Thursday, June 12, 2008

The Best Reason To Vote Against Obama

As this piece illustrates, it is important that we elect McCain over Barry if only to have any chance at getting decent Supreme Court Justices when one or two of the lefty buffoons retire. This decision ranks as one of the most dangerous by the five fools in some time. We can't get a guarantee that Johnny will nominate a Roberts or Alito much less actually have them confirmed by the Dumbocratic majority, but there's no doubt that Barry will put forth a total idiot like Ginsberg and then we're screwed, because the idiot will be with us for too long, writing more stupid decisions like the one presented in the link. Remember: we've got crappy, and less crappy. Vote less crappy. Vote McCain.

That is a good bumper sticker.


I offer this article to give more insight into the stupid Supreme Court decision regarding habeus for Gitmo detainees.


Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK, so let me get this straight. The Supreme Court reaffirms that persons held in prisons operated under the rule of law of the United States have the most basic right - habeas corpus - in English-speaking law, and you find this bad.

Why, again?

I'm not outraged. I'm confused. Do you actually understand anything about what "rights" really are, or what "rule of law" means? Do you have any idea how vital to the distinctive nature of English-speaking peoples' history this one single freedom, first spelled out in the early thirteenth century, is? For 800 years, with occasional slips, freedom's slow march began with the specific declaration that individuals had the right to demand a hearing in which the charges against them were made public, and at which they could declare their innocence, and begin to defend themselves against them. At the heart of this ruling is the belief that, without it, rule and law are arbitrary and capricious, subject to the whim of the sovereign. This is the true beginnings of English, and in half a millennium American, "rule of law".

We have not just the legal system we do, but its underpinnings in the firm belief that all of us have the right to defend ourselves against the absolute police power of the state/sovereign, encoded in these two little Latin words. The continued detention of persons incommunicado at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is a violation not just of the letter, but the very heart of the American system of law, and our national sense of what justice is.

Terrorists will come and criminals will go. British and American societies have survived wars, invasions, the threat of extinction, and habeas corpus remained intact (only during our respective countries' civil wars was it suspended). I do not think we shall crumble should we come face to face in a court of law with those we accuse of threatening to attack the United States. This isn't just fear-mongering. It's rank cowardice.

Marshall Art said...

And in which war have we allowed POWs or the like to a trial, particularly while the war still raged? These people were taken off the battlefields. Are soldiers under fire supposed to gather evidence when taking prisoners? Or are you going to perhaps insist that every battel is filmed by multiple cameras in order to confirm that prisoners were taken where soldiers said they were? This decision is crap from the word "go". Keep in mind that only five members affirmed, not reaffirmed, a right never given to such prisoners. It wouldn't be right or just for you to disparage the other four, more thoughtful and intelligent Justices by saying the whole court was so stupid.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

We. Are. Not. At. War.

Because we are a country of laws, and war is a legal act, both under the Constitution and under international law through treaties to which we are signatories (giving those treaties the force of law, again under the Constitution), and we have not declared war, we are not at war. These prisoners are not POWs.

Furthermore, treatment of POWs is spelled out under the Geneva Conventions, again of which the United States is a ratified signatory nation, giving them the force of law (there is also enabling legislation passed by Congress which is still on the books). Bush swept away the Geneva Accords by declaring the detainees "unlawful enemy combatants", a made-up term that gave them wiggle room to torture, perform illegal renditions to third-party states who are even better at it than we are, and hold kangaroo court trials. That doesn't make it either legal or right.

The conventions about POW treatment are in place for a good reason. Our dismissal of them will only be bad news in the future when our troops really are in a declared war with another nation-state. All they have to do is point to the precedent of our current pinhead-in-chief, and voila, our young men and women become the subject of all sorts of treatment with no recourse to any law.

Even if we were at war. Even if we had never once in all our history allowed POWs or others the right of habeas corpus - the circumstances under which these people have been held, some of them for five years and more, dictate a "shit or get off the pot" demand for the Bush Administration to either put up or shut up. Put up the evidence in a fair and legal fashion, or let them go. I they have the goods on these people, then try them. If not, holding them only shows what weak cowards our current leaders are.

Anonymous said...

"Vote less crappy. Vote McCain."

Yep. I am really frustrated with those that can't see that the lesser of two evils is a good thing: Less evil!

With all his faults, we'll be safer with McCain, he'll appoint better judges, better tax policies, and more.

ELAshley said...

We are not at war?

Good grief! Let's see. Congress authorized combat operations in Iraq. We have 150,000+ soldiers IN Iraq. We've been killing the enemy. The Enemy has been killing us. Bodies come home in flag draped coffins. Medals are awarded for heroism and injury....

How is this not War?

We are most certainly AT war. Call it whatever you want, but it makes you look, to at least HALF the country, the fool.

In 232 years, never before have prisoners of war caught on the battlefield been treated as common United States criminals, citizens, with access and rights to our Constitution. It's never, ever happened.

ELAshley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ELAshley said...

Prisoners of war are NOT citizens of the United States of America. They do not deserve the same rights as American citizens. Prisoners of War are covered under the "treaty" affectionately known as the Geneva Convention. What the Supreme Court has in effect done is grant illegal combatants U.S. Citizenship. They don't have to go to the end of the line. The get to cut in front of every, Manuel, Jose, and Pedro trying to get in legally.

This wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court butchered the Constitution and established bad law/precedent... Roe v. Wade comes immediately to mind, as does Kelo v. City of New London.

America will live to regret this very bad decision.

ELAshley said...

This decision gives the troops in the heat of battle no incentive to take prisoners.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I have rarely seen less informed, less thoughtful, less insightful commentary. Seriously. This is like an idiot's guide to public discourse. Since habeas corpus isn't an issue subject to debate - the Constitution provides it be suspended only under threat of invasion or in the case of insurrection (and was used in the second case by Lincoln, but oddly enough not by James Monroe when the British actually invaded the US during the War of 1812), and as these prisoners, most definitely not POWs according to the Bush Administration, were captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and the murky border regions with Afghanistan (for the most part) - where and how does the suspension of the writ apply?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about at all?

ELAshley said...

These prisoners were not captured on US soil.

ELAshley said...

After a little research nothing has changed...

This ruling [still] marks the first time in U.S. history that constitutional habeas corpus rights have been extended to alien fighters captured overseas.

What never ceases to both amaze and dismay me is Liberalisms hell-bent desire to remake the Constitution into a Marxist document... the United States of America into a Marxist nation. 'Ill informed'? Not hardly. Afraid of what you and others like you want to do to this nation? Absolutely.

The media has so fawned over Obama as to entirely ignore, cover-up, and pooh-pooh everything about him that they would have crucified a Republican for. Obama will be a disaster for this nation. And though I don't particularly care for McCain, I do believe he's right in saying Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second term. The man is fundamentally ignorant on so many levels. He is a disaster waiting to happen.

Marshall Art said...

I don't believe the prez needs Congress to send troops anywhere he feels they're needed. Congress deals with the financial support. But in any case, Islamic radicals have declared war on us in every situation where a U.S. facility or interest has been attacked. Pick any one of them and you'll find an act of war. Kobar, USS Cole, US Embassy in Iran, etc, including of course 9/11. Hussein shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone and at least the last UN resolution provided for action in the case of non-compliance. He also supported strikes against an ally. So if someone punches you in the face, Geoffrey, you're in a fight. Get it? You don't have to declare anything. Of course you can turn the other cheek for every time he continues punching you, as we have done since the Hostage situation during Carter's admin, but sooner or later you are left with one of two choices: die or fight back. You can die if you like, but forgive the rest of us who choose to fight back (or not--we won't care--we're fighting back).

I ask again, do you expect soldiers to gather evidence under fire? I prefer no prisoners, but sometimes it helps the cause if we can squeeze info out of them by making them uncomfortable, simulating drowning when they really won't be, etc.

Oh, and by the by. The scumbags we fight now, and all those we've fought during the 20th century onward to now, have been of the sort that treats our guys far, far worse than what is being done to the average scumbag we hold prisoner. I won't say that we never get nasty with the truly nasty, but I don't care about those people, since they're the worst of the worst and can easily end their self-inflicted misery.

This decision is stupid as is the decision that forces us to treat these scumbags as if they qualify for relief under the Geneva Convention, which they don't. So this makes twice where stupid people have made the job of our military more difficult to accomplish. What's worse are those who agree with the stupid decisions. No "facts" you've presented diminish the stupidity in the least. No "facts" you've presented justify this absolute distortion of the intent of either Geneva or habeus. We ARE in a war and no lack of formal declaration changes that salient fact.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

While not a direct response to any further comments, I thought I would quote at length from a piece by former British PM John Major, who is both a conservative and far more expert with the reality of terrorism than any American politician.

"I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to. . . .

The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular -- and no less violent -- assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering. . . .

The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." This is a demagogue's trick. We do have something to fear -- the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies. . .

So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.

The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires -- as it should -- the sanction of a High Court Judge. . .

No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity -- but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and -- once in place - will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go."

So, is John Major a ridiculous boob who is threatening the life security of Britain by failing to recognize that Britain is AT WAR WITH ISLAM? Or, perhaps, does he understand something that our American conservatives do not - that freedom is not only worth protecting, it is worth dying for?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

In regards to Marshall Art's last comment, viz., that the President does not need Congressional authority to deploy United States forces, I would point out that it was the same arch-conservative Robert Taft who argued the exact opposite when Harry Truman sent American troops to Korea in compliance with UN Resolutions to expel the North Koreans from South Korea. His objections were, for the most part, ignored. Yet, his position, while too often interpreted as partisan sniping by a Republican Senator against a Democratic President, was in fact a principled Constitutional stance. The President is, indeed, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Yet, to deny the role of Congress in deciding how to take a military response against a rival is to deny the basis of civilian control of the military, which is far more than having a civilian in charge of the Defense Department. Rather, the military is to be an instrument of our public policy, decided by our representatives in Congress assembled. These are political decisions, made by politicians.

Just because you do not believe the President needs Congressional authority to deploy United States forces does not mean that necessity does not exist. It's that simple.

Erudite Redneck said...

MA, you and EL and your ilk are the avctual enemies of the state when it comes to this.

Re, "And in which war have we allowed POWs or the like to a trial, particularly while the war still raged?"

Geoffrey has handled the "war" claim. I'll address the p.o.w. claim, equally false.

THAT's the whole reason for this damned problem. Your man and his flock didn't want to call them p.o.w.'s because even p.o.w's have rights! So they made up "enemy combatants." What BS.

SCOTUS is stepping in where this screwed-up administration feared to tread.

Marty said...

When president Bush signed the 2006 Military Commissions Act I wondered if I would ever have my country back. And for it to happen on my birthday just made it all the worse. I will never forget how I felt.

"MA, you and EL and your ilk are the avctual enemies of the state when it comes to this."

ER, these guys need to go back to 6th grade and re-learn the Constitution.

"Because we are a country of laws, and war is a legal act, both under the Constitution and under international law through treaties to which we are signatories (giving those treaties the force of law, again under the Constitution), and we have not declared war, we are not at war."

True, but I can tell you that as a mother of an Iraq vet it certainly feels like war to the troops when they're outside the wire. And mortar attacks inside the wire can do a heck of a lot of damage.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

To marty, I do not mean to downplay the horrors your son experienced. I was speaking of a legal framework within which we are to understand (a) the Supreme Court's decision; and (b) the original action in which those scooped up on foreign battlefields suddenly become persons not covered by international law, and are summarily declared outside the jurisdiction of the laws of the country holding them captive. I was using "war" as a legal, rather than practical term here.

Which is another thing you folks seem to forget. Even the simplest words, like war, have many definitions, contexts, and shades of meaning. Tossing words around without definitions, without any clarity only further muddies the already opaque waters of our contemporary discourse. Everyone knows that words have all sorts of meanings; misunderstanding is a great tool used by the powerful, and their faithful servants, to create confusion and therefore maintain power. This is why it is always necessary to demand, above all things, clarity and precision and definition.

Marty, I thank you for your son's service, and my prayers go out to him, and you, and to all who have been shamelessly used by the Bush Administration.

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey said:

I thank you for your son's service, and my prayers go out to him, and you, and to all who have been shamelessly used by the Bush Administration.

IS THERE NO END TO YOUR ATROCIOUS TREATMENT OF US SOLDIERS??!! You people hate the military, don't you?

You and your "prayers" and "thanks." Jiminy!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Uh, Dan, was that facetious?

Dan Trabue said...


Didn't I pull it off? Sorry...

Marty said...


I knew exactly what you meant. I'm with you on this. I just wanted to make the point that we've got troops stuck in the middle of this disaster and it feels a lot like war to them.

Me, I consider it an occupation.

I think my son would agree.

I appreciate the prayers btw.


When my son came home from his first (combat) tour in Iraq, a conservative friend of mine, with a big proud smile on his face, gave my son a hearty handshake and "thanked" him for his service to our country. My son looked at him straight in the face and said, "I didn't do anything over there that you should thank me for." Later that day my son said to me, "why can't they just say 'glad you're home'".

Dan Trabue said...

I'm very glad he's home, Marty.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I, too, am glad he made it home. Only 149,999 to go. Then the parades and parties can really begin.

Marty said...

Thanks guys!

Marty said...

One other thing.....

If we really want to thank the troops then ask President Bush to sign the new GI Bill that the House and Senate approved. And thank them by taking care of them when they get home by giving them the proper medical care they so deserve.

Ms.Green said...

"Vote less crappy. Vote McCain."

Yep. I am really frustrated with those that can't see that the lesser of two evils is a good thing: Less evil!

Sorry Neil. I...just...can' the lessor of two evils ANY MORE. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.

Let the greater of two evils have it all - let the world see what it will really be like. Then if our country still exists in four years, maybe the GOP will come back to its senses.

Erudite Redneck said...

I am absolutely FOR Ms. Green's approach.

Anonymous said...

Let the greater of two evils have it all - let the world see what it will really be like.>>

ER, since you are a Democrat and don't seem to have much use for Republicans, would your agreement then mean that everyone should vote Republican, since they are the "evil" ones? :-) Mom2

Marshall Art said...


I heard the mother of a vet on the radio recently. She said the same thing you've said in posts not long ago, which is (paraphrasing here), "if you want to really know what's going on, talk to someone who's been there." The difference, however, was that her son was proud of his service and supported the action/mission there. Truth to tell, I've heard more testimonies like hers than I have of yours. This is not to dismiss yours in the least. It is only that experience is personal and subject to the attitudes held previously by the subject.

I would like to ask you, with complete and honest sincerity, what reason did your son give for enlisting in the first place? Was his tour in the early days when the worst blunders occurred?

I won't say that I've read every comment of yours concerning your son's perspective, but I don't recall every reading anything that was the least bit positive. In fact, with the latest, regarding the fellow who shook his hand and thanked him for his service, he seems unable to resist the urge to be negative. Perhaps the guy was a vet himself and understands the sacrifice and burden of being a soldier who saw combat. Perhaps he just understands the sacrifice of giving a number of years in service on any level, combat or no. I don't imagine that anyone wouldn't be glad a combat vet is home safely. It would go without saying.

In any case, I think we are on the same page as far as what we believe constitutes a war. There's no place for semantics when people are getting shot at and blown up. That's war no matter what anyone says.

For the record, I feel uncomfortable saying to a vet, "Thank you for your service." I am grateful. Very much so. But to make that statement now, after hearing it so much, it somehow doesn't seem sincere, even though I don't doubt the sincerity of those saying it. I do however, really like that commercial where some soldiers are walking through an airport after getting off their plane, and the people in the airport break out in spontaneous applause. That's what I feel when I see a soldier.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing for Mary:

Would you name the exact bill to which you are referring? I suspect there are things attached to the bill that compell Bush to veto it that likely have nothing to do with helping vets. It's a typical and heinous practice of the Dems to load up a bill that would otherwise have appeal for everyone with crap and then, when Bush (or whatever Republican prez is in the Big Chair) pulls out the veto pen, the Dems say, "See? He doesn't care about vets, the aged, minorities, children, etc. etc" In any case, I'd like to read the thing for myself to see what' what. Thanks in advance.

Marty said...


Thanks for your very thoughtful and respectful reply.

My son served in Iraq April 03-July 04 and then again December 05-November 07. He was extended 3 times and stop-lossed.

The bill is the Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S. 22 and H.R. 5740). It is bi-partisan.

You can also learn about it here.

"I heard the mother of a vet on the radio recently. She said the same thing you've said in posts not long ago, which is (paraphrasing here), "if you want to really know what's going on, talk to someone who's been there." The difference, however, was that her son was proud of his service and supported the action/mission there. Truth to tell, I've heard more testimonies like hers than I have of yours."

Marshall, how comforting it is to know that these mothers don't have to feel the way I do. How fortunate for them. I sincerely mean that.

However, that experience has not been mine when talking to soldiers and Iraq vets, nor has it been my son's. Even his buddies who were at one time supportive and gungho, many of whom are back over there, are now telling a different tale after 3 and 4 tours.

If you are interested, please feel free to read my son's experiences here: Letters from Baghdad. You will need to scroll to the bottom to read the letters in the order they were written though.

As for my negativity. Perhaps it could be seen that way by some. However, I don't feel that the troops who have been negatively impacted by the war physically and mentally get a fair hearing. I'm just trying to help tell their stories and maybe in some small way help them heal.

Marty said...

Oh and for the record. My son is not a member of any anti-war group nor will he ever be.

Marty said...

Oops forgot. The reason my son enlisted in the first place was 9/11. He left a lucrative job to join the army in October 2001. He wanted to "kick some taliban ass".

blamin said...

I’m not a mother, just a father and uncle.

It’s the prerogative of youth to question “authority”. It’s been my experience that all soldiers in all conflicts question the wisdom of those in charge. There’s no doubt that the man on the ground may have a better perspective. There’s also no doubt that the man on the ground hasn’t an inkling of the overall strategy.

Marty said...

Blamin just a father and uncle,

Aren't the boots on the ground carrying out the strategy? I'd think they'd have the good sense to know whether it was working or not. Possibly even better than those sitting safely in the White House or even their superiors who never make it outside the wire.

Perhaps I'm naive on this issue, but it seems to me that'd be the case.

Marshall Art said...


I'm a chapter or two from finishing Michael Yon's book "Moment Of Truth In Iraq". He acknowledges the mistakes and blunders at the start of the Iraq war, but points to the lessons learned and the tangible progress being made. There are plenty of officers venturing outside "the wire" these days, including Gen. Patreaus. It's part of the plan and it's made a big difference in the attitude of the Iraqi people. They are in large part grateful and appreciative (if that's not too redundant) and even some of those who at one time fought our guys now want us to leave after the Iraqi army and police are competent.

The book is reassuring in a few ways, but one in particular. The current strategy is one of killing with extreme prejudice when it's time to fight, but afterwards, showing what great people we are and thus winning their respect. Indeed, according to Yon, it has resulted in many Iraqis seeking to emulate our guys. Can I hear an "Amen"?

Marty said...

Michael Yon on Friday:

"Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp. But it could yet slip away if our leaders remain transfixed by the war we almost lost, rather than focusing on the war we are winning today."

Two years ago:

"Please do not let your respective media delude you: we are winning in Iraq"

Three years ago:

"I get the impression that people at home are losing faith in the effort, though we are winning."

If you tell a lie long enough......

Marshall Art said...

The question then, Marty, is, who is doing the lying? You believe whom you wish to believe. As I said before, I've heard far more testimonies from vets that are positive, that see the mission as noble and serving a definite purpose. Can it fall to pieces? Sure. I don't think anyone is deluded about the challenges involved with dealing with a different culture. I prefer to throw in with those who think positively, who believe in what is possible. Not the bullshit hype of a Barry Obama, but the testimonies of those getting it done. I don't wish to butt heads with you on this. I just refuse to believe that our people can't succeed. That attitude gets us nowhere. That attitude gets us more 9/11s.

Marshall Art said...

Responding to Geoffrey's June 13, 2008 8:32 AM comment:

Do you mean to suggest that the IRA are in any way comparable to AQI? Are you freakin' serious? There it would be more reasonable to attack that problem from a totally criminal perspective. The IRA wasn't in the habit of taking on masses of British troops. The IRA wasn't in the habit of video taping beheadings. They didn't rape. They didn't butcher and blow themselves up on purpose. Major might have experience with the likes of the IRA, but they are a totally different animal and I'd wager that Major would agree.

"The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." "

This is liberal spin. Which admin official has ever said this? The techniques employed do not put anyone's privacy at risk since there is no one listening to anything that hasn't sent up technological flares. Machines are checking for indicators and the only people being scrutinized are those that are already suspects, mostly incoming calls from foreign locations. The laws haven't kept up with the technology, and intel gathering comes under the admin's job description. It is liberals who are doing the scaremongering with their crap about losing privacy. BDS manifestations.

Major is free to determine the actions of his own country. (And by the way, conservative in that country is not as conservative as in this country). Finally, no one is saying we are at war with Islam you liar. Keep running that crap or try to play honestly like a real Christian.

Regarding your June 12, 2008 5:30 PM comments:

Yes. We. Are. You. Dope.

Play semantics all you want. It's a typical lib strategy into which only other dopes buy. Radical Islamists (not all of Islam like you want to believe anyone is proclaiming) have declared war on us. That's all reasonable people need to know. Bush bashers and lib partisans aren't honest enough to deal in reality.

The GC spells out what constitutes a POW. Those we've taken off the battlefields do not meet the criteria. At the same time, they do not match the definition of a common criminal. Yet all the while, they are being treated far better than the lying left is trying to tell the rest of the country. Your blatherings regarding the treatment of these people is nothing more than partisan crapola based on Bush hatred rather than reality. Put down the Kool-Aid and pay attention.

Marty said...

Well, Marshall, I don't want to butt heads with you either.

"I've heard far more testimonies from vets that are positive, that see the mission as noble and serving a definite purpose."

Good for you. I wish that was my experience. It's not.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

You constantly accuse me of Bush hatred, Marshall, even though I have never once said I hate him, and have many, may times said the opposite.

It is not semantics to say we are not at war, especially when I spell out exactly what I mean by saying that. Furthermore, since the Bush Administration has been explicit in not calling the detainees in US custody since 2001 "POWs" but invented a new, never-before-used and certainly meaningless term "illegal enemy combatants", expressly to avoid the Geneva Conventions, it seems to me arguing over the habeas rights of POWS, those under the rule of the Geneva Accords, is nonsensical.

As usual, I have been clear, thorough, and relied on my understanding of the law and the US Constitution. You, however, resort to calling me a Bush hater who has to get off the Kool-Aid and stop using semantics.

Tell me, Marshall. Since we are using words here (as opposed to say, dancing out our meanings, our using semaphore) how do you suppose we can avoid semantics?

Marty said...

Broken Laws, Broken Lives

Marshall Art said...

"...the Bush Administration has been explicit in not calling the detainees in US custody since 2001 "POWs" but invented a new, never-before-used and certainly meaningless term "illegal enemy combatants", expressly to avoid the Geneva Conventions..."

The detainees are NOT POWs according to the definition of Geneva. Yet, they are more than simple criminals since they amass on the battlefield. These slugs have invited this unique status by virtue of their own actions. It is entirely appropriate that we respond accordingly.

Regarding your confusion with the term "war", I can make it easy for you. When a group of individuals shoots at you, tries to blow you up, lies in ambush as you and your comrades roll down the road, plants booby-traps in buildings, in roads, within the rotting corpses of fallen fighters, acts under the orders of superiors who have declared their intent to killing as many of your people as possible, you can rest assured you are at war. It is these hints, not whether or not one's government declares anything or not, that determines when one is at war. Oh yes, other hints include attacks on the interests or within the borders of one's country.

As to your Bush hatred, you have in the past accused him of lies for which you've been unable to prove in any way, and you focus on his techniques for battling the enemy that should be commanding your focus.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

The lies of Bush and members of his Administration are numerous, well-documented, and easily sourced. Just because you don't accept the information or the relevance of the sources of that information hardly means, "Bush didn't lie".

That's as far as I'll go with that, because I refuse to deal with things like this, viz., treating something that is either silly or mendacious as if it were serious. The question at hand - the Supreme Court's reminder to the Bush Administration that habeas corpus is kind of important - is far too serious to become bogged down in nonsense like this.

If, by your logic, the Bush Administration has the right, even the duty, to invent a term no one has ever used before in order to imprison individuals without any access to the legal system, what is stopping them from doing the same, not just to scary terrorists abroad, but to citizens here at home? That is what is at stake in this entire discussion.

Whether it's habeas corpus, illegal search and seizure and its relationship to domestic spying and wiretapping, probable cause fore detention, or what have you - these rights exist for a reason. Once they are flouted, and once the logic for their violation becomes entrenched in our law and practice, there is no reasonable limit to their violation, because the logic for their violation becomes inexorable.

The threat posed by setting aside habeas corpus for the Guantanamo detainees is clear - I might be next. Or you might be. Under the logic used by the Bush Administration, there is no reason why habeas corpus shouldn't be set aside for anyone. That is why the Supreme Court's decision is important. That is why it is a victory, not for terrorists (which is both false and quite silly) but for America.

Marshall Art said...

"The lies of Bush and members of his Administration are numerous, well-documented, and easily sourced."

Yet you were unable to come up with any examples. The vaunted LA Times recently ran an article about how the accusation that Bush lied us into war in Iraq is patently false. Interesting that it should come from that periodical, but gratifying at the same time that at least one liberal source won't play that game.

Regarding habeus, as there is nothing Constitutional that suggests it applies to foreigners cpatured on the battlefield after shooting at our own people, and as it has never been granted to foreigners in similar situations in the past, your laments are no more than empty whining. I suppose that if you took up arms against your own country then you'd fall under the provision regarding insurrection. So your fears regarding losing habeus yourself are unfounded and based soley on your irrational loathing of Bush, of who's logic you totally are clueless.

What prevents Bush from "making up" terms for the use against citizens is we ARE citizens and as such ARE protected by the Constitution and our laws. Your attempts to extrapolate in such ways are lame beyond belief.

What's truly incredible here, is your self-serving use of the Constitution. You have no problem with Roe v Wade, for example. By your logic, some SCOTUS decision might find a right to kill YOU. I'm also sure you have no problem siding with judges/justices that find a right for homosexuals to marry each other. In short, you have no problem twisting the Constitution to provide for whatever warped sense of justice that drives you, but you bristle at any attempt by our president to protect his people by accusing him of breeching Constitutional precedents, precedents that don't exist. I have very little doubt that we'll see truly blatant stretching of Constitutional meaning should we be so cursed as to have Barry Obamanable as our next president.

As an aside,
-you make the false claim that the detainees do not know why they are being held. Nonsense. They were shooting at us. They know it. Those who apprehended them know it.
-You also weep for the length of their stay without being charged. They were charged when they were taken off the battlefield in the same manner as any Nazi soldier was taken, and they might be, and should be held until the war is over. Should the war last until the Second Coming, then they'll stay until then.
-Your "humanity" towards these who sought to kill our people ignores the fact that you hope to grant unto them that which our own soldiers would not get if they were accused of crimes while in the military. Military tribunals are NOT kangaroo courts, any more than any civil court, with the exception of the 9th Circuit Court in California.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Your last comment is quite literally not worthy of comment, except to note it lack of serious content.

I despair of doing anything but making fun of you anymore. Attempting serious discussion is a bit like holding water in an invisible cup. You know nothing, you assume everything, you do not listen, and you continue to repeat the same tired points even as they have been refuted. My seven year old daughter at least admits she is wrong.

This is a serious issue, yet you treat it with contempt precisely because you use nonsense and falsehoods to make whatever points you are attempting to make. There is no reason in the world, not even courtesy, to do anything but state things as plainly as I can, to do anything other than laugh at how silly your position is.

As an exemplar of the right-wing base, is it any wonder our public discourse is so vapid? Is it any wonder educated liberals have given up participating in it? One cannot "argue" with people who make stuff up and insist they be taken seriously. I won't do it, but I will laugh at you, because you take yourself so seriously, even as you prove yourself a fool over and over again.

I know we shall never be completely rid of you. I do hope, however, that an overwhelming Democratic victory in November will put you and those like you much further to the sidelines, where you belong.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Incidentally, my wife read this last comment of mine and thought I was too harsh. Well, she may even be right. I disagree, however.

Anonymous said...

Just thinking, Dan & Geoffrey must be brothers. So many similarities. :-) Mom2

Marshall Art said...

"Your last comment is quite literally not worthy of comment, except to note it lack of serious content."

This dodge is really getting tiresome. If you are unable to formulate a rebuttal, perhaps waiting for a more favorable topic appears. There was plenty of serious content in my last, and I'd be more than happy to explain that which mystifies.

Frankly, I doubt you could present any mockery that would top the guffaws provoked by your serious comments, but I'm more than up for such a contest. Give it your best shot. I'll try to stay awake.

I've said nothing nonsensical, nor have I presented any falsehoods. As I said, such tap-dancing bores. Try again.

Anonymous said...

My seven year old daughter at least admits she is wrong.>>

She must have learned it somewhere else than from you. :-) Mom2

Marty said...

President Bush signed the new GI Bill into law yesterday. If anyone here wrote and asked him to sign it, I thank you.

"This is a day of incredible celebration for our country's newest generation of veterans and their families. Thanks to today's passage of a modern GI Bill, the future is much brighter for the more than 1.6 million Americans who have served in the current conflicts," said Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "In supporting this GI Bill, Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner, Lautenberg and hundreds of other lawmakers laid aside their partisan differences and put the troops first. Their vision and perseverance will change the course of an entire generation."

John McCain did not support this bill.

Marshall Art said...

John McCain did not support this version of a new GI Bill. This needs to be made clear. He sought a graduated benefits version based on years of service in order to promote and encourage re-enlistment. He felt that not doing so would result in problems maintaining proper numbers of experienced personnel. Though his version makes sense to me, I at the same time would prefer that those who re-enlist do so for more selfless reasons than procuring perks.

In any case, it would be dishonest and misleading to portray McCain's non-support of this version in a negative light. Please don't do it.

Marty said...

Marshall, McCain opposed this bill. That's a fact.

However, I just found out, in the end, he did support the bill after the transferability clause was added and because it was attached to the war funding bill.

The bill he supported was much less generous in nature and a GI would have to stay in the military at least 12 years to see any real increase in benefit. That is unfair - especially to those GI's who were injured and not able to continue their service. Our troops deserve the best benefits we can offer regardless of length of service.... as long as their service was honorable.

I am thankful that President Bush signed the bill making it law. Our GI's deserve it and even more. I may not be supportive of the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter, but I will fight tooth and nail to see that our troops get the benefits and care they deserve. Period.

Marshall Art said...

I won't argue the specifics since I am not as aware of them as are you. My point was merely to say that McCain wasn't against bennies for vets. Considering his history, that would be ludicrous. You may not have liked his version, and that's OK and a fair argument. Simply to say that he opposed the bill you celebrate, however, does him an unnecessary disservice. It's like lying. All in all, I am 100% with you on serving those who have so selflessly served us.