstances where this didn't hold and what the legal theories were that permitted them.

One of the interesting things I learned recently (during a reading of GC3) was that un-uniformed prisoners are sometimes accorded POW status, particularly those "who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms". I imagine there are a good chunk of Afghani prisoners who meet that condition (although I am not convinced that they are a Contracting Party anyway).

I'm thinking the 8-9 guys we're talking about here didn't just "spontaneously take up arms" upon attack. Unless you call ordering thousands of people to fiery deaths "taking up arms upon attack."

[JohnnyMack]

Let's see, you hate Bush, you love fags, you think killing babies is groovy, you think killing killers is not - sorry mate, but you're a dem.

You're dumber than you look.

I don't like W.

I think gays should have equal treatment under the law and do not support a ban on gay marriage.

I'm pro-life.

I'm fine with the death penalty.

You're batting .500 schmuck.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You're dumber than you look.

I don't like W. +1 in dem column


I think gays should have equal treatment under the law and do not support a ban on gay marriage. +1 in dem column


I'm pro-life. 0 (dems and repubs think this way and vice-versa)


I'm fine with the death penalty. +1 repub column

So final tally

Dem +2
Repub +1

I think Dean is right ;)

[FaninAma]

It's reassuring to realize that the Founding Fathers at least got 2 out of 3 right when deliniating the powers of the 3 branches of government. A 0.667 batting average ain't half bad.

[Vaevictis]

I'm thinking the 8-9 guys we're talking about here didn't just "spontaneously take up arms" upon attack.

I don't disagree on that point.

I was just pointing out that un-unformed does not inherently mean "not POW eligible"; it was kind of a tangent.

[soonerscuba]

I still have not seen anybody give me a valid argument as to why the people in Gitmo don't deserve a fair trial. No one is saying set them free, no one is saying don't kill them (I don't believe that the state should be in the business of deliberately killing people outside of warfare, but I still think Bubba and his main prison bitch finish the job). If they are terrorists, let them face justice. It doesn't seem that political to me.

[C&CDean]

Did Horatio Homo just call me a schmuck?

[1stTimeCaller]

yeah but you already knew that you're a schmuck dint choo?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I don't disagree on that point.

I was just pointing out that un-unformed does not inherently mean "not POW eligible"; it was kind of a tangent.

Speaking to the post - twice- must be a record...

I would understand/agree with your point if we were in Germany with a standing army in uniform and as soldiers advance, local farmer dude rushes out of his barn with his rifle and starts shooting at said soldiers.

Iraq's standing army dissolved and threw away uniforms and many of the people picked up are foreigners "fightin' for islam" and have no loyalty to land or country. Same could be said in afghanny land...

[Scott D]

Did Horatio Homo just call me a schmuck?

did he? nobody was paying attention King ********* :D

[Scott D]

Speaking to the post - twice- must be a record...

I would understand/agree with your point if we were in Germany with a standing army in uniform and as soldiers advance, local farmer dude rushes out of his barn with his rifle and starts shooting at said soldiers.

Iraq's standing army dissolved and through away uniforms and many of the people picked up are foreigners "fightin' for islam" and have no loyalty to land or country. Same could be said in afghanny land...

pshaw..like Afghanistan has had an army since after the Soviets pulled out of their invasion attempt :)

[C&CDean]

It's "King of the *********s." Or a simple "your highness" will suffice.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I still have not seen anybody give me a valid argument as to why the people in Gitmo don't deserve a fair trial. No one is saying set them free, no one is saying don't kill them (I don't believe that the state should be in the business of deliberately killing people outside of warfare, but I still think Bubba and his main prison bitch finish the job). If they are terrorists, let them face justice. It doesn't seem that political to me.

I don't see any al quaeda or whatever putting anyone on trial...just beheading people.

I do like your idea of putting them in the general population, I would add that they liked little babies and were in jail for that as well...

[Scott D]

It's "King of the *********s." Or a simple "your highness" will suffice.

[Buddy Guy]Muh****in' usurper[/Buddy Guy]

[Veritas]

THA, to the contrary


I don't like W.
I don't either. Worst president since Carter. Maybe even since FDR.


I think gays should have equal treatment under the law...
So do I.


...and do not support a ban on gay marriage.
I don't either, but only by extent of the fact that I don't think the gub'mint has any damn place in the marriage business.


I'm pro-life.
So am I.


I'm fine with the death penalty.
As am I.

Dude, I'm am not a liberal or a Democrat. I despise most liberal and Democrat platforms. However, I'm not a Bible-beating Bushbot either.

There are other places to fall politically than Republicrat, although thanks to the efforts of McCain and Feingold those parties are hamstrung.

[Veritas]

It's "King of the *********s." Or a simple "your highness" will suffice.
How about "Lord of the *********s." I dig the Flatleyesque ring to it.

[Scott D]

maybe when I form the Patriot Party, I'll consider letting you become a member Veritas.

[C&CDean]

maybe when I form the Patriot Party, I'll consider letting you become a member Veritas.


Dude, you're black. You can't form a party. Geez.

[JohnnyMack]

How about "Lord of the *********s." I dig the Flatleyesque ring to it.

He does look like he could be Michael Flatley and Gollum's love child......

[soonerscuba]

I don't see any al quaeda or whatever putting anyone on trial...just beheading people.

So basically your argument is that we as Americans should base our treatment on methods of Al Qaeda?

[1stTimeCaller]

Dude, you're black. You can't form a party. Geez.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0780627865.01._PE52_.House-Party-2._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

whaaaaaaaa?

[Scott D]

Dude, you're black. You can't form a party. Geez.

Look Muh****ah...I can do whatever muh****in thing I want. I am going to call down the thunder and lightning and own this muh****in' country by the time I'm done. Elijah Muhammad ain't got nothin' on me!

:D

[C&CDean]

So basically your argument is that we as Americans should base our treatment on methods of Al Qaeda?

No silly. We simply shoot them in the head and leave it attached.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

THA, to the contrary


IT



WAS



A


JOKE!!!


See the smiley?????

[Veritas]

maybe when I form the Patriot Party, I'll consider letting you become a member Veritas.
Only if I get to be the officer of something.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So basically your argument is that we as Americans should base our treatment on methods of Al Qaeda?

No, but I don't think we should treat the animals with the courtesy of a trial or our justice system.

[Veritas]

IT



WAS



A


JOKE!!!


See the smiley?????
I


AM



A



RETARD!!!

See the embarrased guy? -> :O

[Scott D]

No, but I don't think we should treat the animals with the courtesy of a trial or our justice system.

But sir, you are a Christian, and therefore Old Testament type of justice is not what you are taught ;)

[Vaevictis]

I would understand/agree with your point if we were in Germany with a standing army in uniform and as soldiers advance, local farmer dude rushes out of his barn with his rifle and starts shooting at said soldiers.

I don't disagree with you on Iraq, but when it comes to Afghanistan, I would not be suprised that there actually is a fairly goodly sized chunk of people who did exactly that.

Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty different beasts; Iraq actually had a standing army, where as in those cases where the local Afghanis were involved in combat, there is a reasonable chance (imo) they really were local dudes who rushed out of the homes with their AK. Obviously the foreigners almost certainly don't qualify, but as to the Afghanis who were caught early in the war, the possibility exists.

[NormanPride]

I still stand by my principle that we should not stoop to their level unless we absolutely have to. I also don't want them to be a drain on our judicial system, so I'm all for the court-martial that Homey (I believe... it was, like, 8 brazillion posts ago) mentioned.

As for "picking up arms" or whatever, this is a bit of a special case. The decision should usually be made by the people who captured them. Being that those people are usually pi$$ed-off soldiers of some sort, I'm fine with realizing that the worst possible outcome will happen to the prisoners. :D

[Tear Down This Wall]

I still have not seen anybody give me a valid argument as to why the people in Gitmo don't deserve a fair trial. No one is saying set them free, no one is saying don't kill them (I don't believe that the state should be in the business of deliberately killing people outside of warfare, but I still think Bubba and his main prison bitch finish the job). If they are terrorists, let them face justice. It doesn't seem that political to me.

They're not criminals, they're terrorists. That was the crux of the argument.

Look, all that happened here is the Court stepped into an area that hadn't been touched. Before, there was nothing to say they did or did not deserve a fair trial. Before this morning, there were only theories about what should be done.

Why were there theories and no concrete answers before this morning? For the first time, we had foreign combatants, caught on foreign battlefields who didn't fit into the Geneva Convention's definition. With no clear guide, W. & Co. consulted with the attorneys they like best who told them do some of those military tribunals.

It's really that simple. Really. No, really!

http://www.xenafan.com/movies/bod/images/charles08.jpg

[colleyvillesooner]

http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/2360/merry20go20round8jn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

AHHHHH! I want off!!!

[TUSooner]

...
Its sad the libz want terrorists to be treated as common criminals with all the rights an American has (free cable, etc)

But hey, hurting terrorists = bad.

Aside from rejecting that as one of your typical stupid and ignorant blanket condemnations of anyone who doesn't goose-step down your narrow path, which BTW, is so narrow that two thoughts cannot pass side-by-side ...

I recently heard, in person, some compelling remarks by Hamdan's attorney about why the United States itself "deserves" to offer more than a "military tribunal" even to those detainees. The lawyer is a US Navy commander, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. That means he outranks you by about a brain and a half.
:rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

I recently heard, in person, some compelling remarks by Hamdan's attorney about why the United States itself "deserves" to offer more than a "military tribunal" even to those detainees. The lawyer is a US Navy commander, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. That means he outranks you by about a brain and a half.
:rolleyes:

He's just doing his job. He can't possibly mean it. :rolleyes:

[Hoosier Dynasty]

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-military_tribunals.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

I think they intended to charge some of these enemy combatants with "conspiring against the enemy". Think about that for a second.

[NormanPride]

http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/2360/merry20go20round8jn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

AHHHHH! I want off!!!

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9782/freedom7uj.png

This way to freedom, my friend!

[Vaevictis]

That one doesn't work. It leads right back here. Hit the button in the upper right hand of the window with the "X" in it. It's better, but not much.

[yermom]

Alt-F4

[C&CDean]

Aside from rejecting that as one of your typical stupid and ignorant blanket condemnations of anyone who doesn't goose-step down your narrow path, which BTW, is so narrow that two thoughts cannot pass side-by-side ...

I recently heard, in person, some compelling remarks by Hamdan's attorney about why the United States itself "deserves" to offer more than a "military tribunal" even to those detainees. The lawyer is a US Navy commander, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. That means he outranks you by about a brain and a half.
:rolleyes:

My friend, please do not take your blanket hatred for Tuba and make comments like you did in the second paragraph. You lawyers always make "compelling remakrs." That's what you're paid to do. Doesn't make it any less bull****, just compelling bull****.

Simply put, I would be proud to euthanize any one of these mother ****ers if there's even an ounce of proof (and there is) that they're terrorists. And I'd think less of it than I do when dispatching dogs. So I guess that makes me as bad as them huh? OK. Whatever.

[colleyvillesooner]

And I'd think less of it than I do when dispatching dogs. So I guess that makes me as bad as them huh? OK. Whatever.

Pardon my temporary thread jack, but YOU KILLED THE DOGS???

[C&CDean]

Pardon my temporary thread jack, but YOU KILLED THE DOGS???

The mother of the pups was dumped last weekend. She was dispatched. I ain't gonna comment on the puppies since there's a lot of squeamers on here.

[colleyvillesooner]

The mother of the pups was dumped last weekend. She was dispatched. I ain't gonna comment on the puppies since there's a lot of squeamers on here.

Well, it's buried in here so maybe the "people who are gonna be mad wit ya" one's won't see it.

[JohnnyMack]

The mother of the pups was dumped last weekend. She was dispatched. I ain't gonna comment on the puppies since there's a lot of squeamers on here.

Classy.

[TUSooner]

My friend, please do not take your blanket hatred for Tuba and make comments like you did in the second paragraph. You lawyers always make "compelling remakrs." That's what you're paid to do. Doesn't make it any less bull****, just compelling bull****.

Simply put, I would be proud to euthanize any one of these mother ****ers if there's even an ounce of proof (and there is) that they're terrorists. And I'd think less of it than I do when dispatching dogs. So I guess that makes me as bad as them huh? OK. Whatever.

Dear Dean -
Please do not take your blanket hatred of lawyers and make remarks like you did in your first paragraph.

It's true, I am an American idealist who thinks our nation is better and more gooder and virtuouser than any other nation and that we should hold ourselves up to a higher standard, even when disposing of the garbage of the planet. But I have also recommended on these very hallowed SO pages that we "take fewer prisoners" and thereby avoid many needless complications concerning their care and feeding. I'd call that indisputably a "battlefield decision" not subject to second guessing.
BUT IF you say you are having any sort "judicial" proceeding, you should at least do it right.

[jk the sooner fan]

that navy commander would be singing a different tune if he had a different military boss with a different military mission.....if he were assigned to some unit to develop policy and procedure on the legalities of the tribunal, he'd be doing an about face with his message

so please, find another poster boy

[C&CDean]

Classy.

Hey, two words. **** you.

You're one of the cowardly **********s who would dump them, aren't you? I tried your POS second chance. Know what they said? "Sorry, not taking any more dogs - put yourself on our waiting list and we'll see what we can do."

Spent damn near an entire Saturday taking them first to the Purcell Auction, then the Purcell Animal Control, then the Lexington P.D., then the Purcell P.D., and guess what? That's right, no takers. Then some sorry **** like yourself dropped their mother off in the same ****ing ditch. Titties dragging on the ground. No food, no nothing.

So wiseass, you can **** around about a lot of things, but back off on this one. It ain't like I enjoy taking care of other *******s' dirty business. I'm just human/man enough to do it. It's just a fact. So go yank somebody elses chain right now.

[JohnnyMack]

Hey, two words. **** you.

You're one of the cowardly **********s who would dump them, aren't you? I tried your POS second chance. Know what they said? "Sorry, not taking any more dogs - put yourself on our waiting list and we'll see what we can do."

Spent damn near an entire Saturday taking them first to the Purcell Auction, then the Purcell Animal Control, then the Lexington P.D., then the Purcell P.D., and guess what? That's right, no takers. Then some sorry **** like yourself dropped their mother off in the same ****ing ditch. Titties dragging on the ground. No food, no nothing.

So wiseass, you can **** around about a lot of things, but back off on this one. It ain't like I enjoy taking care of other *******s' dirty business. I'm just human/man enough to do it. It's just a fact. So go yank somebody elses chain right now.


**** you. I've never done anything like that in my life and resent the implication.

[Frozen Sooner]

Does anyone have a link to the opinions? I'd really like to read Thomas in dissent. It's pretty rare that he issues his own dissent and I'd like to see what he has to say.

[C&CDean]

**** you. I've never done anything like that in my life and resent the implication.

Oh do you now? Resent this.

It's easy for a tater like you to pop off. And like I said normally, I don't mind. But in this case, you're way outta line. You think it's cute to badger me over something that is extremely distasteful - and I can handle it, but I ain't gonna take it for a joke's sake. I ****ing hate killing dogs. It disturbs me. I don't need a wiseass making "classy" cracks about it.

[colleyvillesooner]

Does anyone have a link to the opinions? I'd really like to read Thomas in dissent. It's pretty rare that he issues his own dissent and I'd like to see what he has to say.


Psst...down in front.

[JohnnyMack]

Oh do you now? Resent this.

It's easy for a tater like you to pop off. And like I said normally, I don't mind. But in this case, you're way outta line. You think it's cute to badger me over something that is extremely distasteful - and I can handle it, but I ain't gonna take it for a joke's sake. I ****ing hate killing dogs. It disturbs me. I don't need a wiseass making "classy" cracks about it.

I'm out of line because you're killing dogs? OK. I'm not making light of it, I find the original disposal of the dogs to be every bit as reprehensible as you going Old Yeller on them. Sorry if I can't play the violin for you while you smoke Fido.

[C&CDean]

I'm out of line because you're killing dogs? OK. I'm not making light of it, I find the original disposal of the dogs to be every bit as reprehensible as you going Old Yeller on them. Sorry if I can't play the violin for you while you smoke Fido.

No, you're out of line because you feel the need to pop off about it. And, I'm just wondering what you would have done in the same situation?

You libs are all about saving the whale and ****, but you're a bunch of chicken****s when faced with doing the right thing. You're more comfortable having somebody else do your dirty work for you - cause that keeps you all clean. It gives you good ammo for Old Yeller and smoking Fido quips. But at least you're in the majority. Most people are more comfortable taking care of their fragile consciences so they can feel better about themselves.

And if you don't find the original act of dumping your dogs exponentially more disgusting that humanely euthanizing them, then there's pretty much no hope for you. And if you've never looked a dog in the eye and pulled the trigger then you have no business popping off about it. You could never understand.

[picasso]

Does anyone have a link to the opinions? I'd really like to read Thomas in dissent. It's pretty rare that he issues his own dissent and I'd like to see what he has to say.
he does a good job.

please help me folks. is this ruling saying we can prosecute our own military types but not these POS POW's in a military court of law?

[usmc-sooner]

No, you're out of line because you feel the need to pop off about it. And, I'm just wondering what you would have done in the same situation?

You libs are all about saving the whale and ****, but you're a bunch of chicken****s when faced with doing the right thing. You're more comfortable having somebody else do your dirty work for you - cause that keeps you all clean. It gives you good ammo for Old Yeller and smoking Fido quips. But at least you're in the majority. Most people are more comfortable taking care of their fragile consciences so they can feel better about themselves.

And if you don't find the original act of dumping your dogs exponentially more disgusting that humanely euthanizing them, then there's pretty much no hope for you. And if you've never looked a dog in the eye and pulled the trigger then you have no business popping off about it. You could never understand.

Dean your talking to a guy who get's up each morning hoping for the President of the United States fails. He's ate up with liberal political BS. He couldn't handle a group of puppies no more than he could run a country. He just celebrates and bitches on a message board.

[picasso]

also, it's my understanding that Bush could give up evidence to keep these jaggoffs locked up but it would also blow some of our cover. kind of like what they do at the NY Times.

anybody remember how to fight a war?

[TUSooner]

that navy commander would be singing a different tune if he had a different military boss with a different military mission.....if he were assigned to some unit to develop policy and procedure on the legalities of the tribunal, he'd be doing an about face with his message

so please, find another poster boy

Wasn't it John Adams that defended the Redcoats who killed Americans at the Boston Massacre? John Adams and the Navy Commander did the right thing.

[jk the sooner fan]

Wasn't it John Adams that defended the Redcoats who killed Americans at the Boston Massacre? John Adams and the Navy Commander did the right thing.

i have no idea what his true feelings are.....i've been around many defense attorneys that sure grandstanded enough for their clients

had he not been a military lawyer, i would have given more credability to what he had to say

put him in a different unit with a different mission and he aint singing that song

pretty simple

[TUSooner]

he does a good job.

please help me folks. is this ruling saying we can prosecute our own military types but not these POS POW's in a military court of law?
Unless I misunderstand greatly, "military tribunal" =/= court martial.

I'll read the opinion now.

[picasso]

Unless I misunderstand greatly, "military tribunal" =/= court martial.

I'll read the opinion now.
was just asking. I've been out of the loop on this one because I could care less what we do with these guys. they'll hate us either way.

[JohnnyMack]

No, you're out of line because you feel the need to pop off about it. And, I'm just wondering what you would have done in the same situation?

You libs are all about saving the whale and ****, but you're a bunch of chicken****s when faced with doing the right thing. You're more comfortable having somebody else do your dirty work for you - cause that keeps you all clean. It gives you good ammo for Old Yeller and smoking Fido quips. But at least you're in the majority. Most people are more comfortable taking care of their fragile consciences so they can feel better about themselves.

And if you don't find the original act of dumping your dogs exponentially more disgusting that humanely euthanizing them, then there's pretty much no hope for you. And if you've never looked a dog in the eye and pulled the trigger then you have no business popping off about it. You could never understand.

I disagree with your assertion that shooting the dogs is "doing the right thing". You'll never convince me otherwise. While the original situation you were put in is an unfortunate one and I applaud your every effort right up to the point at which you decided pulling the trigger was the best solution.

http://www.pets911.com/organizations/organizations.php?jump=0

Maybe every one of those places were all booked up and you were put on a waiting list. Most of those organizations will donate food and/or help you out in any way they can until they have space or can place the dogs with a foster family.

What would I have done? Honestly I don't know. But I wouldn't have shot any of them. But that's just me. So put your club back over your shoulder and lumber back into your cave thinking you did all you could and that I'm somehow soft and you're somehow right. Justify it any way you need to big guy.

[Okla-homey]

Unless I misunderstand greatly, "military tribunal" =/= court martial.

I'll read the opinion now.

No TU, the "military tribunal" in this context referred to a proceeding in which a panel of line officers were to serve as judge and jury. No counsel for the defense and the rules of evidence were pretty much whatever the tribunal president said they were. IOW, deemed probative = it gets in, irrespective of its source and there were no limits on hearsay either. Appellate authority was SECDEF. Definitely NOT a court-martial.

[JohnnyMack]

Dean your talking to a guy who get's up each morning hoping for the President of the United States fails.

That's where you're wrong. I get up every morning hoping he pulls his head out his ***. Much like I hope for his consituents.

[Jerk]

I knew I'd log on to SO today and see a post where some lib has had an orgasm over this. That's great. Flood the Federal Court system with those jihadist ROP'ers. Maybe a liberal judge will let a few of out on bail - best location would be Martha's Vinyard or Hollywood.

Hopefully this means that the military will take less prisoners.

Many of these guys are wanted by other governments- like Saudia Arabia. If I were Bush, I'd send em' there. I hear they're pretty good at civil rights and stuff.

[Jerk]

sorry got bored last night

[usmc-sooner]

That's where you're wrong. I get up every morning hoping he pulls his head out his ***. Much like I hope for his consituents.


well it must be so hard for you since you sit on the internet and you've got all the answers.

Me and group of friends used to all go in order the pay per view boxing. Well one friend brings his cousin. Said cousin being the twerpy type he was, sits there telling what these guys were doing wrong what they should be doing. Finally were just like STFU you've never been in a fight in your life.

I can't believe anyone who had any sense of reality would sit on the sideline and wish the President would pull his head out.

Theres probably a reason he's the President and your the bitchy little guy on the internet. Just because the President isn't turning us into the New Republic of France like you want doesn't make him a bad guy.

Oh and if you thought it through about the puppies why didn't you go get one? I'm willing to bet that Dean would have given you gas money to get one. It's hell of a lot more humane to put them down than to let them drown in the creek, at least they got to live the high life for a few days.

[Frozen Sooner]

Wasn't it John Adams that defended the Redcoats who killed Americans at the Boston Massacre? John Adams and the Navy Commander did the right thing.

Yes it was. Got all but one of them off as well, IIRC.

<---Took a Freedom Trail tour a couple of weeks ago. Therefore, I know everything about Boston history. :cool:

[KaiserSooner]

It's true, I am an American idealist who thinks our nation is better and more gooder and virtuouser than any other nation and that we should hold ourselves up to a higher standard, even when disposing of the garbage of the planet.

BUT IF you say you are having any sort "judicial" proceeding, you should at least do it right.

Well said. It sort of goes along with comments made here the other day (in the redistricting/DeLay thread?) about discarding those principles we value in the course of fighting in the name of those principles only leading to self defeat.

[KaiserSooner]

That's where you're wrong. I get up every morning hoping he pulls his head out his ***. Much like I hope for his consituents.

In both cases, pipe dream.

;)

[GrapevineSooner]

In both cases, pipe dream.

;)

There are plenty of people, like myself, that haven't been exactly enthralled with the Bush Administration during this second term.

Trouble is, the alternative (Democrats) just doesn't seem like much of an alternative.

Which sucks, you know, because I'm big on the idea of having two strong political parties that keep each other party in check.

[GrapevineSooner]

And as for the topic at hand...

I think the Bush Administration has been simply making a call that it thinks, according to it's legal counsel, is appropriate and legal. Kind of like the warrantless surveillance on International phone calls.

The SCOTUS is simply saying 'not so fast.'

That's all.

Bush isn't evil and the SCOTUS isn't necessarily legislating from the bench here.

[Okla-homey]

Perhaps its also important to note that if Chief Justice Roberts hadn't voluntarily recused himself and Justice Kennedy hadn't jumped the fence to vote with the lib judges, this would have been a 5-4 decision in favor of the government.

Even with Roberts out of the mix, had Kennedy voted the other way, the lower court decision would have remained in effect.

Bottomline, these guys at Gitmo aren't going anywhere and they do not get access to the civilian court system.

Finally, within the opinion, there is an invitation for the administration to go and ask Congress for a law to allow military tribunals for these cats and if Congress does that, the tribunals would be fine. IOW, Nancy Pelosi's gloating about a great smackdown of the President in favor of these horrible jihaadis is just plain wrong.

[Veritas]

I can't believe anyone who had any sense of reality would sit on the sideline and wish the President would pull his head out.
I can't believe anyone with any sense of conservatism would still have any favor left for King George. He's ****ed on everything that the Republican party used to be about: small government, reduced spending, reduced taxes, the right to privacy, etc etc ad****ingnaseum. If anyone needs to pull their heads out, it's true conservatives who've been duped by Bush's pretty words and Rove's constant spin doctoring.

[GrapevineSooner]

I can't believe anyone with any sense of conservatism would still have any favor left for King George. He's ****ed on everything that the Republican party used to be about: small government, reduced spending, reduced taxes, the right to privacy, etc etc ad****ingnaseum. If anyone needs to pull their heads out, it's true conservatives who've been duped by Bush's pretty words and Rove's constant spin doctoring.

Well, he's held pretty firm on the fiscal conservative ideals of lower taxes.

But that's about it on the domestic front. A Reagan Conservative Bush is clearly not.

[JohnnyMack]

well it must be so hard for you since you sit on the internet and you've got all the answers.

Me and group of friends used to all go in order the pay per view boxing. Well one friend brings his cousin. Said cousin being the twerpy type he was, sits there telling what these guys were doing wrong what they should be doing. Finally were just like STFU you've never been in a fight in your life.

I can't believe anyone who had any sense of reality would sit on the sideline and wish the President would pull his head out.

Theres probably a reason he's the President and your the bitchy little guy on the internet. Just because the President isn't turning us into the New Republic of France like you want doesn't make him a bad guy.

Oh and if you thought it through about the puppies why didn't you go get one? I'm willing to bet that Dean would have given you gas money to get one. It's hell of a lot more humane to put them down than to let them drown in the creek, at least they got to live the high life for a few days.

I don't have all the answers. I refuse to bow down before an elected official just because he's an elected official. Nothing says I have to agree with the actions of any elected official. I can't believe anyone would sit there and pledge blind allegiance to a man who has offered up thousands of your brothers in sacrifice in an effort to satiate his own bloodlust. I think it's bizarre that you, a marine, would have a problem with the fact that I don't want those soldiers deaths to be in vain. My #1 problem with W has and always will be Iraq.

[Vaevictis]

Homey, it ain't a great smackdown on the prez, but I think it's nice that the SC sent a message that the Congress isn't the appendix of the US gov like the White House seems to think.

A lot of things the Bush administration does domestically that I have a problem with are things I have a problem with mostly because the administration just does them unilaterally without getting the proper authority from Congress first.

And yeah, I don't see why people are throwing such a ****-fit over this. So they get access to lawyers and get some basic trial protections; ain't that like, you know, one of the awesome things that separated us from the Commies 30-odd years ago? They can still be tried by military courts.

[Veritas]

I can't believe anyone would sit there and pledge blind allegiance to a man who has offered up thousands of your brothers in sacrifice in an effort to satiate his own bloodlust.
That's where you and I part ways. Bloodlust? Seriously? The vampire LeBush?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I don't disagree with you on Iraq, but when it comes to Afghanistan, I would not be suprised that there actually is a fairly goodly sized chunk of people who did exactly that.

Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty different beasts; Iraq actually had a standing army, where as in those cases where the local Afghanis were involved in combat, there is a reasonable chance (imo) they really were local dudes who rushed out of the homes with their AK. Obviously the foreigners almost certainly don't qualify, but as to the Afghanis who were caught early in the war, the possibility exists.

Can't argue with that. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) I know very little of what we did and are doing in Afghanistan. I would like to know more of that area and just how many of the Taliban are afghanies and how many are foreign.

[GrapevineSooner]

I can't believe anyone would sit there and pledge blind allegiance to a man who has offered up thousands of your brothers in sacrifice in an effort to satiate his own bloodlust.

:rolleyes:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

**** you. I've never done anything like that in my life and resent the implication.

I'm with Dean on this one. Some lardass dumped the dogs. I'm sorry, sometimes it is more humane to put animals down. It is hard as hell, but if no one wanted the dogs, then they are better off down than running loose around...

[Okla-homey]

Can't argue with that. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) I know very little of what we did and are doing in Afghanistan. I would like to know more of that area and just how many of the Taliban are afghanies and how many are foreign.

I was there, on the ground, in the winter of 2001. Those Al-Q/Taliban guys were and are some very evil d00ds. Medievally cruel and barbaric. But they'll get their day in court...I just hope they keep them hand-cuffed so they can't attack their lawyers with a ballpoint pen like I observed one do to an International Red Cross worker who was trying to aid him in the detention camp at Kandahar.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

also, it's my understanding that Bush could give up evidence to keep these jaggoffs locked up but it would also blow some of our cover. kind of like what they do at the NY Times.

anybody remember how to fight a war?

You know, I wish I had a NY Times sub so I could cancel it. I wonder just how badly they have hurt our intel capability by disclosing this. Their arguement is so lame...

I would suspect that Bush would probably let some go to protect our intel gathering ability...I would respect that.

Now we need a Rainbow Six type org (Task Force 145?) to take out these mofos when they least expect it...

[JohnnyMack]

That's where you and I part ways. Bloodlust? Seriously? The vampire LeBush?

A tad over the top? :O

[colleyvillesooner]

A tad over the top? :O

"A tad" isn't in your vocabulary. :D

[yermom]

just replace blood with oil and it's probably pretty close ;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I was there, on the ground, in the winter of 2001. Those Al-Q/Taliban guys were and are some very evil d00ds. Medievally cruel and barbaric. But they'll get their day in court...I just hope they keep them hand-cuffed so they can't attack their lawyers with a ballpoint pen like I observed one do to an International Red Cross worker who was trying to aid him in the detention camp at Kandahar.

No, but we are the Crusaders, evil and barbaric...

Some of these people have been so warped by their perceived religion they no longer can think rationally and are very evil in the western mindset. As I have said many times, these people only know and respect force. If you don't show it, they don't respect you...
Plus if you mess with their male domination of women, they'll fight you do the death...Much of this is about uneducated and ignorant men retaining domination over women...

[Veritas]

just replace blood with oil and it's probably pretty close ;)
I know you're being sarcastic.

But let's assume that Bush's motivation for the war was oil.

What of it?

Reasonably priced oil is a keystone of our economy. There was a dictator in that region posing a legitimate threat to that oil supply. It follows that it would be in our nation's interest to negate that threat.

If we have to take over a country to keep our economy afloat...I say get to the takin'.

</Devils Advocate>

[NormanPride]

I know you're being sarcastic.

But let's assume that Bush's motivation for the war was oil.

What of it?

Reasonably priced oil is a keystone of our economy. There was a dictator in that region posing a legitimate threat to that oil supply. It follows that it would be in our nation's interest to negate that threat.

If we have to take over a country to keep our economy afloat...I say get to the takin'.

</Devils Advocate>

Yes, but it's kind of disturbing to think we'd start a war over it when we have our own oil here. Add to that the shady handling of the oil-related contracts once the wells were liberated. Just in general, I think it would be pretty ****ty of the United States of America to start a war over resources, considering how amazingly prosperous we are already.

[Vaevictis]

I wonder just how badly they have hurt our intel capability by disclosing this. Their arguement is so lame...

Just a layman here, so take it for what it's worth...

Mostly, I would expect that this would primarily be of use for getting at the money source end of terrorism instead of the ops end. ie, finding out who's funding Al-Qaeda. (of course, we already knew the US gov was doing this years ago)

Towards the operational end of things, if they had any sense at all, they'd already trend towards cash and carry.

As I said, the government has been tracking >=$10k transfers/deposits/etc for years and years and years at this point (tax/fraud purposes), so anyone with any sense would expect that threshold to be lowered for intel purposes post-9/11.

[Vaevictis]

But let's assume that Bush's motivation for the war was oil.

If that was the case, I'd say we picked the wrong target. Iran and/or Venezuela would have been better choices, IMO.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Just a layman here, so take it for what it's worth...

Mostly, I would expect that this would primarily be of use for getting at the money source end of terrorism instead of the ops end. ie, finding out who's funding Al-Qaeda. (of course, we already knew the US gov was doing this years ago)

Towards the operational end of things, if they had any sense at all, they'd already trend towards cash and carry.

As I said, the government has been tracking >=$10k transfers/deposits/etc for years and years and years at this point (tax/fraud purposes), so anyone with any sense would expect that threshold to be lowered for intel purposes post-9/11.

Well I think the low people and couriers are cash and carry. What this would find is the higher level network and the financiers. I think at least in one case, this resulted in a series of arrests that foiled at least one cell.

[yermom]

If that was the case, I'd say we picked the wrong target. Iran and/or Venezuela would have been better choices, IMO.

yeah, but Saddam wasn't the dictator of those countries...

and did we merge with the NYT thread? what's going on here?

[Vaevictis]

and did we merge with the NYT thread? what's going on here?

There is a threadjack in progress. This being the SO, it's SOP.

[yermom]

very well, carry on.

[SCOUT]

I was there, on the ground, in the winter of 2001. Those Al-Q/Taliban guys were and are some very evil d00ds. Medievally cruel and barbaric. But they'll get their day in court...I just hope they keep them hand-cuffed so they can't attack their lawyers with a ballpoint pen like I observed one do to an International Red Cross worker who was trying to aid him in the detention camp at Kandahar.
But haven't you heard that we made them that way?

[Okla-homey]

But haven't you heard that we made them that way?

No, they come from a long line of head-chopper-offers. Read Kipling my friend.

[Vaevictis]

No, they come from a long line of head-chopper-offers. Read Kipling my friend.

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/mod/Kipling.html

Meh? :O

[47straight]

Dang. Is page 12 too late to point out that military commission trials are what our own soldiers get, and that they've got more due process than 95 percent of the rest of the world's regular courts?

[Vaevictis]

These were not the same thing. See Okla-homey's post:

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424028&postcount=186

[NYSooner1355]

Dang. Is page 12 too late to point out that military commission trials are what our own soldiers get, and that they've got more due process than 95 percent of the rest of the world's regular courts?

Since when do we judge our constitution based on what other countries offer? - this was a big issue just last year I believe, when the liberal bench looked to outside sources of law to justify their interpretation - Our constitution is judged on its own, not against the rest of the world.

[Okla-homey]

Since when do we judge our constitution based on what other countries offer? - this was a big issue just last year I believe, when the liberal bench looked to outside sources of law to justify their interpretation - Our constitution is judged on its own, not against the rest of the world.

While I quite agree international law shouldn't generally be a gauge by which we measure the quality of our law, a couple points are in order. First, if we sign an international treaty, that treaty (like the Geneva Conventions) has the force of law in our country per the Constitution.

Second, a great deal of US law is derived from what is euphemistically called the "common law" imported from England. That English common law, adapted for use in the US, is still a powerful force especially, IMHO, in the area of property law.

[TUSooner]

Dang. Is page 12 too late to point out that military commission trials are what our own soldiers get, and that they've got more due process than 95 percent of the rest of the world's regular courts?

Our guys get Courts-Martial, not "military commission trials" such as was at issue in the case. A C-M has plenty due process, much more than the "commission" affairs.
But read my sig. ;) I've decided to avoid these political crapfests because I just get bent out of shape and mouth off like a fool at posters whose knee-jerk opinions I allow to p!ss me off unduly. (That does NOT include you, 47. :) )

[TUSooner]

By the way, "=/=" is intended to mean "does not equal". Is there a better way to express it?
I'd say Homey has read the opinion, or at least a solid 2d-hand analysis of it. Anyway, this handwronging over giving thugs full US constotuional rights is wayyyy overblown. It just ain't happenin. At worst, I believe these losers could get treated like POWs and held until the end of the "war" which could be quite a while.

[Frozen Sooner]

That's what I usually use TU. Some of the programming guys have something they use, though. I think it's like != or something.