'One of the Greatest Affirmations of the Rule of Law'
J$P Video! Uh oh! It's more GOP propaganda from Fox:
From Studio B, June 12 2008 fox news nap shep gitmo
cee
This just does not seem to fit in the never ending drone of the radical left that FOX NEWS is not fair and balanced....Thanks for showing it J$!
I do feel relieved that our national security is now in the hands of people like Ruth Ginsberg, though!
June 12, 2008, 4:37:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
Oops, sorry, that should be Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg....my bad.....
June 12, 2008, 4:48:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
national security is now in the hands of people like Ruth Ginsberg, though!
cee | Homepage | 06.12.08 - 4:42 pm | #
God, help us!!!!!
June 12, 2008, 7:05:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
The reason, the only real reason, FNC even has the Judge is to get a lawyer's perspective. Lawyers, even scoundrel lawyers(and I know of nothing to suggest that the Judge is a scoundrel), often and inexplicably, to some, apparently, concern themselves with the Constitution and the laws. In this regard, they are not legislators, and the Constitution does not have some escape clause "except when we get really scared." What makes us the good guys, when we are the good guys, is that our principles are strong, abiding and just, not that our guns are loudest and longest. And, in goodness, there is strength. Our Founding Fathers recognized that. Lawyers, Judges and ordinary people throughout our history have rcognized that. I am sure that a Marshall, a Brandeis, a Hand, a Douglas, a Warren, would recognize a Nopalitano, and would be scratching their heads wondering from what country did Cee and Mr. Sucks come? Why are these people so scared? Don't they recognize this is America? Don't they understand that right and not force make might? I applaud Nopalitano, and I applaud FNC for giving him voice in an environment in which so many, at FNC and elsewhere, would just as soon hop his voice is not heard.
June 12, 2008, 8:13:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
I suggest you bone up on WWll, philby. Those scoundrel judges are legislating from the bench.
June 12, 2008, 8:45:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tess
i wish the judge would debate Megan Kelly on this ruling. She debated Geraldo and she sounded so annoying. The judge would have cleaned her clock.
June 12, 2008, 8:47:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
tess: Do you mean Judge Torch Song Triligy?
His voice is way more annoying than Megan's.
June 12, 2008, 8:51:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tess
Both Geraldo and Megan voices are annoying.
June 12, 2008, 8:58:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> I applaud FNC for giving him voice in an environment in which so many, at FNC and elsewhere, would just as soon hop his voice is not heard.
Who at FNC has ever suggested his voice should not be heard?!?
June 12, 2008, 9:23:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
N15PCA
This is a very bad day.
June 12, 2008, 9:24:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
No, my dear, Mr. Sucks, those judges are ruling from a firm understanding of the Constitution. And, it is most refreshing, for a chance.
I do agree that we have had a spate of conservative judicial activisim, most notably when the Court appointed Bush president, but that was not given the solemnity of this ruling, perhaps because the justices saw it as only politics. This is much more important.
It is you, not I, who misread history.
And, Johnny, for goodness sakes, who at FNC is opposed to the point of view esposed by Nopalitano? Barnes, Hannity, Kelly, Kristol, O'Reilly, &c, &c. You know that.
If you read my remarks as meaning Nopalitano should be fired, no, of course not, and if that is what was understood, I was inarticulate. But, let's me reall for a moment. FNC has been, by and large, a huge GITMO supporter.
June 12, 2008, 9:36:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
No you said these are people who don't want his viewpoint to be heard.
I can name a string of people on Fox too: Colmes, van Susteren, Shep Smith, Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo...
Wow, FNC is, by and large, a huge GITMO opponent.
June 12, 2008, 9:38:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
We ought not be glib, Johnny, and we ought to face the reality that it is those most ardently supporting the Invasion and Occupation who most ardently support GITMO. What cable news network most ardently supported the Invasion and Occupation, and which cable news network still has the most personalities who do (among the most ardent, Barnes and Kristol, somewhat lesseer, Hume)? It is FNC, of course. And, as Americans have largely come to recognize the tragedy and folly of the Invasion and the unacceptable cost of the Occupation, these personalities have continuously and tenaciously clung to their flawed positions.
Do I believe these personalities sincerely believe the detainees constitute a serious threat to the US or the world? Absolutely not. They are far too smart for that, and all evidence suggests these individuals are not such threats that our normal processes cannot apply. Instead, their bull-headeness is the result of their misplaced loyalty to and support of Bush and their inability to acknowledge that they were mistaken. For Kristol, in particular, this is a psychosis.
Let's never forget that this is Bush's third strike on this matter. The vast, vast body of law and legal reasoning, condemns Bush and his DOJ has acting ouside of the Constitution in this regard. I think that must be an awfully, awfully bitter pill for Barnes, Hannity, Kristol and the like, and with the possible exception of Barnes, these are not gracious men, not good sports.
With your list, you raise a good point. I think all of the names on this list supported, to a greater or lesser extent, the Invasion at the onset. Colmes, perhaps not. They have, indeed, all come around. In that sense, FNC is something of a microcosm of the mood of the nation, albeit a lagging indicator.
Lastly, Johnny, I already said that I may have been inarticulate in expressing that it was the subject matter, the content, and not the person, some desired not to be heard. What then is your point? Simply to be argumentative? If so, I give you that point.
June 12, 2008, 9:57:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
These people are at war with us and are opposed to everythign that we base our way of life and laws upon.
And once again our govt actively seeks to keep us from defending ourselves.
June 12, 2008, 9:59:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Missy
Where is Mike C. tonight?????
I remember reading that he was a little bit interested in Amanda Carpenter (A.Carp, as Greg Gutfeld calls her). Anyway, I just saw her on Larry King Alive!
OK, Mike, get your DVR ready. LKL repeats at midnight and a couple times during the middle of the night, I believe.
June 12, 2008, 10:00:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> Barnes, Hannity, Kristol
You can keep flogging these names as much as you want, but you can't use them to paint a false picture. Kristol doesn't even have a regular slot on Fox News Channel (unless you count the FNS panel on Fox broadcast), and doesn't host or co-host a show. Hannity co-hosts with someone who disagrees with him (though he has one show he hosts on weekends). Barnes's only lead role is co-hosting with Kondracke a half-hour per weekend, and Kondracke supports the ruling.
You can pick every reddish crayon out of a 64-crayola box and claim the entire box is reddish, but that doesn't make it so.
June 12, 2008, 10:06:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I wasn't for closing GITMO until I heard of this ruling.
It's going to happen either way, both Obama and McCain are for closing it.
Hopefully we send those folks back to the countries that want to charge many of them with crimes before that closing. Many of which said countries happily torture their criminals. I'm talking real torture, not cushy waterboarding.
June 12, 2008, 10:07:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
Obviously, your point was made, Johnny, as I was mine. Thank you for a lively and informed discussion.
---
Good point, FF, and if we were earlier in the Bush Administration, GITMO would be closing as well. We haven't really received much valuable information, although we probably can't say that with certaint,y and we have turned much of the world against us. Any value was greatly diminished and diminishing. I am no longer certain of the national make-up of GITMO, but the detainees who will be released, if, in fact, they are released, will face severe consequences in their home countries, except, perhaps, with the Saudis who will not doubt welcome any returnees as national heroes.
Let's remember that the ruling only punts this matter to the US justice system. If the government goes to trial, and if credible cases are presented, the individuals will likely be covicted. Highly likely.
There are, of course two (2) big holes:
#1 The Bush DOJ has a terrible conviction rate. Can you imagine how botched this must have all been. How easy ought convictions be in these cases. Just look at the Miami loonies who were supposedly going to blow up the Sear's Tower and were training to do so by marching around their front yards with broomsticks. Two (2) hung juries already. And, the shoestring bomber. He was heading to a mistrial or an acquittal until he convicted himself by not being able to keep his mouth shut.
Of course, the DOJ is finally in sound hands after the disastrous Gonzales and Ashcroft eras.
#2 The Bush Administration will likely not even try to prosecute many or most of these detainees. To do so would disclose information vital to national security (or so th Bush Administration will argue and, perhaps, even truthfully in a case or two). More likely, the bulk of any prosecutions would disclose information embarassing to the Administration.
I think each of the cable news networks ought to have specials dealing with this. Napolitano, Toobin, Turley could each do admirable jobs, and I would enjoy watching all three. Hell, I wouldn't even mind hearing Greta on his subject. And, Lou Dobbs knows there is plenty of time to do this.
June 12, 2008, 10:30:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Exactly, Mark. Our justice system is too fatally flawed to process the GITMO detainees.
We let people like OJ off on technicalities. The recent Feiger innocence declaration was ridiculous as well. How many lawyers are snapping at the bit to take on these detainee cases for notoriety? They will propose innocence regardless of guilt, and use millions of our tax dollars of court time to do so. Sad.
June 12, 2008, 10:39:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
Indeed, I see no good resolution. We just upheld our system, and we trust it.
June 12, 2008, 10:43:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
What do you mean "we", white man?
/reference to Tonto joke and your post
June 12, 2008, 10:46:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
OTM: Who is against us now that was for us before?
Here is what released prisoners from Gitmo do (from Scalia's dissent):
At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released
from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield. [...] others have succeeded in carrying on their
atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a detainee
released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the
kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was
later shot to death when used as a human shield against
Pakistani commandoes. [...] Another former detainee promptly resumed
his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered
a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers. [...] Still another murdered an Afghan
judge. [...] It was reported only last
month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing
against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq.
If our own military can't tell the guys they are releasing are killers, then a court certainly isn't going to be any better at it.
As Scalia says:
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent.
June 12, 2008, 10:49:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Scalia is right. I wish upon the detainees whatever they wish upon the American people.
June 12, 2008, 10:52:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
Don't underestimate our Courts, Vince. They are flawed, but the wisdom of a jury, he discretion of a trial judge are wondrous, amazing, awesome. And, in the greater scope of things, there verdicts and judgments are seldom set aside.
Undoubtedly, there is some truth in what Scalia says. He is intemperate and disagreeable, but he has a fairly good judicial mind. A bit of a judicial activist for my tastes, but still .... Scalia does have a tendency, however, to load up on anecdotal information and questionable sources in his citations. Remember, the Supreme Court is not a trial court. Except in a few rare instances, its processes do not involve new evidence.
Everything is going to be fine, Vince. This ruling is a win-win for everyone. Combined with the new draconian British terrorist suspect detention law, we are on the high ground. Our Constitution has prevailed. And, our security has not be compromised in the least. This is a triumph and a joy.
June 12, 2008, 11:28:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
What this case demostrates is that the people in authority have no understanding of our enemy.
Our enemy are not criminals. They have no place in civil or criminal court. They are warriors , they should be considered POWs and held with no access to courts.
It is insane to grant them international rights and constitutional protections. They are fighting to destroy the international system and our sysem of government.
They reject all man-made law and all man-made legal and governing concepts.
The only rules they play by are the rules their emir says they should follow. We need to be cruel and ruthless with these people.
instead we have elitists in the Supreme Court giving them access to our land and our courts.. The jihadis have to laugh at how pathetic we are.
June 12, 2008, 11:53:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
Today's DAILY TELEGRAPH, at p. 20 is reporting that E..D. Hill has been "axed for Obama 'terrorist fist' jibe". The article hints, but specifically does not tie this to Murdoch's approving stance of Obama.
I gather "axed" does not mean fired, but removed from on-air duties, and the official Fox press release says that this was part of planned changes. Of course, this is common PR which may or may not be true.
Any real poop on this?
The article goes on to describe the Liz Trotta epiode, a series of ill-prepared, poorly-sourced reports and half-baked apologies. That last analysis is in a direct quote from Frisch at Media Matters.
This may be a welcome development, as it seems to be to part of a real effort by FNC to get serious about journalistic integrity and accountability. That would be welcome at all the cable and broadcast news outlets.
June 13, 2008, 3:01:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
"Everything is going to be fine"
Thank you Father Pfleger for the reasurrance....
I actually would like to simply say, in less than 30 lines of text, that it is clear the federal judiciary has once again garnered power not given to it by The US Constitution....This is always at the cost of one or both of the other branches.
The over-reach, again, by representatives of the left, to accumulate power by unelected, unaccountable people should be obvious even to the most immature of minds, but I suspect ideology has once again prevented this simple conclusion.
Despite Napolitano's whitewash, the accumulation of power in one branch of the US federal government is all that happened yesterday. No flowery protection of habeus, no grand defending of the rule of law....it was simply a power grab by people, simple lawyers, as flawed and biased as any elected politician. My concern, as was the founders', is that these unelected authorities can, in the future, apply their unconstitutional power to the detriment of liberty. A government ruled by appointed lawyers in antigue garb is not what was intended. It is done.
June 13, 2008, 8:37:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
if I was Bush I would ignore the ruling.
June 13, 2008, 8:48:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
But Vince, Bush's behavior, as it has been since he was sworn in in 1/2001, has been to keep his oath to The US Constitution....so his behavior is right....The Supreme COurt has ruled and according to the law, he must comply.
Those simple lawyers (Ginsgurg et al)who took the same oath are the ones who have over-stepped and are in violation of the law, but this is the flaw of our system....They are not accountable for their actions because of life-time appointment. The flaw was in those elected officials who put the 5 in nomination and we must all remember that judicial restraint is the best attribute of the judge who does not use his/her position to garner personal power....
Bush has been consistent, I am proud of him. Those on the left who cry foul as the chief executive uses his enumerated powers correctly but cheer as judges usurp authority unconstitutionally are inconsistent.
June 13, 2008, 8:58:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
Bush is under no obligation to give these people Visas and permit them to enter the country.
Nor is he under any obligation to provide transportation to allow them to enter the country.
June 13, 2008, 9:02:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Vince P | Homepage | 06.13.08 - 8:53 am |
Ah,yes,the Andrew Jackson gambit,refering to the SCOTUS,(I paraphrase) "They made their ruling,now let them enforce it".I understand that officers in the US military swear to uphold the Constitution,not to follow the leader,so he might meet some resistance.
cee | Homepage | 06.13.08 - 8:42 am |
Now I'm no Constitutional scholar,but the way I read it is,if anyone stays within the bounds of the Constitution and the Constitutional laws of the state,then the courts have no power to do anything to limit ones activities.Now if the court,interpreting the Constitution,decides (for example)that "separate but equal" is a farce,or that the Executive does not have the power to imprison people indefinetly on the say so of the President,then the court can exercise some small power to limit that activity.
June 13, 2008, 9:12:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
NVH, I did not read the entire 150 page ruling, but the jist I got is that the court's slim majority made no expression of restraint, basically saying any alien combatant has unlimited access to the federal court system. This means that not only habeus corpus may be brought before a civilian federal judge, but that ANY motion, including rules and application of evidence and other due process rights in the US code, could be ruled and enforced on these prisoners.
There were no limits placed by the 5 lawyers here....access only was determined and pulled out of thin air so this means that terrorists, who act without uniform and in disguise, if captured in acts of war on foreign soil, will have MORE rights than POW's captured on a battlefield fighting our soldiers. This makes no sense. It is also unconstitutional because the document enumerates no power to the judiciary regarding the handling of prisoners obtained in acts of war against the US.
These cases involve national security and the legislative and executive privleges in regard to protecting the nation physically are clear. The judicicary now has a greater influence in this realm that is not given to it by the framers.
The left finds The Constitution in its specific words and enumerations an inconvenience and instead of ammedning it legally like was intended, they have judges simply make law out of thin air. It is a power grab, plain and simple.
June 13, 2008, 9:35:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply
The Factor
This demonstrates that no one at Fox is compelled to be in the tank for one side or the other. This was obviously one of the worst rulings in American history. I threw away over 50 years precedence and made up new law out of whole cloth. These terrorists now have more rights than any Nazis ever did. They even have more rights than illegal immigrants. This was a dark day in American history.
June 13, 2008, 9:51:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
So true, Factor. I don't understand how someone could celebrate this abomination of logic and morals.
If there was any truth to Olbermann's show, there would have been 5 WPITW last night.
June 13, 2008, 10:04:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
" if captured in acts of war on foreign soil,"
This is part of the administrations problem,because the individuals involved in this particular case were Algerians captured by the local police in Bosnia ,not on a 'battlefield'.http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195/
"no power to the judiciary regarding the handling of prisoners obtained in acts of war against the US".And thus the conundrum that's resulted from the overreaching of the Bush Administration.If ther prisoners were engaged in "acts of war",even as irregulars without uniforms,then their treatment would be covered by the Geneva Convention.The administration
,operating on fairly extreme legal opinion,attempted to create a new catagory of prisoner outside any treaty,legislative,or court review.The bottom line is that the SCOTUS has decided that the Executive does not have the power to establish a system of justice separate from International law,the military system of justice,or the US courts.
And this could have been so simple.Either treat the prisoners per the Geneva Conventions,try them under Courts Martial rules within the military,or try them in Federal court.Instead,we have held people for 6 years hypothetically outside the protection of any body of law (Why do you think Gitmo was chosen?).And it seems reasonable to think that by this point,so many cases have been tainted in so many ways that convictions will be less likely.
Speculation is rampant as to why the Administration chose this course.But it seems glaringly obvious that it was a bad choice.
June 13, 2008, 10:29:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
david smawley
Is the Geraldo move to 10 PM EST a plus or minus? Perhaps a mix, negative for the East Coast, positive for other time zones. Just asking.
June 13, 2008, 10:37:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
NVH, any blaming of Bush for taking powers not enumerated in The US Constitution is a poor argument. SCOTUS reviewed both the administration's system and the law passed by our elected representatives in the legislative branch and set them aside. The minority opinion correctly pointed out that this system was a balanced approach to respecting the rights of the alien combatants while protecting vital national security interests. The US Constitution does not grant the judiciary power over such individuals, they simply took that authority.
Also, the idea of overturning preccdent has been ignored, espeically by Judge Napolitano and our resident leftist, OTM....The hyperbole of saying we have RETURNED to some kind of place in the law is a lie....The law prior to this ruling put these alien combatants firmly in the hands of the decisions of the ELECTED chief executive, not the federal judiciary, and this was upheld in 1950 by SCOTUS. This lie that Bush was acting differently from previous Presidents is yet another propaganda piece from the far left who again trampled the US Constitution. Using FEAR of Bush to totally change the law by judiciary fiat is a sad tactic.
June 13, 2008, 10:45:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
It is you, not I, who misread history.
by philby
Wrong. Did enemy combatants during wwll have the rights that the 5 anti-American judges granted yesterday? Denial is a terrible state to live in.....
June 13, 2008, 10:50:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Not familiar with the 1950 SCOTUS ruling.Could you provide more info please.
June 13, 2008, 10:51:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
No, my dear, Olby Sucks, those judges are ruling from a firm understanding of the Constitution.
by phiby
Areyou saying that the 4 that ruled against giving terrorists the right to sue have no understanding of the constituition?
June 13, 2008, 10:54:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
Google "Johnson v. Eisentrager" NVH. This was the ruling the 5 summarily overturned yesterday. The democrats always argue about "stare decisis," but I guess this only applies to abortion.
June 13, 2008, 11:00:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
I have faith our brave troops heard of this 'ruling' yesterday and will be avoiding the need for trials in the future. This 'ruling' will back fire. Mark my words!!!
June 13, 2008, 11:06:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> Any real poop on this?
1. You're in the wrong thread.
B. Yesterday's links have the accurate answer to this question.
June 13, 2008, 11:18:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
cee | Homepage | 06.13.08 - 11:05 am |
thanx for the tip.I'll read up when I have a little time.
June 13, 2008, 2:29:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
Mr. Sucks:
There is a vast difference in a declared war, with an identified enemy and a finite time of detention (the duration of the war). And, the WWII detainees held in the States, and there were many POW camps in the States, including a large camp in Bastrop, Texas, for German soldiers, did give access to the Courts. You could go check out the public records. So, your historical view is, in fact, inaccurate. The difference between the two (2) situations is in one instance we had a president and an Administration which adamantly rejected fear are lifestyle and as a political tactic (Roosevelt and Truman), whereas we now have a president and an Administration which exploits fear, creates fear as a political tool. GITMO doesn't exist for security. It exists as a political tool, one which has greatly harmed the US. Anderson Cooper has an excellent report on that.
June 13, 2008, 3:48:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
The fact that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and six WWll German spies were executed after a trial by an FDR-appointed Military Commission (which also denied writs of habeas corpus) apparently had no influence on scoundrels Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens.
June 13, 2008, 3:59:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
olby sucks | Homepage | 06.13.08 - 11:11 am | #
I agree 100% OS. This is going to lead to less detainees and more soldiers who are judge, jury, and executioner.
Fine with me, enemy combatants, aka targets, are not worthy of my tax dollars funding their trials.
June 13, 2008, 9:11:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
This isn't going to lead to more enemy deaths, it will lead to more US military deaths.
Are any of you familar with Marcus Luttrel and his book "Lone Survivor".
He was part of a SEAL team in Afghanistan.
Their position was discoverd by a local . The SEAL team knew that if they didn't stop him, that he would alert the Taliban to their presence.
But since they aren't mindreaders they had no way of proving that. They knew that if they killed the guy that the posiblity of them getting into trouble and also having the news media twist their action into some sort of crime was very real.
So because the rules compell our soldiers/Marines to take into account so many legalities that are stacked against them, this SEAL team decided to not kill the guy and watched him run off to some village.
100s of Taliban came streaming out of there and searching for the SEAL team.. only one of them lived.
This ruling will only make it worse.
I hear from Leftists how concerned they are for our soldiers.. yet they applaud everything that contributes to their deaths.
June 14, 2008, 1:35:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
Of course the legislating from the bench further embolds the enemy. What makes it even tougher for our troops is they never know when the 'micheal wares' are watching.
June 14, 2008, 2:07:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply
On the Mark
Two quotes from the late and beloved Barbara Jordan:
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total .... It is reason and not passion which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision."
(Nixon impeachment trial)
"What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise."
(Commencement speech, Harvard)
Strong and wonderful words which give me pride and comfort ....
From time-to-time, we all take exception to Court rulings, and I certainly did to the Court appointing Bush president. But, over the great course of history, the Court, this CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, gives us wisdom and guidance borne of careful deliberation.
Similarly, many take our Constiution as some meaningless piece of literature, to be discarded when it becomes tiresome. I have such wondrous faith in the Constitution, not only for the liberties it protects, but also for the strength it gives our nation, invariably and infallibly. It strenthens our resolve, our pride, our unity, and, in the end, it is our greatest strength against all of our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
I wish I could convince "ye of little faith" to simply put your confidence at least as much in our Constitution as you do in our military. As the Occupation has taught us, the military, including, perhaps especially our Commander-in-Chief, falters and fails from time-to-time. It is composed, after all, merely of men, while the Constitution is the aspirations, the desires, the fundamental principles of our nation as a whole.
Well, a waste of words, I am sure. You either have faith in our Constitution or you don't, I suppose. To those who don't, I hope you find that faith. When you do, I think you'll be overwhelmed with pride in our nation, a higher, deeper, purer pride than you could otherwise know. You'll be patriots worthy of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy, and of all our great military leaders, as well, of ur great journalists, broadcast and print, all of whom have a faith in our Constitution that inspires us all.
June 14, 2008, 2:48:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
Court appointing Bush president.
by otm
Second time today. We heard ya.....
June 14, 2008, 2:59:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
But, over the great course of history, the Court, this CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, gives us wisdom and guidance borne of careful deliberation.
Like Dred Scott?
Or Plessy vs Fergussen?
Or Roe vs Wade?
Sorry , but the Supreme Court is not infallable.
The Founders of this country will be appaulled that anyone would suggest our Constitution grants any rights to our enemies.
That people say they are actually proud of this Supreme Court decision indicates just how far we have fallen. That they appauld it when the people who seek to destroy us are actually being given protections by our legal system!
This tells me that some people have had a life of such luxory and comfort that they really have no clue how perilious our situation is. They take it for granted that life will go... that we will always be rich.. that these maniacs dont really exist, and that the maniacs don't mean what they say.
It's a life so removed from reality that they can make statements in support of their own destruction and be proud of themselves for it.
It's abhorant to me .. to watch the people of this country support its downfall. The downfall of the United States will be the downfall of the entire world.
June 14, 2008, 3:16:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
On the Mark | 06.14.08 - 2:53 am | # "
On the Clucker, what a lustrous string of pearls you have written for us!
I can only hope that someday in the near future we who disagree with your interpretation and assessment of our Constitution will see the light and accept your brilliant and eloquent polemic on the subject .
I have been grievously guilty of treating"our Constiution as some meaningless piece of literature, to be discarded when it becomes tiresome". I yearn to share your "wondrous faith in the Constitution" and know the blessed peace that comes from knowing that it "invariably and infallibly" will always "protect" and "strengthen" us.
I need a bit more instruction from you about this aspect though: "the military, including, perhaps especially our Commander-in-Chief, falters and fails from time-to-time. It is composed, after all, merely of men, while the Constitution is the aspirations, the desires, the fundamental principles of our nation as a whole." Are The Supreme Court Justices "merely men"? Are they supermen or deities that they alone have the "infallibility" you spoke of that the Executive and Legislative (the Congress was over ruled in this latest decision)branches do not?
As you say "a waste of words, I am sure. You either have faith in our Constitution or you don't,"
Speaking for myself only I do think that I am one of "little faith," Perhaps if you could lead me to that faith I will at the end of my life finally be an American as you so obviously are. Lead me to grace so that I also can be "overwhelmed with pride in our nation, a higher, deeper, purer pride than you could otherwise know."
I too want to be a "patriot(s) worthy of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy, and of all our great military leaders,". As much as I yearn for that state I hope to reach your higher perfection and be a patriot worthy of "ur great journalists, broadcast and print, all of whom have a faith in our Constitution that inspires us all."
I so want to be a patriot worthy of Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews and Dan Abrams. My life would be complete if I could reach that pinnacle upon which you stand and, with you by my side, gaze about in wonder and awe of my patriotism as compared to those who refuse to see the beacon of light you will ever shine to the "many" who "take our Constiution as some meaningless piece of literature, to be discarded when it becomes tiresome."
Now, I am sure you will excuse me while I barf.
June 14, 2008, 4:02:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Grammie, perhaps when you attain his level of respect for the Constitution, you too can disagree with a Supreme Court ruling without it occasioning brain-dead circular reasoning and self-amused gloating cant from a flimflam artist.
But only if OTM is out casing another group of "sheeple"...
June 14, 2008, 4:44:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
On the Mark | 06.14.08 - 2:53 am |
Great post!
Speaking generally,how is it that we made it through a war against a hostile power (Nazi Germany) that truly had the power to conquer the world and even sank our ships within sight of the beaches of NJ without giving up on our constitutionally prescribed government?
How is it that we fought a "Cold War" against an enemy with the most powerful army on the planet,and with the potential to vaporize 100 million Americans in an afternoon without ceasing to be a nation of laws?
But now we are confronted with a ragtag bunch of crazed idiots living in caves, and some feel we can't defend ourselves and defeat them without suspending the system of law that has guided our nation for over 200 years.The world didn't change on 9/11,but apparently some Americans did.
In Boumediene v Bush,the plaintiff was not captured on the field of battle by US forces.he was captured in Bosnia by the Bosnian police.The police only turned him over to US custody when he was cleared by a Bosnian court and ordered released.
I'm not saying that the man is innocent (though a Bosnian court thought so).I don't know.But under what moral logic should this man be held for 6 years,then denied a hearing in Federal court?
Hundreds of "the worst of the worst" have already been released from Gitmo,which shows that many have been held without evidence. That some of the released suspects then acted against the US does not prove that most were not innocent.
I am not in the habit of granting the executive branch the authority to name suspects,gather them from the four corners of the world,and hold them indefinitely without some overview (Would you be this supportive of a Democratic President? I wouldn't). There are places in the world where an unimpeded executive can unilaterally make these sorts of designations as to who is an enemy of the state.Thankfully,the US is not one of them.
NOTE TO CEE
The court addresses Eisentrage beginning on page 4.
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf
Won't clutter up the thread with legalese
June 14, 2008, 8:08:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
>Speaking generally,how is it that we made it through a war against a hostile power (Nazi Germany) that truly had the power to conquer the world and even sank our ships within sight of the beaches of NJ without giving up on our constitutionally prescribed government?
Um.. we haven't given up "our constitutionally prescribed government".
I take it you have no understanding of the issue at hand.
The issue is: Do alien enemies captured overseas in a theater of combat , who are detained overseas, have a right to challenge their detention in US Civil Court when Congress has passed a law specifically stating that they do not have such a right.
I dont care how long they languish in a camp. It was their choice to declare war on us and commit acts of war against us. The war will go on until one side gives up. When that happens , POWs are set free.
That is the way it's always been. You silly Leftists like to couch your "ideas" as if they're legitimate.. They aren't.
June 14, 2008, 8:35:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Vince P | Homepage | 06.14.08 - 8:40 am |
"a theater of combat ,"
Is this Afghanastan,Iraq,or the entire planet?
"When that happens , POWs are set free."
Then why aren't they POW's under the Geneva Convention?Would have avoided a lot of fuss.
"I dont care how long they languish in a camp."
Even the innocent?Like those arrested in Bosnia,freed by a local court,but then,in defiance of that court,turned over to US authorities?Or those hundreds released from Gitmo and freed by local authorities because there was no cause to hold them?
There are some upthread who preach defiance of SCOTUS.There are also those who argue (see Scalia) that danger to the Republic neccesitates Gitmo.WE have always been a nation of laws.The only people who can bring down the United States in it's citizens.
June 14, 2008, 9:00:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
OTM, I do wish for The US Constitution to be honored and respected. The 5 lawyers on Thursday once again went beyond what powers the law gives them and took away power from both the federal executive and the Congress. This is the ultimate in ignoring, and showing a lack of faith in, The US Constitution.
Amendment through a wonderful detailed process was the way powers were to be ADDED or SUBTRACTED to/from the federal system. We used to do that....when was the last time The Constitution was ammended, OTM?
History is showing us a trend here. The federal power structure and influence is no longer being monitored by the people with who the pact was made. The judges in the very system are now those who decide who gets the added power they decide to grant or who loses their enumerated power as prescribed by the document, and when this is allowed human beings will give themselves more power at the expense of others. That is what happened on Thursday, plain and simple.
Lindsay Graham is discussing starting the process of voting on a Constitutional amendment to allow the people to decide what role, if any, the federal courts play in our national security processes. EVERYONE who respects the law should be in agreement to allow the legislative process our founders prescribed to decide if the federal system is to be so radically changed as it was on Thursday.....
I doubt that the left will allow such a process to take place.....
Just like they stop all amendment processes. They prefer their judges to accumulate power under the guise of protecting and upholding the law. It is a farce!
June 14, 2008, 9:44:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> how is it that we made it through a war against a hostile power (Nazi Germany) that truly had the power to conquer the world and even sank our ships within sight of the beaches of NJ without giving up on our constitutionally prescribed government?
Let me preface my comment by saying that I suspect the court decision may have been right in this case. But let's not pretend that they did not radically change the law in this area. To respond to the question above, please remember that we took hundreds of thousands (I'm guessing) prisoners of war during WWII. We held them without trial until the war ended. They did not have habeas corpus rights. They could not challenge their detention in a US civilian court. No such right was ever imagined, let alone contemplated.
Historically, habeas rights for captured enemies in time of war has never been part of our constitution. As I said above, I think the Judge's (Nap's) analysis of this is compelling. But that doesn't mean we've finally "returned" to some blissful freedom of years past. The court has created a new right for enemy combatants. You may like it, you may not, but it has not fixed some recent infringement of freedom. We've treated these prisoners as we've treated prisoners throughout history--in fact, even before the ruling they had more appeal rights than the Nazis captured in WWII. The court, for better or worse, decided to give enemy combatants rights that they never in history had.
Gad, now you've got me sucked into this off-topic vortex!
June 14, 2008, 10:08:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
>Is this Afghanastan,Iraq,or the entire planet?
These are the location of Jihad attacks between 2001-2006
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Zfq345LD.jpg
>Then why aren't they POW's under the Geneva Convention?Would have avoided a lot of fuss.
Because the Jihadis do not subscribe to any system of international warfare. They seek to destroy the international order.
>Even the innocent?Like those arrested in Bosnia,freed by a local court,but then,in defiance of that court,turned over to US authorities?Or those hundreds released from Gitmo and freed by local authorities because there was no cause to hold them?
We're in war. It's too bad for them. Where is your head at? These people want to destroy you. If innocent people get caught in the net they only have the Jihadis to blame.
>The only people who can bring down the United States in it's citizens.
Yes.. people who refuse to see the obvious. People who hate their own culture so much they give the enemy the benefit of the doubt and question everything their fellow citizens do.
It's people like you who apparently lack proper judgment who will contribute to our lack of defense and to the bolstering of the enemy as you confirm his theory that those in the West are too decadent to defend it.
June 14, 2008, 10:09:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply
sharm
I would find all of the comments about unity and justice and decency hypocritical if it were stated by someone who has engaged in subterfuge to humiliate, leading to the temporary shutdown of a website. I am sure I am mistaken, though, and apologize for the interruption.
It was mentioned above that "[t]he reason, the only real reason, FNC even has the Judge is to get a lawyer's perspective." I would be curious to hear from Gregg Jarrett (who has a J.D.) on this, unless I missed it. Has Liz Whiel (I know I am misspelling her name) given her position on the ruling?
R.I.P. Tim.
June 14, 2008, 10:55:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
"Just like they stop all amendment processes."
Who was it that blocked the ERA?
johnny dollar | Homepage | 06.14.08 - 10:13 am |
yes,we even held german and Italian prisoners in the US,but they were held under the Geneva Convention.It is only because of misguided attempt to side-step both these treaty's as well as the Military Justice system that this mess has been created.As I stated earlier,if we had done that it would have saved a lot of fuss.
Vince P | Homepage | 06.14.08 - 10:14 am |
Wow.
June 14, 2008, 11:03:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
sharm
if they were stated by someone
Wiehl
June 14, 2008, 11:04:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Gregg Jarrett, Megyn Kelly, Lis Wiehl, Greta van Susteren, Jamie Colby, Jeanine Pirro, Susan Estrich, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Peter Johnson, Robert Massi... yeah, FNC only keeps Judge Nap around because they don't have any lawyers. LOL!
June 14, 2008, 11:04:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply
sharm
Thanks, Johnny. I knew there were lots of lawyers but couldn't find a list.
June 14, 2008, 11:06:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
>yes,we even held german and Italian prisoners in the US,but they were held under the Geneva Convention.It is only because of misguided attempt to side-step both these treaty's as well as the Military Justice system that this mess has been created.As I stated earlier,if we had done that it would have saved a lot of fuss.
notveryhow | 06.14.08 - 11:08 am | #
According to the Geneva Conventions anyone who is fighting outside of a recognizable uniform is an unlawful combatant or a spy. ANd as such, they have no protections of the Convention and that it is legitimate to execute them at will.
I agree with you.. We should follow the GC.
June 14, 2008, 11:06:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Was this court ruling about the Geneva convention? I must have missed that part. It was about who has the right to habeas corpus. You may like what the court did, but it's a historical fiction to claim that the court was "restoring" habeas rights that POWs used to have before. They didn't.
June 14, 2008, 11:13:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Was this court ruling about the Geneva convention?
No,I was merely responding to your post
" please remember that we took hundreds of thousands (I'm guessing) prisoners of war during WWII. We held them without trial until the war ended.They did not have habeas corpus rights.."
June 14, 2008, 11:24:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> No,I was merely responding to your post
It was quite apparent you were responding to my post. My point was that your response was irrelevant to the court ruling.
June 14, 2008, 11:34:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
SteveMG
It is only because of misguided attempt to side-step both these treaty's as well as the Military Justice system that this mess has been created
The mess was created by the Supreme Court ignoring over 200+ years of precedent and law and simply making new law up.
The Administration and Congress were following both case law (Eisentrager), treaty obligations and common sense when they created the commissions.
The Court has mucked this up badly with their power grab.
Believe it or not, sometimes the Court is wrong.
June 14, 2008, 11:41:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
To respond to the question above, please remember that we took hundreds of thousands (I'm guessing) prisoners of war during WWII. We held them without trial until the war ended. They did not have habeas corpus rights. They could not challenge their detention in a US civilian court.
Why was it irrelevant if you posted about WWII POW's?You stated that they did not have habeus corpus rights,and that they could not challange their detention in court.If you were not attempting to create some sort of analogy or equivalence,or at the very least a point of comparison,why did you even bring it up.
My statement about the Geneva Convention was a reponse to your statement about POW's.Did you not know that they were held under the Geneva Conventions rules?Did you not know that this administration chose to declare the detainees as outside the Geneva Convention?
June 14, 2008, 11:47:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
SteveMG
There is a link above to the SCOTUS thinking on Eisentrager if you care to read it.
Now I gotta go. It seems my clumsy attempt at sabotage actually succeeded in repairing my mower.The dew has dried and I'm out of excuses.
June 14, 2008, 11:56:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
nvh: I'm reversing your questions
>Did you not know that this administration chose to declare the detainees as outside the Geneva Convention?
First of all it was simple fact that these enemies were considered to be unlawful combatants. The proscribed way of handling them was to simply execute them at will.
But we didn't kill them on sight. We decided to detain them, to keep them off the battlefield.
And so because the Democrats and press made such a huge deal out of the camp at Gitmo, the Admin caved in and said that they would regard the detainees as if they were POWs and would treat them according to the rules of the GC. This was a discretionary decision that Bush made.
>Did you not know that they were held under the Geneva Conventions rules?
They are held under GC rules only because we were gracitious and extended the rules to them even though by the letter of teh GC the rules do not cover them.
June 14, 2008, 12:03:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
