Senators: Move Abdulmutallab to Military Custody
[Guest post by DRJ]
Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, sent a letter to Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to transfer Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the DOD to be held in military custody:
“[O]nce Abdulmutallab was in custody, federal law enforcement officials on the ground in Detroit read the terrorist his Miranda rights. According to press reports, by the time the Miranda rights were read and Abdulmutallab went silent, he had been questioned for just under an hour, during which time he had been speaking openly about the attack and AQAP’s role. The decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal rather than a UEB almost certainly prevented the military and the intelligence community from obtaining information that would have been critical to learning more about how our enemy operates and to preventing future attacks against our homeland and Americans and our allies throughout the world.
During a hearing before our Committee last week titled Intelligence Reform: The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack, we were told that the Department of Justice did not consult with leadership in the intelligence community and the Department of Defense for their input on whether or not to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal and read him his Miranda rights. In addition, in the aftermath of the hearing, we learned that the so-called High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which the Department of Justice announced last August – more than four months ago – is not yet operational.
Though the President has said repeatedly that we are at war, it does not appear to us that the President’s words are reflected in the actions of some in the Executive branch, including some at the Department of Justice, responsible for fighting that war. The unilateral decision by the Department of Justice to treat Abdulmutallab – a belligerent fighting for and trained by an al-Qaeda franchised organization – as a criminal rather than a UEB and to forego information that may have been extremely helpful to winning this war demonstrates that very point.”
The Senators suggest this was Attorney General Eric Holder’s “unilateral decision.” The letter also notes the December claim of responsibility by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the recent release of a tape by Osama bin Laden praising the Christmas Day attacker:
”The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes” of Sept. 11, Mr. bin Laden said. *** “If you read it carefully, it’s not really a claim of responsibility,” said Steven N. Simon, senior fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations. “He endorses the attack. He valorizes it. He says, ‘You’re going to get more of the same.’”
Wake up, President Obama, if not to protect Americans then at least to protect your Administration from blame and scorn if an attack succeeds.
— DRJ
MORE: One group thinks bin Laden’s recent statement could be an indicator of another attack:
“IntelCenter, a US group that monitors Islamist websites, also said that manner of the release and the content of the message showed it was “credible” that it was a new release from the Saudi extremist.
“The Osama bin Laden audio message released to Al-Jazeera on 24 January 2010 contains specific language used by bin Laden in his statements in advance of attacks,” IntelCenter said in a statement.
The group said it considered the language “a possible indicator of an upcoming attack” in the next 12 months.
“This phrase, ‘Peace be upon those who follow guidance,’ appears at the beginning and end of messages released in advance of attacks that are designed to provide warning to Al-Qaeda’s enemies that they need to change their ways or they will be attacked,” the group said.”
I’d agree. The fact that he was “initally mis-classified” as someone deserving the legal protections afforded by the US Constitution doesn’t mean he can’t be tossed to the inquisitors now.
What’s he gonna do? Sue?
mojo (8096f2) — 1/25/2010 @ 12:57 pmI will hold Obama personally responsible for any terrorist attacks in America. His (in)actions are criminally irresponsible.
rookwood (39ee7e) — 1/25/2010 @ 1:42 pmthe indisputable fact that he is an unlawful combatant means that he is not covered by the Constitution, but by the Laws of Land Warfare, and therefore he is entitled to nothing more than summary execution upon capture.
anything else is a mercy he is neither entitled to nor one he was willing to show his potential victims.
i say wring him dry, pop a 22 short in the base of his skull and drop him in the ocean about the 100 fathom line.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 1:56 pmred, I don’t care about getting justice out of this guy… I care about the information in his head that we aren’t getting because our guys… our protectors, shut him up.
It really would make sense to start executing war criminals, but that ain’t gonna happen. It isn’t asking too much of the political climate to expect terrorists be interrogated, though.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 1:59 pmWhile they cut off the heads of any US citizens that they can get their hands on, we give them legal counsel and a show trial in the largest media market in the country. If our POTUS will not cease being so feckless in the face of this determined and fanatical enemy, then someone else in our Congress has to make him start taking this seriously and stop treating it as just another political battle to score points. They’ve learned absolutely nothing from Brown’s win, this issue was #2 in the list of importance in the voter’s minds.
Dmac (539341) — 1/25/2010 @ 2:07 pmDustin, these are Leftists you’re talking about.
AD - RtR/OS! (a1830d) — 1/25/2010 @ 2:08 pmReason doesn’t apply.
Remember, it could be worse – what if BHO had put Stephen Reinhardt at Justice as AG?
Maybe Obama can assign David Plouffe to do the questioning. He is the new czar of everything having to do with the November election and this sure as hell has to do with it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/25/2010 @ 2:23 pmWhile there are several candidates in Obama’s cabinet and inner circle who should resign for the good of the country, Eric Holder is the one who absolutely MUST be replaced.
elissa (132666) — 1/25/2010 @ 2:37 pm@Dustin: “wring him dry”, as in information…. get every scrap we can out of his brain, then replace it with twenty nine grains of lead.
if terrorists and their sob sister apologists want sympathy, its in the dictionary, right between “shit” and “sympathy”.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 2:47 pmYou all are doing your best to undermine this lawfully elected President’s administration. How much is Al Qaeda paying you, unlawful combatants? Never mind, we’ll get it out of you at Gitmo.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 2:56 pmred, sorry I didn’t follow your meaning. Yeah, that would be the ideal way to handle this for actual obvious terrorists like the underwear bomber.
While I do want a check on the executive’s power to hold people, that check shouldn’t include all the constitutional rights that citizens get, and it shouldn’t afford all the benefits of the Geneva Convention (for lawful combatants). We should make clear that we distinguish between people who obey the basic rules and those who try to kill innocent people and don’t follow morality.
But that’s a pipe dream at this point. It actually seems like we shut them up when they are blabbing to us. It may be asking too much just to hope they are interrogated. It’s like some kind of Monty Python presidency.
This isn’t how I want the GOP to get back into power, but if they are too reckless, something terrible probably is going to happen to a lot of good folks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 3:05 pm“We should make clear that we distinguish between people who obey the basic rules and those who try to kill innocent people and don’t follow morality.”
So if you’re the type that kills people, but you obey the rules, you go to jail. If you try to kill innocent people and don’t follow morality, then something else happens. It makes perfect sense.
imdw (603c39) — 1/25/2010 @ 3:43 pmimdw, quite right.
If you are a professional soldier in a foreign military, such as an Iraqi in the Republican Guard, and you killed US soldiers but did not violate any laws of war, and are captured, you should be held until the end of hostilities. You should recieve Geneva Convention protections.
If you used human shields or wore a Red Cross or were a terrorist, you are not a lawful combatant, and you shouldn’t be granted the same status.
This shouldn’t be a newsflash. When we give terrorists or other combatants who don’t follow the basic rules of conflicts any rights, that’s going beyond what is required by the Geneva Convention. Now, that’s not to say we can just be as grotesque as we want. There’s a UCMJ (which does not outlaw executing war criminals), and there are other treaties that may pertain.
However, I hold the view that there are two kinds of combatant enemy. Lawful and unlawful. Osama Bin Laden is not the same as Bagdad Bob to me. While many uniformed soldiers are war criminals, they too should be executed after a tribunal.
This is not my original thought… it’s something a lot of people, including those who agreed to the Geneva Convention, believed in.
Then again, you admitted to claiming someone was an antisemite without any evidence, and before that I caught you pretending someone was a child rapist murderer (and you claimed you were only kidding about that one… but you weren’t and it wasn’t funny). I’m not surprised you pretend you don’t understand.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 3:51 pmNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:13 pmSorry, premature “submit comment”.
I don’t know which tiny part of the Constitution has any words that are hard to understand.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:16 pmthe part where it spells out how that passage applies to non-citizens engaged in acts of war against this country and it’s citizens, which is actually covered by international treaties, to which we are a signatory, and which therefore have the same weight of law as the Constitution.
citizens of this country who engage in such acts are covered by the Constitution, to include the part where it talks about treason, which is a death penalty offense. HTH!
PS: i typed this slow, do even you and imdw could have a chance at following along.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:25 pmI have no problem with some kind of check on the executive. Not the same sort of ‘information’ a Fed prosecutor can rely on. A tribunal of personnel with security clearances who don’t answer to the president. Something like our military tribunals (tweaked so it’s an effective check). The tribunals were independent and reliable and a better way to ensure justice for accused terrorists.
Really, I don’t trust Obama or politicians in general enough to give them an unchecked ability to skip habeus. Terrorists don’t deserve our criminal justice system, but we have to do things in a way that protects us from these obvious problems.
The chances of seeing that kind of sanity in this environment? Zero percent.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:34 pmIt is interesting that the Rules of War, both before and after and Geneva Conventions, seemed to work perfectly well without the intervention of members of the Bar,
AD - RtR/OS! (a1830d) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:37 pmuntil we entered the Time of Political Correctness, and we gave precedence to feelings over facts.
Perhaps we are too far removed in our history from an existential struggle to realize that we are in one?
So, the question arises, how many have to die before the rest of us get serious?
16.the part where it spells out how that passage applies to non-citizens engaged in acts of war against this country and it’s citizens, which is actually covered by international treaties, to which we are a signatory, and which therefore have the same weight of law as the Constitution.
Just exactly which part is that? Cite it for me.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:38 pmPerhaps we are too far removed in our history from an existential struggle to realize that we are in one?
Perhaps we need to stop wetting our panties, man up, and remember that we are Americans in 2010 and not Germans in 1934.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:41 pmIt’s glaringly apparent the American public has been duped or in the words Obama burrowed from Malcom X in front of a Philly audiance ” hoodwinked, bambuzzled, lead astray”. He left his high class Yuppie speak a week earlier in Manhattan to pull his yo homie bro hat on.This nation elected as president a civil rights community activist who doesn’t even like the country he sought the highest position in. He has done every outrageous thing to appease our staunchest enemies, like Iran which has been vowing our destruction since the Ayatolla Komeni in the 70’s.This admistration has turned it’s back on our strong allies chastising them while playing cozy to our enemies. Israel, Poland , Chez.can no longer count on we they’re allies. I don’t believe Obama cares. I believe the oval office is just the latest stepping stone for him. His mammoth ego and arrogance has higher asppirations on the global stage. I believe he will seek a high ranking position in the U.N. next. The U.N the most corrupt beauracy in the world today. No wonder he wants to appease our enemies, release terrorist to the unstable muslim regions that have provenly either released them back into the fight against us or provided such poor security they were able to escape.
Rosemarie Battaglia McGuire (c6f2e8) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:47 pm“I have no problem with some kind of check on the executive.”
Dustin – We have checks on the Executive. Are you talking about legislating extra-constitutional checks on presidential war time powers?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/25/2010 @ 4:50 pm“This shouldn’t be a newsflash. When we give terrorists or other combatants who don’t follow the basic rules of conflicts any rights, that’s going beyond what is required by the Geneva Convention.”
So what rules of conflicts have other terrorists that are in our jails followed that abdulmutallab failed to follow?
imdw (f7b257) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:00 pmArticle 6 – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
<>
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47A > SUBCHAPTER I > § 948aPrev | Next § 948a. Definitions
(1) Unlawful enemy combatant.—
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:02 pm(A) The term “unlawful enemy combatant” means—
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
There goes that caps key again.
Eric Blair (20b3a8) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:02 pmThat part nk.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:03 pmDaleyrocks, what is the check on a president that can hold someone indefinitely without habeus corpus?
Constitutional or not, what’s the check on that? Impeachment? Funding? I don’t find that satisfactory.
The constitution has been utterly wrong in many areas over the years, but whether NK’s view of the constitution is the correct one or not, there is a debate as to whether or not terrorists, foreign or domestic, should have recourse to the judicial system.
Whether it’s your opinion that these people do have the right to have their case heard or not, I think we should have some kind of check in place before we hold people indefinitely.
Yes, even enemies in war, particularly if the war is, like this one, theoretically unending.
When I say there needs to be a check, I mean that the executive shouldn’t have the power to arrest and hold anyone he wants without showing a reason. I think some form of military tribunal could be made, with the fact finder not answering to the executive, that could handle this duty. The way evidence is handled, particularly with interrogations, would have to be different. There are obviously a lot of details that would have to be fleshed out.
You ask if I want something extra-constitutional legislated. That’s a fair question, and yeah, I think that’s what would be best.
We need to get a system in place that can handle the many problems we face in this war effort.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:09 pmSo treaties supersede the Constitution? If the United States were to enter into a treaty with China whereby American babies would be cut up for organ transplantation to Chinese Communist Party leaders, that would be legal? Or don’t you think maybe that treaties should also be “in pursuance thereof” of the Consitution?
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:09 pmIt’s not what I think should be, it is what it is in the US Constitution. And the anser is basically yes, under the constitution treaties supercede.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:13 pmOooops, “answer”.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:14 pmAnyway ….
Ain’t no towelheaded camel-molester gonna scare me into throwing away what I like best about America. Our freedom and rights.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:14 pmYeah, OUR FREEDOM AND RIGHTS NOT THEIRS.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:20 pmYou may also wish to consider whether the Supremacy Clause applies to state governments as opposed to persons.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:22 pmWe may also wish to consider what a RINO and a Democrat who fooled Republicans into voting for him really intend with this letter.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:31 pmWhat in the hell are you talking about? At what point did I say that the people in our jails right now where there under my ideals? I was talking about my views, not the current methods. Of course we aren’t executing terrorists right now. But terrorists in our possession right now are obviously similar to the Eunuch Bomber. They are engaged in unlawful warfare if they are trying to kill innocent people outside uniform, etc etc. What a ridiculous retort about such a serious matter.
“Ain’t no towelheaded camel-molester gonna scare me into throwing away what I like best about America. Our freedom and rights.
Comment by nk ”
LOL, I agree with this.
I hate terrorists, probably more than anyone here. I know that’s really grandiose and assumes a lot and makes me look like an asshole, but I believe that strongly.
I think terrorists in particular are war criminals who don’t deserve… really anything. Once we have info on them, they should be executed. It’s an absurd notion politically, so I don’t call for it.
Still, people fuck up. Some basic measure of habeus corpus would be OK. I hate to say this, but one in a million soldiers is a bad seed who might capture an innocent person. It’s happened a couple of times, and tribunals took care of it several times when GITMO’s detention facility used them. It’s easy to see that sometimes this system won’t be perfect. But something.
All I want is for the government to give some explanation, to a finder that is capable of being trusted with secrets and doesn’t require a Miranda warning, for why they are holding an EPW.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:32 pmYou’ve been busted nk. You wanted to be shown where in the USCON that treaties are treated as law of the land. You were shown.
The, and I quote, law of the land is Article 6 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:36 pmpoa, you have a strong argument, but if a treaty violates the bill of rights, I’m to understand you think that means the bill of rights falls to the treaty?
A) no way in hell is that going to be enforced
B) I hope
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:41 pmwillfully ignoring and or misconstruing the posts that destroy your argument doesn’t magically salvage it from the dung-heap of failure, it just further advertises your fail in all its glory.
but thanks for playing!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:56 pmFrom my USCONLAW course, yes this I am most afraid of also. I do think and so did my “perfessor” that it exactly can supercede the ‘BOR’.
For example:
If the POTUS signs and Senate concurs, a treaty with the UN that gives away the right of arms and free speech etc., it then becomes the supreme law of the land and removes those protections, since it states “all treaties made, or which shall be made“.
It is most troubling to me. The big question is, what would the USSC say?
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 5:58 pmand the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Ok, it’s the supreme law of the land for state judges. I’ll be sure not to become one. Idiot. The Supremacy Clause just says that a state cannot pass a law that contradicts a federal law. Nothing more.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:02 pmDisclosure, I am an avid Revelationist. (study of end times of course)
Bible states that antichrist will outlaw Christianity and behead those who do not worship him.
This got me to take USCONLAW course because I didn’t see how the freedom of religion clause could be overcome. That article 6 clause scares hell outa me for that reason.
Those that are left behind during that time can then be subjected to world rule by that very clause in our own constitution.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:06 pmComment by redc1c4 — 1/25/2010 @ 5:56 pm
At least peedoffamerican made some effort to justify his idiocy. redc14 just stayed with the voices in his head.
Hey, clowns. The Supremacy Clause is a limitation on state governments. Not an expansion of either Article I or II or a limitation of the Bill of Rights.
nk (df76d4) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:07 pm@Dustin: why do you think us bitter clingy types looks so askance at the UN small arms treaty and such?
if we ratify a treaty that limits of prohibits private ownership of weapons, which would be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment, it would be up to SCOTUS to call the ball, and depending on how many “wise Latinas” and other idiots there are on the panel, and how the swing votes are feeling that articular day, it could get REAL ugly, ’cause i doubt “turn them in” would be very well or enthusiastically received in many places.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:11 pmYeah nk and those jugdes pass it on down onto the people, just like shit rolls down hill. But that part about the judges just means that they are bound by it also, with the states laws in obeyance to it also. It is still the supreme law of the land. Or would you rather not have state, and state judges bound to the USCON.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:11 pmAnd if a treaty is properly ratified it applies to the states also, because that treaty then becomes part of the supreme law of the land.
Ever hear of diplomatic immunity. Yeah it pisses me off that they can’t be tried in the courts even for murder unless their nation waves the immunity,
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:14 pmpeedoffamerican, you are simply and utterly wrong.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:15 pmShould have added because of treaties to 44.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:15 pmProve it SPQR, anyone can make a statement that something is wrong without providing facts to back you up. See example, SPQR you are wrong.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:18 pmDidn’t Justice Kennedy look to treaties and international law to determine 8th Amendment law?
Whether the constitution says so or not, if it can be argued either way, that means we could wind up with whatever the black robes say.
The Court has been on both sides of a few issues, so obviously constitutional is not as concrete a thing as we’d like it to be.
We all agree that treaties shouldn’t supercede our rights.
It’s interesting that red mentioned the US smalls arms treaty, because that’s something I was specifically thinking about. And it wouldn’t be hard to see them banning ammo or ammunition production, and some court limiting their view of the 2nd amendment to not include ammo.
What if Alito, Robert, Scalia, or Thomas have a medical problem and are replaced by Obama? A lot happens.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:25 pmObviously I meant UN Small Arms treaty rather than US.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:26 pmpeedoffamerican, treaties that contradict the Constitution are not valid.
”The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). ”It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. (78 U.S.), 616, 620 (1871).
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:29 pmBut the trouble is SPQR, it is as simple as a new USSC ruling to change that, stare decisis be damned. The USCON does not state that so one ruling can easily overturn.
This of course I do not want to happen. However, YOU must admit that it is very possible. Especially when you have several current justices that first look to foreign laws and treaties before making a decision. It is very unnerving to say the least, because it is not written in stone in our constitution.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:39 pmand, as we all know SPQR, SCOTUS *never* overrules its own precedents…..
/white smoke
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:40 pmAfter all, nowhere in the USCON is there a right to deprive someone of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law. Then explain how a right to do so under Roe v. Wade can exist. It exists merely because 5 justices can agree that it exists.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:43 pmpeedoffamerican, now that it is clear you really don’t understand what you are talking about, you then retreat to the USSCt can make it up argument. All of the Constitution is to some degree subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. There is no real chance that the USSCt will find that a treaty can override the Constitution.
The bottom line is that you don’t understand how the treaty power interacts with our laws.
As annoying as I find the references to foreign law in Supreme Court opinions, you seem to not have a clue how it is being introduced by the justices you ridicule.
redc1c4, see above.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2010 @ 6:50 pmReally there is no chance whatsoever that the USSC cannot find that a treaty can override the USCON. I am so reassured. SARCASM OFF>
I guess they wouldn’t have to pull it outa their ass because of Article VI then. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”
Because of course they never do rule contrary to what the constitution actually says do they.
Dredd Scott, Miranda v. Arizona, Escobedo v. Illinois (where does it say that police have to inform you of your rights huh?) or maybe even Kelo v. New London that perverted the eminent domain laws. And the list goes on.
The USSC has made many rulings that go against the constitution, and will continue to do so.
Passages from a speech Justice Sotomayor gave to the ACLU in Puerto Rico in April in which she said: “to suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding. What you would be asking American judges to do is to close their minds to some good ideas.”
Justice Ginsberg: This weekend, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg continued to defend the court’s use of international citations in constitutional cases by arguing such a policy would bolster the judicial body’s standing international community.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday during a symposium at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law honoring her tenure on the nation’s highest court.
“There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
And I am the one that doesn’t understand what they are saying? Can I have some of what you are smoking? It must be some powerful shit!!!!!
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:11 pmBasically, the law today is what 5 black robes say it is, and that is not how it was meant to be. It is now an oligarchy such as Jefferson warned against.
“You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” – Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820, to William Jarvis(1)
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:18 pmAlso this in the same letter.
Thomas Jefferson warned of judicial despotism to William Jarvis, September 28, 1820:
“Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so….and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”(5)
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:20 pm“…Perhaps we need to stop wetting our panties, man up, and remember that we are Americans in 2010 and not Germans in 1934…”
Perhaps you should direct such remarks to those over at DK/etc. rather than to people who have noted from the beginning who are enemy is, what they intend to do to us, and what our response should be.
Personally, I find your comment highly offensive.
AD - RtR/OS! (a1830d) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:28 pmYou’ve smoked enough, peedoffamerican.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:31 pmYou can’t stand that you’ve been proven wrong.
peedoffamerican (b6ef3e) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:34 pmYou have not proven anything, certainly not that I’m wrong. You’ve only proven that you can’t figure out what you are talking about. And You’ve just wasted everyone’s time with silly rants.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2010 @ 7:47 pmTo PoffA and Red: You will never win an “argument” with any attorney worth their salt. It is what they do and who they are. Making your points regarding what you deem true is one thing, but as you can readily see you will soon be shut off as an uneducated buffoon whenever you attempt to come at any discussion from a “legal” perspective. They own the words and the interpretations, and will only entertain serious discussion amongst their equals no matter how many cites you trot out. It’s an insiders club not unlike one sees in pols, military, LE, education, medical, etc. Just roll with it and don’t let it get to you. Your anger and frustration is palpable, that’s the only waste I can see here.
political agnostic (ab60e0) — 1/25/2010 @ 10:23 pmdon’t roll me in with POA…. all i said was, albeit sarcastically, that SCOTUS would never overrule their own precedents, such as those listed in #51. i was thinking of Dred Scot, for one, but there are others.
trusting whomever is on the bench at any given time to raise our rights, as enumerated in the Constitution, over whatever restrictions might be in a future treaty is an exercise in trust i’m not willing to participate in. given precedent, etc, they shouldn’t, and likely won’t, but on my planet, Murphy is considered an optimist.
i would like to think that that is a reasoned response and outlook different from whatever conspiracy de jour is being bandied about by others. if y’all don’t want to see it that way, i will be devastated, and likely need years of therapy to recover.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/25/2010 @ 10:44 pm“Of course we aren’t executing terrorists right now.”
We executed one in 2001.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (e86892) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:12 amActually, we executed one in 2009.
imdw (de7003) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:14 am^makes claims of political opponents as pedophiliacs and then claims it was all a joke when called on it.
Dmac (539341) — 1/26/2010 @ 8:01 am