Supreme Court Overrules Bush on Guantanamo

[Abbey Normal]

Another example of why we so desperately need President Bush to have the opportunity to nominate another Justice before he leaves office.

Can you imagine what we will get on the Court, and how they will rule, if we end up with a Dem President?

 

[Gunny]

Another example of why we so desperately need President Bush to have the opportunity to nominate another Justice before he leaves office.

Can you imagine what we will get on the Court, and how they will rule, if we end up with a Dem President?

Honestly, I want five justices that rule according to the law, within the context it is written.

The SCOTUS said something to the effect that what Bush is doing is in violation of US law. Since WHEN does US law apply to non-US citizens who have never even stepped foot on US soil? They are enemy combatants and should be treated as such. Any other ruling is an incorrect one.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes but you are giving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much credit for awareness and intelligence to the American public, remember Clinton got elected twice.

Aye, so did Bush..go figure........

 

[Mr.Conley]

PROVE they are being tortured.

Who said anything about torture. I just think that the United States should hold itself to a higher standard than terrorists.

In this case, obviously it is. Anything to thwart Bush and/or his Administration and make combatting terrorism more impossible than it already is.

So you prefer to use truthiness when determining your position on policy?

 

[jillian]

Sorry, no such luck on your part. While you may think poking at people can make them squeal, it just makes me think you're a troll. Either way, I don't fall for it.

Near as I can tell, you're the one who thinks he's "poking at people". You think anyone who doesn't share your extreme pov is a troll. S'okay. You're not alone in that. I'm sure Annie Coulter would be proud.

And if I'm an extremist according to you, that's fine with me since you seem to get more and more left as each day passes. At the rate you're travelling, you'll be Psychoblue's best buddy by next week.

If you actually read my posts, where I am on the spectrum depends, I would think, on the subject matter. In agreeing with a decision written by Justice Kennedy, I'd say I'm comfortably to the middle, since last I checked he was a centrist Republican, who is now the center of the Court, and just a little to the right of where Sandra Day O'Connor was.

You really need to check your political gyroscope, since I think you've lost your bearings on what's right and what's left. But again, understandable if you think Annie is anywhere but the furthest reaches of the right.

The SCOTUS ruling is wrong. Simple as that. And YOU are proof positive that they just sent a message that emboldens your baseless, left-wingnut accusations and heartens even the most desperate terrorists -- there's no punishment for taking up arms against the US.

If it were up to you, I suspect you'd hand the keys over to Bush and let him drive us anywhere he wants. I figure they're all dastardly and I sure wouldn't trust Bush or anyone else with the kind of power you seem to find ok. Again, last I checked, this wasn't the Soviet Union. I would think someone who fought for his country wouldn't want the line between us and them to become non-existent.

If someone does something wrong, they should be punished. Charge 'em, try 'em and jail 'em. If they have no evidence sufficient to charge, they should be let go.

You know, I was thinking how easy it would be for a political dissenter to be called a "terror suspect" and then sent to Gitmo. No attorney, no charges, not even the ability to see the evidence against them.

Just on someone's say so?

You trust that???

Now *that's* sad.

 

[Stephanie]

QUOTE=Jillian]

You know, I was thinking how easy it would be for a political dissenter to be called a "terror suspect" and then sent to Gitmo. No attorney, no charges, not even the ability to see the evidence against them.

Good Grief!
Such an imagination.
I've yet to see a political DISSENTER, (as you poetically like to call them), be thrown in jail..
You might want to have that paranoia checked out, by a paranoia doctor..:duh3:

 

[Avatar4321]

Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. It's the only one that has precedential value. The others, while they can be used for guidence, have no authority and are just dicta.

Sort of like how Justice Jacksons Concurrence in Youngstown is just dicta...

The fact of the matter is future courts can use whatever opinion they want for precedential value.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Founders feared interest groups, which they correctly assumed political parties to be.

Not entirely correct. The founders wanted interests groups. Each fighting with the other. Create gridlock so nothing can get done unless the majority of Americans wants it done. That is why the passed the First amendment (atleast one of many reasons) so that every group could say whatever they want to oppose any other group.

In addition, the political parties were also to be a check against interest groups. Atleast they were until McCain Fiengold screwed it up and ended up empowering the interest groups. I still havent decided if McCain didnt realize his bill would empower them or that is what he specifically wanted to.

Oh well.

 

[roomy]

So, Who is right, Bush or Congress?And who truly wields the power?

What a fucked up system it seems to be.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Don't ya think that, just maybe, when a SCOTUS, which leans as far to the right as this one does, repudiates the policy of the President that the President actually HAS overstepped his authority...Hmmmmm?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Good Grief!
Such an imagination.
I've yet to see a political DISSENTER, (as you poetically like to call them), be thrown in jail..
You might want to have that paranoia checked out, by a paranoia doctor..:duh3:

Chimpy McPresident has, however claimed the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i> and have US citizens arrested on US soil who he deems to be enemy combatants. No charges...no counsel...no right to face his accusers...no trial by jury. It's a short step from so called "enemy combatants" to dissenters.

 

[Stephanie]

Chimpy Mc President has, however claimed the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i> and have US citizens arrested on US soil who he deems to be enemy combatants. No charges...no counsel...no right to face his accusers...no trial by jury. It's a short step from so called "enemy combatants" to dissenters.

Give us people with some intelligence a break....
There's a far cry from an enemy combatants and a Dissenter.
If what your saying is true, then I guess you should be in jail....Aren't you a proud dissenter?
Your not actually a dissenter, you just have an over extreme hatred for this President, and hey that's your thing...
But as I said earlier it must suck to live with such hatred day after day yr after yr, just over politics.
My Gawd, I couldn't stand Clinton, but I never would let the jerk tear my life apart by hating him as you all do President Bush.. It's rather sad, in my opinion.....But whatever blows your skirt up, I guess..
You look stupid, with all these COULDS..
You not only need a paranoia doctor, you need a shrink....


NEVER FORGET 9/11
We know some of you would like just that..
But the rest of us, will do whatever it takes to prevent another one...
So you just go on with your hating. And enjoy your life.... Shhhheeeessh.

 

[CSM]

...It's a short step from so called "enemy combatants" to dissenters.

Is it as short a step as from "dissenter" to "traitor"?

 

[Hobbit]

It's a short step from so called "enemy combatants" to dissenters.

Uh, the guys at Gitmo were caught on the battlefield shooting at American soldiers. I don't think there's a lot of wiggle room to lock up people who call Bush a Nazi. Well, until the protesters bring their assemblies to Fallujah, anyway.

 

[F41]

Don't ya think that, just maybe, when a SCOTUS, which leans as far to the right as this one does, repudiates the policy of the President that the President actually HAS overstepped his authority...Hmmmmm?

George Washington held military tribunals at the time of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln held military tribunals during the civil war, and after. Franklin Roosevelt held military tribunals for several German prisoners . On the same day they were convicted they were put in front of a firing squad and executed. Oh, did I fail to mention FDR was a Democratic.

The only reason you liberals are happy the Supreme Court ruled the way they did is because it was against Bush, but it was also against America. If this was Clinton liberals would be singing to a different tune.

Liberals are just pathetic.

 

[Avatar4321]

Don't ya think that, just maybe, when a SCOTUS, which leans as far to the right as this one does, repudiates the policy of the President that the President actually HAS overstepped his authority...Hmmmmm?

how does the Court which has four conservatives, one of which recuses himself on this, lean as far to the right as this one?

Are you that far to the left that a balanced court is extremely to the right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Chimpy McPresident has, however claimed the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i> and have US citizens arrested on US soil who he deems to be enemy combatants. No charges...no counsel...no right to face his accusers...no trial by jury. It's a short step from so called "enemy combatants" to dissenters.

The President has had the power to do this from the beginning. Lincoln did it during the civil war.

If the President was doing this with dissenters do you honestly think youd be alive?

 

[Dr Grump]

Uh, the guys at Gitmo were caught on the battlefield shooting at American soldiers.

Nope. Only some and they deserve what they get (as long as they were truly members of the Taliban, AQ or any other terrorist group and not some dude just protecting his property). And there's the rub....what about those that were just caught up in the net for no other reason they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Thing is, we don't know. There is no transparency and we have to take the word of the Bush admin, a word that is been proven wrong by the number of detainees that have been released....

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. Only some and they deserve what they get (as long as they were truly members of the Taliban, AQ or any other terrorist group and not some dude just protecting his property). And there's the rub....what about those that were just caught up in the net for no other reason they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Thing is, we don't know. There is no transparency and we have to take the word of the Bush admin, a word that is been proven wrong by the number of detainees that have been released....

No we dont because there are committees that review whether these are actually detainees. This is especially true when the Enemy combatants are American citizens.

 

[Dr Grump]

No we dont because there are committees that review whether these are actually detainees. This is especially true when the Enemy combatants are American citizens.

"No we don't" what? I'm not too sure which part you are referring to.