blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: We Have Met The Enemy

6.12.2008

We Have Met The Enemy

I'll be the first one to admit that I don't understand everything that's going on, both factually and legally, in connection with the detainees and Guantanamo Bay. And I'm not exactly sure what will be the long term effect of today's Supreme Court decision which, I think, means that the detainees (who have been jailed for years without charges and without the benefit of a trial) can force the government to justify in federal court why they are being held. But I was shocked regarding the first couple of paragraphs of Justice Scalia's dissent. He sounds like Limbaugh or Hannity instead of a Supreme Court Justice:
Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war . . . . . I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today . . . . America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.
But I guess he believes that the government should not have to prove that those held in Guantanamo have anything at all to do with that list of tragedies. They look like Islamic Terrorists so let's keep them locked up without justification? Who does that sound like? Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men?: "You [deleted] people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son."

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those "detainees" are being held in a foreign country, not on American soil, and are the ones directly or indirectly accused of trying to destroy our way of life (including our judicial system.....) who are they to ask for OUR laws to set them free?
So our military are guarding them???
Cuba is not bound by our laws......
What if they were held in Washington, D.C.?
Technically, D.C. is not a state in the United States, it is a District of Columbia..........true or false? Columbia, Canada.......Canada is not bound by our laws......

Anonymous said...

I consider myself much more republican than democrat, but I too am shocked by that statement. It's like he completely missed the point of what's at stake here. You mean to tell me that it's okay to have people detained without due process as long as they are not American citizens and they are thought to be terrorists?

Anonymous said...

i know your hero is Kafee, but that is just holliwood makebeleive.
what the supreme court did was give constitutional rights to people who are not citizens. folks captured while trying to kill our soldiers. they have no rights they violate the geneva convention by fighting in civilian clothes and therfore have no protection there.

im afraid that our own limp wristed legal system has undermined the very freedom we seek to protect.

read the declaration of independence. one of the first grevencese is that the king would not enforce its own laws, would not protect the colonys and had phony courts . \

were in big trouble now that weve become the court of the whole world. the lawyers will love it but it could be our demise.

Crud Bonemeal said...

Let's talk about the wacky liberal desire to give people of other countries the protections of the United States Constitution. That document applies to US citizens. It should never be applied to give rights to people of other nations, especially those who are avowed enemies of our country and who wish to destroy us as individually and as a nation. You might as well tell our military to fight with no guns while wearing handcuffs. The US military needs to be free to use whatever means are necessary to protect and defend this country. War should never be civilized. The civilized nations will fall to the uncivilized enemy because the uncivilized enemy will not have restricted or constrained itself or its manner of fighting in any way. They have no boundaries in the fight and they will do whatever it takes to win. It's like Clint said in "Josie Wales": just when it looks darkest and your back's against the wall, you have to get down right mad dog mean and fight with everything you have, because if you give up, you neither win nor live.

Anonymous said...

They were caught with weapons and means to kill our soldiers. Kill everyone of them bast**ds and then we won't have to listen to these BS litigation ceremony. They have beheaded many and don't come close to complying with the Geneva Convention so why should we have to play by different rules. You liberal Pu****s amaze me.

Anonymous said...

It goes for hundreds, thousands of years...to pick a "starting point" that is so recent is to ignore the roots of the conflict, roots that aren't going away for as long as either Christians or Muslims exist. The two religions are like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Anonymous said...

At least we have one supreme court justice with a brain!

You libs are pathetic! We are at war! Go figure?

Anonymous said...

I hope the marines get the message and go with "no quarter, no prisoners taken". Backhoes are less expensive to operate than prison camps.

wordkyle said...

If Conservative Republicans think it doesn't matter who's elected President, this decision should sound an alarm.

The Supreme Court overruled both the Executive and Legislative branches, based on the political philosophies of five of the justices. The Constitution's separation of powers was supposed to prevent this.

The five justices ignored Supreme Court precedent (Eisentrager) to convey US citizenship rights to enemy combatants.

Activist judges are the only way Liberals can change society. The majority of Americans are moderate/conservative and reject Liberal philosophy unless it's forced on them by law -- which is what Democrat judges are doing.

Regardless of how much disdain you have for Republicans, consider the Supreme Court justices that the next President will likely appoint. Do you want an Obama-style Supreme Court?

Anonymous said...

Well the Court has just made their own Law. How that can happen I am not for sure unless you are a Supreme Court Justice. It's total B.S. These are not U.S. Citizens, they do not fall under our constitution therefore their rights and privaleges are not the same as our's. What you have here is a Liberal Supreme Court Justice doing what all Liberals want to do and be fair and loving to everyone, while they sh-t on our Country. Look at what they want to do with Illegals, same damn thing. Go to another Country and see if you, as an American, have the same privilages a citizen in that Country does. Answer, HELL NO. This Country is headed down river because no one has the BALLS to stand up and call Bullsh-t anymore and tell some one to Kiss our ass. Thank you Bill Clinton who started all this Politically Correct Bullsh-t in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I don't want anything Obama has to offer.

Anonymous said...

Let me just go ahead and assume that 12:01 in this thread is the same as 12:08 in the previous thread.

It's almost like a right-wing talking points generating computer program has gone haywire. Sir, what is "makebeleive" is your completely erroneous legal analysis.

As Jay-Z says: "a wise man told me don't argue with fools / cause people from a distance can't tell who is who".

Nevertheless:

1. people who are not citizens are (and always have been) routinely afforded constitutional rights (for example, you can't jail a tourist for writing a letter to the editor or otherwise engaging in free speech under the First Amendment).

2. most of these people were not "captured while trying to kill our soldiers". But if it is proven (in court) that they were, then there is no legal problem with continuing to detain them. In formal logic, this is a fallacy known as "begging the question" (i.e., assuming the very same point you are purporting to prove).

3. the "geneva convention" has nothing to do with whether these detainees have the right to habeas corpus. And even if [it] did, the detainees aren't being held because "they violate[d]" it. Because, uh, [it] isn't a criminal statute, but rather a set of rules with the specific purpose of according rights to detainees.

4. I don't know what freedom you seek to protect, but one of the freedoms I seek to protect is the freedom from arbitrary detention without redress in the courts.

5. The king would not "enforce its own laws"?? You mean like habeas corpus?

6. "phony courts"?? You mean like those shams we've set up in Guantanamo? The ones that even military lawyers say are rigged to get convictions?

I think you are a little out of your depth. Maybe you ought to stick to spreading race-baiting rumors about Obama. Any idiot can do that effectively.

Jarhead said...

Jay-Z? Come on now...

Anonymous said...

Oh come on!! The Supreme Court should be deciding election results and not worrying about "detainees".

Am I correct Republicans?

Anonymous said...

If we hadn't needed them for intel, they'd have been shot dead while engaged in terrorism and jihad against us and our troops!. Too bad we needed the intel.

Let's see..We keep them detained for years, with no legal rights, while we feed them, cloth them and tend to their medical and religious needs.

THEY torture, starve and publically behead our troops on the internet when our troops are captured by them.

Sure sounds to me like we should extend our Constitutional rights to these rag headed, American hating, Christian, Jewish, and anything but their own Muslim religion hating bunch of scum!!

Yup Barry, sounds just like the kind of people who should benefit from the democratic type of gov't rights that we give to our citizens.

wordkyle said...

130 - Ask Al Gore. He's the one who brought the courts into it.

Anonymous said...

i'm just a little brokeback,scaredy cat...please be gentle,...who am i??

Anonymous said...

Answer to the riddle of 1:53 pm:

I'm guessing any democrat.

Anonymous said...

Hey 1:07 why don't you just bag your bags and head on over to the middle east so you can share their citizen's rights?

Oh that's right, their citizens don't have many rights and an American would probably be shot in the head or beheaded before they ask why they were being detained.

Anonymous said...

right now msnbc practacly givin BHO full body massage with the great ending...sickining to see that shit........

Anonymous said...

Hey 2:02: sorry, I'm not leaving. And unfortunately for you, it takes more than 7 yrs to destroy centuries worth of jurisprudence.

Atticus said...

I think that you need to think before you bark on this one. Do conservatives give government a "carte blanche" to do as it pleases when ever it pleases? The Supreme Court is limiting what government is allowed to do, because government cannot always be trusted. Look at all of the innocent people who have been freed in Dallas County. How was government and its ability to determine who needed to be detained and incarceration working there? It is interesting that Scallia cites the history of terrorist attacks as though it all came from one common source when of course it did not. He talks about the Marine bombing in Lebanon which goes back to at least Regan's presidency. I guess if we had captured an alleged conspirator back in 1982, we could have just wisked them away to Gitmo or some other prison and held them until the war is over or the government decides that they can be released. I think that what is being missed here is that the government is not always right and the govenment cannot always be trusted. Now the Supremes did not rule that enemy combatants get to be released and sent back to where they came, it simply ruled that the government has to put up or shut up. If they picked up some goat keeper in Afganistan who never owned a gun or fired a shot at anyone but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time because he lived there and his name was Osama, then maybe that guy gets to go back home to his sheep. You can love your country without giving King George, Bill Clinton, George Bush, or the next guy unchecked carte blanche to do whatever they please whenever they please in the name of "being at war". I think that is a cause worth fighting and dying for and the people of this country started doing that even well before 1776. If you have a deep abiding love and trust of government, then go ahead and rant about today's court decision.

Anonymous said...

2:11 was it a full body massage BHO was getting or a "full-blow-job" likes he giving the American Public and the media.

wordkyle said...

418 - Key phrase: "Can government always be trusted?"

Of course not. But the President and a body of 500+ elected representatives should not be overruled by five lawyers.

Anonymous said...

come to think of it i did see chris matthews head bobbin up and down....wow how did you get that past the bj censors??????

Jarhead said...

Terrorist: Aren't you gonna read me my rights?
American: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped on by him.
Terrorist: I think I'll waive my rights.

Adapted from the movie Fletch to fit current events.

A Jarhead Production.

Anonymous said...

Touche', atticus, 1:30, & 1:07.

To wordkyle - No, Gore's team took it to the STATE Supreme Court. Republicans quickly and conveniently forgot that REPUBLICANs claim to be for STATES rights over the national government and bowed down and woshiped the NATIONAL Supreme Court that said all the votes should be counted in Florida, but since there wasn't time to recount all the votes, then none would be recounted. AND the reason they didn't have time to finish the recount was because the SUPREME COURT called a halt to the recount so they could hear the arguments for & against the recount. Incredible - you canNOT deny the reality that the NATIONAL Supreme Court gave the 2000 election to BUSH. THe Supreme Court added that their reasoning was to be applied to that election only. I can't think of another reason that they would have said that except just in case this issue came up again and their 2000 reasoning would help the Dems at a later date.


Back to today's Supreme Court ruling - Read the Federalist Papers, the papers published by James Madison and Alexander HAmilton in order to get support for the constitution to be passed.
Courts are to help protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
No one is saying to let the detainees go.... it just says you have to have some evidence somewhere that indicates that they are guilty of a crime.......How can any Constitution-waving American be against that?

I fear a Supreme Court with appointees like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito. If Scalia's dissent is not an example of him wanting to use the court to legislate the way he wants, I don't know what is.

Anonymous said...

"All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee."

Unfortunately, there are many more people like you Barry, than there are people like Nicholson's character or Justice Scalia. Thus, the U.S. as we have known will be no more in less than 50 years. I can live with that because I'll be so close to death at that time that I won't know or care.

What you're seeing now illustrates why democracies will always eventually fail...once the majority of people learn that they can vote to redistribute the wealth of the country to themselves what are you left with? (hint - communism in its purest form). And, although I disagree with the outcome, I salute you and yours Barry as you have essentially won the battle for the hearts and minds of the MAJORITY of the American voting populace. Enjoy laying in the bed you have helped make.

wordkyle said...

526 - Your revisionist history doesn't fly. The FL SC flouted the law established by the Florida legislature by extending the deadline to turn in ballots. In other words, they changed the rules after the election. The US Constitution gives state legislatures -- not the courts -- the authority to select electors. The SCOTUS ruled in accordance with the Constitution.

Your version is what your side wants the world to believe, but the truth belies you. And this is what I mean about Liberals using distortion to sell lies to the masses.

Do you know why the Founding Fathers established the bicameral legislature and the electoral college? Because they knew that charlatans could fool huge masses of people with trickery and deception. They wanted an insulative layer of protection against the gullibility of the citizenry. The Democrats have exploited that gullibility. (See "War on Poverty")

Anonymous said...

what is the common denominator all these terrorist,fanatics,suicide bombers and infidels share??????

Anonymous said...

If SlurdHeil has a goal to be a pompous JackAss, mission accomplished.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle -
The truth belies you, not me. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

The reason the FL SC ADDRESSED (not changed) the rules AFTER the election is because that is when problems became apparant.

And the SCOTUS did not say that the re-count was unconst'al; they said that since there wasn't time to complet the re-count, they couldn't do it, yet the SCOTUS itself halted the counting, which effectively caused the time to run out.

And how do you account for the fact that the SCOTUS said their ruling applied only to this one situation? THat doesn't sound like they are interpreting the constitution to me; it sounds like they are legislating for this one situation.

We have to agree that when both conservatives and liberals alike don't like what the SCOTUS rules, they say the Court is legislating, not interpreting. It works both ways.
Have you ever heard someone say, "I like what the court ruled, but they were going beyond interpretation, they were legislating which they shouldn't do." I certainly haven't & I have been around a lot longer than you, trust me.

Anonymous said...

they love democrats....is that correct?

Anonymous said...

no dumdass that's not correct..the right answer is islam religion.millions of americans already practice...nation of islam,louis faracan,new black panthers,black muslims and on and on.Can you see a patern anywhere????BE PREPARED FOR CHANGE..

wordkyle said...

747 - When, prior to the election, the Florida legislature set a date for ballots to be turned in, and the State Supreme Court extended the deadline after the result of the election was known, they changed the law.

Recounts were done by the counties prior to the legislated deadline --in accordance with the law -- and Bush won. Again.

When the deadline arrived, Florida law mandated that the vote be certified. The FL SC ordered the law not to be followed, and the date to be extended.

That's legislating from the bench.

The Liberal SCOTUS has made a practice of legislating for the last fifty years. By doing so they have changed the cultural landscape. Today's decision was just another brick in the wall.

I'll trust you in the sense that there's a lot you haven't heard, and much more that you refused to see.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle -
Agreed - there is a lot I haven't heard. If I have refused to see things as you do, I'll agree to that also.

But you still didn't answer my question about the accusations of legislating only when you (or me or others) don't agree with the Court.
2 questions that are not rhetorical and that I would like to hear your honest answer -
1) Have you ever heard someone say they agreed with the Court's decision but they thought they were legislating instead of interpreting the Constitution?
2) How do you explain the SCOTUS decision that their 2000 decision applied only to that one time situation? How could that be anything but admitting that they were legislating, not interpreting? (OK, that makes 3 questions, but the last two are related.) I am sincerely interested in your answer......not that I'll agree with it :)

Anonymous said...

Hey 201, How about Bushie when China had our Spy Plane and Crew? Woo woo he was tough. What was it we paid them for the plane landing? 30 or so Thousand Bucks?
I remember people (so proud of Prez Boosh) hell, they (The Chinese) better not mess with Ol' Bush...............By God, he'll show'm......

Anonymous said...

i know i am a dumbass,butt someone please tell me i ain't helping pay for their f'n lawyers....no f'n way that shit could be right..please retort...

Anonymous said...

Wordy needs an editor.

Anonymous said...

Take no prisoners.