I saw the McLaughlin Group this weekend. O'Donnell is a maniac.

All you have to do is see what the liberals are howling most loudly about, and then go looking for some of their number doing precisely that.

Indeed. Many of us liberals have been howling loudly about torture, and wouldn't you know it? The Democratic leadership approve. Scumbags.

Btw, among other reasons, this is why torture is bad.

O'Donnell freaking out?!

Go figure.

I saw the comment by Mantis:

Mantis: "Btw, among other reasons, this is why torture is bad."

And so I sprang from my couch to see what was the matter....

Patterico: "Some of the main problems: Detainees lack access to the prosecution's evidence."

Your absolutely right Patterico/Mantis. The "Defense" should have every right to see every bit of intelligence that led to the capture of these UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS (all caps as to draw attention to the grossly inaccurate Patterico labeling of detainees as "Prisoners of War".)

Further, the "Defense" should have every right to pull any American soldier off a distant battlefield to "interrogate" them as to their intentions at the time of capture.

Something tells me Patterico/Mantis simply want to use a judicial lever to ensure an American setback.

Patterico: "They lack the right to present their own evidence. There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence."

Detainees lack the right to counsel, and what access they do have to counsel is severely restricted."

Yes. I wonder if these restrictions are in place to preclude a repeat of the "Lynn Stewart-Hero of the American Left" scenarios.

You know, the scenario where the leftist/marxist lawyer works hand in glove with a terrorist bent on killing Americans to ensure the incarcertated terrorist is able to get messages and instructions to his buddies on the outside.

Patterico: "Understand where I'm coming from. I'm a professional in the criminal justice system. If we ever held proceedings that denied the procedural protections that are lacking in the CSRT hearings, everyone would agree that those proceedings would be deemed completely unfair."

We are not being fair enough to those that want to kill us.

Patterico: "Now, look. I understand that the folks at GTMO are not in the same posture as an American citizen charged with a crime."

Gee whiz. "Thanks alot" for your "gracious" admission.

Patterico: "And granted full habeas rights to prisoners of war would present huge potential difficulties, as Justice Scalia repeatedly pointed out during the argument."

Shorter Patterico: but we should do it anyway.

Patterico: "But the people at Gitmo are not all people who were picked up on the battlefield, fighting against the U.S."

Right. Some were pickep up elsewhere attempting to conduct ops to kill Americans.

Hence the term "Unlawful Combatant".

I especially like the colloquy between the accused Al Qaeda operative and the Tribunal President where the accused Al Qaeda operative demanded to know the name of the Al Qaeda informant.

Can you imagine the FUN Al Qaeda types could have with all of this?

Al Qaeda guy #1 gets captured overseas. Al Qaeda guy #1 gets "turned" overseas, giving up more buddies (who are overseas).

Al Qaeda guy #2 gets picked up (overseas)and tried (as an Unlawful Combatant overseas). Al Qaeda #2 demands to know name of informant.

If Patterico had his way, AQ guy #2 gets name, passes it on to lefty lawyer who relays it to other AQ-Non-AQ types (wink wink), who then ensure that AQ guy#1's family gets whacked.

Yep. We definitely need to empower those unlawful combatants.

Interesting contradiction. Rose forwarded the Obama-bashing e-mail, but said she didn't agree with it. Was Rose an unwilling scapegoat or is this a political PR stunt gone awry while attempting to show how "honest" the Hillary campaigners are?

Yes, but Mitt's speech was clearly aimed at mollifying the evangelical right at the expense of scapegoating, agnostics or atheists. He denounced what he called "the religion of secularism" and said "freedom requires faith".

I think even, tongue in cheek, you are being a little disingenous, Jay. Huckabee, a Baptist preacher has come up from nowhere and now has 24% lead in Iowa on Romney.

Massachusettes, which elected Mitt Romney Governor, is hardly a hotbed of the 'Christian Right', and the Dems majority leader is Harry Reid (Nevada) himself a Mormon. Romney realizes that, most Americans continue to say that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. which is why you will never see a candidate from either party say either they have any doubts about their own religion or that they have no religion.

Mantis...yes it was pretty sad. All politicians are opportunists. The oversight Democrats like Pelosi were only worried about whether the interrogation techniques were "tough enough." The Spainish Inquisition didn't end in Spain until 1834, officially. Now I understand why.

Since your post is almost entirely attacks on strawmen, Drago, I'm not going to bother to respond, except to point out a bit of Patterico's post you ignored (tellingly):

But the people at Gitmo are not all people who were picked up on the battlefield, fighting against the U.S.

For example, the petitioners in the Boumediene case allege -- and the Government does not dispute -- that they never waged war on the United States. According to their brief, they were arrested in Bosnia under pressure from the U.S. Government, which contended that they had conspired to attack the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo. After an international investigation (conducted with the aid of the U.S. Embassy) failed to substantiate the charges, a tribunal established under the Dayton Peace Agreement ordered them released. They were on the verge of being released when they were snatched by Bosnian police (again acting under pressure from the U.S.) and transferred to U.S. military personnel, who took them to Guantanamo in January 2002.

They've been held there ever since -- for almost six years.

The Spainish Inquisition didn't end in Spain until 1834, officially. Now I understand why.
-------------------------------------------------
I also understand why the terrorists are encouraged to fight until this day. Probably the liberals are more concerned about the Spanish Inquisition (and anti-Catholic bigotry) and hating Bush than defending America. Now the danger is clear, so the liberal leaders like Pelosi can change their tune and lie again. BTW, wonder why the left still made excuses for the clear horror of the atheistic/communist utopia in Soviet Union and else where.

Anyway, Romney 's problems may be his more liberal record (including abortion) in Massachusetts. For now, looks like the liberals are the ones who are trying to bring forth anti-Mormon bigotry.

Looks like James Dobson, Dennis Prager, Richard Nehaus (evangelical, Jew, catholic) all have high praises for Romney. Maureen Down still tried to couch her anti-religion bigotry in the liberal paper of record, the NYT. She wasn't honest enough to admit it. She had to hide behind her "CAtholic" family and her "Republican" friends.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/417ea8cc-fd48-40f8-b94e-46e85b1edfec

Another telling detail avoided:

I've been to Bosnia and Sarajevo. And got combat pay for the "visits." (same time frame as the "apprehensions") So, mantis, how does that not make these fellows "picked up from the battlefield?"

Another telling detail avoided:

Yeah, really should have mentioned your personal experience...

I've been to Bosnia and Sarajevo. And got combat pay for the "visits." (same time frame as the "apprehensions") So, mantis, how does that not make these fellows "picked up from the battlefield?"

I see. So we can detain anyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina because you got combat pay there, making it "the battlefield." Hell, it's the Global War on Terror, right? Let's just say we can pick up anyone, anywhere, because the entire globe is "the battlefield." Sound good?

I actually liked what O'donell had to say. If we had a Shi'ite Politician, who's father worked for the Ayatolla, he would have some 'splainin to do, No?

"Let's just say we can pick up anyone, anywhere, because the entire globe is "the battlefield." Sound good?"

If they are suspected terrorists, then that sounds EXCELLENT to me!!!!

Great Idea Mantis!!!

Good, post your personal info and I'll report you as a suspected terrorist (if only I could sell you like so many poor schmucks in Afghanistan!). Say goodbye to your family.

Of course, if you're an American citizen you might get out in a couple of years. Hope you're not Canadian.

I like the opening of Linkins' post:

A sane, if highly flawed, discussion of Mitt Romney's "Faith In America" speech on the McLaughlin Group was cold-cocked into the realm of crazy-faced anger...

Nice turn of the phrase.

It would have been more newsworthy if Larry O'Donnell had been found NOT having a meltdown. The man isn't exactly the poster boy for mental health . . .

As for the hand-wringing and weeping over the illegal combatants held at Gitmo, there is no reason they should enjoy the protections of the United States criminal justice system. This has simply never been the case. Whether an "illegal combatant" is operating on an active battlefield or "merely" preparing acts of terror or sabotage is utterly irrelevant. The criminal justice system applies to those charged under it, not to those conducting illegal warfare elsewhere.

In fact, many of those still there would have already been released and repatriated to their countries of origin - except for the fact their home countries will not accept them.

So, Jim, how long would you say we can keep someone imprisoned without being charged? Obviously 6 years isn't too much for you. How about 10 years? 20? A lifetime? Do you see how fundamentally un-American that is?

"...there is no reason they should enjoy the protections of the United States criminal justice system."

Why not? I thought that as Americans we were supposed to take the high road, teach by example. We're the freakin' U. S. of A. for christsake. Are you saying that you don't think we can survive running a few malcontents through our judicial system? I'm glad you and your ilk make up a small and ever dwindling portion of our population. I, for one, still believe this is the best system of government in the world because of the fact that no one is outside of the law. If you don't like it allow me to show you the door.

mantis:

"I see. So we can detain anyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina because you got combat pay there, making it "the battlefield."'

In fact it does make it a battlefield, and not to put too fine a point on it the actual term for "combat pay" is Imminent Danger Pay.

Are you saying that you don't think we can survive running a few malcontents through our judicial system?
------------------------------------------------
So you are willing to expose all the intelligence data and gathering methods for the terrorists to know. Remember the infamous story how we helped Osama to turn off his cell phones. In other words, you are willing to give the terrorists the maximum legal advantage in planning their attacks against America? So you are willing to risk even a nuclear 9/11 to show that we can run a few "malcontents" through our legal system?
So since we are "freaking" United States of America, we don't need to send our military to fight. We can send all the liberals like George to go into Fallujah to clear out the terrorists with their superior intellect, negotiating skills, and Miranda right. Let 's take the liberal logic to their logical conclusion: don't start fighting until we have exhausted all "diplomatic" possibilities. Send the anti-war liberals to be the human shields for women/children and to clear out any terrorist strongholds first.

Mantis, your [sarcaster on] obsequious response [sarcaster off] meets a new low. LOL

Hey, my point is that we considered the area a combat zone at the time these folks were apprehended. So they WERE in a battlefield.

To go off topic and give you even more ammunition to shoot yourself in the feet some more: The French, who controlled the airfield at Sara, also had similar feelings, though that didn't stop them from looking good in their tailored BDUs, or running a neat BX with great wine values.

George, you are confused. Detaining a combatant is not the same as imprisoning a criminal. There is no requirement that an enemy combatant be treated as a criminal, and in fact that is a violation of the Geneva Convention itself.

If someone has been bearing arms against us, there is nothing unreasonable about keeping them prisoner.

Mantis: "Are you saying that you don't think we can survive running a few malcontents through our judicial system?"

Shorter Mantis: "blah blah blah."

Mantis, why are you afraid to simply state the obvious about your opinion on this matter?

Let me help you.

You, Mantis, are fully prepared to give foreign terrorists, who have actually plotted and killed Americans, who have been apprehended overseas, FULL Habeas Corpus rights, equal to a US Citizen, and have no real "difficulty" with the idea that any Unlawful Combatant that has been captured or detained by US Forces anywhere in the world the "right" to drag in US Security and Military members for cross-examination.

Period.

Go ahead. Keep trying to shift the conversation to an instance, like Patterico, where the US Gov't simply refused to participate in the "outing" of it's intelligence sources and modes of acquisition.

I'm glad the US simply stood mute under those circumstances. I'd rather let that guy go than have methods and means exposed in a court room for our enemies to peruse and adjust compenstate tactically for.

"for our enemies to peruse and adjust or compensate tactically for."

Lvmrc mmgrnt, crck m p. Frm r bckwrds thght prcss t r brl cmprhnsbl sntx, r cnstnt src f ntrtnmnt. Drg, pn r frkn' s, 'm nt mnts, lthgh m fn f mnts. M qtn t Jm rmns. Hw lng d blv mrc cn "dtn" smn bfr w gv thm chnc t dspt thr "dtntn"? nn wh ndrstnds mrc ngh t trl lv hr knws th nswr t tht qstn wtht mmnts thght.
nd ll hs wh r nt Jm, 'm nt tlkng t f dn't nswr th qstn. S STF.
ntzPpt&trd. Th cr fr ncvlt

George,
Looks like you revert it back to the typical liberal trademark: using ad-hominen arg when running our of args.
George, how long do you think we should detain someone from battlefields? We are not talking about American citizens here. My question is that are you willing to risk a nuclear 9/11 just to make sure that we can run a few "malcontents" through our system?

BTW, George, in a war, we should detain someone as long as the war is still on or until we deem that they no longer pose a security risk to our troops in the field or our people in America. It doesn't take much brain to know that. Wonder why you would ask such a question!
(BTW, there were several cases of "malcontents" released from Gitmo fighting against our troops already. You don't seem to care much about it either). I know that once you don't have an arg, the only thing you can do is to complain about my writing. That 's OK. I don't expect any better from liberals in any case.

LAI, if you could point me to a copy of the declaration of war with Iraq that would be helpful. Otherwise, what if we're not at war? We may not be talking about American citizens, but we are talking about human beings.
Maggie, what are you afraid of? I didn't swear or insult anyone in that post. At least not any more than usual for this site.

George,
That wasn't fear, it was a lesson in
the practice of civility.
I'll be glad to give you a refresher
any time.
You could consider me the principal with the
knuckle smacking ruler.

Nice prose, Maggie, but you still haven't explained how my comments were any less civil than a lot of comments I've seen coming from people whos opinions seem to be more in line with yours. And yes, I'm saying you're biased. How is "open your freaking eyes" worse than:

"So tell me again how those gun control laws are working. Tell me again how ideas like "gun-free zones" make us all safer. Tell me again how just passing more laws will keep massacres like the ones in Omaha and at Virginia Tech from happening again.

Keep telling me that until I punch you in the face. I'd shoot you, but I respect the gun-control laws and don't feel like going through the rigamarole (as minimal as it is here in New Hampshire) of getting a gun legally and don't own any."

I certainly didn't threaten anyone with violence. Amd that's from your buddy Jay Tea.

I'm just sayin'.

Well, for starters, George, my words were not a direct insult to one specific person, but more in the spirit of a general challenge to any and all who would disagree with me. And it was also intended to point out the sheer stupidity of "gun-free zones" and other worthless gestures intended to make people feel safer that actually just create safe hunting grounds for those who want to harm others -- but I'll admit I could have made that part a bit clearer.

My piece was angry braggadocio -- "this bad idea got people killed, and I dare anyone to argue that it wasn't a bad idea to say it to my face." Yours was "hey, you, you're a jerk and a dummy and a poo-poo head" aimed at one person.

Slight difference.

J.

George,
You tagged yourself by 'ordering 'all the others
to STFU over a question you directed at a particular poster.
Not only were you rude to other
readers, it was offensive to me.
Am I biased? Of course I am, just as you are.
Of course I don't presume high expectations of
honesty until I've seen proof.
Some civility on your part can and would go a
long ways, with out you circumventing to what
you say others are doing. Own up to yours,
and the rest will take care of itself.