« Cindy Sheehan Is Starving for Attention -- Literally | Main | You didn't pay to see those cards »

SCOTUS Rules No Military Tribunals

From the AP:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti- terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

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 lead 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.

From SCOTUSBlog:

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Congress did not take away the Court's authority to rule on the military commissions' validity, and then went ahead to rule that President Bush did not have authority to set up the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The vote was 5-3, with the Chief Justice not taking part.


The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government's power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan "for the duration of active hostilities" to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, "in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."

Jonathan Adler at NRO's Bench Memos has analysis:

The Supreme Court's assertion of jurisdiction over , and subsequent invalidation of, the military tribunals should not come as a surprise. According to early reports, the Court specifically held that the commissions were illegal under both domestic and international law. On the other hand, the Court apparently reaffirmed the executive's authority to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. Justice Stevens wrote the primary opinion, though there is also a concurrence by Justice Kennedy. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, and each wrote an opinion.

Here's more from Marty Lederman from SCOTUSBlog, who says that this ruling will have a huge impact on our war on terror:

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"--including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment...


This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

Ed Morrissey agrees that this ruling is detrimental to our ability to wage a war on terror (or any future war for that matter) because it requires that our government give Geneva convention protections to an enemy that doesn't qualify:

I haven't read the decision, but the reliance on the Geneva Convention seems strange. The convention binds nations when dealing with other signatories, not with those who have not agreed to reciprocity. The terrorists we have captured do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians; in fact, they take great pains to hide themselves among civilians, deliberately target civilians, and use civilians as human shields. Applying Geneva Convention protections to these terrorists undermines the primary reason for these conventions: protection of civilians. They now will pay no penalty for their disregard for the rules of war, thanks to SCOTUS.

So, did the SCOTUS just rewrite the Geneva Convention from the bench, at least how it applies to America? If this is the case, then no other country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention is bound by the same requirements that our SCOTUS just said the US is bound by. This makes no sense.

Stop the ACLU is following the reaction as well.

AJ Strata says if we can't try them, then just fry them.

[I]if we can't try them without exposing more national security details to the enemy through (our? their?) the press we will just have to kill them. Bring on more virgins!

Update: According to the Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the Gitmo commander, there will be very little impact at the prison:

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE (Reuters) - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.


"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week...

...Harris said he would build a second courtroom if the tribunals are allowed to proceed but little else would change because the court was not asked to rule on Guantanamo itself, a prison camp that human rights groups, the United Nations and foreign governments have sharply criticized.

Update II: Read the decision here.

Update III: Both Justices Scalia and Thomas argue in their dissents that the Supreme Court didn't have any jurisdiction to hear Hamdan's case because of the language in the Detainee's Treatment Act (DTA) which congress enacted on December 30, 2005. From Justice Scalia's dissent, page 103 of the decision:

On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides, that as of that date, "no court, justice, or judge" shall have juridiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the court today concludes that, on what it calls the statutes most natural reading, every "court, justice, or judge" before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous...


...The DTA provides: "[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

So, unless the SCOTUS ruled that the DTA is unconstitutional, then shouldn't today's decision mean absolutely nothing since it's a violation of a standing law?

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog also points out, if the president isn't happy with this decision, that he can go back and ask congress to change the law:

Justice Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter, wrote separately to answer the dissenters' complaint that the ruling would hamper the President's ability to deal with a new and deadly enemy. The Court's conclusion, Breyer said, "ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.'...Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative auhority 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."

But if SCOTUS is already ignoring a law that is on the books which says "no court, justice, or judge" has jurisdiction over Hamdan's petition, then what will keep SCOTUS from ignoring a new law?

Update IV: Hot Air has video of President Bush's comments on the Hamdan decision.

Update V: Ann Althouse provides her insight into the SCOTUS's interpretation of the jurisdiction statute that Justice Scalia quoted:

But the majority's straining to read the DTA to preserve jurisdiction does not at all surprise me (a federal jurisdiction scholar). It is standard practice for the Court to read statutes that purport to cut back jurisdiction in a way that is defensive of the role of the judiciary. Justice Stevens's opinion discusses some of those cases. He doesn't even reach the question of whether the Constitution permits the cut back. This is an issue that he avoids -- in the style of many other cases.

In other words, liberal activist justices interpret laws that cut back on jurisdiction in such a way so that it benefits them. So what does this mean? We need strict constructionists.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS Rules No Military Tribunals:

» Hang Right Politics linked with Disappointing Ruling

» Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Travesty - Osama's driver gets three hots and a co

» Assorted Babble by Suzie linked with U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Gitmo War Crimes Trials

» Cigar Intelligence Agency linked with SCOTUS stands with the terrorists

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

» The Florida Masochist linked with Move on

» The Right Nation linked with The Supremes

Comments (51)

Bastards. All five of them.... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Bastards. All five of them.

The Supremes are intent on ... (Below threshold)

The Supremes are intent on ruling the country by any means. This once again underscores the desperate need for originalists on the court.

When exactly does on... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

When exactly does one deserve a war crimes tribunal? Now we're going to have an OJ trial for each of these cretins.

"Did the SCOTUS just rewrit... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

"Did the SCOTUS just rewrite the Geneva Convention from the bench?"

It did worse than that. It just declared its power to toss out any statute law for any reason it chooses.

A blessing in disguise. Now... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

A blessing in disguise. Now those captured on the battle field without a uniform can be tried by the battle field commander, (most likely a Lt or Capt), and shot in the field. Eleminates a lot of problems with one shot.

Taking terrorists as prison... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Taking terrorists as prisoners has always been problematic. Given this ruling, U.S. forces may not be so inclined to take prisoners. Not that they would kill someone who obviously surrenders, but rather by not soliciting surrender. One way to insure Muslims fight to the death would be for the U.S. to have some women record a surrender message, and then play that message whenever terrorists are in a hopeless situation.

The convention binds nat... (Below threshold)

The convention binds nations when dealing with other signatories, not with those who have not agreed to reciprocity.

That is false.

The GenCons specifically declare that if you are a signitory you are expected to abide by your agreements even if you're fighting a nation which is not a signatory.

But the GenCons are very explicit in their definitions on who gets protections and who doesn't.

The reason the folks in Gitmo were sent to Gitmo in the first place is that they didn't fit the definitions of those who garnered specific GenCon protections.

That's why we have been very very careful to never use the term "POW" to describe them.

possible fallout -- in the ... (Below threshold)
bruhaha:

possible fallout -- in the future when we run up against such people there will be a great temptation to shoot them, whenever possible, rather than capture them.

That may lose us some intelligence (don't know how much we've learned from questioning these folks), but if the alternative is giving terrorists Geneva Convention rights, I wouldn't blame any soldier for pulling the trigger

...if the alternative is... (Below threshold)

...if the alternative is giving terrorists Geneva Convention rights...

It's worth noting here that the GenCons do not grant POWs the "right" to an attorney ...

All captured combatants are liable to detention until the end of hostilities, without charge, without representation.

Well, I suppose this means ... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Well, I suppose this means no more prisoners captured on the battlefield.

Another possible fallout fr... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Another possible fallout from this decision is that it will pretty much doom the "law enforcement/criminal trial" approach to fighting terrorism that the Democrats are so fond of.

Looks like this decision isn't a "win" for anyone except the terrorists.

The American media and the ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

The American media and the SCOTUS have made fighting this war immeasurably more difficult.

Right after 9/11 when passions were running high, most of us were of the mind-set of "go get 'em!" So Bush did exactly that: carefully, in the shadows--even doing what the New York Times pontificated he should do--and now people don;t want to do it anymore.

Well guess what? The problem isn't going away.

We're dealing with a 7th century mentality that has been unleashed on the world to maim, kill and destroy anyone that does not adhere to its brand of Islam. We haven't perfectly executed the fight against these nuts, but there has never been a perfectly executed war in all human history.

Because this war is being fought largely against organizations and cults/sects and their sponsors, and occasionally against regimes themselves, we needed new tools to fight it.

Unformtunately, the American media and now the SCOTUS have taken it upon themselves to deny us the tools we need to figh the war.

I have less of a beef with the SCOTUS, because they are doing what they are appointed to do--review cases and make rulings. I have a huge problem with the self-anointed media, because no-body has any oversight over them, and they think that they alone are the sole arbitors of what is right and what is wrong.

But the SCOTUS ruling is what it is, so team Bush will have to deal with it.

It would be nice if we had an enemy that cared about the rights of prisoners, but we all know what happens to them. And my guess is now that we aren't going to be taking very many prisoners anymore.

Rulings such as these will always have unforseen consequences.

OK, I contradicted myself a... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

OK, I contradicted myself a tiny bit in there. I blame Britney Spears on the Harpers Bazzar cover.

"the Executive is bound ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law"

It's about f*cking time.

It's about f*cking time.... (Below threshold)

It's about f*cking time.

Hard to break that 230 y.o. tradition, Lee. You know that.

Don't be a putz.

It's too bad that Roberts c... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

It's too bad that Roberts could not participate in this one, because I have little doubt the outcome would have been different.

Read Justice Thomas' dissent, which he read out loud (in part), the first time he has done so in 15 years. His point: Since when does the SCOTUS get to interfere in the duties of the commander-in-chief?

But Bush will take this all in stride and find something else to do with these murderers and butchers who are our guests at Gitmo.

Perhaps he could intern them at the New York Times building while they await a civil trial?? :)

I have never understood tak... (Below threshold)
914:

I have never understood taking terrorists as prisoners anyways? just wipe them out and take no prisoners. they are scum after all.

Since these guys fall under... (Below threshold)
AB:

Since these guys fall under the Geneva Convention they can be shot as spies for being out of uniform right?

Also from the <a href="http... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Also from the AP:

"The court's ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial."

Am I wrong, or does mean indefinite prison terms for jihadists?

Am I wrong, or does mean... (Below threshold)

Am I wrong, or does mean indefinite prison terms for jihadists?

As combatants captured in hostile action, they were subject to indefinite detention anyway.

Today the movement for true... (Below threshold)
BigCatGirl:

Today the movement for true freedom, justice, and peace took a huge hit today. What a way to celibrate the USA's 230th Birthday a few days ahead by giving terrorists rights that they did not have. Our nation's founding fathers must be spinning bigtime in their graves.

Oh, and there's only one so... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oh, and there's only one solution to combat this decision: Just like Nazi Weirwolves of 1945 who were caputerd, execution on the spot.

No trial, no hearing, no GC, no Gitmo. Just bye-bye.

Since these guys fall under... (Below threshold)

Since these guys fall under the Geneva Convention they can be shot as spies for being out of uniform right?

So we just keep them in EPW... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

So we just keep them in EPW camps without trials. The military trials was mostly done because the Libs and MSM ask for trials.

MoGood advice as u... (Below threshold)
914:

Mo

Good advice as usual. Maybe they should be held at Yale under full scholarships? Why stop there, give them voting rights and a trip to the dems polling places as well. Hell, let them be keynote speakers at the next Democratic convention..

Since these guys fall un... (Below threshold)

Since these guys fall under the Geneva Convention they can be shot as spies for being out of uniform right?

[i hope i haven't inadvertently posted a partial...]

If we're going to be following the letter of the GenCon law now ... we, as signatory to the GenCons must accept an offered surrender of a combatant in hostile action if:
1] it is viewed as genuine, and
2] the combatant is "recognized" as a combatant.

To be "recognized" as a combatant under the GenCons the combatant must be:
1] uniformed; or
2] a civilian in service to the uniformed services; or
3] a civilian member of a militia which is marked by a uniform or other "identifying" emblem; or
4] a civilian member of a spontaneously formed militia created to resist the invading force

Taliban and al Qaida forces are not #1; they are not #2; since there is nothing "identifying" about wearing that "thing" on their head, they aren't #3; and since they pre-dated the invasion of A'stan, they were not "spontaneously created".

Technically, we would not be obliged to accept their surrender, which means they can be shot on sight.

...which is, as noted, what happened to the Germans who landed on Long Island in WWII to conduct sabotage in the US. If you don't fight according to the rules of war, the rules of war allow your enemy to ignore those rules in your specific case as well.

Now, let's pay attention to... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Now, let's pay attention to what the SCOTUS actually said, guys...

Bush does not have the authority as Executive to create the military tribunal process whole cloth by himself. As with ANY change in either the civil or military legal structure, the authority to create such changes begins with the Legislative Branch of gov't.... which means the GOP controlled Congress and Senate must create the structure for the tribunals and approve a suitable bill for signing...

Hmmmm.

Listkeeper - do you serious... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Listkeeper - do you seriously expect the lipwristed GOP Congress to create such legislation?

Not really. I learned a lon... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Not really. I learned a long time ago that Congresscritters aren't problem solvers. That's part of Bush's problem... He's not a true politician... But he's a very effective problem solver. This is why politicians and management professionals don't get along well together.

While this ruling does not ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

While this ruling does not directly effect Guantanamo, it does effect the public's perception of what is taking place at Guantanamo, and will likely result in renewed calls for reform.

This is a HUGE win for the ... (Below threshold)
ted:

This is a HUGE win for the GOP (and Bush). Here's why, it intensifies and focuses on the issue of the importance to electing GOPers to fight off the lefties/Dems/Liberal SCOTUSites who severely weaken our efforts in the GWOT.

Hey lee lee my "public repo... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey lee lee my "public reponse" is to furnish all of them with a rope to save on bed sheets. Do you need a rope?

If Update III... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

If Update III above is correct, and the SCOTUS didn't have the authority to review this case, then this decision is meaningless, and it's the SCOTUS that overreached its authority.

This latest decision seems ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This latest decision seems to bear out David Horowitz 's thesis that the radical left in the West is at war with the US, as a champion of constitutional democracy (as opposed to their secular statist ideology). Their tools in this war is the court and the media.

Does this really mean much?... (Below threshold)

Does this really mean much? It doesn't sound like it (of course I need time to really read it). But, from Bush's response and what I'm hearing...basically nothing changes right now. Here's a recap:

-we've got a bunch of non-nation people trying to kill our people locked up in Cuba (meaning they're not the Swiss army or whatever)

-people said 'hey, you've got to try them or release them!' Oddly, SCOTUS has confirmed that we can keep them indefinitely if we're going to appply Geneva Conv's, right?

-Bush said, 'well, they're not citizens, so they don't get a trial like other citizens, why don't we do military tribunals?'

-lots of screaming...'sure they're not citizens, but why not run them all through our courts anyway?' nobody really went for this. Bush kept up with the tribunals as the most appropriate solution

-finally, the case wound its way to SCOTUS who said, 'nope, military tribunals aren't going to do it for us, give them lollipops and send them to Iraq with a new suit, an AK47, and 6 MREs' Actually I can't confirm that last part...

-remember, we've been hearing all along that we'll happily return these homicidal jihadists to their own country if they agree to hold/try them and not cut them up into little bits...and have indeed turned many over to their home countries

-not many takers on the last one, for which the jihadists sunning in Cuba should probably be happy, considering what places like Saudi Arabia have been doing with their terrorists

-so, all bluster and snarling aside (I too was pretty pissed that the liberal majority of SCOTUS (don't be fooled by that 'conservative majority' crap the paper tries to foist off when they do something the paper doesn't like) have decided they have jurisdiction over), I don't see this really doing that much...Bush still gets to keep these 'enemy combatants' in Cuba indefinitely, but if he wants to do something with them before the ending of hostilities (when exactly would that be?) he has to come up with a different trial system approved by congress

did I miss anything?

Fromk the Volokh conspiracy... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

Fromk the Volokh conspiracy, food for thought on SCOTUS and Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

--|PW|--

Actually the SCOTUS ruled t... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Actually the SCOTUS ruled that the terrorists are sub-human (which we already knew) and have no rights to a trial of any kind. Their only chance of freedom is if the war ends. If the war on terror goes on for 50 years they can all die in Gitmo. This can be looked at as a big win for America. Keep them locked up until they're too old to walk, much less kill, and they definetly can't breed, well from what i hear of them they may try to breed but they can't reproduce.

Falze - nope, you pretty mu... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Falze - nope, you pretty much nailed it. 'cept for my proposal to relocate the Club Gitmo guests to empty cubicles at the New York Times. ;^)

re: Update III - The provis... (Below threshold)
Lee:

re: Update III - The provision of the DTA cited was part of the government's motion to dismiss, and is addressed in Justice Steven's opinion.

So there isn't the opportunity to apply that argument now. It's already been applied, considered, and rejected by a SCOTUS majority.

Scrapiron - a caller to El ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Scrapiron - a caller to El Rushbo said he had a fool-proof way to end jihadism once and for all: turn each of these little monsters into one of the "72 virgins."

In other words, snip snip, shave and a haircut and a little hormone therapy.

Also, I'm highly doubtful t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Also, I'm highly doubtful that this issue will have legs in Congress. The Republicans cannot afford to debate this issue. It one thing for the "Supreme Deciderer" to quietly just break the law, it's quite another actually have to present arguments and debate the issues in the public eye. My guess is that the Republicans in Congress don't have the balls to bring this issue to the table, and risk losing, this close to the election.

Sure, there will be lots of bluster and bullsh*t calling for Congressional lawmaking ahead, for a day or two at least (well, ok - a full week on Fox News), and then this issue will quietly slip away - along the same lines of the "WMDs Found in Iraq", and the "Let's prosecute the NYTs!" calls. The Republicans are not in a position to debate, they have too much to lose.

Lee: Glad to see that you a... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Lee: Glad to see that you are holding to the liberal's principle that the number of cuss words you use proves how correct you are. As for the rest of your last post, well, we'll see.

Unfortunately, folks, Lee has gotten one thing right: The SCOTUS has, by overruling (without specificailly addressing) the DTA, it has granted itself unlimited jurisdiction over this matter, and by implication ruled it off limits to the legislative branch. This cannot be seen as anything other than a flat-out usurpation of power. The time is coming very soon when the President will have to ask the Court, "How do you plan to enforce that?"

On further (e.g. more caref... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

On further (e.g. more careful) reading of this ruling, there is little for liberals to smile about, and a lot for conservatives to like--but not totally.

In essence, what this ruling says is that what Bush wanted wasn't going to happen BUT the Gitmo guests will remain Gitmo guests. AND the court DID NOT mandate them rights to be treated as civilian defendents nor mandate that they be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions.

What did happen is that the Gitmo guests will have to wait until Congress and/or the Pentagon establishes military tribunals that the SCOTUS approves of. (Of course, the SCOTUS has no real business interfering in such a matter as it is not its place. If and when Congress and/or the Pentagon sets up such tribunals, that settles it and the SCOTUS has no more say unless another case comes before it.)

So, in essense, this is nowhere near a "bad day for Bush" that the liberals are peeing their pants over, nor is it the bad day for the war that many on the right are sulking over.

Those Gitmo guest pukes aint going anywhere, and more likely than not, our boys and girls will just be taking fewer prisoners.

Well, without those tribuna... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Well, without those tribunals, those prisoners are going to sit there warehoused, until there's a declared end of hostilities, or until there's a need for those cells.

The time is coming very ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The time is coming very soon when the President will have to ask the Court, "How do you plan to enforce that?"

I laughed, but you know -- this president just might stoop that low. Good call CD.

Lee, You are a prov... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
You are a proven propagandist willing to smear the US military and its commander-in-chieft.
You are a prime example of what 's wrong with Dem party and the modern left.

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

Since this seems to be the ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Since this seems to be the most happening thread, we should all be aware that cut-and-run Murtha did not actually call the US the biggest threat to world peace. He was misquoted. He was instead citing an international Pew poll that indicated the US was a greater danger to world peace than Iran or North Korea. A correction ran today appeared in the Sun-Sentinel where the story ran.

Just so nobody repeats this about Murtha, because there's plenty to slam this guy on without slamming him for something he didn;t say.

Interesting Mo. Do you have... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Interesting Mo. Do you have a link to the truth?

Over in the comments section of Jay's "troll" post Paul answered jp2's assertion that Paul got the Murtha quote wrong by saying

And Wizbang is still waiting for you to get your fact right on that one.

See THAT is what I delete people for. You simply lie and think it is the truth. It's sad really.

Posted by: Paul at June 28, 2006 10:23 AM

It wasn't a lie, but because Paul didn't do his homework and got caught at it jp2's comment setting the record straight would have been deleted. Tsk tsk. Those left-leaning inconvenient truths are popping up everywhere.

By the way, I agree that Murtha is a clown, but misquoting him and then lying about it , and deleting the truth when someone tries to correct the lie, looks pretty clownish too.

Here's <a href="http://edit... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Here's the correction from the Sun-Sentinel re Murtha's misquote.

Hopefully we can discuss this further on Paul's post when Paul prints his retraction, assuming he will allow discussions that may disagree with him, and asumming he posts a retraction.

Back to the SCOTUS decision.

Seven of the nine judges on... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Seven of the nine judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents.

In fact, since Republicans are in charge of all 3 branches of the government, they have to take responsibility for the actions of the federal government.

They need to do this EVEN THOUGH many citizens disagree with their decisions and some members of the media are critical of them.

Hey LEE!Rem... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Hey LEE!

Remember this?

Lee at June 28, 2006 01:38 PM

Hopefully our other programs don't have the shortcomings that this one had, and then the NYT won't feel the need to expose them.
Please, Lee, in all of your wisdom and that of the Times, please list the shortcomings. Please, because it was a legal program with oversight, where were the shortcomings?

Now Lee, I'm asking nicely, so try to address the question please.

Oh, and I would love to see your response to DaveD's post of June 28, 2006 01:49 PM. I know your realyy busy, so when you get a chance.

Posted by: DavidB at June 28, 2006 02:13 PM

Still waiting, and listening to the crickets.

Every post you make just further confirms your troll-ness. You couldn't be bothered to respond when challenged to support your POV with facts.

Just a typical troll.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy