Detainees in Gitmo allowed to challenge detention in courtsFollow

Well. I'll have to read the whole decision to see exactly what specific grounds they're making this ruling on. If it's an opposition to some specific component of the Military Commissions Act that could be changed to meet their needs, then Scalia is overacting. But if they're just blanketly ruling that the Executive has no authority at all, regardless of federal law, to hold and try these detainees, then he's got a valid point. Why say "Get Congress to codify this in law and we'll make a ruling on it", if you've already decided that any law Congress comes up with will be unconstitutional because the power itself is unconstitutional (which is what the ruling appears to be saying from my brief gloss of it)?



Not even close to true. The Court has become more partisan over time, but the Left has retained a majority for quite some time. We used to have a court with 3 liberals, 3 conservatives, and 3 moderates. What's happened is that two of the moderate slots have become liberal and one of them has become conservative. So yes. You could say that there are more conservatives on the court then there used to, but there are even more liberals.

And to be fair Kennedy is still arguably a "moderate" justice (giving us a 4-1-4 court), but he tends to lean to the left on about 80% of cases, including this one.

Lol. And we all know how accurate those are.

Most polls have Obama and McCain in a dead heat. And polls usually favor Liberals. While perception is a big factor, artificially creating a perception advantage hasn't often been a winning strategy for the left. And with two candidates so clearly different for once, the tactic of "make people think this is the winning side and they'll make it happen" doesn't really work.


While this is a separate topic all on it's own, I really think that most pundits are using the wrong methodology when calculating Obama. They're giving him all the advantages for being a more Liberal candidate, but then also assuming he'll perform normally according to standard Dem historical voting models. He's not going to grab the demographics that Dems tend to automatically count as theirs. The pundits are being lazy. In this race, they really should clear the whole map and start from scratch, but I haven't seen one person actually do this. They start with the standard numbers and then attempt to adjust.

I just think this is a gross mistake. Obama will *not* actually threaten McCain in traditional Republican states. That's a ludicrous concept. Obama did well among Dem voters in those states because the moderates all voted in the Republican primaries, leaving the far left crowd as a larger factor for the Dems. The policies that appeal to those voters will absolutely not win those states. It's pure wishful thinking among Dem thinkers IMO...


Obama brings in new voters and a different dynamic. I believe that what we're going to see is Obama win by huge margins in a small number of states where the Left is strongest, but lose just about everywhere else. I'm predicting a landslide like we haven't seen since 1984. And you'll agree with me after it's over too! ;)

As a non-US citizen, I acknowledge that by visiting US shores, I have no rights and can legally be shackled and gang-raped inbetween cotton-pickin' duties.

But if they're just blanketly ruling that the Executive has no authority at all, regardless of federal law, to hold and try these detainees, then he's got a valid point. Why say "Get Congress to codify this in law and we'll make a ruling on it", if you've already decided that any law Congress comes up with will be unconstitutional because the power itself is unconstitutional (which is what the ruling appears to be saying from my brief gloss of it)?

Standing. They can't make that determination until there is such a law. They do this all the time. They can only rule on the merits of a given case. Hence "This is unconstitutional you could try this" When that's tried they then state that it's also unconstitutional.

Obama will *not* actually threaten McCain in traditional Republican states.

Of course he will, it would require rare powers of delusion not to see this. The bigger problem for McCain is that Obama will threaten him in more media markets than McCain has money to compete in.

This is a transformative election. Remember 1980? That's what this is. I'm sure you won't realize until December, but I'll pull this thread back up for you, have no fear.



Lol. And we all know how accurate those are.

Sell your house and put it all on McCain, then. You can't lose.

Yeah - kiss of death

Probably. I should hedge with the McCain futures. If Obama wins, I'll think of it as a donation. If McCain wins, at least I won't have to pay for booze.

Yes. I get this. Hence, my statement that since I'd only glossed over the decision, I couldn't yet state whether they were basing their decision on the basic issue of rights of detainees, or on some specific aspect or language in the Act itself. If the later, then you're correct and this is perfectly normal. Congress needs to change something in the Military Commissions Act to meet constitutional muster. I'd assume that this would be included in the decision itself, but I've been ridiculously busy at work today and haven't had a chance to peruse it in full.

If the first case though, then the earlier statement is essentially a chain yank, and Scalia's criticism is fully justified. If no law allowing military commissions of detainees in Gitmo will meet constitutional muster, regardless of language, then the earlier statements were misleading at best... When the court makes a suggestion for another branch to do something in order to help clarify the constitutionality of an issue, it's usually assumed that there is some way that doing that will meet constitutional requirements. Doing so, without any intention of allowing any such action to work is certainly scornworthy...

Yes. I get this. Hence, my statement that since I'd only glossed over the decision, I couldn't yet state whether they were basing their decision on the basic issue of rights of detainees, or on some specific aspect or language in the Act itself.

Doesn't matter.

If the Executive decided to issue an order locking up all Muslims, the court would stop it and state they could pursue a law, then overturn that. Etc. They can't rule PROSPECTIVELY. No matter how obvious the outcome might be.

Scalia's tongue is firmly in his cheek, here. He's just selling books with rhetoric like that, not discussing law.

Can't lock people up indefinately with no charges....

Can't torture them for information....

Can't illegaly and aggressively invade other peoples countries whenever you feel like....

Can't ignore the geneva convention whenever it suits.....

I don't know....WTF is the US coming to in this day and age?

At this rate, you might start becoming popular around the world agian

Edited, Jun 13th 2008 3:14am by paulsol

The problem is that the Bush administration has NOT merely defined the convention, it's gone so far is stripping away these people's rights that you cannot say that they are being treated in accordance with he Geneva Convention at all. The Gitmo facilities and treatment regime is so far below the conditions in a normal civilian prison, or a normal POW (enemy combatant) detention camp that it is sickening, and it amounts to daily torture, even when these people are not being actively tortured, which we know they are, by any sane and ordinary person's definition of the word torture, despite the weasel words the administration has used about their activities.

There's no justification in the convention for doing so, because a normal POW camp would be fully capable of securing the security of the state. The problem with Gitmo is not the level of security it is has, which I have no quarrel with, but the condition in which it keeps the detainees. I would be shocked and grieved beyond measure if USA or Australian soldiers or civilians...even mass murderers, were kept in such conditions.

There is no need, to keep the state secure from these men, to deny them communication with state vetted legal representatives. That contradicticts:

There is no need, to keep the state secure from these men, to keep them constantly, for years and years on end in solitary confinement, with no contact with anyone except goalers, in a teeny tiny featureless room with no room to walk two steps, with no sunlight, a glaring electric light on all night as well as all day, and no exercise periods. The alternative, of tiny wire cages open to the elements on four sides is not an acceptable alternative either. Our safety is NOT enhanced by this treatment. It's utterly redundant. It's NOT complying with:

Let me say this as clearly as I can:

Neither prisoners of war as defined in the 3rd convention, nor those imprisoned under art5 of the 4th convention are granted the rights you think they should have. George Bush did not "strip" those rights away. They are explicitly not granted those rights under the Geneva Convention.

If you don't like this, then blame the writers of the Geneva Convention. They are the ones who defined these statuses and they are the ones who defined the rights that each status grants or removes. Bush isn't violating the Conventions. He's upholding them!

Did you bother to read the section I quoted? It's quite clear that prisoners can be held without communication, that they cannot demand a trial, and that they can be held without a trial for as long as the occupying power believes them to be a threat.


Bush didn't make that up. He didn't change it. He didn't violate it. He's following the Geneva Conventions.


How much more clear can I make this for you? You're the one arguing for a violation of the Geneva Convention. How about you actually read the thing instead of just blindly following people who are more then willing to lie to you for their own political advantage?




No. It's not. Again. You're being lied to. How about you actually do some research on the conditions in Gitmo compared to civilian prisons? You'll be shocked at how good their treatment is. They are arguably receiving better treatment in better conditions then any prison population in the history of freaking man!

Stop blindly following and think for yourselves for a change. I know it's easier to just read blogs by people who are guessing about what the conditions are like, or repeating the words of other people who are doing so, until a giant circle jerk forms of people talking about how bad it is in Gitmo, but that's not how you get accurate information.



Totally wrong. Again. Go do some actual research. Research that does not involve going to liberal blogs and seeing what they're writing about Gitmo. They're suffering under the same lack of information you are. They're just repeating guesses that other people said. If you go read articles and papers written by people who have actually been there and actually assessed the conditions, you'll find a completely different story.

You're being lied to. But not by who you think.



Do so what? Torture or treat prisoners overly harshly? Sure. But let's leave the rhetoric and speculation aside and assess this on facts.

Does the convention allow them to be held without trial? Absolutely. And the article I quoted most definitely "justifies" a condition in which someone can be held without protection from interrogation *and* for the duration *and* without communication.

Again. Did you read the part I quoted. It's quite clear. Heck. Read the entire 3rd and 4th Conventions. You'll actually understand what I'm talking about if you do.




You obviously have no clue as to the actual conditions they're being held under.


Seriously. Stop blindly repeating other people's rumors. Do some research. Be informed instead of ignorant.



Except that the same article specifically says they can be held without communication. So clearly, the writers of that article felt there was a need to do this to help the security of the state holding the prisoners.

Also, you managed to completely miss the "in case of trial" part of the quote you just provided. That means that if the state decides to try them, they then gain all the rights of any other civilian in an occupied territory undergoing a criminal trail. I have no problem with that. Um... We conducted tons of such trials when we actively occupied Germany and Japan after WW2. They were conducted by the military and/or some provisional civilian authority depending on the situation and exact time period.

There was absolutely no legal requirement that they must all be tried in a US civilian court. Because such a thing flies in the face of common sense and logic. Their crimes were not committed on US soil. They have never been held on US soil. What jurisdiction do they fall under? Which state legal code? Can you answer that? No. I didn't think so. We've used military courts for situations like this since the country first formed. Heck. Every other country in the world does so as well.

It's a fabricated issue to make people who are ignorant of history and the law think that some great violation of rights is taking place. You're pursuing an argument based on semantics and rhetoric instead of reason and fact.


Which, sadly, has become all too common lately...

Huh? I'm not even sure what you think you're saying here...


Look. You've got organized military groups around the world who's primary purpose is to destroy the western world, with it's evil "liberties" and "freedoms" and concepts of equality for all people. They want to impose a new world order in which they rule and impose the laws they want (in this particular case variations of Islamic law).

But you're unable to recognize this. You make the classic Liberal foreign policy mistake of assuming that the other guy has the same ultimate goal that you do, and trying to "work with" him to achieve some kind of common agreement. Meanwhile he's laughing at your efforts, letting you keep bending over backwards to accommodate him, while returning that favor with more demands. In this specific context, this takes the form of Islamic groups being offended by anything non-Islamic, to which you respond by making your own culture more like theirs. Eventually, you'll reach a point where they say something like "Sharia law would be a great way to calm the angry masses", and you'll agree.

And then you'll have peace in your time.


That's the future for you. Get used to kneeling 7 times a day, because your grandkids will insist that you're a racist if you don't.

Edited, Jun 13th 2008 4:39pm by gbaji

Nah. I don't agree with the term. It's based on trying to tie their agenda to something else. Sure. I'll make a logical connection between them (as I did in this thread). But that's not because the objective or agenda of the Islamic fundamentalists is similar in more then a surface way to that of the fascists, but as a way of correlating the response (or lack of response) by other nations.

I'm not saying that the Islamic, Jihadist, Caliphatist, or whatever you want to call them movement is the same as Hitler and the ****'s. I'm saying that the way the West (especially in Europe) is responding to them is the same. They're making the same mistake again. They're assuming that the other guy wants the same goal they do (living together in peace). That same failing prevented most European nations from recognizing that Hitler really did just want to conquer Europe, no matter how "uncivilized" they thought it might be, and today it's preventing them from seeing that this new group really doesn't want to share their cultural beliefs, or join in their democracies, or participate in societies of equals. They want to impose their ideology on us, and will certainly allow us to change to suit their needs as much as we're willing to do it.


Again. Just in case you didn't get it: I'm not comparing Islamists to fascists. I am comparing people like Paulsol to folks like Chamberlain, who believed that there was no adversary who couldn't be dealt with by just sitting down and talking to them (sound familiar?).

Edited, Jun 13th 2008 6:00pm by gbaji