Patterico's Pontifications

6/13/2008

Open Thread on GTMO Supreme Court Case

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:25 am



I’m off today with no time to blog, but a commenter pointed out that Justin Levine’s post on the Boumediene Supreme Court case (granting habeas corpus rights to GTMO detainees) didn’t allow comments. You guys should have a chance to discuss that somewhere. This is the place to do it.

UPDATE: Beldar is more than mildly annoyed at the result.

142 Responses to “Open Thread on GTMO Supreme Court Case”

  1. I would challenge everyone who lauds this decision to honestly answer this question: “How does this make this country safer?”

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  2. I would challenge everyone who lauds this decision to honestly answer this question: “How does this make this country safer?”

    It doesn’t.

    How does it make us unsafer?

    Levi (76ef55)

  3. I would challenge everybody who wants McCain for President to say why it is not a very good thing the Supreme Court did not buy the Administration’s very lame argument that a U.S. naval base is not U.S. sovereign territory.

    nk (4bb2be)

  4. It’s unbelievable that this resonates even with libs. A conflict involving non-military extremist killing tactics. Muslim loyalists w/ no uniform and no rules of war. But we’re now protecting their rights.

    Vermont Neighbor (2464ca)

  5. Hey, Let’s parole a Gitmo detainee to Levi. I’d say Levi would die before he figures it out.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  6. It’s unbelievable that this resonates even with libs. A conflict involving non-military extremist killing tactics. Muslim loyalists w/ no uniform and no rules of war. But we’re now protecting their rights.

    Unbelievable?

    It’s ‘unbelievable’ to you that people want our Constitution respected and adhered to by our government?

    How do you know these guys are extremists? Because the government told you they were? What’s wrong with making them prove it?

    Levi (76ef55)

  7. How does it make us unsafer?

    The short version: It requires the government to present evidence in open court against enemy combatants. This breaches operational security and turns our war fighting apparatus into and prosecutorial entity, depriving them of the time honored right to detain the enemy without charge for the duration of hostilities. It forces us to show our hand, and grants us no benefit whatsoever.

    This is an entirely new paradigm in warfighting. No entity has ever before given POW’s access to its civilian courts, and, in fact, trying them in civilian courts is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, it extends the privileges of the civilian courts to them, while they are immunized from the risks thereof.

    Pablo (99243e)

  8. Say, Leev: If you want to get an “A” on a report about Scalia’s dissent without reading the whole thing, this part is crucial to your understanding of why this decision endangers Americans everywhere, but those on the battlefield in particular (bold mine):

    But even when the military has evidence that it can bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence to the attorneys representing our enemies. And one escalation of procedures that the Court is clear about is affording the detainees increased access to witnesses (perhaps troops serving in Afghanistan?) and to classified information.[…] During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names
    of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the “Blind Sheik’s” defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama Bin Laden within two weeks.

    Abdel-Rahman’s primary attorney? Lynne Stewart.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  9. It’s ‘unbelievable’ to you that people want our Constitution respected and adhered to by our government?

    The Constitution applies to America. These people are not in America.

    Shall we exhaust the appellate process before our troops can execute the death penalty on the battlefield? Is shooting someone cruel and unusual punishment?

    Pablo (99243e)

  10. How do you know these guys are extremists? Because the government told you they were? What’s wrong with making them prove it?

    Were German POW’s granted access to civilian courts? What about those German agents who pretended to be American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge?

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  11. I would challenge everybody who wants McCain for President to say why it is not a very good thing the Supreme Court did not buy the Administration’s very lame argument that a U.S. naval base is not U.S. sovereign territory.

    Maybe because Cuba isn’t part of the U.S.?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  12. How do you know these guys are extremists?

    When I see Nick Berg’s and Daniel Pearl’s severed heads on the internet, I know what’s happening. Do you?

    Vermont Neighbor (2464ca)

  13. Oh the Humanity, I mean Oh the Insanity. Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t this ruling, if we could go back in time, require that all German P.O.W.s held in the U.S. during WWII have the Constitutional Right to a Habeas Corpus Hearing. Also, all the Japanese POWs held in American Territories would be entitled to Constitutional protects. And while we’re talking about Constitutional protections, if Habeas Corpus applies, does not Miranda apply too??? So our soldiers on the battlefield will have to carry cards in every possible language an enemy combatant might speak that explains Miranda in their own language??? The end result of this perversion of well settled case law will be that we just keep the bad guys in foreign contries. Either that, or just shoot the bastards, which I believe the Geneva Convention would allow because they are not wearing a “Uniform” and therefore can be treated as spies, no????

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  14. Xrlq #13,

    Where was McCain born? At the very least, it would have given more ammunition to the Obamaenads.

    nk (4bb2be)

  15. The one thing I wasn’t surprised by is that some detainees who were released were eventually found fighting against the U.S. How is this proof that they were terrorists BEFORE they were captured and held?

    You are captured, held without rights for years, and then released without apology, no compensation — just a “well, we see no reason to hold you anymore.”

    Are you going to immediately take up arms against this country? I’d say it’s a coin flip — you’re either going to be a paranoid wreck for the rest of your life, or you’re going to go balistic on them.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  16. Either that, or just shoot the bastards, which I believe the Geneva Convention would allow because they are not wearing a “Uniform” and therefore can be treated as spies, no????

    that is exactly my point.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  17. The short version: It requires the government to present evidence in open court against enemy combatants.

    That’s bullshit. Classified or otherwise senstive evidence is heard in legal proceedings all the time. Nobody is going to be giving out launch codes in ‘open court.’

    This breaches operational security and turns our war fighting apparatus into and prosecutorial entity, depriving them of the time honored right to detain the enemy without charge for the duration of hostilities.

    What exactly is ‘the duration of hostilities’ for the War on Terror?

    It’s basically forever, isn’t it? Just like the war on drugs? How is it possible to defeat terrorism, and thereby have ‘the duration of hostilities’ come to a close?

    It forces us to show our hand,

    As I’ve already said, no it doesn’t.

    and grants us no benefit whatsoever.

    It’s meant to prevent us from making mistakes about who we’re locking up. In a nation of laws, respecting the law is a benefit in and of itself.

    This is an entirely new paradigm in warfighting. No entity has ever before given POW’s access to its civilian courts, and, in fact, trying them in civilian courts is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, it extends the privileges of the civilian courts to them, while they are immunized from the risks thereof.

    This isn’t really a war we’re fighting. The people at Guantanamo are from all different countries and were all collected by different means, they’re not POWs in any meaningful sense. They’re people we are imprisoning. And the government would have us blindly trust their word that they are the bad guys. What’s wrong with making them prove it?

    Levi (76ef55)

  18. Where was McCain born? At the very least, it would have given more ammunition to the Obamaenads.

    The Canal Zone was US territory. Gitmo is not.

    Pablo (99243e)

  19. When I see Nick Berg’s and Daniel Pearl’s severed heads on the internet, I know what’s happening. Do you?

    So because a few people got their heads cut off, you’re willing to vest absolute power and trust in the government to detain whomever they want and not force them to prove or justify any of their actions?

    Levi (76ef55)

  20. When I see Nick Berg’s and Daniel Pearl’s severed heads on the internet, I know what’s happening. Do you?

    How is this relevant? Yes there are horrible people out there who no one can defend. But you’re using that to justify treating everyone who is a suspect as though they’re Daniel Pearl’s killer.

    In other words, you’re justifying treating everyone — the innocent and guilty — more harshly just because of the actions of the guilty.

    Which, um, surprise, is exactly what’s so repulsive about terrorists.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  21. Basically, liberal support for this decision derives from the fact that liberals want to make sure that no one is ever detained who’s innocent. The odds of this happening are greatly exaggerated by liberals, but even apart from that, their concern is dangerously ill-fitting in the war context. If this Supreme Court had been around in the 1940s, we’d be saluting with straight arms.

    Alan (0cf397)

  22. That’s bullshit. Classified or otherwise senstive evidence is heard in legal proceedings all the time. Nobody is going to be giving out launch codes in ‘open court.’

    No, it isn’t. It requires us to presnt evidence, through discovery, to the enemy combatant. That’s a whole new ballgame.

    What exactly is ‘the duration of hostilities’ for the War on Terror?

    From the time hostilities start until the time they end. Shall I draw it in crayon for you?

    As I’ve already said, no it doesn’t.

    You’ve said it, but you haven’t shown it. Assertion is not argument.

    It’s meant to prevent us from making mistakes about who we’re locking up.

    I haven’t heard you complaining about mistakes in who we’ve let go. Did I miss something? And tell me, when, in what war, have we ever had such a process? Who else has ever done such a thing, ever, anywhere?

    This isn’t really a war we’re fighting. The people at Guantanamo are from all different countries and were all collected by different means, they’re not POWs in any meaningful sense. They’re people we are imprisoning.

    Says you. Based upon what, exactly?

    Pablo (99243e)

  23. How is this relevant? Yes there are horrible people out there who no one can defend. But you’re using that to justify treating everyone who is a suspect as though they’re Daniel Pearl’s killer.

    See, Phil, you want to treat all this as criminal action. We have the guy who cut Danny Pearl’s head off, and we killed the guy who took Nick Berg’s. Suspicion of specific acts is irrelevant. This is not criminal prosecution, this is war. The only question should be this: Are they enemy combatants?

    Pablo (99243e)

  24. The costs to the country at large are simply too great. I’m sure not all of the 400,000 German POWs we brought to American soil were guilty of war crimes. But it would’ve crippled this country’s ability to fight the war if we’d given them the rights the liberals claim for the detained Islamists. And I think the Boumediene decision will cripple this country’s ability to fight the present war.

    The idea that we have to risk all this danger to the country just to make sure that no one is ever wrongly detained, is letting the principle of “Let justice be done though Earth should perish” run wild. The Boumediene ruling is the embodiment of the liberal passion for justice at all costs. But justice at all costs is not justice.

    Alan (0cf397)

  25. All prisoners of war should now file a case in US federal court and demand that each and every one of their cases goes to SCOTUS.

    Neo (cba5df)

  26. . But it would’ve crippled this country’s ability to fight the war if we’d given them the rights the liberals claim for the detained Islamists.

    Exactly right.

    Pablo (99243e)

  27. The only question should be this: Are they enemy combatants?

    So do they get rights before they’re found to be enemy combatants?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  28. The Canal Zone was US territory. Gitmo is not.

    So I guess Cuban authorities can go in, inspect the kitchens for cleaningness, the structures for soundness, put up parking meters and patrol the streets for public safety?

    nk (4bb2be)

  29. Justine — check your settings on your WORDPRESS page. You have had your comments turned off on several posts in a row.

    wls (0ee728)

  30. No, it isn’t. It requires us to presnt evidence, through discovery, to the enemy combatant. That’s a whole new ballgame.

    You’re full of shit. It’s not like we’d have to impart every single detail of, say, an eavesdropping program. And surely you see the potential for abuse if the government can simply say, “Uh, our evidence is classified.”

    From the time hostilities start until the time they end. Shall I draw it in crayon for you?

    Yes asshole, that’s why I asked. By definition, there can never be an end to something as broadly described as ‘The War on Terror.’ You think that even if we were to capture Osama and turn the Middle East into a flourishing democracy, terrorism will no longer be a problem?

    You’ve said it, but you haven’t shown it. Assertion is not argument.

    ??? I think you should have to show that classified and private information is frequently disclosed in courts in the United States.

    I haven’t heard you complaining about mistakes in who we’ve let go. Did I miss something? And tell me, when, in what war, have we ever had such a process? Who else has ever done such a thing, ever, anywhere?

    This isn’t like other wars, where we are fighting against armies and countries. We are the invaders and the occupiers this time, and there’s not really a protocol for how we’re meant to treat the people that we’re rounding up, mainly because we’re not supposed to be doing crap like invading and occupying in the first place.

    Says you. Based upon what, exactly?

    Isn’t that an argument that Republicans make, as well? ‘They’re not wearing uniforms, they don’t march in columns, therefore they can’t be PoW’s and they can’t have rights.’ Am I high, or have I not heard that repeated hundreds of times over the years?

    Levi (76ef55)

  31. #21, 22:
    Those were examples just to help you well-read men fill in the blanks.

    If you don’t know/care about the ambushes and surprise attacks, lack of uniforms and failure to comply with the Geneva rules, then the brevity of my post was too much for your small minds.

    Anti-war I understand; your terrorist empathy baffles.

    FWIW, it is important for our taxpaying liberals that we follow procedure. The detainees I could give a rat’s ass about. Just different priorities than either of you. I’m proud to say, different loyalties as well.

    Vermont Neighbor (2464ca)

  32. Simple solution.
    Don’t take prisoners.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  33. your terrorist empathy baffles.

    I don’t empathize with terrorist. I empathize with innocent people who are treated identically to terrorists, because you think it’s too great a “cost” to sort them out.

    You’re lack of empathy with innocent people baffles me — especially since you supposedly hate terrorists so much. Why? They just do what you do — try to get at their enemies without regard to innocents.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  34. Simple solution.
    Don’t take prisoners.

    Great plan — the solution to terrorism is fight just like the terrorists.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  35. Great plan — the solution to terrorism is fight just like the terrorists.

    So when German agents who were pretending to be our troops were shot to death upon capture, our predecessors were acting like terrorists?

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  36. You’re full of shit. It’s not like we’d have to impart every single detail of, say, an eavesdropping program.

    And what on Earth leads you to believe that? What part of “present the evidence against them in federal court” are you having trouble with?

    You think that even if we were to capture Osama and turn the Middle East into a flourishing democracy, terrorism will no longer be a problem?

    Why, yes. Yes, I do. We’ve already got it very much on the run, which you can tell by their failure to mount a significant attack on the west for years now.

    This isn’t like other wars, where we are fighting against armies and countries.

    Very good. This is true.

    We are the invaders and the occupiers this time, and there’s not really a protocol for how we’re meant to treat the people that we’re rounding up, mainly because we’re not supposed to be doing crap like invading and occupying in the first place.

    Well, we are not in any country without the permission of its sovereign government. And we did not invade any country without a UN resolution to support such an invasion. So, I don’t know where you came up with this “we’re not supposed to be doing crap” stuff. Care to elaborate?

    Isn’t that an argument that Republicans make, as well? ‘They’re not wearing uniforms, they don’t march in columns, therefore they can’t be PoW’s and they can’t have rights.’ Am I high, or have I not heard that repeated hundreds of times over the years?

    The drift of that is that they can be summarily executed. But we, though we aren’t required to, have granted them POW staus. You want to grant them citizenship. And, very possibly, you’re high.

    Pablo (99243e)

  37. What happened to those German agents was wrong, wrong, wrong.

    What happened to the detainees in Gitmo was wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The Reverend Terence Fformby-Smythe (c5d682)

  38. “…German agents who were pretending to be our troops…”

    These men were shot under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions that held that those conducting operations on the battlefield, absent proper uniform of the force they represent, are “spies and sabotoers”, and are subject to summary execution for their actions. The Germans did the same to the various “resistance” forces that they captured.

    Al Queda, et al, fall into the same classification.

    The solution is elementary, my dear Watson!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  39. Phil wrote: …there are horrible people out there who no one can defend.

    ***Sigh***. Once again…Lynne Stewart.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  40. Al Queda, et al, fall into the same classification.

    Wow, you almost said it. It’s the “et al” that I’m worried about. Why are you so dismissive of them that you won’t even identify them?

    Can you say it? “Al Queda and the people we mistakenly identify, imprison and torture as Al Queda fall into this same classification.” Come on, it’s easy. They we can speak honestly about what’s at issue here.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  41. These men were shot under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions that held that those conducting operations on the battlefield, absent proper uniform of the force they represent, are “spies and sabotoers”, and are subject to summary execution for their actions. The Germans did the same to the various “resistance” forces that they captured.

    Al Queda, et al, fall into the same classification.

    The solution is elementary, my dear Watson!

    Senator Diane Feinstein said this.

    She is right. Gitmo is a blight on our integrity because it shows we are not serious about the problem.

    Killing terrorists upon capture will show that we are getting serious about the problem.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  42. Great plan — the solution to terrorism is fight just like the terrorists.

    Hardly… Catching someone in the act of, or preparing to commit an act of, violence against civillian or Military targets without a uniform or as part of a recognized army (and the Mahdi army isn’t ACTUALLY an army, as only a sovereign nation can have ove of those), they are spies or sabotours. They can and should be shot upon capture.

    The rest hand over to the officials of the country they were caught in. In Iraq and Afgahnistan, I’m sure they will find ways to extract actionable intelligence.

    And if you think cold rooms, bright lights, and waterboarding is torture, buddy you don’t WANT to know what they’d do…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  43. Queda and the people we mistakenly identify, imprison and torture as Al Queda fall into this same classification

    You often make this claim…

    Name one, or give an exact number of people we have tortured that were NOT actual terrorists…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  44. Killing terrorists upon capture will show that we are getting serious about the problem.

    I like how you think simply killing people is “getting serious” about the problem.

    I swear, talking to neocons sometimes feels like dealing with Lennie from “Of Mice and Men.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  45. Name one, or give an exact number of people we have tortured that were NOT actual terrorists…

    Riget. Talk to us, Lennie. And stop petting that mouse. You’re gonna kill it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  46. Name one, or give an exact number of people we have tortured that were NOT actual terrorists…

    Oh, it’s up to ME to name them. Because after all, with all this government transparency, that should be easy, right?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  47. Yes, it is up to you, because you made the assertation… You make the claim, you prove the claim.

    Or STFU.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  48. It’s your complaint, Phil. Flesh it out.

    If you don’t know of anyone we’ve “mistakenly identified, imprisoned and tortures as al-Qaeda” why would you assume that it’s happened? Why don’t you prove that you haven’t molested any little boys? Or would you prefer that the standard be proof that you have before anyone assumes it to be true?

    Pablo (99243e)

  49. Vermont Neighbor, at 6: the government’s original position (not in this case, in the predecessor cases) boiled down to: the state should have the authority to declare someone to be an enemy combatant and hold them indefinitely with no external review.

    Without having any reason to believe that power has been abused in this case, it’s pretty clearly a power which could be abused, and worse, which could be abused without the abuse ever being detected.

    I found that fairly objectionable.

    Now, the administration has modified its position in response to previous rulings on the subject. It has provided a system by which someone’s classification as an enemy combatant can be challenged. But it’s not clear that that system actually affords a fair hearing … and the debate before the court in this case was really about who has the authority to decide if the system affords a fair hearing? Does that power lie with the courts in general, via the habeas process; or does it lie with some limited subset of the courts as determined by the MCA?

    I could have lived with the system established by the MCA; it was an enormous improvement over previous systems put forward by this administration. But I can live with this result, as well. But then again: i’m more worried about the potential for abuse by future administrations than I am with the potential that a bad person will be let loose.

    —–

    Pablo, at 11: with all due respect, the notion that Guantanamo Bay is “not America” is absurd. Our lease with Cuba gives us complete control over the territory; Cuban law does not run there. If American law does not run there, then it is a lawless land … and if the US can create a lawless land there by ceding it to Cuba and then leasing it back forever, it could create the same lawless land in DC by ceding it to Canada and then leasing it back forever.

    I understand the concern that the precedent this sets could be extended to the battlefield, but I think it’s fairly easy to distinguish decisions made on the field of battle from the treatment of people who are confined, six years after they were apprehended on the field of battle. The flexibility needed on the field of battle really isn’t needed in the latter case.

    —-

    NK, at 16: Sen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a part of the United States at the time. It’s really no different a situation than Sen. Goldwater, who was born in the Arizona Territory.

    —-
    Vermont Neighbor, at 33: for me, it’s not about terrorist empathy. It’s about making sure the system has sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure that some day the government doesn’t discover that it could disappear people with unpopular political viewpoints and have it never be discovered. The MCA system was sufficient for that, which is why I could have lived with it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  50. Phil, perhaps you can point to one post or comment of yours that didn’t take the side of sworn enemies.

    Any posts about how the victims of terrorists should feel or why their anger is misplaced? It’s really all America/Israel’s fault anyway, right?

    We deserve the terrorism, because we are the bad guys. Is there any point at which you defend America…or is all bashing, all the time with you?

    Talking to leftists is like talking to Baghdad Bob. The truth is not relevant…not matter what is passing by the window behind them.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  51. Scott Jacobs, at 45: does it matter whether or not people have been tortured and detained who weren’t terrorists? Isn’t it enough that it’s possible and that the flow of evidence as to whether or not it has happened is controlled by the people who would have done the torturing and detaining?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  52. The problem is caused by trying to use a law enforcement/civil justice template to analyze a military warfare issue. The military has military justice procedures to handle enemy combatants and federal courts would have been wise to have butted out absent some overriding interest, e.g. captured U.S. citizen.

    But then that’s what the Left wants, more courts, more confusion, more bashing the military and fewer victories against the terrorists. Send the FBI to the war zone to investigate terrorists — yeah, that’ll show ’em. While they’re at it they can go ahead and file that lawsuit against OPEC just to show we mean business.

    capitano (03e5ec)

  53. et al…
    I would name their orginization if I had the name(s) they are currently using. However, since they seem to change names as fast as some people change their socks, it would be impossible to keep up.
    Anyway, that is what I thought the legal term “et al” was for: to identify those like the named person/orginization/etc without having have a specific name for them (sort of like an un-indicted co-conspirator; but in this case, an un-identified, indicted conspirator).

    The argument over GTMO is beginning to resemble the argument over the death penalty. Just as the Left is unable to name an innocent person who has been executed, they are unable to name an innocent person being detained, let alone prosecuted under the Military Tribunal system.

    I hope your reasoning returns before you become another Daniel Pearl.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  54. trying to use a law enforcement/civil justice template to analyze a military warfare issue.

    Certainly part of the problem is that liberals by and large think terrorism is a law enforcement issue and conservatives by and large think it is a warfare issue. I think that’s pretty clear.

    But I think that conservatives have done a bad job of explaining how the military warfare model ensures that only appropriate people are handled via that model.

    I mean: you want to round up people who are involved in schemes to blow up dozens or hundreds or thousands of civilians and detain them forever? Fine with me.

    But explain to me how you ensure that the people who you are detaining forever are actually involved in such schemes … in a way which doesn’t boil down to “trust people who say they’re doing the right thing but can’t explain their methods without giving away important secrets”.

    Because if that’s the answer, then there’s *no guarantee* the power won’t be abused … and the history of mankind’s relation to power strongly suggests that it will be.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  55. Isn’t it enough that it’s possible and that the flow of evidence as to whether or not it has happened is controlled by the people who would have done the torturing and detaining?

    I dunno… Isn’t the fact that it’s possible you rape 5-year old boys enough to put you in prison?

    I mean really… The evidence is all held by you. We have only your word that you don’t…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  56. aphreal @ #53…
    You fall into the common fallacy of the Left, in that you demand perfection in an imperfect world.

    We cannot devise solutions for what might happen, only for those things that have happened.

    Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  57. Do we not hold the state, which has a monopoly on the use of force and an incredible power in the lives of people, to a higher standard than we hold individuals?

    In my mind that’s the entire point to the system of procedural controls we have erected around the use of state power.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  58. Perfection is impossible in a perfect world, granted; and we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    But neither should we allow the inability to attain the perfect to be justification for choosing the ok instead of striving for the good.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  59. It’s your complaint, Phil. Flesh it out.

    If I was asking that the U.S. Government be punished for detaining and torturing innocent people intentionally, THEN I’d have to show which and how many detainees were innocent.

    I’m saying there’s no process in place, no rights available, for the accused to defend themselves against the charges.

    That’s not an accusation of specific wrongdoing against the U.S. — as I said, I can’t prove what all we’ve done wrong because they won’t let us know what’s being done.

    I can bring up the alleged wrongful “renditions” and all that stuff, but I’m sure you’re all know about that and are perfectly comfortable with it. And I’m not asking that we punish the U.S. for those things, just that we stop saying they’re OK, because of the risk they create for innocents to be wronged.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  60. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

    And “good” is killing/torturing/imprisoning people without any trial or procedural safeguards, right?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  61. Today is a day history will know forever.

    Thank you for your time.

    The Outlander (e46c56)

  62. Is it not ironical that this terrorists want to be protected by the very ideology they so hate and kill? On one end, they fight democracy and rail against it as western madness but on this side they cling to that same democracy to save them. And here we are, confused as to what should be the best way to handle them. My question is, if a terrorist like OBL were to be captured. Would he have some rights? Would the state assign a lawyer to him as a defence lawyer to protect Osama’s rights? Must he be a beneficiary of the same democracy and freedom he hates and seeks to destroy? Is it not time to review some of these wartime treaties to match with the complexities of today’s warfare?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  63. a @ #60…
    There you go again, moving the goal-posts.
    Define a standard, and stick to it. I know it sounds difficult, but in those immortal words from ALOTO: If it was easy, everyone could do it!

    If OK keeps me and mine safe, I can live with that; after all, I’m not the one conducting a campaign to overthrow Western Civilization.

    If you’re not willing to comply, and use, the entire range of options available under the GC, quit citing them to justify your opposition to the detention of these terrorists.

    Summary execution, in the field, will solve all of J. Kennedy’s concerns with Boumediene.
    Impeachment will solve ours with SCOTUS!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  64. If OK keeps me and mine safe, I can live with that

    Wow, this is a dance that’s been played many times before throughout history . . . “they came for xxxx and I did nothing . . . then they came for me.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  65. “Must he be a beneficiary of the same democracy and freedom he hates and seeks to destroy?”

    Only until it’s destroyed. Are you in a hurry for that to happen?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  66. Another Drew: please demonstrate to me how I have moved the goal posts. “There you go again” implies I’ve done it before, but i’ll leave that aside; how have I moved the goalposts in this conversation? In particular, please point to where I’ve used the GC to justify my opposition to the detention of the terrorists. I belive you’ll find that I have not. 🙂

    I’m deliberately not arguing law, because i’ve not finished reading the decision from yesterday, am not familiar with the GC or the underlying precedents, and am generally not well enough versed in this area of law to do anything more than speculate.

    I’m arguing political theory: the power to name someone a terrorist and detain them, without review of that classification, will be abused, sooner or later. The US has good structures in place to reduce this risk in general; but our politicians are no more immune to the lure of power than are the politicians of other states, and it is unwise to leave in place something as easily abused as the power to name someone an unperson and hold them indefinitely.

    I’m also arguing that, just as we have a responsibility to ourselves to strive to be the best people we can be, we have a responsibility to one another to strive to build the best state, and the best society, we can; and in that endeavor, while we should keep in mind the danger of being blinded by our pursuit of perfection, we should also keep in mind the danger of giving up as soon as we’ve achieved “good enough”.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  67. Pablo wrote: We’ve already got [Al Qaeda] very much on the run, which you can tell by their failure to mount a significant attack on the west for years now.

    It’s simultaneously amusing and maddening listening to the BDS-afflicted attempt to explain this away. Here’s how Arianna Huffington tried on the Laura Ingraham show May 29, 2008:

    INGRAHAM: I want to understand how liberals think, because I want to learn something. Do liberals want America to be a superpower?

    HUFFINGTON: I think liberals — at least I can speak for myself — want America to be safe. I think the most important, em, qualification for a President, can he or she make America safe, can he protect this country, and that is where I think the priorities should be, and whatever that is…

    INGRAHAM: We haven’t had an attack since ’01, though, Arianna. We haven’t had an attack since September 11. That’s not positive?

    HUFFINGTON: You know that doesn’t mean anything, because you know that terrorists have their own…

    INGRAHAM: “Doesn’t mean anything?”

    HUFFINGTON: They have their own timetable. I don’t know, we don’t know what it is being prepared at the moment, and I…

    INGRAHAM: That’s why we have to be aggressive, with tracking their finances, with, with uh, with making sure we’re using every means at our disposal with terrorist surveillance and on issue after issue, the left is against those policies!

    HUFFINGTON: No, I don’t think so at all. I think that we have to absolutely track their finance, I am completely in agreement with you. I think that using torture means that America is abandoning the moral high ground, and there’s no question that uh, right now, what we have done, the way we have lost the war on…for hearts and minds, which you know is an essential part of what is happening in the War on Terror, means that we are LESS safe. When you have a soldier using a Qu’ran as target practice, the ripple effect in that in terms of American safety are enormous!

    INGRAHAM:…It’s one soldier! We have 150,000 men and women serving in Iraq, and we had ONE soldier that did that! I don’t think it’s good to extrapolate from that, Arianna. I think that’s very dangerous…

    So, lemme get this straight; because of intelligence agencies that broke terrorists and thwarted deadly plots through waterboarding, a handful of Americans who went way out of bounds at Abu Ghraib, Americans responsible for screwups as Blackwater contractors, and some individual soldiers who did stupid things like disrespecting the Qu’ran, the USA has lost “moral high ground” to people who either want to a) kill innocent non-combatants by the thousands, b) kill innocent non-combatants by the dozens, or c) encourage their sons and daughters to kill themselves to accomplish a) or b).

    It’s amazing to me that people spouting such cockeyed nonsense can speak without drooling.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  68. What happens when we transfer all Gitmo detainees to afgan/iraqi/turkish territory and hold them there … problem solved. All litigation should then be moot … and let the iraqis do the waterboarding … or worse.

    MOG (f57a20)

  69. So, lemme get this straight;… the USA has lost “moral high ground” to people who either want to a) kill innocent non-combatants by the thousands, b) kill innocent non-combatants by the dozens, or c) encourage their sons and daughters to kill themselves to accomplish a) or b).

    Nah, those paragons of morality are laughing their asses off that a) American navel gazers have taken up their cause and b) that it’s so easy to play the MSM and make the head-choppers the aggrieved party.

    capitano (03e5ec)

  70. “Striving for the good” is a wonderful phrase, but what does it mean?
    Before we can discuss the ramifications of the policy you espouse, we must know what the parameters of that policy are – Words mean something! Please define yours.

    That’s what I mean about moving goalposts. Until words are defined in a manner that both sides can agree upon, no discourse is possible, because both sides will be talking past each other.

    I stand for the strict enforcement of GC, or the abandonement of them (just like we walked away from the missile-defense treaty).
    Strict enforcement would call for the summary execution of “spies and sabatours” caught in the field. No Miranda, No HC; just 147-grains of justice under Rule 7.62!

    Convince me of how I’m wrong, but first we must agree on terms of the arguement.
    Are you unsure of my position?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  71. Wasting your time trying to reason with the flaming liberals. They’re still under the impression if we’d just make nice, they’d all begin to love us.

    Beginning to think there are 5 SCJ’s bought and under the control of the european socialist.

    gerald A (0f47af)

  72. And what on Earth leads you to believe that? What part of “present the evidence against them in federal court” are you having trouble with?

    It happens all the god damn time. Look at the court system we have in place for juveniles, it’s possible to keep their identities and their crimes secret. Better yet, look at the FISA courts, at least, look at how the FISA courts are supposed to work. The government makes their case to that court in secret, specific methods and general methodology are not disclosed to the public in those cases, why would they be disclosed in these cases?

    Why, yes. Yes, I do. We’ve already got it very much on the run, which you can tell by their failure to mount a significant attack on the west for years now.

    Are you kidding? Terrorism is a tactic, it’s as old as civilization, it’s as old as humanity. And we’re going to ‘defeat’ it by catching one guy, and turning one country into a democracy? What about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? What about the IRA in Europe? What about large swaths of the African continent?

    Well, we are not in any country without the permission of its sovereign government.

    Come on man, whatever is going on in Iraq, it’s the height of disingenuousness to call anything that occurs within its borders ‘sovereign.’ There are plenty of Iraqis that don’t want us in their country. The ones that do only only fear what might happen during the power vacuum that would ensue.

    And we did not invade any country without a UN resolution to support such an invasion. So, I don’t know where you came up with this “we’re not supposed to be doing crap” stuff. Care to elaborate?

    There’s nothing in any of our founding documents, nor in the writings or speeches of any of our founding fathers, that suggest that the idea of preventative war was a good one. They were rebelling against an empire, remember? The idea that we’d invade and occupy a foreign country to reshape them in our own image, particularly one that never attacked us and had no capability or intent to do so, most certainly has them spinning in their graves.

    It’s also amusing how quickly you run to the U.N. resolution to justify your beloved leader’s absent-minded invasion, considering how loudly and how uniformly the U.N. is criticized by Republicans on every other issue.

    The drift of that is that they can be summarily executed. But we, though we aren’t required to, have granted them POW staus. You want to grant them citizenship. And, very possibly, you’re high.

    Ah yes, we could and quite probably should be summarily executing people, but we’re going above and beyond, we’re really doing them a massive favor, by simply detaining them forever. Because we should be killing them.

    You’re a joke. Do any of your buddies stand by such nonsense, I wonder?

    Levi (76ef55)

  73. You often make this claim…

    Name one, or give an exact number of people we have tortured that were NOT actual terrorists…

    I can name one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

    Levi (76ef55)

  74. The problem is caused by trying to use a law enforcement/civil justice template to analyze a military warfare issue. The military has military justice procedures to handle enemy combatants and federal courts would have been wise to have butted out absent some overriding interest, e.g. captured U.S. citizen.

    But then that’s what the Left wants, more courts, more confusion, more bashing the military and fewer victories against the terrorists. Send the FBI to the war zone to investigate terrorists — yeah, that’ll show ‘em. While they’re at it they can go ahead and file that lawsuit against OPEC just to show we mean business.

    The thing is, terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a military one. The is one of the pitfalls of invading and occupying countries. It’s not a conventional war with airstrikes and rolling tank battles and holding territory, we’re in living and working with a civilian population among whom our enemy can move unseen. That we have no idea what to do with the people that invariably are going to start taking potshots at us – are they the military’s problem or our legal system’s? – speaks to how woefully unprepared our moron President was when he started us off on this misadventure. His hastily thrown together at the last minute plan seems to be to simply label everyone a terrorist, and count on that frightened and simple-minded base of his to run around advocating summary executions.

    Levi (76ef55)

  75. I can name one.

    Really…

    The Canadian government had concluded that he was tortured based upon unsworn interviews with Arar and others.[7] Standards set down by the Istanbul Protocol for determining the effects of torture were not used.[8]

    Once again proving that he doesn’t even readthe stuff HE links, let alone what WE do…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  76. I like how you think simply killing people is “getting serious” about the problem.

    It is hardly surprising you take the side of al Qaeda, Phil.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  77. His hastily thrown together at the last minute plan seems to be to simply label everyone a terrorist, and count on that frightened and simple-minded base of his to run around advocating summary executions.

    Summary executions worked well against German agents who pretended to be American soldiers.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  78. Summary executions worked well against German agents who pretended to be American soldiers.

    What kind of an idiot do you have to be to continually compare the war in Iraq to World War II? There is nothing even remotely similar about the two conflicts at all. The closest parallel to this war is when the Soviets tried to take over Afghanistan, why don’t you compare it to that?

    Levi (76ef55)

  79. Once again proving that he doesn’t even readthe stuff HE links, let alone what WE do…

    Assuming he wasn’t tortured, I’d still consider it torture to be deported to a country you’d fled out of fear to be imprisoned for a year, wouldn’t you?

    Levi (76ef55)

  80. Wow, now it’s torture to be sent to a country you don’t want to be in?

    Setting the bar kinda low, aren’t you?

    Steverino (b42fd7)

  81. Wow, now it’s torture to be sent to a country you don’t want to be in?

    Setting the bar kinda low, aren’t you?

    Well if the American government stopped you at an airport and then they sent you to a prison in Syria for no good reason, what would you call it?

    Levi (76ef55)

  82. I wouldn’t call it torture, and the fact that you think it is speaks volumes about your ignorance of the subject.

    Steverino (b42fd7)

  83. By the way, your analogy doesn’t hold. I’ve never been a citizen of Syria.

    Once again, you get called on your bullshit, and try to dance around it by reframing the issue.

    Steverino (b42fd7)

  84. I wouldn’t call it torture, and the fact that you think it is speaks volumes about your ignorance of the subject.

    I asked you what you would call it. If it’s not torture, it’s something, isn’t it? What would you call it?

    I don’t see how being flown to an oppressive country like Syria to be imprisoned in a tiny little cell for months and months can’t be considered torture. You conservatives seem to think that prisoner abuse only amounts to torture if there are bruises and cuts. You don’t think there’s ways to terrorize and torture people psychologically? You don’t think that restricting a person to a prison cell for no god damn reason has a profound effect on that person?

    Levi (76ef55)

  85. By the way, your analogy doesn’t hold. I’ve never been a citizen of Syria.

    Well no shit, but this is a hypothetical. You’re supposed to pretend.

    Levi (76ef55)

  86. The closest parallel to this war is when the Soviets tried to take over Afghanistan…

    The Soviets tired to take over Afghanistan to overthrow an dictator and allow free elections! Wow, Who Knew!

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  87. You’re supposed to pretend.

    Another great insight into Levi’s thinking.
    Read the book title and pretend you know what it said inside.

    Buckshot (849e8a)

  88. I join in Justice Scalia’s dissent and agree that the Nation will come to regret the decision in this case. Justice Roberts also was eloquent in his dissent. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case because Congress stipped them of their jurisdiction via the “Exceptions” clause of the Constitution. Five unelected members of the judiciary are now making policy decisions. Something is rotten in Denmark.

    Infidel (56a0a8)

  89. The Soviets tired to take over Afghanistan to overthrow an dictator and allow free elections! Wow, Who Knew!

    Setting aside your laughably incorrect and demonstrably false description of the reasons we went in to Iraq, if the mission is the only reasonable measure for how we compare wars to each other, then how can you make comparisons between the Iraq war and World War II in the first place? We weren’t in Europe to ‘overthrow a dictator and allow free elections,’ we were there because they were trying to take over the world, and lest we forget, they declared war on us.

    The Soviet-Afghan war is more appropriate as an analogy because it’s a similar clash of civilizations; a super-advanced military from a secular country invading and trying to occupy a third-world country inhabited by disorganized and disjointed Islamic fanatics. You can’t see that that provides a better basis of comparison? You don’t think we should be applying lessons learnied from that Middle Eastern conflict to our current Middle Eastern conflict?

    Conservatives only compare the Iraq war to World War II because it was our shining moment, and everything has turned out swimmingly. You should stop, because it’s absolutely wrong, and basing our current operation on that operation’s model is a pretty good way to get lots of people killed.

    Levi (76ef55)

  90. I’ll have a post up on this next week — recovering from surgery this week and the oxycodone makes coherence for any extended time impossible.

    But my take is that Kennedy thinks he’s etched his “Miranda v. Arizona” decision in the history of the Court.

    wls (0ee728)

  91. We’re not Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq. Or Peru. We are America and we can afford a lot of justice. All the way to the scaffold, firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber or gurney, if necessary.

    And yeah, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the best thing to have ever happened to that shithole, next to our invasion. They are a bunch of Seventh century barbarians. The Soviets tried to bring them into the Nineteenth Century and failed. We are trying to bring them into the Twenty-first. I doubt that we will succeed. But at least we can protect ourselves from them.

    nk (4bb2be)

  92. Levi – Your disingenuous mendouceous arguments are as predictable as the sun rising.

    JD (5f0e11)

  93. wls #92,

    Wishing you the best and hoping it was not serious and the operation was successful.

    nk (4bb2be)

  94. …then how can you make comparisons between the Iraq war and World War II in the first place?

    Because in WW2, the Japanese attacked us and we spent the greater part of our resources fighting the greater threat – Germany. That little backwater country with nuclear physicists and that had used chemical weapons in WWI.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  95. wls: Hope the bed-rest and quiet over the week-end that your Doc prescribed allows you to get some-what up-to-speed on Monday, or ?

    Mr. J.Kennedy might hope that he has etched a Miranda, but I kind of think it is more of a Dred Scott, or a Plessey. Either way he will join a pantheon, just not the one he wants.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  96. We know now, not to rely on the Syrian Mukharabat
    for intelligence purpose (thanks a lot; Richard
    Armitage, & Flynt Leaveritt). One would never guess an organization; once employed Eichmann’s deputy Alois Brunner, could ever do no wrong. Maher Arar’s brother was in the Syrian Moslem Brotherhood; the Syrians floated information to
    the Canadians implicating him, so they would hold him and threby put pressure on the brother. Curiously, since 1982, the MB has not been to vocal on attacking their supposed enemy. Folks like Zammar and Darkanzali, provided support for
    the Hamburg Cell of the 9/11 plot; Mustafa Setmarian working with the later fugure, planned the Madrid and London train bombings. Abu Yaalon directed one of the Syrian ratlines into Iraq, and most curiously, the MB splinter Jund Al Shams, last two targets was former Lebanese prime minister Hariri and the American embassy in Damascus. The Egyptian security services, aren’t that much better in their sourcing; in fact Egyptians like the late Abu Haf Al Masri, Ayub al Masri,the late Abu Hamza Rabia, Seif al Adel, Abu Ubeida al Masri (the late planner of the
    transatlantic bombing plots)seem to predominate in AQs ranks; yet except for the ocassional Sinai blast; don’t target the Egyptians all that much; one wonders why.

    narciso (d671ab)

  97. The comments McCain made on Thursday, the day the decision was handed down, were quite ambiguous, unless the news reports I read were omitting some pretty crucial stuff. He said on Thusday something to the effect that we have to live with this decision but we should pay attention to the concerns expressed in Chief Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion. The comments he made on Thursday didn’t clearly say whether he thought the decision itself was right or wrong.

    But the comments McCain made on Friday were quite different. He condemned the decision in no uncertain terms, saying it’s one of the worst decisions in the country’s history. How very interesting. He didn’t say that on the day the decision was handed down–unless he did but the media decided not to report it, which I find implausible. What to make of this?

    I doubt McCain ever bothered to read the decision, and I’m sure that in any case he was properly briefed as to the full import of the decision, so I don’t think he shifted gears because he sat down to read the decision and discovered that it was much worse than he’d previously thought. I think that what’s really going on is that McCain is lying about his opinion of Boumediene because he remembers that he’s got to win at least some Republican support in order to win this election, and can’t do it if he keeps tacking left, as he’s been doing ever since getting the nomination. Maybe the guy isn’t deaf in his right ear after all. Still, this does mean that he can’t be trusted to speak the truth about what he thinks, even on issues of critical importance to this country’s survival.

    Alan (0cf397)

  98. It’s time for the other branches to ignore the plain meaning of SCOTUS decisions. SCOTUS has abrogated their power through the abuse of power.

    I am very serious. It’s time for a reverse Marbury v. Madison. This is the perfect decision with which to do it.

    Either SCOTUS stands down, or we finally have a real debate, with real consequences (dare I say “CHANGE?”). Bush needs to just go on his merry way by ignoring the mandates set down in this decision. Let SCOTUS/the Judiciary come after him. As was famously said, “How many divisions does the Pope (SCOTUS) have?”

    Ed (a9dfde)

  99. Thanks for the good wishes. Minor throat surgery, but very painful. Should be back to normal by Monday.

    wls (0ee728)

  100. I agree we should suspend the Constitution, whenever its convienent…..

    Because if we are scared, then we should be able to lock up forever, anyone who is defineable as threatening now and in the future, ie liberals, right wing talk show hosts, left handed pitchers with a 6 foot breaking curveball…..

    EricPWJohnson (48e97d)

  101. Ed: Bush has said he’s going to abide by the decision. Sorry to disappoint you. The Supremes can get away with any abuse of power, and this proves it.

    Alan (0cf397)

  102. Can I have any left-over pain meds, wls?

    Note: I am kidding, and not attempting to break any law. Besides, I’m in Illinois, so stop salivating Patterico. 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  103. aphrael,

    Pablo, at 11: with all due respect, the notion that Guantanamo Bay is “not America” is absurd. Our lease with Cuba gives us complete control over the territory; Cuban law does not run there.

    Lease. Cuba owns it. It is Cuban soil. It is not American soil. It is not America. Control is irrelevant. Check a weapons deopt or a flightline on any American base overseas. We have complete control of them, and yet they are not American soil.

    You may feel that Gitmo is America. And yet, you’d be wrong. Gitmo is Cuba. Ask Castro:

    On January 11 1985, in a speech during a visit to Nicaragua, Castro addressed the potential use of military violence to recover this territory. “What interest can we have in waging a war with our neighbors?” he said. “In our country we have a military base against the will of our people. It has been there throughout the twenty-six years of the revolution, and it is being occupied by force. We have the moral and legal right to demand its return. We have made the claim in the moral and legal way. We do not intend to recover it with the use of arms. It is part of our territory being occupied by a U.S. military base.”

    Pablo (99243e)

  104. Well, then, could the prisoners have petitioned for habeas corpus in a Cuban court?

    You know, I think Scalia, in his zeal to carry water for the Administration, missed a much more powerful argument. The Petitioners are not prisoners.

    Stone walls do not a prison make,
    Nor iron bars a cage;
    Minds innocent and quiet take
    That for an hermitage;
    If I have freedom in my love
    And in my soul am free,
    Angels alone, that soar above,
    Enjoy such liberty.

    These guys just need to adopt a positive mental attitude.

    nk (4bb2be)

  105. What kind of an idiot do you have to be to continually compare the war in Iraq to World War II? There is nothing even remotely similar about the two conflicts at all. The closest parallel to this war is when the Soviets tried to take over Afghanistan, why don’t you compare it to that?

    I am making the comparison because the issue of entitlement to POW rights under the Geneva Conventions is the same no matter what the war is.

    German spies/Al Qaeda terrorists did not wear uniforms identifying themselves as lawful enemy combatants, so it is perfectly okay to execute them on the spot.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  106. German spies/Al Qaeda terrorists did not wear uniforms identifying themselves as lawful enemy combatants, so it is perfectly okay to execute them on the spot.

    Are you wearing a uniform identifying you as a lawful enemy combatant, Michael? If not, better put one on. Boumediene was not captured armed on a battlefield. He was kidnapped from his home in Bosnia.

    nk (4bb2be)

  107. I am making the comparison because the issue of entitlement to POW rights under the Geneva Conventions is the same no matter what the war is.

    German spies/Al Qaeda terrorists did not wear uniforms identifying themselves as lawful enemy combatants, so it is perfectly okay to execute them on the spot.

    Why would they try to identify themselves as lawful enemy combatants? Not identifying themselves is basically the only advantage that they’ve got, and remember, we’re in their country. ‘The terrorists’ never agreed to abide by Geneva Conventions, this isn’t a conventional war, and you can’t shoehorn it into that category by saying ‘Oh, they’re not wearing uniforms, just like Nazi spies!’ That’s got to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day.

    Terrorism is a problem that must be addressed through law enforcement. Whatever George Bush’s retarded plan is to stop terrorism with the military through invasion and occupation, it’s obviously not working.

    Levi (76ef55)

  108. Not identifying themselves is basically the only advantage that they’ve got

    SO they should get the benifit of not wearing a uniform, while incuring none of the consequences?

    How unsurprising a sentement from you…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  109. Not identifying themselves is basically the only advantage that they’ve got

    And when they get captured, they are entitled to be shot in the head or carved up with a machete, whichever happens to be more convenient.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  110. SO they should get the benifit of not wearing a uniform, while incuring none of the consequences?

    How unsurprising a sentement from you…

    All I’m saying is that a bunch of loosely affiliated cave-dwelling religious fanatics with no countries and no diplomatic apparatus that hate everything about the West aren’t going to willingly abide by the West’s laws of warfare, and you’re a moron if you expect them to. I don’t know how long it will take you people to realize this, but these guys don’t fight like we do.

    Levi (76ef55)

  111. All I’m saying is that a bunch of loosely affiliated cave-dwelling religious fanatics with no countries and no diplomatic apparatus that hate everything about the West aren’t going to willingly abide by the West’s laws of warfare, and you’re a moron if you expect them to.

    And thus you would be a moron to expect us to give to them all the benefits and rights that the Hated West affords.

    If they wish to act in a way that set rules of war dictate can get them shot in the head upon capture, then they should be shot in the head.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  112. And thus you would be a moron to expect us to give to them all the benefits and rights that the Hated West affords.

    That’s exactly wrong. If pre-emptive invasion and long-term occupation is going to be the way Americans fight terrorism (which is the worst possible way to do it), and we’re going to order our military to hunker down amongst a population and culture that we know nothing about, that we have nothing in common with, and that we can barely communicate with, amongst whom the ‘terrorists’ that we’re supposed to be fighting can move virtually undetected, then we have to be exceedingly careful about everything we do and about everyone whom we capture or kill. Not everyone in Ira

    If they wish to act in a way that set rules of war dictate can get them shot in the head upon capture, then they should be shot in the head.

    Levi (76ef55)

  113. And thus you would be a moron to expect us to give to them all the benefits and rights that the Hated West affords.

    That’s exactly wrong. If pre-emptive invasion and long-term occupation is going to be the way Americans fight terrorism (which is the worst possible way to do it), and we’re going to order our military to hunker down amongst a population and culture that we know nothing about, that we have nothing in common with, and that we can barely communicate with, amongst whom the ‘terrorists’ that we’re supposed to be fighting can move virtually undetected, then we have to be exceedingly careful about everything we do and about everyone whom we capture or kill. Not everyone in Iraq that takes a shot at us is a member of Al-Qaeda that helped plan 9-11, in fact barely any of them are. The willingness for Republicans to classify all these people under the umbrella of ‘the terrorists’ or ‘Al-Qaeda’ is the same, scare-mongering tactic that people used during the Salem witch trials, that Hilter used against the Jews, that the Spanish used during the Inquisition.

    George Bush thinks bringing democracy to the Middle East means bring totally unregulated laissez-fair capitalism to the Middle East, and nothing else. The problem is that the modern Arab Muslim world is totally incompatible with that sort of value system, and we can try all we like to force them to change, but it’s never going to work, especially if the plan is to invade their country only so we can fight ‘terrorists’ in their backyards instead of our own. There are lots of innocent people in Iraq that have been lost in the shuffle, and it’s totally our fault. If we’re talking about analogies to World War II, it’s only accurate if modern day America stands for the Nazis, and the Iraqis stand for the Polish. That sucks, and we need to correct it, not make it worse.

    If they wish to act in a way that set rules of war dictate can get them shot in the head upon capture, then they should be shot in the head.

    Yeah, that’s the American way!

    Levi (76ef55)

  114. I’ll repeat: many of the least-grounded decisions of the 1960s SCOTUS were finally, in the 1960s, enforcing the results of the Civil War in the 1860s, clearing away clever legal and quasi-legal obstructions to the rights of colored people. The decision here and the previous repudiations of Bush’s prisoner policy are enforcing with respect to George the Lesser the results of the earlier war against George III.

    We don’t need kangaroo courts to fight terrorism. The need kangaroo courts to enthuse the yellow-pants crowd that would rather be under a benevolent (?) tyrant than the rule of law.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d26487)

  115. Alan @ 99 according to the McCain quote I just saw at powerline, McCain prefaced his thursday remarks with the Statement that he had NOT read the decision yet. Apparently unlike Levi, he feels he has to read the entire thing to opine on it.

    Labcatcher (afe438)

  116. Way up @#45 Scott Jacob asked Phil: “Name one, or give an exact number of people we have tortured that were NOT actual terrorists…”

    Murat Kurnaz

    Evidence of Innocence Rejected at Guantanamo

    Does anyone want to defend his 5 year detention and (allegations of) torture?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  117. Sure…

    The wiki link doesn’t even mention torture…

    Show proof of his being tortured…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  118. I think both Phil and Aphrael have done a nice job in the thread of defending the basic principle at question here, but for those arguing that we are affording too many rights to extremists captured on the battlefield, I provide the following one-act play:

    Judge: By what reason do you suspect this detainee to be an enemy combatant?

    Prosecutor: As provided in these affadavits, he was apprehended on the battlefield, armed and firing at our troops.

    Judge: Then he is so deemed an enemy combatant. Next case!

    – curtain –

    easy, no?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  119. Scott @119: Oh, I agree he is going to have a tough time proving torture, unless they left permanent marks or videotape…

    Do you defend his detention? Isn’t that what’s at the heart of this decision?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  120. Bob Loblaw,

    Can the State rebut a habeas petition with an affidavit by a police officer regarding why a person was detained, or do they have to furnish the police officer to testify and be cross-examined?

    DRJ (721b95)

  121. Bob,

    I know habeas proceedings don’t generally arise until the appellate level, but to fairly compare the military cases with general habeas law I think we have to analyze the evidence that would be offered in a habeas case filed immediately after detention. In that case and assuming the detainee denies the charges, wouldn’t there be a hearing in which the State would have to offer more than an affidavit? Wouldn’t the State have to offer witnesses?

    DRJ (721b95)

  122. DRJ, you ask too many questions. 🙂

    Paul (19c9b7)

  123. As I wrote on my blog, McCain could – if he goes further and really throws down the gann tlet- win the election on this issue alone. All he has to do is say that if he is elected, he will ignore this Supreme Court decision. He could use the spectre of Osama Bin Laden and his lawyers in Federal courts to beat Obama like a rented mule.

    Sweating Through Fog (1d6c3c)

  124. You found me out DRJ, I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV (although I’ve chosen a TV lawyer character’s name – albeit played by Chachi!), so I’m not sure what would reasonably be required. But something reasonable should be required to determine status before indefinitely detaining an individual.

    I would suggest something that quickly and expeditiously determined that individuals actually apprehended in battle are determined to be “enemy combatants,” while at the same time releasing someone everyone largely agrees is innocent within a reasonable timeframe (5 years after determining innocence not being reasonable). But maybe I’m too attached to that whole ‘rule of law’ thing, not being a lawyer and all…

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  125. #115 rambles:
    If pre-emptive invasion and long-term occupation is going to be the way Americans fight terrorism (which is the worst possible way to do it)….

    Right, because appeasement works so well.

    …and we’re going to order our military to hunker down amongst a population and culture that we know nothing about, that we have nothing in common with, and that we can barely communicate with, amongst whom the ‘terrorists’ that we’re supposed to be fighting can move virtually undetected…

    That very strategy worked in Japan and Korea.

    The willingness for Republicans to classify all these people under the umbrella of ‘the terrorists’ or ‘Al-Qaeda’ is the same, scare-mongering tactic that people used during the Salem witch trials…

    There are no witches in Salem, but there are terrorists in Iraq.

    The problem is that the modern Arab Muslim world is totally incompatible with that sort of value system,…

    It is racism to declare that Arabs are incompatible with democracy.

    …and we can try all we like to force them to change, but it’s never going to work,

    We forced Germany and Japan to change their beliefs.

    There are lots of innocent people in Iraq that have been lost in the shuffle, and it’s totally our fault.

    Right – Blame America for terrorists choosing to blow up schools, markets and buses. Wow.

    If we’re talking about analogies to World War II, it’s only accurate if modern day America stands for the Nazis, and the Iraqis stand for the Polish

    The Nazis invaded a democracy in order to annex it (make it part of dictatorial Germany). We invaded Iraq to make overthrow a dictator and make it a democracy. As George Marshall said: We ask for nothing but land to bury our dead.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  126. Nitpick:

    Perfect Sense: We forced Germany and Japan to change their beliefs.

    Did we? Or only their ambitions?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  127. Well, it’s illegal to even OWN “Mein Kampf”, so yes… I do believe a belief system was greatly altered…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  128. #125 – he could get points for that except he has said he will close gitmo on day one of his presidency and move the prisoners to leavenworth. not sure if he thinks he can do this w/o conferring constitutional rights on them. most legal scholars, conservative and liberal, believe they get rights when they hit american soil. not an issue johnny can run w/ since his own policies would do the same as the ruling. however his policy would actually be following the constitution and not pissing on it and multiple precedents. so he has that going for him. to much nuance for the typical voter to see through so he gives the dems an issue that makes him look like a flip-flopper.

    chas (12a229)

  129. Bob,

    I am a lawyer but I don’t know any more than you do about what will be required. However, it seems to me that the detainees’ lawyers will insist that the government bring in one or more witnesses with information that, if true, would justify each detainee’s detention.

    I don’t see any way to bring in someone who can establish why the detainee should be subject to continued detention except by bringing in the “arresting officer” — e.g., someone who participated in the detention and has knowledge of the circumstances and reason the detainee was detained. An affidavit can’t be cross-examined and would deny the detainee the right to cross-examination. Maybe detainees won’t be afforded the right to confront witnesses at this stage of the proceeding, so the proceeding will operate as you suggest. However, if so, it will be paperwork and an administrative proceeding, and essentially no more than an arraignment. I think a habeas proceeding requires more.

    If all you want is a statement under oath regarding the circumstances of the detainee’s capture, I suspect the military already documents every detention. To require that the documentation be conducted in a US court pursuant to US rules of evidence and procedure is onerous and unnecessary. How, for instance, would a military unit ever maintain unit cohesion if it had to regularly make personnel available to testify in US court proceedings? Even if the military personnel appeared by video satellite links, it would still be a cost-intensive, time-intensive, and disruptive requirement for a military at war.

    DRJ (721b95)

  130. #128 dont forget they were called “imperial japan” for a reason. they have now a “self defense force” that couldnt slow down a french army. and when the gov’t there was considering sending offensive forces to iraq the citizens raised hell, big difference in beliefs compared to pre WW2 japanese. but getting your ass well and truly kicked will do that.

    chas (12a229)

  131. I am appreciative of the majority’s opinion for one reason. It specifically puts to bed the specious argument the left has been peddling about aliens detained by American authorities in foreign territories having habeas rights prior to this decision.

    That’s a great big I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!11!!eleventy!!one!!

    Kyoto

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  132. DRJ! Good to see you. 😉

    Pablo (99243e)

  133. Why would they try to identify themselves as lawful enemy combatants? Not identifying themselves is basically the only advantage that they’ve got, and remember, we’re in their country. ‘The terrorists’ never agreed to abide by Geneva Conventions, this isn’t a conventional war, and you can’t shoehorn it into that category by saying ‘Oh, they’re not wearing uniforms, just like Nazi spies!’ That’s got to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day.

    Like war criminals though. If they don’t like us being in their country, they can vote for a government that tells us to leave, not blow up car bombs in marketplaces. And sorry, there isn’t a “they’re in our country!” loophole for war crimes in the Geneva Conventions either.

    Terrorism is a problem that must be addressed through law enforcement. Whatever George Bush’s retarded plan is to stop terrorism with the military through invasion and occupation, it’s obviously not working.

    Terrorism as a law enforcement problem failed for four decades. Terrorism as a military problem has succeeded in Algeria, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Colombia, India, and in the past year, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was simply a matter of applying a successful strategy.

    All I’m saying is that a bunch of loosely affiliated cave-dwelling religious fanatics with no countries and no diplomatic apparatus that hate everything about the West aren’t going to willingly abide by the West’s laws of warfare, and you’re a moron if you expect them to. I don’t know how long it will take you people to realize this, but these guys don’t fight like we do.

    Ah, so they can commit war crimes because that’s just the way we fight. Funny how you bitch and moan about the way the United States fights. That’s just the way we fight, how dare you criticize it! You’re such a tool.

    They aren’t “the West’s” laws of warfare, they are the global laws of warfare. Don’t like it? Too bad. They break the laws of war, expect us to punish them for it. You’re a moron if you expect differently. There are no “Western laws of warfare,” there are the laws of warfare. Those laws put them at our mercy once captured. Summary execution, indefinite detention, whatever. It’s all completely legal. Every single mercy and right we afford them is a luxury.

    That’s exactly wrong. If pre-emptive invasion and long-term occupation is going to be the way Americans fight terrorism (which is the worst possible way to do it), and we’re going to order our military to hunker down amongst a population and culture that we know nothing about, that we have nothing in common with, and that we can barely communicate with, amongst whom the ‘terrorists’ that we’re supposed to be fighting can move virtually undetected, then we have to be exceedingly careful about everything we do and about everyone whom we capture or kill.

    This is beginning to get a little boring. You are obviously pushing an argument that you know is not supported by any actual facts. Statements like “we’re going to order our military to hunker down amongst a population and culture that we know nothing about, that we have nothing in common with, and that we can barely communicate with” are so massively ignorant of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that the only reason your bullshit is worthy of a response is that it is so malicious that it must be replied to. The Sunni Awakening happened 20 months ago. Where were you?

    Not everyone in Iraq that takes a shot at us is a member of Al-Qaeda that helped plan 9-11, in fact barely any of them are. The willingness for Republicans to classify all these people under the umbrella of ‘the terrorists’ or ‘Al-Qaeda’ is the same, scare-mongering tactic that people used during the Salem witch trials, that Hilter used against the Jews, that the Spanish used during the Inquisition.

    Now we’re really getting boring. Al-Qaeda and terrorist are not synonymous. Terrorists are those who commit acts of terrorism. Any group in Iraq that has bombed a mosque or marketplace or committed other acts of mass murder are terrorists. Al-Qaeda in Iraq also controlled and still controls a large majority of the Sunni rebel groups in Iraq through the Islamic State of Iraq front organization.

    Again, you don’t get a free pass to commit acts of terrorism (in a less ridiculous age, they were just called what they are, war crimes) because you’re committing them in your own country and you view them as legitimate resistance against a foreign occupier.

    George Bush thinks bringing democracy to the Middle East means bring totally unregulated laissez-fair capitalism to the Middle East, and nothing else.

    Really? Who knew? All the blatant socialism in the Iraqi government, what with their state oil company and redistribution of oil revenues and whatnot, and George Bush really means unbridled laissez-faire capitalism.

    The problem is that the modern Arab Muslim world is totally incompatible with that sort of value system, and we can try all we like to force them to change, but it’s never going to work, especially if the plan is to invade their country only so we can fight ‘terrorists’ in their backyards instead of our own.

    It seems to be working pretty well to anyone who’s head isn’t up their ass.

    There are lots of innocent people in Iraq that have been lost in the shuffle, and it’s totally our fault.

    There is something odd, to say the least, about the morals of a person who deems that war criminals bear no responsibility for their behavior because they wouldn’t be committing their war crimes if something else hadn’t happened. Using this logic, the Fed and similar government bureaucracies in Europe are responsible for the Holocaust, as Hitler wouldn’t have come to power if the Great Depression hadn’t occurred, and the Great Depression wouldn’t have occurred without the bank collapses.

    If we’re talking about analogies to World War II, it’s only accurate if modern day America stands for the Nazis, and the Iraqis stand for the Polish. That sucks, and we need to correct it, not make it worse.

    Again, there has to be something odd about the way someone who says such things thinks. There’s a lack of reasoning necessary to say something like that and actually believe it.

    Yeah, that’s the American way!

    It’s a legal way to deal with francs-tireurs. There’s nothing wrong with it. We don’t do it because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than that; it’s also wasteful.

    You’re a pretty pathetic troll.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  134. ‘The terrorists’ never agreed to abide by Geneva Conventions, this isn’t a conventional war, and you can’t shoehorn it into that category by saying ‘Oh, they’re not wearing uniforms, just like Nazi spies!’

    Wait a minute. You can’t put it in the category you’re clearly saying it belongs in? They’re operating under the GC’s or they’re not. It’s one or the other.

    It amazes me that not only do so many on the left want us to fight people who hold to no rules, no human decency of any sort, with both hands tied behind our backs, but also want to extend every conceivable protection to those people.

    This is why people start questioning patriotism.

    Pablo (99243e)

  135. We don’t do it because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than that

    Higher standards are not always good.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  136. Yeah, that’s the American way!

    Shooting spies or saboteurs upon capture has been the American way since 1776.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  137. All I’m saying is that a bunch of loosely affiliated cave-dwelling religious fanatics with no countries and no diplomatic apparatus that hate everything about the West aren’t going to willingly abide by the West’s laws of warfare, and you’re a moron if you expect them to.

    And you are a moron if you think it is wrong to shoot them or carve them up with a machete upon capture.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  138. Higher standards are not always good.

    It makes more sense to interrogate them than summarily execute them.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  139. Shooting spies or saboteurs upon capture has been the American way since 1776.

    To be completely fair, we usually let them hang by the neck until dead, not shoot them…

    Six of one, half a dozen of another though, really…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  140. First, I think the majority’s decision is insane, and contrary to all of the applicable precedent.

    Next, however, some points should be cleared up. It has been the published policy of the United States, since at least January 2, 1934, to not kill captured unlawful combatants in the field. Once the detainee’s status was determined by a duly-constituted board, then the sanction could occur.

    The German spies captured and executed during World War II are the subject of a Supreme Court decision – they were not summarily executed upon capture.

    GITMO is leased for 99 years. Determination of federal legislative jurisdiction over the base is dependent upon the terms of the lease. For example, the Panama Canal was leased, but the treaty established the Panama Canal Zone as U.S. exclusive federal jurisdiction. So, for example, McCain is a U.S. citizen, but someone born there today would not be. Since the majority opinion does not cite any jurisdictional clauses concerning GITMO, the majority simply created law out of thin air. By the Court’s rationale, the U.S. Constitution now applies to everyone in the world. Last time I looked, however, I don’t recall seeing any such thing in the Constitution creating such a right or limitless exercise of power.

    So, plant all the detainees (not POWs, by the way, since POW status requires the detainee to be a lawful combatant) with un-removable GPS chips, let them free in Pelosi’s neighborhood, and track their movements.

    509th Bob (e73ed2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1277 secs.