« WTF Technorati? | Main | Class Act »

We SHOULD Question Their Patriotism

One of the snottiest demands from high-profile Leftists, is that we on the Right may not question or challenge their Patriotism. Frankly, any reasonable look at some of the statements and behavior on the part of Leftist leaders, demands just such a criticism.

I have to start with a recent, and fairly stupid, example: Senator Barack Obama. The new reported a little while back that Obama was not wearing a flag pin of the United States. Frankly, in itself that's a pretty dinky deal, hardly the stuff of great debate. But Obama, never one to defuse a ticking time bomb when he can play with it, turned it into a serious issue by saying,

" as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

Nice double-shot. Parents who wear a flag pin to keep their kids in mind who are serving are "substitute" patriots, while arrogant cynics who attack the troops' mission for their own political gain are the "real " patriots.

I defy that, and am frankly appalled that anyone who wants the job to direct where and when troops are deployed could make such a statement. Of course, this is a man who doesn't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played; he holds his hands over his crotch.

But Obama is an easy target, an inexperienced con man who has not yet learned to hide his true allegiance in double-talk.

A stronger case for Democrats' deliberate disloyalty comes from Senate Majority Leader Harry "Land Deal" Reid. Reid, you may call, decided to show his 'support' for the troops by declaring "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything".

Well, let's see. Casualties in Iraq are down, way down, and not just soldiers. Iraqi civilians are also doing much better, and Al-Qaida is getting downright desperate. In fact, one of our milbloggers blogging while he serves over there doesn't say we're winning in Iraq, he flat-out says we have won the war there.

You may note that 'Happy News' Harry has not retracted his dour claim, nor apologized to General Petraeus for the shabby treatment his report received from the DonkeyKong party.

Need I go down the list, to mention John "Stuck in Iraq" Kerry's slap at serving soldiers, or Pete Stark's wide smear against both the President and the troops for claiming "amusement" at their casualties, or that the soldiers' support for the mission is wrong? Do I need to mention Mister Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazis, or Charlie Rangel's insistence that the troops don't want to fight, but are in there because they are not "smart" or "bright" enough to get a job anywhere else? Perhaps I need to recall Chuck Schumer's claim that "the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here."

How anyone can read or hear that and conclude that Schumer is an American, let alone a patriot, defies Rationality itself.

I do not claim the Democrats are traitors. But they are certainly none of them patriots.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/25051.

Comments (126)

"Of course, this is a man w... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Of course, this is a man who doesn't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played; he holds his hands over his crotch."

Are you seriously monitoring Obama's crotch? I look forward to updates.

I do not claim the... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
I do not claim the Democrats are traitors.

...not ALL of them, at least.

A difinition of a patriot i... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

A difinition of a patriot is one who loves their country and supports it's policies. Lefties do neither. ww

Excellent, DJ. These Dems ... (Below threshold)
COgirl:

Excellent, DJ. These Dems are so busy pandering to the left that they never think twice of how stupid their statements are. It's all about votes. Obama's actions only serve to remind me that he grew up being raised as a Muslim until he "found" Christianity. Just where are his loyalties?

Nice job Drummond. Toss an ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Nice job Drummond. Toss an inane, inaccurate, stupid comment to the wingnut loonies and watch their heads explode. You must be bored - the substance of your comment would evidence that. Now you can watch your modern day witch burners dance around the fire as they froth at the mouth and go yeah yeah yeah those dems are traitors. See the 3 idiots above and many more to follow.

A difinition of a patrio... (Below threshold)
mantis:

A difinition of a patriot is one who loves their country and supports it's policies.

That's a new one to me. So tell us, Willie, do you support, say, our current immigration policies? If not, does that mean you aren't a patriot?

jp2:"Are you s... (Below threshold)
marc:

jp2:

"Are you seriously monitoring Obama's crotch? I look forward to updates."

Actually we're monitoring your crotch. And very much like Dizzy Dean's head x-rays "X-Rays of jp2s Crotch Show Nothing."

JFO:"Nice job ... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

"Nice job Drummond. Toss an inane, inaccurate, stupid comment to the wingnut loonies"

Would you care to be more specific? Which comment is "inaccurate?"

Other than the opinion that those quoted are not patriots which obviously is just that, an opinion and can't be "wrong," or "inaccurate" just different than yours.

Good food for thought DJ. <... (Below threshold)
RFA:

Good food for thought DJ.

JFO answer a question or three for me. What makes YOU a Patriot? What do you love about America? What would you be willing to give to defend your freedom?

Marc:Your opinion ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Marc:

Your opinion about anything is like hot air blowing out your ass Marc. Unfortunately instead of your ass it comes out your mouth. It's rancid and unpleasant and it is perpetual.

Your last comment was about as intelligent as the usual claptrap that comes out of Bush's mouth.

RFAI don't wear pa... (Below threshold)
JFO:

RFA

I don't wear patriotism on my sleeve and I don't engage in contests to see who is more or less patriotic than anyone else.

What I love most about America is the freedom to dissent - without being called a traitor for doing so. What would I give to defend my country? What I gave from 1970 to 1976 - service in the army.


JFO:Your last ... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

Your last comment was about as intelligent as the usual claptrap that comes out of Bush's mouth.

Just as I thought, no cognizant answer to a legitimate question. Very typical of you. And an attitude that sooner or later will send you packing for good.

More JFO inanities:

"What I love most about America is the freedom to dissent - without being called a traitor for doing so."

But in "your America" it's perfectly A-OK to label a ligit question aimed at clarification of your statement as "rancid and unpleasant."

Gotcha! At Least your consistent.

A consistent A-Hole of the first order.

What I love most about A... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What I love most about America is the freedom to dissent - without being called a traitor for doing so.

Without being called a traitor for doing so? No such freedom exists. Others are free to call you a traitor, or "question your patriotism" (oh no!) all they want. Freedom for everyone.

And DJ, only total morons run around declaring others to be unpatriotic. The only people dumber are those who take it seriously.

That's what I love about po... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

That's what I love about posting here; the libbies will prove my point for me in the comment section.

C'mon JFO, defend your side. Tell us how deriding and insulting our men at arms and their mission do anything good for America? How does broadcasting to the terrorists that 'we can't win' helps our troops in any way.

We are at war. And buddy, you're cheering for the wrong side.

MantisHow complete... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Mantis

How completely naive of me!! To think that I believe in the right to dissent in America without being called a traitor. Holy cow, only right wing loons are patriotic!

JFO:"How compl... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

"How completely naive of me!! To think that I believe in the right to dissent in America without being called a traitor."

And your definition of dissent is....?

Naïve is not the word I wou... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Naïve is not the word I would use to describe someone who thinks he has the right to speak while others don't have the right to respond. I would describe him as ttlly fckng stpd.

Well DJ, you prove my point... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Well DJ, you prove my point with your stupid comment about me cheering for the wrong side. You know nothing about me. What I support or don't support. What my experience has been. What I may or may not have done to serve our country.But you feel free to toss that piece of garbage out. That, of course, is your right but it doesn't mean your garbage doesn't stink.It's like the garbage in your post.

What have you done DJ that makes you so much more patriotic than me or anyone else for that matter? It's so easy for folks like you sit at your computer and judge others. What is really patriotic is folks who defend your right to write your garbage. And though I may despise what you write and what you think, I would defend it.

Hmmm. I would describe suc... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hmmm. I would describe such a person as WizbangBlue.

Yes we're at war. The wrong... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Yes we're at war. The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.Many, if not most, of the people in this country believe that.

A war that has been disgracefully mismanaged. And if you think it's unpatriotic to express that then I feel sorry for you. Wearing a flag in your lapel or putting your hand over your heart are good symbolic gestures. But that's all they are. They don't measure one's patriotism. But then that's the Bushies at their best. All symbol and little substance.

My words speak for me, JFO.... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

My words speak for me, JFO. Unfortunately for you, your words define your position, as well.

m-w.com one who... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

m-w.com

one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

And dictionary.com

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

2.a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

And askoxford.com

• a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it.

Far more often than not, I don't see or hear Reid, Obama, Pelosi, Durbin, Kennedy, Kucinich, McDermott, Krugman, Dowd, Moore, DailyKos, Soros, etc, etc, etc, as living up to even these most simple definitions when it comes to a difficult and protracted war in Iraq. So, yes, I DO question their patriotism when they place politics over it. I equally question the patriotism of Republicans who are just weak-willed and weak-kneed on illegal immigration as the aforementioned Dimmies are on Iraq.

In sports, we call them fair-weather fans or bandwagoners. They're passionate when the team's going great, but when things turn sour, or a losing streak or the game is turning south, pow, they hop off that bandwagon to join the Criticism Caravan.

But a true fan, one who really loves the team, can criticize the play of the QB or call of the coach, yet still remain loyal and hopeful the team wins the game. But you will never, ever see that fan throw in the towel and call "the war lost" when there's still time on the clock and the team is behind by just 6 points.

True fans, the ones who "love", "support" and are "devoted" to it, believe in that the Jets and Bills can come back ("The Heidi Game", the 1993 AFC wild card game) that little Doug Flutie can complete a Hail Mary and knock off a #1 ("Fultie's Miracle in Miami) or The Miracle on Ice, The 2004 Red Sox, MJ at the buzzer (pick a game) and the Colorado Rockies. And, more important, they believe in and support "the surge" no matter how difficult that task may seem.

If you don't believe, if you're not a patriot for the home team, well, you deserve to be shunned, ignored and even mocked. That, and have a stale beer poured down your back from the guy sitting in the row behind you--me.

Hers' the brass tacks fer y... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hers' the brass tacks fer ya JFO...

Would you say Murtha's denigration of military members by declaring them guilty of killing "in cold blood" before the investigation is complete or trial is held as dissent or something else?

That's a fairly easy question I should think.

It was stupid and sh... (Below threshold)
JFO:


It was stupid and should be condemned.

Oops, meant to add.<p... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oops, meant to add.

Real "fans" don't boo the home team (the United States). You can groan, you can moan, but you just don't boo. Ever. You do, you're not a fan. Pretty simple.

Good on you for that much, ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Good on you for that much, JFO.

Bear in mind as well, please, that I respect Murtha's service. It's just that he should know better and show respect for the guys doing the fighting now.

It is reasonable to debate the validity of the war. But the way in which dissent is displayed in this war has been, to say the least, dishonorable to the troops.

DJGlad to see we a... (Below threshold)
JFO:

DJ

Glad to see we agree on something. Would love to keep debating but I have to go. I would say that from my perspective the dissent has not been dishonorable to the troops. Especially when compared to what was done to Vietnam Vets when they returned. From my perspective the troops are used as a tool of the right to condemn those of us who disagree with the validity and conduct of the war. The mantra is if you disagree you don't support the troops. That's just a cop out.

JFO""From my p... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO"

"From my perspective the troops are used as a tool of the right to condemn those of us who disagree with the validity and conduct of the war."

And by only noting "the right" as those that use to troops for political means suggests your partisan blinders are too dark to see reality.

Never mind the fact that Reid, Pelosi and the Lt Gov of California all have implied that the fire fighting effort there has been hampered because of the Iraq war.

I guess that doesn't count.

Sure, I honor Murtha's serv... (Below threshold)

Sure, I honor Murtha's service, too. Does this mean I have to "honor" every dishonorable thing he has done since his honorable service, as well? From ABSCAM to padding pork for his cronies to condemning soldiers for "murder" before investigation, charges, or trial?

I also honor the service of America's greatest General in the Revolutionary War. He won more battles than all the other American commanders put together. He was twice wounded in battle - once seriously enough to leave his leg permanently disabled - but didn't relinquish command.

His name? Benedict Arnold. Don't dare question his patriotism, though.

I think Peter F. pretty muc... (Below threshold)

I think Peter F. pretty much nailed it.

Being from Boston, I certainly know the meaning of avid fan. Well done.

How's that political reconc... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

How's that political reconciliation going DJ? You know the purpose of the surge. The thing that all the experts say must happen for peace in Iraq? Nothing?

OK, how's things going on the Turkey boarder?

Can we question the patriotism of those that are unilaterally pushing us into war with Iran?

Here are the words of a tru... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Here are the words of a true patriot (Fred Thompson):

At a campaign stop in South Carolina Wednesday, Fred Thompson said that the Iraqi insurgency is made up of "a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices,"

Just a bunch of kid. You know like a bunch of dead-enders. You fight with the army have and not the one you want. Bring it on.

I wonder what the marines think about those kinds of statements?

JFOYes we're... (Below threshold)

JFO

Yes we're at war. The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.Many, if not most, of the people in this country believe that.

If that's true, why can't/won't a Democrat contolled legislature vote to defund the war? They can stop it right now if the will of the people backs them.

JFO"How completel... (Below threshold)
RFA:

JFO
"How completely naive of me!! To think that I believe in the right to dissent in America without being called a traitor."

Dissent is one thing BUT your lean towards subversion tends to scare those of us who tend to be more middle of the road types.

It would be impossible for me to list all the false allegations made by the Liberals in the past six + years. It still amazes me when an elected official can make a clearly inaccurate statement, be proven to be wrong, and not be man enough to admit the error much less apologize. Murtha is a SKUNK

Hey BarneyG, How wou... (Below threshold)
RFA:

Hey BarneyG,
How would you deal with Iran? Give them a bomb?

"What I gave from 1970 to 1... (Below threshold)
RobLACal:

"What I gave from 1970 to 1976 - service in the army."

So you gave a little bit more than John Fraud Kerry did.


"It was stupid and should be condemned."

How about the relentless lies and smears of our Commander in Chief?

Democrats would like for us to believe that what they are doing is dissent for that is what they dictate. However in all their brilliance in their ability to deceive they fail to master the ability to control their demeanor. Their spoken words may claim dissent , while all other behaviors through which one reveals one's personality screams HATE SPEECH!

"wonder what the marines th... (Below threshold)
RobLACal:

"wonder what the marines think about those kinds of statements?"

Yes I wonder, but more importantly which statements. Specifically the ones you blurt out your ass without thought.. "You know like a bunch of dead-enders".

I don't question their patr... (Below threshold)

I don't question their patriotism. I have not questioned it — or seen it — for a very long time.

How does broadcasting to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

How does broadcasting to the terrorists that 'we can't win' helps our troops in any way.

Well, if it's true that "we can't win", then it helps by alerting more people to that and hastening an end to the war. Now, you may disagree that it's true, and that's fine. There are many people (not you) who can employ reason to carry on discussions about what may or may not be likely, and how best to achieve a particular goal.

But the fact that you cannot even fathom a universe in which you could be wrong says a lot. You decry those who disagree with you as defying "rationality itself", and say they are not patriotic. Because you must obviously be rational and patriotic, and since they believe the opposite of what you believe, then they must clearly not be. And you consider this line of thought "rational".

But laughably, you can't even be consistent. You cite Obama, and tell the story of misinterpreting his comments as saying one way of displaying patriotism is more "real" than another way. And because you disagree with this, you... wait for it... question his patriotism!

All you can do is denounce them for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

Objecting to a war is one t... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Objecting to a war is one thing.

Drawing an ally into the mix as an adversary is something completely different.

My Country right or wrong.<... (Below threshold)
ziggy in JC:

My Country right or wrong.

These people are progressiv... (Below threshold)
Berzerk:

These people are progressive socialist who claim that "the ultimate form of patriotism is dissent". They are not patriotic toward what this county has accomplished or what it stands for, but what it will become with their leadership. Yea right!

Note JFO's idea of an ideal... (Below threshold)

Note JFO's idea of an ideal America is where he has the right to speak as he sees fit -- but others' rights to speak freely and call him names is forbidden.

I guess some animals ARE more equal than others...

J.

The best defense is a good ... (Below threshold)
db:

The best defense is a good offense. Before the Democratic leaders were ever called unpatriotic they started saying that they were being called that and then they make statements that are beyond the pale.

Growing up saw few history books that talk about the rise of Nationalism and how it was Nationalism that lead to WW1 and WWII. After which it goes into the the Trails on un-American activities. The running subtext is that nationalism and patriotism leads to all the world's problems. True intellectuals have world view.

Their is Dead Kennedy Song that summarizes the far left view its called the Stars and Stripes of Corruption.

Which basically states we have right to call the US every hateful thing but don't, advocate world government , but don't call them unpatriotic. I sometimes wonder how RP and Hillary wrote some of these lyrics.
Basically it says America polices make us hated in world. People who love America are bigots, idiots and capitalist pigs. The true Americans are the ones who says America sucks and besides we do not need flags or countries. Basically they are not loyal to the US there world citizens and only the provincial rabble believe in countries like America. No loyalty to the US but don't call me unpatriotic. It is intellectual self gratification.

The Archie Bunker slobs waving flags?
Or the people with the guts to work
For some real change
......
Thank you for the toilet paper
But your flag is meaningless to me
Look around, we're all people
Who needs countries anyway?

Our land, I love it too
I think I love it more than you
I care enough to fight

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/starsandstripesofcorruption.html

JayNone of the curre... (Below threshold)

Jay
None of the current trolls can offer up a defense of Orwell. They sold out long ago.

Well I don't know about JFO... (Below threshold)
sid:

Well I don't know about JFO, but I am all for name calling. For example, You Jay tea have sh*t for brains.

I also think it is fair to question someones Patriotism, because, let's be honest, all you wizbanger's are traiters.

What else do you call people who work to undermine te U.S. Constituion?

"sid" comes to mind, for so... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"sid" comes to mind, for some reason ...

Sure, we're traiters - we h... (Below threshold)
Master Shake:

Sure, we're traiters - we have traits, such as patriotism. Scum like you, sid, are traitors.

sid, you really need to wor... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

sid, you really need to work on reattaching to reality. No one here is working to undermine the Constitution.

Frankly, I doubt you have any idea what is even in our Constitution. Try to dump the BDS and rejoin adulthood.

You aren't Hunter S. Thomps... (Below threshold)
narf:

You aren't Hunter S. Thompson, and you aren't Martin Heidegger either, so you don't get to capitalize non-proper nouns like "Rationality" whilst practiciting citizen journalism, DJ. Otherwise, great post. Say, if Democrats aren't patriots, what does that make them? Why not just call them traitors, DJ? Is it because... you'll sound like a nut?

Nice, we're supposedly at w... (Below threshold)

Nice, we're supposedly at war with terror, or insurgents . . . whatever, but DJ would rather fling jingoistic nonsense in his battle with his true enemy, liberals -- merely for the crime of voicing their opposition in an exercise of the very freedoms so many have died for.

Seriously, and I'm not trying to call anyone out or start a poo throwing contest, but is it possible to have a discussion about this war with you guys and not do the "with us or against us" crap?

Start at first premises. 1) We're all Americans who love their country, their community and their family. 2) Each one of us deserves the respect we show each other. 3) Men and women of good faith can disagree without betraying their nation, can criticize military decisions without intending to denigrate the soldiers in the field, and what is said in the comment section of a blog will have zero effect on the morale of the troops or the outcome of the war.

Now, is it possible to start over and behave like adults?

I dont trust any of those l... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

I dont trust any of those liberal politicians at all their as slippery as a bucket of eels

Liberal Handbook Responses ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Liberal Handbook Responses To GOP'ers When You're Stuck With No Argument:

#3. Pull out the "undermining the constitution" meme.

Check.

Bwhahahahahahahah....

Jay TeaAnother gre... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Jay Tea

Another great thing about America is you can, and frequently do, make an ass of yourself with no consequences. I'll save you the effort of scrolling back to what I said to DJ:

"What is really patriotic is folks who defend your right to write your garbage. And though I may despise what you write and what you think, I would defend it.

18. Posted by JFO | October 25, 2007 5:26 PM

It's lovely to see [a] ass such as you make yourself to be sometimes JT.

JFO's first reaction: ... (Below threshold)

JFO's first reaction:

"What I love most about America is the freedom to dissent - without being called a traitor for doing so."

JFO's second reaction, when pointing out that "his" America doesn't have a First Amendment for anyone else:

"You know nothing about me. What I support or don't support. What my experience has been."

Translation: "how dare you take what I said seriously!"

"What is really patriotic is folks who defend your right to write your garbage. And though I may despise what you write and what you think, I would defend it."

Translation: "Oops, I got caught fantasizing about suppressing free speech. Better toss in a Voltaire paraphrasing."

Remember, JFO, Thoreau's quote was about a FOOLISH consistency, not consistency in general.

DJ, you're SO right, and you remind me why I am so slow to swing Olaf's Troll-Hammer -- buffoons and louts like JFO end up destroying their own arguments and credibility far more thoroughly than anyone else ever could.

J.

JT:"DJ, you're... (Below threshold)
marc:

JT:

"DJ, you're SO right, and you remind me why I am so slow to swing Olaf's Troll-Hammer -- buffoons and louts like JFO end up destroying their own arguments and credibility far more thoroughly than anyone else ever could."

Do ya think?

The funny thing is they are so disconnected from their own arguments their comments read like 3rd grade "kick me" signs, albeit long-winded nonsensical oratory format.

For those that agr... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

For those that agree with this moronic post may I recommend a book?

"They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer

It is a study of average Germans through the 30's and 40's who were so dumbed down and propagandized that they went happily along with the subtle slow slide into the nightmare of Naziism. That brown shirt would have fit DJ Drummond nicely and most of the posters at Wizbang as well.

The frightening thing for our country is that it has been so dumbed down by the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Fox News that the "little men" don't even realize it.

"It is a study of average G... (Below threshold)
engineer:

"It is a study of average Germans through the 30's and 40's who were so dumbed down and propagandized that they went happily along with the subtle slow slide into the nightmare of Naziism. That brown shirt would have fit DJ Drummond nicely and most of the posters at Wizbang as well.

The frightening thing for our country is that it has been so dumbed down by the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Fox News that the "little men" don't even realize it."

No, the dumbing down is brought to you by the public education system, and the propaganda into socilism by the MSM. Otherwise, pretty accurate doctor.

JT, JFO says he would defen... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT, JFO says he would defend your right to write even though he does not like it. I think his words are cheap as all words can be. The real worth is if he is willing to die for someones right to have it. That he is not. Lefties want, but they do not give. Righties give and by giving they have few wants. There is always opposites to the same coin. Cowards, courageous; stupid/smart; traitors/patriots; givers/takers. I know where the lefties like JFO are. ww

Dr Soap misses it again:<br... (Below threshold)

Dr Soap misses it again:

"They Thought They Were Free"
should be required reading by Code Pink

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/code-pink-lunatic-attacks-condoleezza-rice

These are the real brown shirts...and they have ceratinly been dumbed down sufficiently. Lava, the echo chamber of the Left is the incubator of today's Kristallnacht.


dr lukewarm rock (he... (Below threshold)
Proof:

dr lukewarm rock (he ain't that hot!)compares Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and most of the posters at Wizbang to brownshirts and Nazis!
Unable to best them in a contest of wits (he no doubt, being out of ammunition!), dr lava resorts to the most juvenile of name calling, in lieu of argument.
Talk about dumb as a rock!

JTSwing away. You'... (Below threshold)
JFO:

JT

Swing away. You're a fool and though you hide behind the "libertarian" label you're as much a right wing nutcase as much as the the rest of the whizzers. You're a liar as well. You wrote a snarky inaccurate comment about my response to DJ and when I confronted you with the truth you brought out the threats. That's what you do JAY. When confronted with the truth you act like an ass. You haven't an ounce of intellectual honesty - especially as related to your alleged "independent" "libertarian" leanings. Being" hammered "by the likes of you is meaningless and is actually funny as related to the comments here about freedom os speech.

So hammer away and then continue to lie about who you are and what you supposedly stand for.

JFO, using Olaf's Hammer on... (Below threshold)

JFO, using Olaf's Hammer on you would be overkill. You're simply not worth the effort to swing it.

And how did I "threaten" you? I simply quoted you. You said you defined freedom of speech as "I can say whatever I want, and you can't respond in certain ways."

I'm not going to call you a traitor, but I fully reserve the right to do so should the mood strikes me. And I fully expect you to whine about it.

J.

JT, way to go. You got JFO ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT, way to go. You got JFO upset and he is stomping his feet like a petulent child. Kudo's. ww

Can't we invoke Godwin's La... (Below threshold)

Can't we invoke Godwin's Law for dr lava's comment?

And JFO likes most that he is able to dissent against his country and/or its policies, but attaches, "...without being called a traitor".

Boo-freaking-hoo.

What JFO doesn't understand is that he should love that he can dissent "without being thrown in jail".

But it's not enough for him. He wants dissent without counter dissent. He wants dissent without question. He wants his dissent, but not yours.

I'd say his dissent is pretty well protected. He's back here regularly - dissenting away against his government without fear of being silenced by his government.

But see, that's what many on the left do. Complain bitterly about everything they think is wrong in our country, rarely showing thanks or appreciation for what is right.

If you do that, dr lava will compare you to the Nazis -

and JFO won't dissent.

Ron Paul, Patrick J. Buchan... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Ron Paul, Patrick J. Buchanans, Wiliam Buckley, Chuck Hagel and various 'retired generals' have been among the earliest and most vocal critics of the war not exactly your standard liberal/Democrats and everyone was ignored until the tipping point of the war was reached in 1976.

Bush made this a partisan war, by refusing to share information with senior Democrats, appointing young inexperienced evangelical Bushies to Bremers team ignored experienced State Deapartment and Penatagon officials.. They all kept their mouths shut, according to Sanchez, intimidated as they were by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (except one or two like General Shinseki when as Army Chief of Staff saw his career go up in smoke, on August 1,2003, when he questioned the cakewalk scernario said there were not enough troops on the ground to win and was replaced after that.

Without heavy public criticism of the war, by much of the left, we would still probably be back in the pre-surge, stay the course Peter Pace phase of the war and have a lot less chance of winning than today. Bush only changes course when there is heavy criticsm or haven't you noticed.

When do Wizbang conservatives feel that criticism of the conduct of the war is justified?..If they say never, we may has well dispense with the Fourth estate, opposition politicians, and elections and give Bush a carte blanche.

Excuse me, I clicked the w... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Excuse me, I clicked the wrong button, and left in a few typo mistakes. I meant 2006, not 1976.

What a disjointed, illogica... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

What a disjointed, illogical, fabricated to make use of whatever patchwork names and contentions he has at hand, lacking the glue of evidence to hold them together, piece of lying filth that was from Steve.

Move to Venezuela, Steve. You'll be much happier and fit right in. Here, we expect folks to at least occasionally support their claims.

I pledge allegiance to th... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate States if America, and to the CEO's for which it stands, one nation, under god, divided, with liberty and justice for the wealthy.

This is what the wizbangers are all goo goo patriotic over.

Support the war profiteers. We love the dividends it's paying.

CBCorporate America ... (Below threshold)

CB
Corporate America creates ALL of the wealth in this country. You libs would have nothing to tax if it were not for those corporate profits and the personal taxes paid by those employees.

Once again, your comment shows how miniscule is your understanding of economics and wealth creation.

CB, what are you, like 12 y... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

CB, what are you, like 12 years old?

My Country right or wron... (Below threshold)
Brian:

My Country right or wrong.

I was wondering when someone was going to say that. But you forgot the rest of the quote:

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
Corporate America create... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Corporate America creates ALL of the wealth in this country. You libs would have nothing to tax if it were not for those corporate profits and the personal taxes paid by those employees.

Rangel wants to decrease the corporate tax, actually (for those that keep their profits in the US, anyway), in The Mother of All Tax Hikes™.

Sorry, got off topic there. We were talking about how dumb JFO is, right? JFO, you know how I wrote that the only people dumber than the patriotism police are those that take them seriously? That's you.

You'll have to excuse civil behavior, he just got back from his Students for Social Justice meeting and he's a little worked up.

Can't we invoke Godwin's... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Can't we invoke Godwin's Law for dr lava's comment?

This post was Godwin'd the second DJ posted it. As noted in my summary of DJ's argument:

All you can do is denounce them for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. --Herman Goering

Hey WildWillie, are you goi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hey WildWillie, are you going to respond to mantis's question?

Not all Democrats are trait... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Not all Democrats are traitors, but all traitors appear to be Democrats. Consider the mainstream Democratic position on the treatment of enemy detainees. The prisoner shall not be subjected to treatment that is "coercive" or "degrading." This is better consideration than ordinary criminals in this country receive. At the same time they attack and undermine our own troops at every turn, to the point of lying and using fake soldiers to do it. No, the left is hardly "patriotic." If that stings - good. At least it shows they have some small vestige of a conscience, which is more credit than I would give them.

Corporate America ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Corporate America is making the laws in this country. Not the people, not the representatives who are elected to represent the people but the plutocrats.

We have entered into a state of oligarchy. The predecessor of something much worse. Plain and simple. It is not a question of implementing an egalitarian society anymore. It has become a society of aristocrats and the peasants.

Obviously people like HughS don't mind living the peasant status while the aristocrats live the luxuries. I actually don't mind much myself as I do with little but the gall of these pompous buttheads to destroy other countries for their profits, the audacity of them to blaspheme about their faith while denying rights to gays and people of color, and the other assorted, newly minted tools of stripping habeas corpus, rendition and torture while proclaiming their patritotism is sickening.

Sickening I say. You are the lowest of the low for supporting this reversal of democracy. It is no longer just a rhetorical argument. You have reinvented the word fascism. Yours is not patriotism but nationalism. Get the meanings straight.


And for you godfather..........age has benefits as does youth. In your case wisdom is not one of them.

Consider the mainstream ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Consider the mainstream Democratic position on the treatment of enemy detainees. The prisoner shall not be subjected to treatment that is "coercive" or "degrading."

Jeff, such ideas come straight from the Geneva Conventions. To wit,

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.... To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons....

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Interesting that such ideas about how we treat people we capture, ideas we follow because we committed to them, because they maintain our moral superiority in the world (especially important when fighting an enemy with such a perverted morality), because they are civilized, are traitorous to you.

I'm sure you'll dismiss the Geneva protocols as not applying to anyone that the president has defined as a terrorist and thus not protected by any rules whatsoever, as is your wont. Such arguments don't fly, and won't last, but enjoy them while you can. We are better than them, but only insofar as we act that way.

mantis, you forgot the part... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

mantis, you forgot the parts about wearing uniforms and not hiding among civilians and not....
Ahhh, I know, you didn't forget, you ignore those parts.

The Geneva protocols have r... (Below threshold)
Allen:

The Geneva protocols have rules protecting the members of a nation's military captured in battle.What nation does bin landen and his fellow raving idiots belong to?

The lefties are nuts trying to protect those poor misguided idiots that attacked and killed 3000 Americans on 9-11, and have attacked American soldiers in Afgan.

They are not members of any national military, and thus should be treated anyway the captures deem. They have no problems cutting off heads of people they capture. Because some leftie says we should treat them decent, I say up yours. Get what info you can from them and then shoot them. Solves the problem about muslin idiots.

You forgot the parts where ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You forgot the parts where the rules for "unlawful combatants" are listed. Oh wait, they aren't. And just because they don't follow the rules doesn't mean we shouldn't. It's called integrity.

In any case, I would refer you to the International Committee of the Red Cross' Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958):

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.

This is something that our military regulations have adhered to in the past, until Afghanistan, that is. According to 1997 regulations, detainees whose status is not determined will,

be advised of their rights at the beginning of their hearings; be allowed to attend all open sessions and will be provided with an interpreter if necessary; be allowed to call witnesses if reasonably available, and to question those witnesses called by the tribunal; have a right to testify or otherwise address the tribunal; and not be compelled to testify before the tribunal.

Stop this 'we're better tha... (Below threshold)

Stop this 'we're better than they are' crap.

We are the nation that vaporized 60,000 Japanese on two afternoons, and we were right to do so.

We will defend our nation in the way that suits us, not efette europeans who wouldn't put themselves out if they were on fire, and certainly not to suit Muslim psychopaths who don't even know what the Geneva Conventions are.

We have the greatest society in the history of mankind, and we shouldn't endanger it by misplaced notions of the proper rules of cricket.

Stop this 'we're better ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Stop this 'we're better than they are' crap.

No.

The Geneva Conventions cont... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

The Geneva Conventions contain the concept of reciprocity - that each party to a conflict has an incentive to treat prisoners in conformance with the Convention in order to see that their own personnel are so treated.

The Convention explicitly denies many of its protections to combatants who do not conform to the requirements designed to separate out combatants from the civilian population. This is actually a long-standing principle going back continuously through our history back to the days of Rome and its fight against piracy in the Mediterranean.

Given that terrorists today are deliberately violating the principles, they have forfeited any claim to protection under the Convention.

Interestingly, in no conflict that the US has been a part of since the 1948 Convention has our opponent met its obligations.

Mantis, you are embarassing... (Below threshold)

Mantis, you are embarassing yourself with your amateur lawyer routine.

You forgot the parts where the rules for "unlawful combatants" are listed. Oh wait, they aren't. And just because they don't follow the rules doesn't mean we shouldn't. It's called integrity.

There are no rules for unlawful combatants because the rules don't apply to them. The point of the Geneva Convention is to encourage better behavior on the battlefield, and you undermine that by rewarding those who fight out of uniform or fight from hospitals, etc., with the same protections as everyone else. You no doubt claim to be some kind of humanitarian, but then undercut the very humanitarianism you claim to support.

By the way, Red Cross commentaries on things do not have the force of law.

And your claim that we adhered to this backwards interpretation until 1977 is just plain flat out wrong. Go read Ex parte Quirin so you can learn all about how to decide who is an enemy combatant and what to do with them.

We have the greatest soc... (Below threshold)
Brian:

We have the greatest society in the history of mankind, and we shouldn't endanger it by misplaced notions of the proper rules of cricket.

Wow, there's a dissonant statement if ever I've seen one.

Adhering to the proper rules of cricket are what made us the greatest society in the history of mankind, Rambo.

Stop this 'we're b... (Below threshold)
Stop this 'we're better than they are' crap.

No.

You're not better than they are - stop this little conceit of yours. You are a citizen of a nation that incinerated entire cities full of civilians and children, such as Dresden and Hamburg.

Your nation put 25,000 Japanese-Americans into concentration camps.

Your nation dropped napalm on cities made of paper and wood.

It is long past the time you can pretend that America plays the game wearing kid gloves. Because we don't, and you know it. Stop pretending otherwise, you look stupid.

Adhering to the pr... (Below threshold)
Adhering to the proper rules of cricket are what made us the greatest society in the history of mankind, Rambo.

Complete rubbish. Go read Ex parte Quirin, and tell me if the Supreme Court was adivising us to play a nice game of cricket.

You guys don't even understand what the rules are (witness Mantis' comments above) so stop pretending you even know what is and is not cricket.

You got it Ken, the US is t... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

You got it Ken, the US is the worst nation on the face of the Earth, except for all the others.

Name me one nation that has used its military to free another nation from a ruthless tyranny and helped them become a free nation with a democratic/republican form of gov't. Go ahead, name one.
There's only one that I know of beside the US and they didn't have much fighting to do, Australia helped East Timor.

Sure, Nazi Germany helped all those nations get out from under commie rule, but they didn't exactly leave free nations in their wake. England surely freed many nations from despotic rule but then, they colonized them. They helped India become free, from themselves. And to preempt the idiotic reply I expect, yes, the Philippines and Cuba and Guam. We tried our hand and colonies and found we didn't like them.

As for the atomic bomb and napalm on cities made of paper and wood, here's a hint, don't make a surprise attack on America and then follow no rules of war. At least, that used to be the rule, nowadays? Not so much.

Your nation put 25,000 J... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Your nation put 25,000 Japanese-Americans into concentration camps.

Yes, and then later recognized it as a blight on our history and apologized. Even saying it was due to "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". So sayeth the great Reagan.

Should we not learn from that and try to avoid other results of race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership?

Well it irks me that, given... (Below threshold)

Well it irks me that, given our history, these leftists think the only way we can survive is to bend over, lube up, and take it in the ass.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and we somehow survived.

We rained hell on Hanoi with B-52's and yet, somehow, the Republic did not fall.

We committed outright war crimes at the end of World War II, and yet the Constitution did not go up in flames.

The idea that adhering to, or violating, the Constitution has any influence whatsoever on America's enemies and their mindless minions is just simply laughable.

There is no evidence it ever has.

There are no rules for u... (Below threshold)
mantis:

There are no rules for unlawful combatants because the rules don't apply to them.

Because you say so? I don't think so.

The point of the Geneva Convention is to encourage better behavior on the battlefield, and you undermine that by rewarding those who fight out of uniform or fight from hospitals, etc., with the same protections as everyone else.

No, this administration undermines them by insisting they don't apply to whomever they wish.

By the way, Red Cross commentaries on things do not have the force of law.

No, but military regulations that agree with the commentary put forth by the ICRC (an authority on Geneva), certainly do.

And your claim that we adhered to this backwards interpretation until 1977 is just plain flat out wrong. Go read Ex parte Quirin so you can learn all about how to decide who is an enemy combatant and what to do with them.

I have no objection to Quirin and would have no problem with current detainees being handled in the same manner. You obviously don't know enough about Quirin, or don't understand my objection. The defendents in Quirin were not tortured or handled in any way that violates the protocols set for detainees by Geneva. In their trial by a competent tribunal (as dictated by Geneva), the defendants were represented by counsel they had access to, were given the right of review, and were allowed outside communication, all things the current administration has sought to deny detainees.

Don't take my word for it, though, the military tribunals were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last year in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. You are fighting a fight that has already been lost. Detainees in the WOT are covered by Geneva.

Mantis,"outrages u... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Mantis,

"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"

It is humiliating, coercive and degrading to detain, imprison or interrogate anyone in the first place. The lefts' modern (re)interpretation is just that outrageous. I might add that the left's treatment of our troops is in violation of their own supposed standard - unless you count spitting a complement. They can't even muster the minimal presumption of innocence. You can't be an al Qaeda mouthpiece and a patriot at once.

Of course, the left's anti-Americanism goes far beyond their hatred of the military and extends to every institution you can name. They are at war with freedom, free speech, property rights, free-market capitalism, etc., etc. They rush to steal the fruit of another's labor. They rush to free and make excuses for evildoers (Alger Hiss anyone?)

Then there is the riotous flag-burning - a uniquely leftist "patriotic tradition."

Spare me.

Should we not lear... (Below threshold)
Should we not learn from that and try to avoid other results of race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership?

Your point is well taken and is of course correct. But it is so easy to look at it 70+ years' hence and analyze it in a detached way.

The point is yes we do make mistakes, but we will survive, because we are a democracy.

All this hand-wringing by these liberals, who claim without evidence that violating or ignoring the Constitution during a time of war will destroy us, is nothing more than posturing. Because it is their idols, the FDR's and the Trumans, who engaged in the wholesale slaughter I am talking about.

Don't take my word for i... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Don't take my word for it, though, the military tribunals were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last year in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
In a ruling that had absolutely nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. The ruling had to do with the Constitution and not the Geneva Conventions.

Just like our humane treatment of prisoners, even the unlawful combatant types, is from the UCMJ not the Geneva Conventions. We could be holding quick trials, showing that they were out of uniform, hid behind civilians and followed no laws of war and then hanging them. We don't. And again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions because these people are not covered by their protections, but our soldiers are under the UCMJ.

Oh, and mantis, thanks for ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Oh, and mantis, thanks for helping to prove the point of the post, you're attacking your country while defending people who stand against everything you stand for (they want to kill homersexshuls, Jews, non-Muslims, non-properly-worshipping-Muslims, enslave women, impose a religious dictatorship like Iran's, etc.) because of your chosen, political orientation.
Bra-freaking-vo.

"You have reinvented the wo... (Below threshold)
RobLACal:

"You have reinvented the word fascism. Yours is not patriotism but nationalism. Get the meanings straight."

Wrong you unenlightened devious bed wetting traitor. You are the result of having been molested by the criminal democrat frauds and you seem to like it. Again you've confuse yourself and seem to have forgotten BJ Clinton is one of yours.

I mean you practically through yourselves on the floor and worshiped at every sink he desecrated. How could you forget that is was he that embarrassed our Country with his most moronic statement ever made by an American President...Depends on......the meaning of "IS" is". So it is you who need to "Get the meanings straight."


You are rather a sad individual and a menace our Country can do without. I guess you have a legitimate excuse for such abhorrent behavior given that you been molested by democrats and cannot differentiate fantasy from reality. I suppose that also explains your failed memory having to constantly reinvent yourselves and all.

You utter dolt.Y... (Below threshold)

You utter dolt.

You are either unaware of, or cravely avoiding the fact that Hamdan merely called for Congressional approval of the military commissions, and now that has been rectified?

The detainees in Gitmo are in fact being treated better than the saboteurs in Quirin, who were executed, you may not have realized.

The detainees are given representation and appeals from the military commission - so stop this misinformation that they are being treated less well than the Quirin saboteurs.

In fact, what a complete waste of time on your part Mantis - it appears you were complaining about nothing at all the entire time because you are misinformed on this issue.

Methinks someone Godwin'd t... (Below threshold)
epador:

Methinks someone Godwin'd themselves trying to invoke Godwin on DJ.

Great thread DJ.

In a ruling that had abs... (Below threshold)
mantis:

In a ruling that had absolutely nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. The ruling had to do with the Constitution and not the Geneva Conventions.

Ah, so you're not actually familiar with that ruling, like Ex Parte Quirin, but you feel comfortable babbling on about it. The Hamdan ruling was mostly about Geneva. Better stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

From Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Four of us also conclude, see Part V, infra, that the offense with which Hamdan has been charged is not an "offens[e] that by ... the law of war may be tried by military commissions." 10 U. S. C. §821.

...

[Geneva Convention] Common Article 3 obviously tolerates a great degree of flexibility in trying individuals captured during armed conflict; its requirements are general ones, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems. But requirements they are nonetheless. The commission that the President has convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements.

You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stop pretending otherwise, you look stupid.

Uhh pardon me for the was... (Below threshold)
RobLACal:

Uhh pardon me for the wasted bandwidth . Oh and CB, you only have to respond once. See I made a mistake and subsequently triple posted. You however need only respond once. Just want to make sure you understand. Hope I didn't confuse you in your weakened state of mind.

Oh, and mantis, thanks f... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, and mantis, thanks for helping to prove the point of the post, you're attacking your country while defending people who stand against everything you stand for (they want to kill homersexshuls, Jews, non-Muslims, non-properly-worshipping-Muslims, enslave women, impose a religious dictatorship like Iran's, etc.) because of your chosen, political orientation.

No, I'm defending the ideals and integrity of my country against those who would pervert them. I'm sure you believe that I'm "attacking" my country, insofar as you also believe that the president is the United States of America. He is not.

Having said all that, I gue... (Below threshold)

Having said all that, I guess I have to disagree with what DJ says. I don't think Democrats act with deliberate intent to harm the nation, it is just that their hearts are large, their brains are small, and the never get too worried about annoyances like facts and history.

If they did know the history of Lincoln, FDR and Truman, they would then know how stupid they look claiming Bush is some monster trashing the Constitution.

Forgive the Dems, for they know not what they do.

You are either unaware o... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You are either unaware of, or cravely avoiding the fact that Hamdan merely called for Congressional approval of the military commissions, and now that has been rectified?

Read it again (or for the first time, more likely).

The detainees in Gitmo are in fact being treated better than the saboteurs in Quirin, who were executed, you may not have realized.

Executed lawfully. Getting my point yet?

The detainees are given representation and appeals from the military commission - so stop this misinformation that they are being treated less well than the Quirin saboteurs.

No, they were not, otherwise Hamdan wouldn't have gone to court. Once again, the Supreme court ruled that,

the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.

In fact, what a complete waste of time on your part Mantis - it appears you were complaining about nothing at all the entire time because you are misinformed on this issue.

I think it's clear who is misinformed here.

But it is so easy to loo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But it is so easy to look at it 70+ years' hence and analyze it in a detached way.

It's called "learning from history". Some would see it as a good thing.

Once again Mantis your armc... (Below threshold)

Once again Mantis your armchair lawyering has failed you.

The reason the Hamdan court found that the military commissions did not comport with the Geneva Conventions was the Conventions require tribunals which adhere to the basics of the law - and the court found that in order to comply with the Constitution, Congress needed to approve those commissions, which it did with legislation.

Please do note that Hamdan did not say that he was entitled to all the rights of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which the numbskull liberals always claim.

From mantis' link... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

From mantis' link
None of the overt acts that Hamdan is alleged to have committed violates the law of war.

...snip...
The offense it alleges is not triable by law-of-war military commission.


So in other words, they are saying that he did not violate the laws of war so of course he's protected under the Geneva convention.

So in other words, they ruled he wasn't an "unlawful combatant' and not that we have to apply Geneva Conventions Rights to unlawful combatants.

Nice try mantis, I like it when you actually argue the merits instead of snide remarks and name-calling.

The point is yes we do m... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The point is yes we do make mistakes, but we will survive, because we are a democracy.

No, your point seems to be that if we survived a mistake, then it's OK to make the same mistake, because we will survive that too.

If they did know the history of Lincoln, FDR and Truman, they would then know how stupid they look claiming Bush is some monster trashing the Constitution.

Many also have problems with what those did. With respect to FDR, those who agree it was wrong include Reagan and Bush Sr. What small-brained Democrats they must have been!

The reason the Hamdan co... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The reason the Hamdan court found that the military commissions did not comport with the Geneva Conventions was the Conventions require tribunals which adhere to the basics of the law - and the court found that in order to comply with the Constitution, Congress needed to approve those commissions, which it did with legislation.


Read it again.

Whether Chief Justice Chase was correct in suggesting that the President may constitutionally convene military commissions "without the sanction of Congress" in cases of "controlling necessity" is a question this Court has not answered definitively, and need not answer today. For we held in Quirin that Congress had, through Article of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions in such circumstances.

Military commissions are automatically sanctioned by Congress through Articles of War (or the AUMF, in this case). The question SCOTUS answered was whether the Congress can pass legislation preventing the Supreme court from hearing a case before the commission. The U.S. government's motion to dismiss on those grounds (relying on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) was denied.

The other matters decided were whether the commissions violated federal law (they did), and whether the courts can enforce Geneva (they can).

Seriously, stop. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

No, your point see... (Below threshold)
No, your point seems to be that if we survived a mistake, then it's OK to make the same mistake, because we will survive that too.

No Brian, that was not my point. Oh how easy it must be for you, oh wise and enlightened one, to have the benefit of seeing everything with a half-century or more of hindsight.

We all bow and defer to your divine-like powers of prognostication.

And Mantis, detainees are i... (Below threshold)

And Mantis, detainees are in fact allowed to appeal their status, as per the DTA:


(C) LIMITATION ON APPEALS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien--

(i) who was, at the time of the proceedings pursuant to the military order referred to in subparagraph (A), detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

(ii) for whom a final decision has been rendered pursuant to such military order.

And as a matter of practice, they are given legal representation, just as Haupt was in Quirin.

So don't fret yourself, the Quirin standards you lauded are in fact being adhered to and, see?, you had nothing to worry about all along.

Veeshir, you're way out of ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Veeshir, you're way out of your depth.

So in other words, they are saying that he did not violate the laws of war so of course he's protected under the Geneva convention.

No, they are saying that conspiracy is not, in and of itself, a violation of the law of war. This was entirely separate from the decision on the Geneva Conventions question. Btw, the question of conspiracy was only decided with a plurality, whereas, the other three questions were decided with majority support.

So in other words, they ruled he wasn't an "unlawful combatant' and not that we have to apply Geneva Conventions Rights to unlawful combatants.

Way to pick the least consequential part of the opinion and draw a totally erroneous conclusion from it.

Whether or not the Government has charged Hamdan with an offense against the law of war cognizable by military commission, the commission lacks power to proceed.The UCMJ conditions the President's use of military commissions on compliance not only with the American common law of war, but also with the rest of the UCMJ itself, insofar as applicable, and with the "rules and precepts of the law of nations," Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28--including, inter alia, the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. See Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 20-21, 23-24. The procedures that the Government has decreed will govern Hamdan's trial by commission violate these laws.

And Mantis, please stop pla... (Below threshold)

And Mantis, please stop playing these games.

You are now tying yourself up in knots with irrelevant issues you don't understand.

You are now glossing over the entire separation of powers argument, which was the meat of the case, to make some irrelevant side argument about Congress' right to remove appellate jurisdiction (which, as Scalia points out, the Court just ignores) in order to makes some pointless 'gotcha' against me to makes us all think you actually know what you are talking about.

Cut and paste can be a dangerous tool my friend, you should be a little wiser in how you use it.

Ken, you do realize that th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ken, you do realize that the Detainee Treatment Act was passed long after the Hamdan case started, right?

So don't fret yourself, the Quirin standards you lauded are in fact being adhered to and, see?, you had nothing to worry about all along.

The Quirin standards you were unfamiliar with, and are still not adhered to, which were cited in the Hamdan decision, which you are also not familiar with?

It's much more interesting to argue with people who know what they are talking about. You are a waste of time. Go tell the SCOTUS that they shouldn't have made the Hamdan ruling, as everything violation they noted didn't really happen.

Hamdan observes th... (Below threshold)
Hamdan observes that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that if there be "any doubt" whether he is entitled to prisoner-of-war protections, he must be afforded those protections until his status is determined by a "competent tribunal." . Because we hold that Hamdan may not, in any event, be tried by the military commission the President has convened pursuant to the November 13th Order and Commission Order No. 1, the question whether his potential status as a prisoner of war independently renders illegal his trial by military commission may be reserved.

This is the heart of the Hamdan case, Mantis and it is a separation of powers question. Bush needed congressional approval for the commission and Combat Status Review Tribunals, and now he has it, end of story.

No Brian, that was not m... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No Brian, that was not my point.

Though you said...

All this hand-wringing by these liberals, who claim without evidence that violating or ignoring the Constitution during a time of war will destroy us, is nothing more than posturing.

Seems pretty clear.

Oh how easy it must be for you, oh wise and enlightened one, to have the benefit of seeing everything with a half-century or more of hindsight.

Yes, it is. And as you repeatedly invoke Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, I suppose it is for you also. If you think you can make a stronger argument by ignoring a half-century or more of hindsight, you're welcome to try it.

We all bow and defer to your divine-like powers of prognostication.

Thank you. Although since I have made no prognoses, your reverence is misplaced.

Go read the case about four... (Below threshold)

Go read the case about four or five more times until it sinks in. It will be good for you.

Mantis, the Detainee Treate... (Below threshold)

Mantis, the Detainee Treatement Act of 2005 was in force when SCOTUS ruled on Hamdan in 2006.

If you had read the case, and not just your little disjointed cut-n-paste snippets, you would know that Stevens opens the decision with a discussion of the DTA.

You apparently are not quite the expert on this case you claim to be.

Now can you just run along ... (Below threshold)

Now can you just run along and stop wasting everyone's time?

Go read the case about f... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Go read the case about four or five more times until it sinks in. It will be good for you.

Hilarious coming from someone who has put forth so many erroneous arguments based on cases he doesn't understand. The story has not ended, and the separation of powers issue has not been settled. Yet.

Mantis, the Detainee Tre... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, the Detainee Treatement Act of 2005 was in force when SCOTUS ruled on Hamdan in 2006.

The Hamdan case did not start in the SCOTUS.

If you had read the case, and not just your little disjointed cut-n-paste snippets, you would know that Stevens opens the decision with a discussion of the DTA.

The DTA does not preclude the SCOTUS from hearing appeals from the DC Circuit Court, and Stevens discussion of the DTA is to deny the governments motion to dismiss under that act. Instead they relied on the precedent you cited, erroneously, Quiring, to support the conclusion that the court did have jurisdiction:

Quirin "provides a compelling historical precedent for the power of civilian courts to entertain challenges that seek to interrupt the processes of military commissions."

Now can you just run along and stop wasting everyone's time?

I'm sorry, are you tired of my pointing out how little you know about this?

The story has not ... (Below threshold)
The story has not ended, and the separation of powers issue has not been settled. Yet.

Oh my, is this an admission that *gasp* separation of powers actually is a big issue in the Hamdan case?

Glad to see you have finally, at long last, read the case and have come around to my way of thinking.

The Hamdan case did not start in the SCOTUS.

And yet, gee, they sure spend an awful lot of time talking about the DTA in their opinions, don't they. Your point that the DTA was passed after Hamdan was captured is, to say the least, utterly beside the point.

Oh my, is this an admiss... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh my, is this an admission that *gasp* separation of powers actually is a big issue in the Hamdan case?

Point out where I denied that separation of powers was an issue in this case. You pulled that out of your ass.

Glad to see you have finally, at long last, read the case and have come around to my way of thinking.

Your way of thinking is a bunch of blind assertions based on ignorant assumptions and a misunderstanding of case law. I have not come around to that way of thinking.

Your point that the DTA was passed after Hamdan was captured is, to say the least, utterly beside the point.

No, it was in response to your assertion here,

And Mantis, detainees are in fact allowed to appeal their status, as per the DTA:,

concluding that,

the Quirin standards you lauded are in fact being adhered to and, see?, you had nothing to worry about all along.

Without recognizing that a) Hamdan was originally filed before the DTA, and thus the requirements of that act were not applied to the plaintiff, and b) ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS expressly denied the motion based on the DTA.

You can't get enough of being wrong, can you?

Corporate America is mak... (Below threshold)
Proof:

Corporate America is making the laws in this country. Sybil behavior is channeling one of her simpler personalities.
Someone asked if CB was 12. Six is more like it from this level of understanding!
depp=true


Interesting to watch two le... (Below threshold)
epador:

Interesting to watch two legal egos derail a thread.

Just don't question either of them on patriotic matters...

yeah everytime barrack osam... (Below threshold)
moseby:

yeah everytime barrack osama open his dopey mouth he pushes hisself further from the oval office--thank god!!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

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