Supreme Court hears Guantanamo cases

[Gunny]

Associated Press

updated 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have sufficient opportunities to challenge their confinement, the third round of high court review of the detentions.

The measures set out in U.S. law for the 305 men to contest their detention is a "remarkable, remarkable liberalization" of the protections historically afforded foreigners held by the United States somewhere other than on U.S. soil, said Solicitor General Paul Clement.

But attorney Seth Waxman, representing the detainees, portrayed the case as a fundamental test of the U.S. system of justice. Many of the prisoners "have been held ... for six years," he said.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22113362/

This is going to be interesting to follow ....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is going to be interesting to follow ....

Yet according to the left, Bush has usurped the power to just do as he pleases, I guess he pleases to have the Court review this?

 

[Gunny]

Yet according to the left, Bush has usurped the power to just do as he pleases, I guess he pleases to have the Court review this?

Of course. They're his appointees aren't they?

 

[Larkinn]

Yet according to the left, Bush has usurped the power to just do as he pleases, I guess he pleases to have the Court review this?

Yay, yet another lie.

Nobody has claimed that Bush has the power to do whatever he wants with no checks at all by the USSC. But thanks for the absurd caricuature of the left.

 

[Gunny]

Yay, yet another lie.

Nobody has claimed that Bush has the power to do whatever he wants with no checks at all by the USSC. But thanks for the absurd caricuature of the left.

Hardly a lie. I do note however that your statement does not at all reflect RGS's comment.

Funny, that.

 

[Larkinn]

Hardly a lie. I do note however that your statement does not at all reflect RGS's comment.

Funny, that.

Actually completely a lie. And no its not really funny that you can't realize that "usurping power to do just as he pleases" its basically the same thing as having "the power to do whatever he wants". Its actually a little bit sad.

 

[Gunny]

Actually completely a lie. And no its not really funny that you can't realize that "usurping power to do just as he pleases" its basically the same thing as having "the power to do whatever he wants". Its actually a little bit sad.

It's not a lie at all. Your twisting of his words is a lie though.

What REALLY isn't funny is you trying to make this argument when Bush has been accused for 7 years of usurping Congress's power, violating the Constitution/civil liberties on every message board I have ever seen by pretty-much anyone on the left. Not to mention the accusations that his Supreme Court appointments were to tilt its decisions in the favor of conservatives.

That no one has specifically stated whatever the hell it was you concocted to put in RGS's mouth in this thread does nto negate the blather from the left of the last 7 years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually completely a lie. And no its not really funny that you can't realize that "usurping power to do just as he pleases" its basically the same thing as having "the power to do whatever he wants". Its actually a little bit sad.

You and your fellow Liberals are the ones that have harped for 6 years now how Bush has usurped power, how he has created laws that deny rights and have destroyed freedoms. You and your buddies are the ones that proclaimed loudly for all to hear Bush was a liar, a fraud and a cheat and that if we would just elect Democrats into office you would prove it. Been a year now, still waiting for even one glimmer of any proof.

You and your friends have insisted that the Supreme Court was stacked against any legal action that disagreed with Bush and his " neocons" yet we have had case after case be accepted and decided by said Court, and now we have another. You can not even find a single case that was decided badly by the court of "conservatives" I can name several cases decided by "liberals" though. Even your whine about the 2000 election was a 7-2 decision on the base facts.

Remind us how Liberals on the Supreme Court ruled in regards private property and the right of Government to seize it for no other reason then to improve tax base? Remind us how they voted on the matter of "kidnapped" foreigners brought to justice in the US? Remind us how they voted on all the previous Gitmo cases?

 

[Larkinn]

It's not a lie at all. Your twisting of his words is a lie though.

Please explain what the difference between "usurping power to do just as he pleases" and "the power to do whatever he wants". I'm not holding my breath for you to actually back up your asinine accusations, but I suppose its worth a shot.

What REALLY isn't funny is you trying to make this argument when Bush has been accused for 7 years of usurping Congress's power, violating the Constitution/civil liberties on every message board I have ever seen by pretty-much anyone on the left. Not to mention the accusations that his Supreme Court appointments were to tilt its decisions in the favor of conservatives.

Its also not really funny that none of that is relevant. RGS is claiming that Bush has the power to do whatever he wants. That is NOT the same thing as usurping some power. I have never EVER heard anyone claim that Bush has complete control to do whatever he wants and he controls the USSC.

As for your last comment...yes he appointed Roberts and Alito to tilt its decisions in the favor of conservatives. Thats not really up for debate, its really quite obvious.

That no one has specifically stated whatever the hell it was you concocted to put in RGS's mouth in this thread does nto negate the blather from the left of the last 7 years.

Whatever the hell it was I concocted? If you can't even understand what I said, how do you know that RGS didn't say it?

Right...you are such an independent Gunny. Not a Republican brown-noser at all.

 

[Larkinn]

You and your fellow Liberals are the ones that have harped for 6 years now how Bush has usurped power, how he has created laws that deny rights and have destroyed freedoms. You and your buddies are the ones that proclaimed loudly for all to hear Bush was a liar, a fraud and a cheat and that if we would just elect Democrats into office you would prove it. Been a year now, still waiting for even one glimmer of any proof.

Nice non-sequiter. Try sticking to the topic. Even assuming that Bush has done all of that, none of that implies he decides which cases the USSC takes.

You and your friends have insisted that the Supreme Court was stacked against any legal action that disagreed with Bush and his " neocons" yet we have had case after case be accepted and decided by said Court, and now we have another.

Please quote me where I said the Supreme Court was "stacked against any legal action that disagreed with Bush and his "neocons"". Are you going to run away from this thread as well, like the little bitch you are? I'm still waiting for an apology for the 6-3 idiocy, and I think someone pwned you in another thread when you uttered this idiotic statement "Provide evidence we gave Iraq ANY weapons. especially chemical or biological ones. That is the BIGGEST lie out there. Iraq got his stuff from Russia, China, France and Germany ( belgium too I am sure) It cracks me up everytime one of you leftoids makes that ridiculous claim."

Oh, yes, and then you went around claiming that everyone on the left said lies and then just left threads. We are all waiting for you to go back to that thread and admit you fucked up. No...actually we aren't, we now what a shitbag you are.

You can not even find a single case that was decided badly by the court of "conservatives" I can name several cases decided by "liberals" though. Even your whine about the 2000 election was a 7-2 decision on the base facts.

Actually it was both 5-4 and 7-2, but keep on with the lies. And I can't find a single case that was decided badly by the court of conservatives? Try Trombley v. Bell Atlantic which pretty much made the standard for summary judgement all fucked again.

Remind us how Liberals on the Supreme Court ruled in regards private property and the right of Government to seize it for no other reason then to improve tax base? Remind us how they voted on the matter of "kidnapped" foreigners brought to justice in the US? Remind us how they voted on all the previous Gitmo cases?

Alright, I played your idiotic game until here. Remind me how this is at ALL relevant to what I said? Then I'll continue schooling you if you can come up with a satisfactory explanation. Good luck.

 

[Gunny]

Please explain what the difference between "usurping power to do just as he pleases" and "the power to do whatever he wants". I'm not holding my breath for you to actually back up your asinine accusations, but I suppose its worth a shot.



Its also not really funny that none of that is relevant. RGS is claiming that Bush has the power to do whatever he wants. That is NOT the same thing as usurping some power. I have never EVER heard anyone claim that Bush has complete control to do whatever he wants and he controls the USSC.

As for your last comment...yes he appointed Roberts and Alito to tilt its decisions in the favor of conservatives. Thats not really up for debate, its really quite obvious.



Whatever the hell it was I concocted? If you can't even understand what I said, how do you know that RGS didn't say it?

Right...you are such an independent Gunny. Not a Republican brown-noser at all.

Guess I could expect nothing more from you than to take a general statement that is OBVIOUS sarcasm, and attempt to turn it into an absolute. Just more of the usual from you.

I have never EVER heard anyone claim that Bush has complete control to do whatever he wants and he controls the USSC.

Obviously literalism only counts when it suits you, huh? Otherwise, a two-years-old could understand that there is absolutely no support from me for anything Republican in this thread.

Calling your dishonest bullshit what it is has nothing to do with supporting ANYTHING Republican, nor does pointing out the accusations made over the years by the left.

Try getting an honest game. Better yet, why don't you try addressing the topic instead of attacking posters? Novel idea for you, that.

 

[Larkinn]

Guess I could expect nothing more from you than to take a general statement that is OBVIOUS sarcasm, and attempt to turn it into an absolute. Just more of the usual from you.

So now you are claiming RGS didn't actually mean what he said? Is that the claim?

Try getting an honest game. Better yet, why don't you try addressing the topic instead of attacking posters? Novel idea for you, that.

Try following your own advice. Or telling your little buddy to do so. Oh, but you won't, because you are a hypocrite. What else is new.

RGS was wrong. You want to call it sarcasm or whatever, sure. I pointed it out almost repeating what he said verbatim and somehow that is misrepresenting him. For reasons beyond comprehension you seem to have a huge issue with that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So now you are claiming RGS didn't actually mean what he said? Is that the claim?



Try following your own advice. Or telling your little buddy to do so. Oh, but you won't, because you are a hypocrite. What else is new.

RGS was wrong. You want to call it sarcasm or whatever, sure. I pointed it out almost repeating what he said verbatim and somehow that is misrepresenting him. For reasons beyond comprehension you seem to have a huge issue with that.

The only person wrong would be you and your attempt to portray things they way you want in order to make your moronic claims.

 

[Larkinn]

The only person wrong would be you and your attempt to portray things they way you want in order to make your moronic claims.

Either you or your little pal going to provide any evidence for this, or just going to repeat the same damn thing over and over?