Kim -

The reason for having trials is to prove that the detainees ARE terrorists. It is sort of "something we do" as a society, even when the people are very bad.

I didn't know that our laws covered people that weren't Americans. Remember these terrorists are not from US so how does US law cover them?

We don't need to decipher the Dems' motivation. Their actions indicate that they are happy when Bush "loses", even when the terrorists win. So the bottom line is that they practically side with the terrorists because if the terrorists lose, Bush wins. No surprise here: dems rooting for the terrorists to win.

I agree! They seem to think the battle is with President Bush instead of the terrorists.

I think the detainees should be put in front of some judgement, but I wonder if they are going to be tried under the civilian orders, or as POWs, or as terrorists? Does not the Geneva convention state that terrorists and or terrorists are prohibited?

whoops, that's terrorists and or terrorism ^

This ruling will, in my opinion, come back to bite the left-wingers in the backside. Their support for anything other than this countries best interest is appalling. I know that the Democrats are anti-military, anti-church, anti-family, anti-business and anti-common sense. Nancy is a turd.

No matter who attempt to skirt the laws of democracy, Dem or Repub, there are many of us who will call them on it.
----------------------------------------------------
(1) As you admitted, the laws of the land do not apply to these terrorists. So no skirting of the laws, here? Why trying to impugn? FDR used his constitutional duty far more forceful than Bush, and I don't think the Dems minded at all.

(2) Clinton didn't go through the UN in bombing Serbia, and the left was fully behind him. Surprised isn't it?

(3) The terrorists spit at the "laws of democracy"? I don't see the left call them on it.

Far from it. Many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, feel that the rule of law is tantamount, the rule of democracy is tantamount, to that of the President. Whoever he may be.
--------------------------------------------------
In other words, the right of the terrorist is far more important than the lives of Americans. Thanks for letting us know.

Wow. Well, this "fact" will certainly be a shock to those millions of registered Democrats who go to church, raise their families, send their kids to school and raise them as good people and citizens, own their own businesses and try to live their lives in the best way they know how.
-------------------------------------------------
These Dems should run away from the Dem party as fast as they can since the Dem party stands against all what they believe.

Sorry to hear that you are so removed from reality and devoid of any shred of common sense and so deep into your own head full of hatred.
---------------------------------------------------
Why are you full of hatred towards a fellow American. I don't see you express that kind of hatred towards the terrorists.

...the laws of a democracy like the USA should apply to those we decide to prosecute, even non-citizens.

"Should" apply and "do" apply are two entirely different matters. "Should" is idyllic and utopian; "do" is what the law is. And despite the weak and wrongheaded interpretation of the Article 3 of the GC by SCOTUS as interpreting AQ as being some sort fighting entity under a country that is a part of the GC, terrorists' "rights" "do" not apply under our laws...or even under the rules of the GC, IMHO.

The terrorists didn't sign the GC, didn't abide by the rule of warfare (no uniform), didn't have any regard for civilians. They spit at the "laws of democracy". I am still waiting the the left to call the terrorists on it.

yeah, the ~50% of this country which votes Democratic is a bunch of Godless, duplicitous snakes who want to secretly turn control over to a bunch of Islamists.

Hmmm, let's dissect the logic behind this:

1. Islam strongly protects gay marriage. After OBL becomes president, thanks to the Dem. party, Gay marriage will be legalized.

2. Islamists love marijuana, and will legalize the good herb as soon as the dems give control of the Supreme Court to the mullahs.

3. Arab countries actually have no oil, but have plenty of excess capacity of Toyota Priuses. So, after Zawahiri starts to run the DoT -- thanks to the Dems -- we'll all be driving hybrids.

Yep, the dems have all the incentive in the world to get Al Qaeda to control the US. You guys figured us out. We can't pull one over you smarties.

I did not say the laws of the land do not apply to the terrorists. I said they were designated in a manner and placed in an area in which the laws do not matter. There is a difference.
-------------------------------------------------
The laws of the US do not apply to the terrorists, period.

I never said that the "left" wasn't deep into following their leaders blindly. They are, just as much as the "right". It goes both ways. That was my point actually, if you care to pull your head out of the "us versus them" argument for one minute. Can you do that? Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
-------------------------------------------------
I can play this game of trying to be neutral etc... THis is the old moral equivalency game: you cannot defend the Dems and the left, so you have to resort to this meme: the right is as bad. Not true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bushs_decency_highlights_democ.html
Bush's Decency Highlights Democrats Incivility

Abolutely. Any suspected terrorist who is tried via our rule of law and judged to be guilty should be thrown into the deepest darkest hole available.
(Although, I do not support the death penalty for convicted terrorists for I feel it plays into the martyr syndrome to heavily.)
------------------------------------------------
How about Russian approach: give them the death penalty and wrap their bodies in pigs' skin? Are you for it, then?

But, all suspected terrorists should be tried via the very system of rule of law and deomocracy that we fight to protect.
-------------------------------------------------
This is what caused 9/11. In an open trial of the WTC bombing in 1993, we disclosed intelligence secret that helped Bin Laden escaping our monitoring. Besides, these are enemy combatants captured on battlefields.

The Supreme Court simply usurp the authority given to the president by the constitution.

Are you opten in the habit of assuming what people think?
------------------------------------------------
I simply looked at what people did.

I always see the Dems happy when the terrorists win or sth bad happen to the US. That 's what they did.

I simply read your post expressing hate towards a fellow AMerica while I haven't read the same kind of post towards the terrorists. That 's all. Your actions speak louder than your words.

No. The rule of law is tantamount. Don't you read what is written or do you just read the words you understand?
--------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court doesn't respect the rule of law or the constitution in usurping what belongs to the executive branch. So much for respecting the rule of law.

Again, the rule of law applies to the US citizens, not the terrorists who do not abide even by the basic human decency.

"We do only good. THEY do only bad."
------------------------------------------
So you dare not say the US is a good and great country and the terrorists are evil. Can you say out loud that the US is good and North Korea is bad?

Let's all watch the greatest democracy in the world NOT practice what it preaches.
----------------------------------------------
We are treating them better at Gitmo than they were in their own countries. Why are you so desperate in slamming your very own country

By skirting the rule of law, yes, even for terrorists, we become what we fight.
--------------------------------------------
In other words, the Bills of rights should apply to the terrorists as well. In other words, the Dems are working for the terrorists' Bills of right. Sweet.

You did say that all the Demorats should leave their party right?
Unbelievable.
-----------------------------------------------
You simply didn't practice what you preached. I simply said the Dems who go to church, raising a family etc... should leave the Dem party. It is secular and godless now. The Dem spits at the values of the church-going Dems. That 's a fact.

It's not a game you know.

And, this little statement is proof that the right has fascist twats just like the left does:
---------------------------------------------------
Good point. The war on terrorism is not game. IT 's a shame that the Dems are treating it as a political game.

BTW, fascism has more in common with communism. They both share the ideological root of secular statism. So it is more accurate to say the fascist left.

I support Lieberman, a Dem who is serious about protecting the country. The modern Dem party is corrupt to the core. YOu should run from them as fast as you can

All you have seen are my words! What actions? Oh. I get it. The actions you IMAGINE that you see me doing! Got it. Carry on. DOn't let me interrupt your fantasy.

Wait! There's even MORE fanstasy!
--------------------------------------------------
Your action (ie. how you express your hate) shows where your heart is.

The Supreme COurt is given the poewr to interpret the law, NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. You have it backwards. But, of course, being a brainwashed tool who parrots what he hears, I do not expect any less from you at this juncture. You know, if you revered that statement, you'd be a brainwashed moonbat! How funny is that?!!!!! One and the same.
-------------------------------------------------
The executive branch has the power to establish military tribunal in time of war. The law of the US do not apply to the terrorists, period. The SC has no respect for the rule of law and you are fully supporting them.

Now, you are fully spouting out your hatred. Again, I don't see you express that kind of hatred towards the terrorists in your writing yet (now I hope you understand the word "action")

Easy predictions:

(1) fewer terrorists will be captured...alive
(2) the "accident" rate among those that ARE captured will go up dramatically

and as for "trials"...hmmm? how about the old Middle Ages "trial" method. Tie a great big rock around 'em and toss 'em in a pond. If they sink: they were innocent (sorry, Achmed)...and if they float: they're GUILTY (and so must be shot).

works for me!

p.s. I am not kidding either

So you dare not say the US is a good and great country and the terrorists are evil. Can you say out loud that the US is good and North Korea is bad?

You dumb wingnut. I was talking about right and left, moonbats and wingnuts. You are a piece of work.
------------------------------------------------
Now you are revealing you hatred and name-calling.
So look at the actions of the Dems and Reps. The Reps are happy when we win in Iraq and elsewhere. The Dems are happy when the terrorists win. Can you see the difference?

So, what you are saying is that that Dems who go to church, even the ones who are active in the DNC, and raise children, they are Godless and secular? I see. How do you know this? I think it will be a great surprise to thsoe Dems who beleive in God and have strong families and work to keep it so, even the ones who are active in the DNC.
-------------------------------------------------
The agenda of the Dem party is godless. The church-going Dems may be fooled by these secular leftists. They should abandon this corrupt party because it has no respect for their values. That 's fact. Show me some facts to demonstrate that the Dem party respect the values of the church-going Dems

It's not fact. It's propganda. The reality is Dems go to church just like Repubs. They beleive in God just like Repubs. This hatred talk is similar to that of the Germans during WW@ who clained that the Jews were Godless and theiving.

You are as bad as the moonbats who go on and on about the right being ALL fascists.

Yes, there are fascists on the left. There are fascists on the right.

YOU ARE PROOF OF THAT>
------------------------------------------------
BTW, the modern left is the home of anti-SEmitism. so your talking point is a little old.

BTW, are you a Dem? Why are you so exercised about the fact that the Dem party is corrupt to the core?

If you are honest, I am not asking you to support the Rep. But at the very least, you should run from the DEm. Their agenda is godless and corrupt. You read too much leftist propaganda.

Plixola: "Saying those rights are only for "ctizens" makes us no better than the Soviets who preserved right to trial (if it even went to trial) for party loyalists."

Wow! Look, Comrade, we offer TONS of "rights" to a whole lot of people who are not citizens (see the raging illegal immigration debate on a blog near you). But offering "rights" to people whose sole (and LOUDLY proclaimed) purpose in life is to destroy us is suicidal!

So how many of these monsters would YOU personnallhy be willing to take into your home and nurse back to health after their "horrible treatment" at Gitmo?

p.s. the average weight gain for these "abused" morons is just under 20 pounds!! first "torture center" in history that is run like a freaking CRUISE SHIP!!

Plixola,
Your post is full of name calling. SO I know for sure that you don't have the facts and the logic on your side anymore. That 's why you have to resort to this cheap name-calling at the end.

Good bluffing though. Have fun.

Just look at the facts again: the Dems are happy when the terrorists win or when sth bad happen to the US.

You don't even dare to use the strong language (you are using against your fellow Americans on this thread) against the terrorists. That 's the leftist defintion of bravery. Enjoying the freedom and safety provided by the US military while working for the terrorists' bills of right.

Good luck, leave the Dem party as soon as you can.

Plixora, you sure do talk a lot but what you say is utter stupidity.

"Let's all watch the greatest democracy in the world NOT practice what it preaches".

You indicate by this statement (and others you've made) that you believe that the prisoners at Club Gitmo deserve the same rights that Americans have to our court system and taht our constitution covers them.

Wow.

You are just a sick person (as are most liberals these days). To even hint at some kind of equivalence betweeen American citizens and terrorists is so utterly insane as to defy description.

You need to go get some therapy. And if I were you I'd do it before November when the Democratic party gets their butts handed to them again. Because that is exactly what is going to happen.

Plixola:You are obviously a moonbat but do you really live on the moon? Are you SURE a terrorist attack won't touch you? If a terrorist attack leaves you blinded and drowning in the fluid filling your lungs will die peacefully knowing that-above all-the principal of judicial supremacy was upheld? Why you silly a$$-I want us to defeat the terrorists most of all because I want to live.Don't you? If you don't already think this is a better country than that of our enemies-say because we don't murder rape victims-than you have more serious issues than a silly idea about how warfare should be conducted.I find it pathetically amusing that you confuse the ruling of five unelected lawyers-at least one of whom could not vote for pope if he was a cardinal(he's too old)with the outcome of a democratic process.Pry your head out of your anus moonbat and think about what the consequences could be if a terrorist attack wiped out the elected government-say if Washington was nuked-and left the country with a choice between lawyers who think like you and generals who don't.Do you really think the survivors would side with you? I don't.

Those of you discussing the need for due process to determine if some of these detainees are terrorists are missing the point; the laws of land warfare (the Geneva conventions, etc.) do not apply to an enemy who flaunts their terms.

For example, fighting in civilian clothing and using civilians as shields; attacking under a flag of truce or red cross/crescent; launching attacks from safe havens such as hospitals, churches or mosques; boobytrapping bodies; and so on. If you are caught on the field of battle doing these things, you have no protections or rights whatsoever.

The laws of land warfare are rather unique; when they are followed it is only because each side thinks they will gain something (not having to fear atrocities committed by the enemy) without lessening their own chance of victory. Unlike the bulk of so-called "international law", the laws of land warfare actually have teeth; they can be enforced by the soldiers on the ground.

Our military has decided to treat prisoners in a certain manner even if they are captured while they are violating the laws of land warfare. I think this is a serious mistake. If someone is detained because they are suspected of being a terrorist, then fine, you obviously need some sort of proceeding to determine whether they actually are one. I really don't care if they use our legal system or some sort of hashed together military court. However, anyone caught in the act of committing blatant violations - and if I'm not mistaken more than a few detainees in Gitmo fall under that category - should be shot immediately, on site. It obviously lacks some of the safeguards against abuse that our civilian legal system has, but doing otherwise simply leads to the sort of drawn out mickey mouse bullshit we've seen the last couple of years in Iraq. An enemy that fights like a bunch of barbarians needs a bullet in the head, not a happy meal.

What I find completely absurd is the notion that this conflict is not of an "international nature". We have the armed forces of several countries fighting against the armed forces of the Taliban, who controlled most of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda terrorists who originate from countries all over the world. Yet this war is not of an "international nature" until aL Qaeda can take over a country? How absurd is that?

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions relates to civil war within a single signatory. In order to get at his decision, Stevens has to ignore the Taliban, ignore the fact that some of the captives were captured outside Afghanistan, and redefine international to a meaning clearly not meant in the Conventions. He also has to ignore other parts of the Conventions that deals with nonuniformed, illegal combatants.

Even if his defintiion is plausible, the Supremes have taken it among themselves to interpert treaties signed by the Executive and ratified by Congress, a step never before taken. The only issue would be if Bush's own interpertation, as the CiC, was reasonable. The Supremes have totally overstepped their contitutional role.

I guess this is one more step into the 'One World Government" the dumocrats are angling for. The Constitution of the United States just became the constitution of the world. BS BS BS One more giant leap to an armed revolution in the U.S. and then Hang the SCOTUS.

Soldiers are calling the talk shows and saying what i think. 'No more prisoners' from the battle field. Give them justice on the spot, right after you deliver justice to any reporter within 20 miles.

The only out they left the president is that he never has to release another terrorists prisoner until the war on terror is over. That should allow all of them to die at Gitmo.

Cancel all planned releases and tell them they will be there for life, thanks to the nut and his lawyers that took this to the supreme dummies. See how long his buddies let him live.

And, I'm a regsitered Independent. In my eyes, both parties are lost and full of clowsn.
-----------------------------------------------
For all the bluffing and huffing on behalf of the Dems, Plixola doesn't have the courage and honesty to admit who he is. Again, the liberals cannot be honest about who they are.

Plixolar has nothing left but name-calling and bluffing. Yet another example of the intellectual maturity of the left.

Plixola:You silly fool-is this the same justice system that took FIVE YEARS to reach a final verdict in the case of Zacharias Moussoui? Remember O.J Simpson? This system can't protect the Americam people from simple murderers-how any sane person can think it will stop people eager to die so long as they can kill some of us is something I don't see.The justice system isn't designed or intended to deal with military threats to the United States-that's why we have an army,navy and air force.Relying on lawyers to do the armed forces job is one reason why there's a big crater in lower Mannhattan.That news reached you on the moon didn't it?

so u are so thrilled that american's liberty can be throw away by republicans, and you are so thrilled that american lower themselve to the same level as terrorists, say, like, kidnapping their kids to make them open the mouth.

Do you really believe that progressives are cheering "terrorists rights?" You may not believe this, but that's not it at all.

We want some reins on the government--the feds, especially the executive branch--are trying to expand their power. But the founders created a limited government to prevent tyranny that often accompanies concentrated power. This is why we protect free speech, even unpopular speech. We may not like when people say offensive things, but if the government can silence these people, they can silence all of us.

Similarly, if the executive branch can unilaterally determine that the detainees are terrorists, then all of us can be detained, silenced, perhaps tortured...in secret.

Concentrated power is dangerous. That's why, nationally, I vote for democrats. The Republicans control all three branches and cannot help but be tempted and intoxicated by the power. Similarly, locally I vote Republican because the democrats have had a lock on power too long, and need to be kept in line.

In any case, all but 2 of the Court's members were appointed by Republicans; even with Robert's not participating, the majority of those that did were appointed by Republicans. This isn't a democratic court. But, this time, the court ruled to put the reins on the administration's attempt to overreach it's authority.