Here is an idea: the Supreme Court swept aside Congress' intent to strip the Supreme Court from hearing Hamdan because Hamdan had already filed his brief before the law was passed. By making this argument, the Supreme Court (I believe) acknowledged that Congress stripped the Supreme Court of authority to hear cases in the future.

So.... why can't the Bush Administration just go ahead and, with the exception of Hamdan, set up the tribunals they want for everybody else (i.e., all those detainees who didn't file petitions before Congress passed its law)?

"What terrible news just after we hear that there's..."

Following the law isn't terrible news -- following the law is what distinguishes us from the heathen dog scum we're fighting.

What's terrible news is that it took the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the President of the United States that we are better than the terrorists scum we're fighting. Thank God for that.

No more detainees, just DEAD terrorists. Sure we'll lose a lot of intel...but the ACLU will much happier.

works for me

The detainees that we are holding are some of the most dangerous people you will find on the face of this earth

Right on Kim! Like these dangerous people

Or these nasty rouges

Or these filthy savages.

Maybe the rest of them are guilty..

of something..

right?

Take a deep breath and read the memo (its only two pages). Bottom line is that the DoD says they are already in compliance with the Geneva convention. No changes need take place other than no military commissions.

Net effect is before the military commissions could sort out the ones who could go home early. Now, all detainees get to stay for the duration (or congress authorizes new commissions).

Read the memo before you start to hyperventalate to much.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/07/dod_memo_on_terror_detainees_j.html

Alberto Gonzales, memo to the president, Jan. 25, 2002: "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war ... In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete [the Geneva Conventions'] strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Donald Rumsfeld's office, memo to military officials, July 7, 2006: "The Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda ... You will ensure that all DoD personnel adhere to these standards."

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, July 11, 2006: "It's not really a reversal of policy."

Umm...so which is it? I think it would be fairly easy to debunk "Kim's" position that these are some of the most dangerous people on Earth. How many Americans have they collectively killed?

But you know, Kim - I think someone else here hit the nail on the head. If you think that we can hold ourselves to the (i'll give him the benefit of the doubt here) low standards of our enemy, and just wave away years and years...decades and decades of international law with the convenient wave of the hand, and in that manner TRUST our GOVERNMENT to find out who's guilty and who's not, then you're no longer what I'd consider a conservative.

The fact that you've taken the "stance" that you have (stance is in quotations because it's simply a mime of what the Bush admin is doing), shows you to simply be a parrot of the neo-con psuedo-conservative cabal of Bush/Cheney cronies that currently control our country - contrary to what your ilk loves to spew about the evil MSM and rich, elitist, heathen secularists who (wink) really pull the strings.

You're obviously on the payroll.

If only things were this simple. The "battlefield" in this case often means that you go into a suspect house, based on some scanty intelligence, and you find men, women, and children there. You take them into custody and try to sort through who the bad guys really are. Then ship them off to Guantanamo, or imprison them locally, or let them go depending on what the evidence suggests. There really isn't a great opportunity to just shoot them on the battlefield since this isn't U.S. Grant facing Roberto E. Lee in a grand and colorful line somewhere on a meadow.

"There really isn't a great opportunity to just shoot them on the battlefield since this isn't U.S. Grant facing Roberto E. Lee in a grand and colorful line somewhere on a meadow."

You mean locking people up in prison, denying them their rights according to law, and expecting them to voluntarily spew forth the secret location of OBL isn't realistic?

Wow. Recognition that the war on terrorism isn't won through conventional means at last. Maybe there is hope for the republican party after all.

I don't know about all that Lee, but your obsession with Osama is unhealthy. Terrorists should be locked up or shot, whether or not they have a clue about Osama's cave du jour. Surely we can agree on that.

I don't know about all that Lee, but your obsession with Osama is unhealthy. Terrorists should be locked up or shot, whether or not they have a clue about Osama's cave du jour. Surely we can agree on that.

I'll offer my unsolicited opinion to our Israeli friend, "McCain" here:

Without any type of oversight, whatsoever, and in light of the fact that keeping people detained indefinitely and/or torturing them DOES NOT render reliable information - just how do you purport to *prove* that any given detainee is, indeed a terrorist?

If he's caught in the act, your argument is fine. But as you yourself stated in a previous post, it's not always so cut and dried.

So, McCain - do you have anything against just carpet bombing an entire region because a tiny minority of its population has been designated "terrorists"?

KC, you silly goose. The carpet-bomb-all-the-Palestinians was an earlier thread. You'll find my views there, a thread titled "sympathy" or some such. Don't waste space here.

We do agree on that McCain, and I'm not obsessed with Osama, I just used OBL's location to represent the type of intelligence we''re seeking.

The fact that this blog post hinges on the Hamdam v Rumsfled SCOTUS decision, and Salim Ahmed Hamdan was OBL's driver for many years, made "OBL's location" an logical example.

Your assumption that this represented some "obsession" of mine is perhaps just an indication that you're reaching for the cheap, easy stab at a leftie - instead of thinking it through.. but no harm done - eh?

Well Lee, if you hadn't presented a false foundation in your rhetorical argument, it wouldn't need to be grenaded. I am glad that you mustered up just enough energy to stipulate that terrorism is bad. Now tell me what your legal argument is for affording these terrorists the protection of the Geneva conventions. Is your argument that the relevant portion of the conventions actually do apply to unlawful combatants, or that these folks are in fact lawful combatants, or is your argument something else?

Lee: "denying them their rights?"

They don't HAVE any rights. They're not American citizens, they are NOT uniformed military personnel. Although we call them "terrorists" they effectively meet the criteria of "SPIES". Even the good ole Geneva Convention says you should SHOOT spies!!

So let's shoot 'em. Frankly though, if we're gonna shoot 'em anyway, then we might as well "gently" ask them a few questions first.

We are at WAR, Lee. At WAR with an enemy that knows NO bounds, obeys NO rules, and has NO decency. While I agree we should have SOME bounds, and SOME rules, and decency where it is PRACTICABLE, you and the rest of the Left want our military to fight this WAR in a way that will dramatically LENGTHEN the war, and increase OUR casualities. Sorry...as I've said before: I choose US.

Lee,

I can't take it anymore, we have to meet.

You know the place. I'll put on some fresh patchouli for you.

Deb

P.S. Don't worry about that job thing anymore, we can live in my van in your parents driveway.

Lee:

Following the law isn't terrible news -- following the law is what distinguishes us from the heathen dog scum we're fighting.

What's terrible news is that it took the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the President of the United States that we are better than the terrorists scum we're fighting. Thank God for that.

The terrorist believe they are following Islamic Law. I guess that just makes them better than us with every head they severe from a body.

Now tell me what your legal argument is for affording these terrorists the protection of the Geneva conventions.

Well, I'm not going to get into the legal argument right now, but as for the moral argument, we don't know if they are terrorists or not (well, some of them we definitely know). See gloat's post above for some examples. It's easy to say that terrorists don't deserve fair treatment, don't deserve to defend themselves in a court. What about those that are detained erroneously? Don't our principles, as a nation, say something about how we should treat them?

Now tell me what your legal argument is for affording these terrorists the protection of the Geneva conventions.

The administration has to operate legally and within the law - they weren't. They argued their case and lost. See Justice Stevens decision for the legal basis for that decision, but how can you ask such an idiotic question? Are you so terrified of these people that you've become murderous?

Try them, convict them, and shoot them - or if they are caught in the act shoot them on sight and save yourself the trouble, but murder isn't the solution, it's the problem. If you justified in acting like an Islamic extremist, go the middle east and practice your craft there. What? Too scared? Fine - If you still profess to be an American, and want to live in this country then shut the f*ck up and live within our laws.

Sober up, you terrified maniacs. Can't you understand that you are have been "terrorized" by the enemy into acting irrationally? Get a fricking grip and work within the law.

I guess the fact that man you elected President had to be told this is the same reason his faithful bootlickers need to be told as well.

Lee is not afraid of the terrorists. He is being protected by the US military while willingly smearing them at Haditha.

Let people like Lee, Stevens, and others who are not afraid of the terrorists to go fight or reason with them. We know that these people don't people what they wrote or said in any case. All they care is to gain power and to push their corrupt agenda even if it is bad for the country.

"The terrorist believe they are following Islamic Law. I guess that just makes them better than us with every head they severe from a body."

Another idiotic statement from the "Walking Wounded" in the war on terror. You're a victim, jpm100. You're lost. You are no longer fit for this fight. You think murdering Islamics is justified because Islamic extremists are murderous.

You've become the same dogs they are. You are no better. Go to the back of the lines and let the rest of us fight this war for you. You've surrendered to them, and are just getting in the way now.

Lee is lying through his teeth again: enjoying the protection of the US military while waxing eloquent about his courage. I forgot to mention Lee was courageous in smearing the US military and the Reps since he knows that he is safe.

McCain, you silly goose:

I think the underlying philosophical and legal foundation for any argument that the "terrorists" captured in foreign countries should be afforded rights under the Geneva convention has something to do with oversight, and the ability to prove that they have actually committed any crime.

As usual your fascination with the Israli/Palestinian conflict muddies your point pertaining to the subject of this thread. That in addition to the fact that it gives away your real MO, which is to equate that situation with the real threat of unprovoked global terrorism spawned by Islamic extremism.

Ah, but I digress. Let me posit a scenario for you, as I tire of your circular philosophical arguments.

We begin operations in Afghanistan. As part of normal HUMINT procedures, money and all kinds of bribes are offered to informants willing to lead us to suspected terrorists. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that at some point, old grudges, bad blood, greed, or just an empty stomach are going to lead people to collaborate and collude in order to rake up as many of these bounties as possible. Nevermind that money may not even be a consideration - how about just getting rid of a potential rival, etc?
Nevertheless, it's off to Guantanamo for this poor sap conveniently accused of being a terrorist.
Now YOU may have faith in our government to root out this "exception" to the rule, and send them back to their nice normal life herding goats in Afghanistan.

How many Guantanamo (or any of the other prisons outside Iraq) detainees are picked up in Iraq, I wonder? Got any stats on that?

You keep trusting Big Brother, and I'm sure he'll protect your soft, pink neck from that Islamofacist's in Iraq sword.

Deb, I'm sorry - but I'm saving myself for LoveAmerica Idiot. She follows me everywhere, and I can't deny her advances any longer....

Lee is not afraid of the terrorists. He is being protected by the US military while willingly smearing them at Haditha.

Let people like Lee, Stevens, and others who are not afraid of the terrorists to go fight or reason with them. We know that these people don't people what they wrote or said in any case. All they care is to gain power and to push their corrupt agenda even if it is bad for the country.

I can only speak for myself. I happen to know that what happened at Haditha is definitely the exception to the rule. This is not how our military is trained to carry themselves or fulfill their missions. BUT - when you extend a poorly planned, poorly executed (from the highest levels), and poorly justified war without any idea of when you plan on ending it (10+ permanent US bases does not constitute pulling out), you set yourself up for such scenarios.

And like it or not, rightnutters, America is seen as the moral compass by much of the rest of the world. And when we fuck up, it's going to be played and played and played again by our detractors. Does this mean that we, as Americans, many of whom have served, cannot question the actions of this immoral war because it somehow plays into the hands of our enemies? If your answer to that is "yes", then go back to second grade or take a course in logic or debate.

Finally - why don't you tell me how the U.S. Military in Iraq is protecting me from terrorists? Last I heard, prior to our invasion, there WAS NO TERRORISM in Iraq. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Why don't you go fight, tough guy?

We are at WAR, Lee. At WAR with an enemy that knows NO bounds, obeys NO rules, and has NO decency. While I agree we should have SOME bounds, and SOME rules, and decency where it is PRACTICABLE, you and the rest of the Left want our military to fight this WAR in a way that will dramatically LENGTHEN the war, and increase OUR casualities. Sorry...as I've said before: I choose US.

Well, hell, Justrand - GO ON OVER! We'll have bases there and be AT WAR for the next half century! Go fight! GO! GO! Team America!

Let people like Lee, Stevens, and others who are not afraid of the terrorists to go fight or reason with them. We know that these people don't people what they wrote or said in any case. All they care is to gain power and to push their corrupt agenda even if it is bad for the country.

I gots me a better idea there, LAI - why don't we confine our international adventures to places where they're justified in this war on terrorism. I'd have to agree that the Taliban in Afghanistan pretty much asked for it. Heck - they only blatantly sponsored terrorism. Can you say the same about Saddam?
Hey, I have an idea - Let's go and invade Saudi Arabia! They turn out more terrorists than anyone! Would you like to volunteer?
How about Syria? If we're really worried about the next big terrorist attack, don't you think those would have been more rational targets than Iraq?
In any case, you neocons have found yet another way to botch yet another war by taking your eyes off the ball and CREATING a terrorist haven in Iraq. Yep, that was a great call.
I'm not exactly thanking my Democratic congressmen and women for being such suckers either, but at least they're not still licking the administrations' ass.

It's interesting that US military personnel are immune from Iraqi laws. Not even Iraqis are immune from laws -- in their own country!

It's too easy to prove the US is there as an occupying, imperialist force. Here's a timeline including lots of other examples. Rape, murder, torture -- coverups. Indiscriminate killing. The government admitting to taking Iraqi oil.

KC: "Last I heard, prior to our invasion, there WAS NO TERRORISM in Iraq. Tell me if I'm wrong."

You are WRONG.

The list of terrorists enjoying Saddam's protection and even hospitality is very long.

Saddam was paying $25,000 a pop for suicide bombers to kill Jews in Israel.

Saddam has extensive connections with terror groups around the world...and yes, alQueda (recent documents confirm this)

the amount of terror sponsored by, or directly carried out by the Saddam regime is lonnnnnnng. This leaves outthe terror he was DAILY inflicting on his own people.

KC...you are WRONG. won't stop your stooopid posts, but there it is.

"The administration has to operate legally and within the law - they weren't. "

Lee, go back and read the memo and try to understand what it actually said. The ONLY objection is the objection to the military tribunals.

Moreover that particular decision was 5-4 on the highest court in the land, not exactly a slam dunk for you.

It's a slam dunk for someone who understands what the Supreme Court is, Bostonian.

Did you complain when the Supreme Court allowed Dubya to ascend to the throne? Are you saying that The Decider's first term was based on a non-slam-dunk? Was that one just a lay-up?

KC,
I really admire your logic error that those who support war are required to fight it themselves. You present a beautiful non sequitur argument, akin to "if you want to shelter the homeless, give them your house." You then present another non sequitur, insisting that we must invade other countries in order for the Iraq war to be correct.

I'm afraid, dear friend, that your liberal attempt at logic fails you. You write well-constructed, grammatically admirable sentences. The problem is that the thoughts themselves are rather shallow, generally ill-conceived, and illogical in places.

Can you please explain your obsession with a few people in Guantanamo Bay, while not caring at all about the 2,000,000 dead humans that Saddam Husseis is responsible for? An inability to understand that moral wars come at a price, and an inability to see the forest through the leaves are critical but typical flaws in your liberal thought processes. Why do you put such weight on the few over the many?

McCain, you accuse KC of a non-sequitur and then cite the number of people that Saddam had killed as reason to ignore the concerns of hundreds of people locked up in Cuba with questionable evidence at best justifying their incarceration.

You aren't stupid. You're a hypocrite.

KC wasn't saying that we now must invade Saudi Arabia; KC was saying that the same reasons you give to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq apply equally to a host of other countries that nobody on the right seems to want to invade. Because the logic behind that sort of invasion is questionable. Although not when applied to Iraq, because they're totally different scenarios: Saddam was a jerk, whereas the people Islom Karimov* boils alive probably deserved it. Right?

*Look him up, McCain

Matt,
YOur logic is either shallow or willfully ignorant. We have a lot of bad countries to deal with. We deal with the problem that gives us the maximum benefit first. We don't invade North Korea because we don't want to deal with China yet. We let Japan loose to develop nuclear weapons. That 's how we deal with China. Different problem require different solutions. AlQ understands our Iraq strategy really well. That 's why they went all out to derail it.
WE had 17 UN resolutions against Iraq. We had more than enough legal and security reasons to invade Iraq. In addition, 25 million people were freed from one of the worst regimes on the planet earth. And we have a budding democracy, the long term solution to terrorism in the ME.

Your type of arg is typical of the people who have no solutions. All they can do is to complain about people who are solving real and difficult problem. We always have pros and cons in the real world. So we do it in the most practical way. That 's why the liberal left is intellectually and morally bankrupt.