GolfHos

 ;) only question is why only 5-4?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953

Why do Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas hate America?

Hey, Einstein, check out toward the bottom of that wrinkled piece of paper down at the National Archives:

[mumble, mumble] goddamn piece of paper [mumble, mumble]

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/thumb/a/a6/Amendment_to_be.jpg/200px-Amendment_to_be.jpg)


Boy: But why can't we just make a law........

Amendment-to-be: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we change the Constitution...

Boy: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws.

Amendment-to-be: Now you're catching on.

In GWB's defense, it appears that the Administration's responses to two previous SC rulings was to make/amend laws to make more difficult the exercising of rights that the SC had said prisoners/detainees had.  Maybe that's what he meant?

You have to wonder, though, what goes through the "minds" of the fine folks down at the White House and Congress if they make their THIRD pass at laws obstructing rights that someone has had to litigate THREE times to the SUPREME COURT in order to lawfully exercise.

it's not like their "real" people.

Please inform this 'middle american'.....

Why are non-citizen, enemy combatants being granted the same civil rights I enjoy?  POW's they should be for sure.  Tried for crimes agains humanity some of them should be.  But, civil rights? 

I don't get it.  I'm certain though, some one here will enlighten me.

better question is why 6 years later have they not been tried? and that whole enemy combatants thing really is a gray area if they came from iraq, being that we never should have been there in the first place and all.

the ones from Afghanistan should have been tried and shot long ago. ;)

(http://www.zeek.net/i/yoda.jpg)

The opinion. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf)

PB, I direct you to sections III-IV, pages 16-50.

It's pretty simple:

ALL men are entitled to certain inalienable rights. Not 'Just American Men'.

ALL men. It's  a pretty basic concept.

One of these inalienable is the right to know why you've been thrown in prison.

Is habeas corpus even a 'civil right'?  I thought habeas was even more basic and fundamental than that. Civil rights were sort of an afterthought, unspoken in early drafts--there was the grand inconsistency associated with that sticky negro problem, after all-- whereas you can think of habeas as the universal joint of the constitution.  Without habeas, there is no real counterbalance of executive and legislative powers and the whole grand idea this nation was built upon becomes a formless mirage, to be shaped by the will of whomever is in charge at any given moment.

PB, I understand this sounds completely outrageous, but according to Bush's enemy non-combatant theories, he has the right to summarily determine that YOU are a threat to the republic, instruct his police to enter your middle american home and to detain your middle american ass at GITMO or some grand waterboard palace in Ufghanistan until and for as long as he deems fit.  And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. 

Doesn't something about this scenario strike you as fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional?  Are you really proud to be an American when you know your representatives are doing that to people from elsewhere in the world?  Is your faith in our system of justice so poor that you fear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other 9/11 masterminds should not be tried for his crimes against humanity less we risk his ultimate freedom?

I mean, what part of the film Rendition didn't you understand?

I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that all the Supremes are saying to Bush in this decision--for the third time--is, "[waving their tattered Constitution] Um, hello!  Your name is President George, not King George."


Where Dubya completely and utterly *fudge*ed up was at the very outset, by not declaring these prisoners as POW's. He couldn't really do that given that he wanted to waterboard each and every one of the whole 1.5 billion of them for what they did on 9/11.  He lost his mind and his soul, drunk with power and blood thirsty for revenge.   

So with this decision, I don't worry at all that the Supremes have seemed to give away civil rights to yet another group of brown people. 

All that they've really done is simply apply another beotch-slap to an executive possessed by his own unbridled arrogance. 

This tragically flawed man Dubya reminds me more and more and more of Macbeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth#Macbeth_as_a_tragedy_of_character), with Condi playing the role of the ambitiously manipulative and duplicitous Lady Macbeth.  Laura is just so innocent in all of this (me hopes).




 

4th, 5th, 6th and even the 9th amendment

otherwise we might as well be the terrorists right or what the *fudge* was the point of it all. 

21st FTW!  [sm_headbang]

Turns out this is funny and true. 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

When did the Repugs forget what conservatism means?

about 8 years ago.

Some portions of the opinion read.  From that, I would conclude that the World Court, and/or UN should be adjudicating these cases.  After these namby pamby wusses let 'em go, we should just shoot 'em and get it over with.


An oversimplification for sure.

Does the decision state or even imply that anybody should be let go?

What it says is 'They' can't hold you forever without telling you why and letting you present some kind of evidence on your own behalf.

It's one of the most basic principles of western civilization.

You mean to tell me a man's rights aren't dictated by where he was born?

I reserve the right to find Marmite disgusting.  But I'm huge on marmalade.  Must be the little German in me.  (Cue Google images.)

Not really trying to pull your chain here, I was implying that the WC and UN would release the detainee's willy nilly.  Personally, I think it was a mistake to even retain custody of the detainee's on US controlled territory without declaring their status as POW's or criminals. 


Send the criminals to the Hague for trial.  Allow the POW's their rights under the Geneva convention(s).

Ha!  He called Clive little.

 

I don't think anybody with an ounce of sense thinks sending them to the Hague is any kind of solution.


POW's actually get a hearing before they're incarcerated. These individuals did not. Some of them were purchased from warlords in Afghanistan and whisked off to Gitmo.

Even the Soviet Union had show trials before they shipped folks off to the Gulags...


What is the Shrub so afraid of ?

PaunchyBald bein' pretty much a half-ounce of sense guy.

Hey,  thanks for the compliment.  I think I'll have another beer.   [sm_drink]