Supreme Court Ruling - Gitmo detainees can appeal to U.S. court system

[Raiders Army]

Yeah, standing for something even though you know people will "lump you in with Bush" is bad. He should've taken the Obama approach and stood for nothing but some nebulous "change".

/threadjack

[Drake]

If McCain had been so philosophical about immoral incarceration of national enemies when he was a POW, he could have saved himself a *ton* of post-traumatic stress treatment.

[NoMyths]

I'm positive that our country doesn't need another president whose understanding of American history is so ignorant as to declare this one of the worst decisions in history.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'm positive that our country doesn't need another president whose understanding of American history is so ignorant as to declare this one of the worst decisions in history.

I'll bet a big chunk of his potential conservative supporters don't even view this as the worst SC decision of the decade. Kelo, for instance, springs to mind.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll bet a big chunk of his potential conservative supporters don't even view this as the worst SC decision of the decade. Kelo, for instance, springs to mind.

Unquestionably. Bush v. Gore was striking as well (though certainly not poorly viewed by his supporters).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Yeah, standing for something even though you know people will "lump you in with Bush" is bad. He should've taken the Obama approach and stood for nothing but some nebulous "change".

/threadjack

because unwavering ingnorant steadfastness has served our country so well.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm sorry, but that particular turn of phrase is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard.

"Unlawful combatants"? Please. The only things the Geneva Convention denies that status for are mercenaries and children.

Sure, Congress passed a law defining "unlawful combatants" in 2006, but y'know, unless I'm mistaken, the Iraq and Afghanistan conficts had been underway for sometime by then. The Constitution, in the clause immediately following that of Habeas Corpus, says that no ex post facto law shall be passed. Unlike the habeas clause, the ex post facto clause includes no exceptions. No law may be passed which retroactively criminalizes an action.

So even under the most generous interpretation of the status of the detainees, none detained prior to 2006 can Constitutionally be considered as "unlawful combatants."

Even leaving that aside, it's either a battlefield, or it's not. If it's a battlefield, and they're raising arms against you, how in the hell is that "unlawful combatants"? Either you're fighting a war, in which case they're lawful combatants and should be treated as such, pursuant to the Geneva Convention, or you're prosecuting a police action, in which case there's no damn battlefield, and standard criminal procedures ought to apply.

Here is an interesting case from 1942.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=317&page=1

The entire ruling is quite amazing and with much history and thought put into it. Here are some notable parts, but I encourage you or anybody to read the entire ruling.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. 8 The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. See Winthrop, Military Law, 2d Ed., pp. 1196-1197, 1219-1221; Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, approved by the President, General Order No. 100, April 24, 1863, sections IV and V.

This court decision was based not upon precedent either, but previous rulings (1914?).

'Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.' And Paragraph [317 U.S. 1, 33] 84, that 'Armed Prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads, or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.'

Our Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who though combatants do not wear 'fixed and distinctive emblems'. And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'.

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law12 that we think it must be regarded as [317 U.S. 1, 36] a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

because unwavering ingnorant steadfastness has served our country so well.

The ruling effectively overturns FDR (WWII) and Woodrow Wilson (WWI) as well.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'm positive that our country doesn't need another president whose understanding of American history is so ignorant as to declare this one of the worst decisions in history.

I haven't seen what Obama's reaction was. What were his comments?

[Buccaneer]

OpEd from one of the largest libertarian papers:

HIGH COURT MOVES TOWARD JUSTICE
Decision holds administration at bay

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, decided that those detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp can challenge their imprisonment using the ancient writ of habeas corpus. It was the right decision and goes a long way toward changing some extremely dubious practices used during the war on terror.

The writ of habeas corpus (Latin: "you have the body") has roots hundreds of years old in the English common law, which serves as the basis of our judicial system. It is a significant check on the tendency of governments to sometimes use power in abusive ways. It allows somebody who has been imprisoned to go before an impartial magistrate and require the government to explain why it has the authority to keep him imprisoned.

Proper use of the writ can handle cases of someone who doesn't fit into a category that justifies imprisonment. It's not a trial; the standard of proof is not all that high; but the government does have to give a plausible reason for holding this particular person. Some legal authorities believe it is the most effective check on the kind of arbitrary detention that is often characteristic of tyrannical regimes.

The Bush administration has argued that since those held at Guantanamo are aliens designated by the president as "illegal enemy combatants," and since Guantanamo is on Cuban rather than U.S. soil, those prisoners do not have the rights guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution.

In this case the court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, decided that those detainees have a right to go to a federal court and ask for a habeas corpus hearing. For starters, the unusual treaty by which the U.S. controls that little corner of Cuba has given the U.S. full civil and military control of Guantanamo for more than 100 years. And under the Constitution, the writ can be suspended only in an emergency brought about by invasion or rebellion. Therefore the laws that Congress passed to provide a semblance of due process but not full access to habeas corpus hearings in a U.S. court are invalid.

This is clearly the right decision. What distinguishes the United States and other civilized countries from the barbaric terrorists who seek to harm us is precisely our devotion to the rule of law and orderly procedures. As Kennedy wrote: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Radio and TV talking heads say the decision will free the very thugs who would slit your throat. Not so. This ruling does not provide that those at Guantanamo should be released, or even that they must get habeas hearings, simply that they must be able to apply for a hearing. Courts have a great deal of discretion in such matters. And given that there are only 270 detainees at Guantanamo, this will hardly overburden the system.

It's also important to remember that those held at Guantanamo might not all be hardened terrorists. Administration critics argue that some are innocent victims of overzealous bounty hunters. That's one more reason it's important they receive access to the courts.

The U.S. government has declined to designate the Guantanamo detainees as prisoners of war, for whom different procedures are specified, but has held some for up to six years without filing charges. That is shameful, not at all the way an American government devoted to protecting liberty should operate. The high court has shown that even though it took a while to kick in, our constitutional separation of powers still works.

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/scout...uantanamo.html

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The ruling effectively overturns FDR (WWII) and Woodrow Wilson (WWI) as well.

I have no problem with things changing over time. Flip flop to me can mean results from further analysis and critical thinking.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I haven't seen what Obama's reaction was. What were his comments?

From: Obama, McCain Respond to Guantanamo Bay Ruling by Michael D. Shear on the Washington Post website.

Democrat Barack Obama issued a statement expressing support for the decision, saying that it strikes the proper balance between fighting terrorism and "protecting our core values."

"The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo -- yet another failed policy supported by John McCain," Obama said. "This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

Obama said he voted against the Military Commissions Act, which created the extra-judicial system of hearings for detainees at Guantanamo, because of "sloppiness" that would lead to the kind of decision the court announced yesterday.

"The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend," he said. "Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I have no problem with things changing over time. Flip flop to me can mean results from further analysis and critical thinking.

I am more interested with the charge that President Bush based his ruling out of thin air with no precedent. Seems if we hate people misleading, we shouldn't practice it ourselves.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am more interested with the charge that President Bush based his ruling out of thin air with no precedent. Seems if we hate people misleading, we shouldn't practice it ourselves.

From '01, Bush knew, KNEW, he was skirting. He was absolutely not relying on precedent but was crafting some halfbaked interpretation of "war-time". The "war" I believe we're in is incomparable to the war's in the past that have been cited. The scary part is that if found innocent the administration has stated it doesnt have to release the innocent.

Originally Posted by Article

Bush's Tribunals Under Fire
Declan McCullagh Email 11.16.01
During World War II, German marines carrying explosives landed on this beach in Ponte Vedra, Florida, hoping to sabotage U.S. efforts.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's decision to try civilians before secret military tribunals could lead to the kind of showdown between the Army and the judiciary not seen since the Civil War.

Bush quietly signed an executive order this week that says any suspected terrorist "who is not a United States citizen" can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced by the U.S. military.

The two-page order, drawing on the president's authority as commander-in-chief during wartime, says a secret military tribunal may impose sentences as harsh as death on illegal visitors to the United States, green-card holders or tourists who are accused of terrorism.

By filing a so-called writ of habeas corpus, attorneys representing someone facing a tribunal could petition the civilian courts to take up the case, a move that could lead to a rare tussle between civilian and military authorities.

A safeguard of liberty dating back to English common law and England's Habeas Corpus Act of 1671, the writ of habeas corpus says that authorities must bring a person they arrest before a judge who orders it. The U.S. 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."

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus -- a decision that led to a showdown between the military and U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney. After the U.S. Army arrested John Merryman on charges of destroying railroad bridges and imprisoned him in Fort McHenry, Merryman's lawyer drew up a habeas corpus petition that Taney quickly signed.

When the Army refused to bring Merryman before the high court, Taney said the U.S. marshals had the authority to haul Army General George Cadwalader into the courtroom on charges of contempt -- but Taney wouldn't order it since the marshals would likely be outgunned by the regular army. Instead, Taney protested and called on Lincoln "to perform his constitutional duty to enforce the laws" and the "process of this court."

That's not likely to happen again, says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

"The likelihood that the marshal of the federal court would be literally stiffed by a military commander, in this day and age, is slim to zero," Fidell says.

But, says Fidell, it's not clear what the present-day Supreme Court would do if confronted with the same request. "I think they would entertain it, and they would have to make a decision about whether that individual was an enemy belligerent," Fidell says.

During World War II, the Supreme Court bowed to military authorities and refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus.

In June 1942, FBI agents nabbed a squad of disguised German saboteurs who landed at Ponte Vedra, Florida, with explosives and fuses and plans to interfere with the American war effort. President Roosevelt immediately appointed a military tribunal and ordered it to try the case.

Roosevelt's order said that people sneaking into the United States who had ties to the Axis powers "and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals."

...and it wasn't by following a law or following a Congressional declaration of war, but by Executive Order. How does one of the people prove or disprove "Ties" when it's a secret military tribunal.

further down the article:

Originally Posted by article

David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, says Bush's executive order is unprecedented for two reasons: Tribunals will be used when America has not declared war, and they are not limited to terrorists who are members of al-Qaida.

Bush could have written his order to apply only to al-Qaida members, but instead chose to include non-citizens who have harbored terrorists, are terrorists or have "conspired" with terrorists.

So Bush threw a blanket over millions of people....horrible decision that of course would backfire, and has.

But after the deadly terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, Congress didn't go quite that far. Instead of declaring war, Congress enacted a one-paragraph resolution that authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" when responding to the hijacked airplanes that slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"To adopt this military tribunal is essentially to throw out the window all of the protections we have for 200 years considered critical to a fair determination of guilt," says Georgetown's Cole. "It throws out the requirement that the trial be public, that the evidence that the government relies on be revealed to the defendant, that there be any judicial review. It throws out the requirement that the government provide exculpatory evidence."

Cole says that "these are the bottom-line constitutional principles that we have concluded are necessary to give a criminal judgment legitimacy."

Congress didn't declare war but gave Bush specific authority to react to the 9/11 events. Here we are many years later with people picked up in all parts of the world with no way of showing that they dont even meet the standards set by that which you cite as precedent. Luckily the courts agree that making a person disappear forever without proof or action is against our standing.

From a different article in 2002, editorial:

Originally Posted by Article

The New York Times reported that the detainees may be held indefinitely—even if they are acquitted in a military tribunal. The Times report quotes Pentagon lawyer William J. Haynes II: “If we had a trial right this minute, it is conceivable that somebody could be tried and acquitted of that charge but may not necessarily automatically be released.”

Let that sink in: acquittal would not mean release. Why? Because these are “dangerous” people, Haynes says. How’s that a for a commitment to “this nation’s ideals, including the rule of law.” It appears the critics of military tribunals were not premature in voicing their concerns.

[Dutch]

And liberals have known, KNOWN, that the terrorists are killing civilians and abusing the laws of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the liberals have known, KNOWN, that takes away their rights to be prisoners of war. Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare. The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Sorry to parrot your argument, but you get my drift.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And liberals have known, KNOWN, that the terrorists are killing civilians and abusing the laws of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the liberals have known, KNOWN, that takes away their rights to be prisoners of war. Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare. The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Sorry to parrot your argument, but you get my drift.

Dutch, the case you quote has to do with the domestic distinction between unlawful and lawful combatants. It has nothing to do with the Bush administration's interpretation of the Geneva Convention (which is really indefensible). Nothing the Court said in the recent decision contradicts the holding in Ex Parte Quirin. Plenty of prisoners in the present war can still be tried in military tribunals (in fact all of them can be if the administration handles it right). You just can't relocate prisoners to territory where the U.S. has de facto or de jure sovereignty and then deny habeas rights. The attempt by the Bush administration to create a land without law has, thankfully, failed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And liberals have known, KNOWN, that the terrorists are killing civilians and abusing the laws of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the liberals have known, KNOWN, that takes away their rights to be prisoners of war. Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare. The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Sorry to parrot your argument, but you get my drift.

I do, but I dont think Al Qaeda or it's cohorts have claimed to have signed on to the Geneva Conventions. We wouldnt be having this argument if the admin wouldve or would just say We are not following the Geneva Conventions with these people but when pressed on it they said, they didnt have to but will. That was a mistake IMO. They shouldve said, we're fighting a gang and Geneva wont apply, IMO.

and then, "What John said." not JonIMGA either, that guy's cukoo.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I do, but I dont think Al Qaeda or it's cohorts have claimed to have signed on to the Geneva Conventions. We wouldnt be having this argument if the admin wouldve or would just say We are not following the Geneva Conventions with these people but when pressed on it they said, they didnt have to but will. That was a mistake IMO. They shouldve said, we're fighting a gang and Geneva wont apply, IMO.

and then, "What John said." not JonIMGA either, that guy's cukoo.

The problem is that the Geneva Conventions apply in ALL war scenarios. There are varying degrees of protection (with groups like Al Qaeda receiving the lowest level of protection). And the Geneva Conventions have been used repeatedly in occasions with irregular, non-uniformed armies (usually in civil wars or border wars). The Bush Adminstration argued that this conflict wasn't covered by the Geneva Conventions, but that was just plain wrong. Al Qaeda prisoners are not entitled to POW status, but they are entitled to minimal, irregular army protections.

However, all of the talk of Geneva Conventions really has no relevance to the Court's recent decision. This was just a straight constitutional ruling regarding the scope of habeas rights.

[Dutch]

The Bush Adminstration argued that this conflict wasn't covered by the Geneva Conventions, but that was just plain wrong. Al Qaeda prisoners are not entitled to POW status, but they are entitled to minimal, irregular army protections.

I'm going to have to argue your wording. Bush has never said the war doesn't have to follow Geneva Conventions. US Soldiers follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War as explicitly as possible. What Bush has argued is that the enemy refuses to follow the laws of war and their continued targetting of civilians highlights the claim.

However, all of the talk of Geneva Conventions really has no relevance to the Court's recent decision. This was just a straight constitutional ruling regarding the scope of habeas rights.

Well, I think we can agree that the Geneva Conventions don't really give a strong interpretation of where Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighters fall in the spectrum. It really only goes so far as to say what they are not (neither lawful combatants nor non-combatants).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm going to have to argue your wording. Bush has never said the war doesn't have to follow Geneva Conventions. US Soldiers follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War as explicitly as possible. What Bush has argued is that the enemy refuses to follow the laws of war and their continued targetting of civilians highlights the claim.

I think you're going to have to define "enemy"

Originally Posted by DOD

Geneva Convention Applies to Taliban, not Al Qaeda
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2002 – President Bush said the United States would regard the Geneva Conventions as applying to Taliban detainees under U.S. control -- but not Al Qaeda detainees.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the United States would continue to treat all detainees humanely and in accordance with standards set by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush's decision does not materially change the way all detainees will be treated by the United States nor does it confer prisoner of war status on Taliban members. U.S. officials will continue to call both Taliban and Al Qaeda members "detainees."

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention of 1949. U.S. government lawyers determined the convention applies to Taliban captured since the war on terrorism began.

Another problem arises because Bush has painted, it would seem, a lot of our "enemies" as either Al Qaeda or their sympathizers whether applicable or not.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think you're going to have to define "enemy"



Another problem arises because Bush has painted, it would seem, a lot of our "enemies" as either Al Qaeda or their sympathizers whether applicable or not.

And to further clarify why the Taliban fighters ultimately end up in the same boat as the Al Qaeda (and just another reason why those scumbags couldn't get any legitimate nation on this Earth to recognize them).

Fleischer said the Taliban fighters do not qualify as prisoners of war because they did not meet certain standards of Article IV of the conventions -- that they wear distinctive uniforms and conduct military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/0...ush.detainees/

[Flasch186]

Ok, so Geneva doesnt apply to them either? Flip flop from the Admin? Im fine with that but if theyre not POW then the ruling on this court case is exactly correct by the Supreme court that they should be tried in Civilian courts under the writ. I agree with you that Al Qaeda, The Taliban and many others are the scum of the earth but I see a lot of hyperbole, misinformation, and general bias of interpretation (let's call it) to get to the ends desired.

So as you said, in this case we don't have to follow Geneva but I can show you a ton of statements where the administration says we will and are, so which is the statement that is true as compared to how we are truly going to act?

oh, and I think youre confusing me.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yet to fight the President, they deliberately skirt this issue with some half-baked idea that these people are lawful fighters that respect the international agreements of warfare.

As opposed to conservatives, who dig to the deepest, darkest recesses of judicial precedent to come up with a shred of justification for the kangaroo courts set up by their hero Bush.

One way makes a mockery of American "justice" and makes KSM a martyr to his supporters. The other executes a slam-dunk criminal case and locks KSM away in Max-Secure for the rest of his life where he fades from popular remembrance.

The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.

Prove it.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Actually, based on their obsessive, almost illogical hatred of Bush (much like the right's feelings toward Clinton), I think it is pretty spot on. The left seems willing to do anything they can to thwart or claim victory over Bush policy, regardless of whether it makes sense or not concerning U.S. national security

[Flasch186]

will the cycle ever end? Only when the Religious Right are firmly in power?

I know it's a hijack of the thread but it's silly to think that the two sides, right and left will fight forever where each side, every 8 or so years, uses the same argument to claim victim that they used to create the victim just a few years before. no?

[SFL Cat]

Like it or not, that has been the pattern for the past 20 years, and I see no signs of it changing in the near future.

[miked]

I don't see why people think this is some liberal plot to slap Bush down and will result in terrorist going free and hurting intel or something. Are we that obsessed with fear tatics? Maybe I'm just rational and normal, but doesn't this just mean the government has to go in front of a judge and give the tiniest shred of evidence that the person needs to be detained?

I just don't get the whole...OMG LIBERALZ HATE BUSH AND WANT TERRORISTS FREE TO SPITE HIM. THEY R MAKING UR COUNTRY UNSFAE OMG!!!11!11

[Flasch186]

but there is a large swell of those, well, people who buy into that crap and therefore will vote accordingly. Some of them are on here. But they are consistent: anyone who is against Bush, even those that were once a part of his innercircle, become untrustworthy liars the minute they leave. Anyone Pro-choice is also Pro-Death. Anyone against Bush doesnt love America. anyone who doesn't vote Republican is voting for Al Qaeda. etc. etc. etc.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually, based on their obsessive, almost illogical hatred of Bush (much like the right's feelings toward Clinton), I think it is pretty spot on.

Except for the fact that neither you nor Dutch have cited a single liberal who wants KSM or his cohorts to go free to "spite" Bush.

On the other hand, I can cite many conservative commentators who advocate or have advocated actions born out of illogical hatred. For instance, one encouraged people to shoot federal agents in the head during the Clinton Administration (G. Gordon Liddy). Another advocated the poisoning of moderate or liberal Supreme Court justices (Ann Coulter).

How about you provide some evidence?

The left seems willing to do anything they can to thwart or claim victory over Bush policy, regardless of whether it makes sense or not concerning U.S. national security

You keep repeating this meme, hoping that with repetition it'll become true. Faux News would be proud of you.

Ironically, of course, it's the policies of the Bush Administration, not random liberals, that have compromised national security.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

But maybe you know better than the sum total of U.S. intelligence agencies.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's not our secrets we should be worried about. When we convicted those clowns, we dimed out the Soviets. It was pretty obvious who they worked for and it was also pretty obvious we couldn't really do anything about it.

That wasn't my point.

A key problem conservatives are fond of bringing up is this falsehood that you can't convict someone in a civilian court where significant pieces of evidence are Top Secret. If this was true, we never would have been able to try and convict the various Cold War spies.

[larrymcg421]

I'd just like to point out that three Republican appointees made up the 5 person majority in this case.

[sterlingice]

Kindof scary that the two most recent are so far to the right that they were abandoned by previous conservatives.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That wasn't my point.

A key problem conservatives are fond of bringing up is this falsehood that you can't convict someone in a civilian court where significant pieces of evidence are Top Secret. If this was true, we never would have been able to try and convict the various Cold War spies.

I'm certain (as many conservatives and liberals alike are) that the civilian court system has done a pretty good job of convicting lots of folks. Check our prison over-population if you need clarification. So we are tied, that's not my point either.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'd just like to point out that three Republican appointees made up the 5 person majority in this case.

This is a cool little chart that provides some clarity. I'm sure the chips don't always fall this way, but they sure did this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal-Cover_score

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is a cool little chart that provides some clarity. I'm sure the chips don't always fall this way, but they sure did this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal-Cover_score

that's pretty cool. History geek in me wants to look at the pdf chart in there

[DaddyTorgo]

what I find interesting in the current list and the list of past (back to 1937) is how many of them were relatively "unqualified" - it's kind of scary

[larrymcg421]

The chart is interesting because it's based on editorials during their confirmations. There has certainly been some jockeying around since then. For example, there is no way Kennedy is more liberal than Souter and Stevens, and also Thomas is definitely the most conservative of the bunch.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Except for the fact that neither you nor Dutch have cited a single liberal who wants KSM or his cohorts to go free to "spite" Bush.

If he gets the same calibre of lawyers O.J. had, who knows...

On the other hand, I can cite many conservative commentators who advocate or have advocated actions born out of illogical hatred. For instance, one encouraged people to shoot federal agents in the head during the Clinton Administration (G. Gordon Liddy). Another advocated the poisoning of moderate or liberal Supreme Court justices (Ann Coulter).

Oh, please, I've seen equal vitriol toward Bush.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+'assassinated'+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do
Assassination of a President "Docu-Drama," The Bush-hating crowd's wet dream.

Leading up to the 2004 election, Laurie David (wife of "Seinfeld" creator Larry David) hosted an event in La-La Land called "Hate Bush 12/2."

The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledged leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."

Left-wing activist and writer Fran Lebowitz said that the Bush administration is a "criminal enterprise, pure and simple."

Sandra Bernhard, the wannabe actress and comedienne, was asked during an online Washington Post chat for her thoughts on terrorism. "The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs."

Michael Moore has accused Bush of being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. George Soros said the president's policies reminded him of the Nazis. Cameron Diaz warned that if Bush was reelected in 2004, rape would become legal. Randi Rhodes told her radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken out and shot (can't say I've ever read a story where Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative talk show host has advocated the same for a Democrat). Whoopi Goldberg headlined a New York fund-raiser in which Bush was called a "thug" and a "killer." Howard Dean speculated publicly about the "interesting theory" that Bush knew what was going to happen on Sept. 11 but kept silent.

So, please, be careful about casting stones in a glass house.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is a cool little chart that provides some clarity. I'm sure the chips don't always fall this way, but they sure did this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal-Cover_score

The Segal Cover scores are interesting, but have some major limitations. First, they give no historical context. This means a Court could be radically liberal, but the least liberal judge will still appear conservative. Second, there are some major scoring difficulties. A lot of cases don't bring up a clear liberal or conservative position. In fact, it can be argued that most of the docket has no clear political bent. Scores from hot-button political issues can show greater polarization.

The scores do highlight the ridiculous notion that Justice Stevens is some crazy liberal. Throughout his career, he has been one of the most conservative justices on certain issues. Ginsburg isn't even that liberal by historical standards.

A recent book by Posner discussing past research (including Sunstein's interesting study) provides a lot better understanding of our modern court trends, IMO.

[Buccaneer]

JG, wouldn't that argument (historical perspective) imply that the index for conservatism and liberalism be somewhat constant? Or would it be era-adjusted?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You keep repeating this meme, hoping that with repetition it'll become true. Faux News would be proud of you.

The commonly cited support of this decision in this thread and this thread and elsehwere is essentially "Bush deserved it because of how he screwed this whole thing up". Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think most people give a shit about the plight of a handful of "innocent" Afghans. Many more than that have suffered much worse around the globe in places where nobody's yelling to get involved. The real energy in support of the decision is that it goes against Bush.

The other support is that "a habeas defense requires only a shred of evidence". That's not true, but if people think that, why are they so fired up about this decision? What difference will it make?

Bush has been an awful president. The trendy hate though is way over the top and not at all productive in either a discussion or in a practical sense. I don't think this backlash was the basis of the decision itself, and I don't think anti-Bush folk in courts will actually conspire to set anyone free (though anything can happen in front of a single federal judge on a habeas case). But civilians court are wildly unpredictable, and they has no expertease or perspective of international and military law.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

JG, wouldn't that argument (historical perspective) imply that the index for conservatism and liberalism be somewhat constant? Or would it be era-adjusted?

There are a few problems. First, cases are not random and consistent over time. Parties decide to appeal certain issues based upon how they think the Court will decide. The Court often only takes cases when a split between circuits develop. Also, case decisions are built on prior cases so law has an evolutionary quality. And the issues being litigated today are not the same as those being litigated years ago. An example to illustrate many of the problems would be in analyzing exclusionary rule cases. The exclusionary rule didn't exist until the middle of the 20th Century. The finding that illegally seized evidence should be excluded was considered a "liberal decision." However, how do you deal with the numerous decisions since? There may be a conservative and liberal outcome relatively. However, all of those decisions fundamentally accept a liberal exclusionary rule. Most every area of law operates that way. And most exclusionary rule decisions never reach the Supreme Court because the Court doesn't grant cert.

It is extremely difficult to analyze legal holdings via politics over any lengthy time frame. Going back to early 20th Century or before is virtually impossible as you really have an apples and oranges comparison.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think this backlash was the basis of the decision itself, and I don't think anti-Bush folk in courts will actually conspire to set anyone free (though anything can happen in front of a single federal judge on a habeas case). But civilians court are wildly unpredictable, and they has no expertease or perspective of international and military law.

Where is there any evidence of this? In the criminal law context, habeas petitions fail at an unbelievable rate (even excluding all of the horrible jail house lawyer petitions). A large majority of the federal judiciary is composed of Republican appointees. Every decision to grant a habeas petition is subject to appeal so there is no risk that a "single federal judge" can make a maverick decision without review. Federal courts have proven extremely hostile to habeas petitions outside of the terrorism context - what possible reason is there to think they will be friendlier to Gitmo detainees?

This decision was merely about access to federal courts. I don't think that these petitions will have much success. But this access is extremely important. In an Afghanistan prison, the prisoners will have whatever habeas rights that the Afghani government chooses to provide. Same for Iraq. And same for every other country in the world. That is why Gitmo was scary. The US denied that prisoners had rights to petition the Cuban government (which is fine), but wouldn't give access to any US court. That is about creating a land without law. And that is something that should scare everyone.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The commonly cited support of this decision in this thread and this thread and elsehwere is essentially "Bush deserved it because of how he screwed this whole thing up". Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think most people give a shit about the plight of a handful of "innocent" Afghans. Many more than that have suffered much worse around the globe in places where nobody's yelling to get involved.

I don't really care what most people think. The constitution doesn't change based on what most people think unless a long amendment process is followed, which hasn't happened here.

The real energy in support of the decision is that it goes against Bush.

Yeah, I don't see that at all. I think it's more like people that don't like Bush are more likely to support this decision. Hating Bush and praising the decision is just a win-win situation.

The other support is that "a habeas defense requires only a shred of evidence". That's not true, but if people think that, why are they so fired up about this decision? What difference will it make?

You don't understand. I think most people in Guantanamo probably deserve to be there (or in captivity somewhere). For those, I want them to have their habeas petition reviewed and denied. If there's one person in custody that doesn't deserve to be there, then I think it's worth it.

Bush has been an awful president. The trendy hate though is way over the top and not at all productive in either a discussion or in a practical sense.

I've hated Bush for a long time because I think his policies are destroying this country, not because it's trendy. Do you think there are people in this thread that just suddenly started hating Bush because it's trendy? If so, then please point those people out, because I'm tired of this random grouping of people to make an argument.

[Buccaneer]

The trendy hate though is way over the top

I think his policies are destroying this country

There you go. Trendy does not necessarily mean "suddenly" but aslo an irrational hyperbole. But we've seen this before and will see this again.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There you go. Trendy does not necessarily mean "suddenly" but aslo an irrational hyperbole. But we've seen this before and will see this again.

I've never heard it defined that way before, but I'll admit that "destroying" is too strong. I do think Bush's presidency has seriously hurt this country, and alot of the damage will take a long time to repair.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There you go. Trendy does not necessarily mean "suddenly" but aslo an irrational hyperbole. But we've seen this before and will see this again.

Bucc, I know you were the guy who actually held John Hancock's pen after he signed the Declaration of Independence so you've seen a lot. It always seems like your perspective on these things is that this is no different than it's always been and it's the 357th verse, same as the first. And maybe that's right.

But you can at least see where we are coming from, right? I mean, Bush I was disliked for "Read my lips, no new taxes", having an idiot for a Vice President, and throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister. Clinton, well, I think we know too much about Willie's willie, as well as Whitewater and failed health care legislation. This Bush is most disliked for abuse of power- lying to start a war and strongly abrogating individual rights as well as not being very bright and being in bed with big oil. Of the three, it seems the two most dangerous of any of the allegations to the state as a whole come from the current president.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Bucc, I know you were the guy who actually held John Hancock's pen after he signed the Declaration of Independence so you've seen a lot. It always seems like your perspective on these things is that this is no different than it's always been and it's the 357th verse, same as the first. And maybe that's right.

But you can at least see where we are coming from, right? I mean, Bush I was disliked for "Read my lips, no new taxes", having an idiot for a Vice President, and throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister. Clinton, well, I think we know too much about Willie's willie, as well as Whitewater and failed health care legislation. This Bush is most disliked for abuse of power- lying to start a war and strongly abrogating individual rights as well as not being very bright and being in bed with big oil. Of the three, it seems the two most dangerous of any of the allegations to the state as a whole come from the current president.

SI

SI, several off-the-cuff responses. 1) Lying to start a war has been done (e.g., LBJ) but that doesn't excuse him from stupidly going into Iraq and to even more stupidly prosecute the post-war. But I will still contend that in the future, the Iraq mess will be insignificant compared to much more serious problems that will develop. 2) As far as abrogating individual rights, it's what the federal govt has done and will continue to do. It probably has accelerated after 9/11 but that's what the general public wanted and still wants. Many people have not realized the powers they allowed Washington to take over the years because they demanded them to "do something" instead of taking more personal responsibilities locally. It will only get worse because that's what we want and expect. 3) Not being very bright. That's certainly true but in a matter of perspective, neither were many other presidents. All this means that he has to delegate more. One can argue, as with any leadership position, where's the line between mindless delegation and self-centered wonking. 4) Ah. The Big [Fill-in-the-blank] argument. Every president in our lifetimes have been in bed with a number of Bigs. Is one worse than the other? We all demand oil and energy and its products and we never seemed to care to look ahead, whether alternatives or domestic production. Every analysis I've read suggests multiple reasons for the situation now, many outside the control of a president who alledgedly controls the world's oil markets. But like I said, it always has to be Big Something - that's the power we have given to Washington, to allow all of these special interests to act on our behalf.

So as a matter of perpsective, yes, I have seen many examples of irrational hatred solely because of what the person looks like, whom he is associated with, how he got elected and plain opposition just for the hell of it. It happened with JFK and LBJ, as I have studied, and experienced it with Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. It's part of the partisan nature that always have been there and now with the ever-increasing power of the federal govt that we demand, the stakes will be higher and thus, the partisanship will be even greater here on out.

CAVEAT: Irrational partisans will believe that if you don't hate person A, then you must love him. For me, it is neither. I don't like Bush2, the neo-cons, etc. But I don't like its opposition either. Too many people believe that if we keep swinging the pendelum from one extreme to the other and back again, that somehow each swing will make things better. It doesn't, it makes things worse because "fixing" things entails more powers taken as expectations for them to do rise.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

3) Not being very bright. That's certainly true but in a matter of perspective, neither were many other presidents. All this means that he has to delegate more. One can argue, as with any leadership position, where's the line between mindless delegation and self-centered wonking. 4) Ah. The Big [Fill-in-the-blank] argument. Every president in our lifetimes have been in bed with a number of Bigs. Is one worse than the other? We all demand oil and energy and its products and we never seemed to care to look ahead, whether alternatives or domestic production. Every analysis I've read suggests multiple reasons for the situation now, many outside the control of a president who alledgedly controls the world's oil markets. But like I said, it always has to be Big Something - that's the power we have given to Washington, to allow all of these special interests to act on our behalf.

Well, this is why I made the comment mentioning "the two most dangerous"- these two are kindof small potatoes. They aren't but they are in the grand scheme of things.

CAVEAT: Irrational partisans will believe that if you don't hate person A, then you must love him. For me, it is neither. I don't like Bush2, the neo-cons, etc. But I don't like its opposition either. Too many people believe that if we keep swinging the pendelum from one extreme to the other and back again, that somehow each swing will make things better. It doesn't, it makes things worse because "fixing" things entails more powers taken as expectations for them to do rise.

Well, and this is why I phrased it the way I did. I know you don't have much love for the guy (tho I will argue that you're more partisan than you want to let on) and I got the answers I was curious about.

SI