Letter to the Editor:

Constitution doesn’t protect terrorists

Malcolm Telloian, North Las Vegas

Thu, Jun 19, 2008 (2:04 a.m.)

Mel Lipman’s letter in Sunday’s paper praises the Supreme Court’s ruling to protect imprisoned alleged terrorists. He quoted the majority opinion as saying the Bush administration doesn’t have “the power to switch the Constitution on and off at will.”

Excuse me?

Since when are prisoners of a war on terrorists protected under our Constitution? They are protected only from abuse.

Does Mr. Lipman believe it is only a Republican thing to do this? During World War II, internment camps were created here in the United States for American citizens of Japanese descent simply because of their ancestry. And the president who did so was a Democrat — Franklin D. Roosevelt.

People like Mr. Lipman and groups like the ACLU frighten me. They should frighten you, also.

Discussion: 45 comments so far…

By Mel

6/19/08 at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

No "war" on terror was ever declared by congress. Even our spineless congress would not do something that ridiculous. So the "detainees" are NOT prisoners of war, and they ARE protected by our Constitution.

Regarding the internment of the Japanese--- as noted by the dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. US, this was a completely racist decision. Pres. Reagan later apologized for this action by our government.

This is proof of the danger in a Supreme Court that has no regard for human rights. And even a Democrat like Roosevelt, can disregard basic constitutional rights (as did Lincoln, a Republican, when he suspended habeus corpus).

The only protection we have against such acts (by Democrats or Republicans)is a Supreme Court that respects the human rights protections guaranteed by the Constitution. And McCain has pledged to appoint more judges like the minority who voted last week to deny such protections.

Mr. Telloian says he is frightened by "Lipman and groups like the ACLU". I can assure him they are no danger to him. But he should be frightened by the prospect of a government that can arrest him and imprison him indefinitely although he has committed no crime.

But maybe he feels secure because he doesn't have a name that sounds Muslim.
By NVMakz

6/19/08 at 11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Funding and perpetuating an ongoing "war" is and has been more than enough. Your parsing out like this is sad, given the last "declared war" was WWII, ims.

President Bush has and is acting on the best interests of our nation = cemented by the fact that even liberal Congressionals continue to vote FOR funding, even if they run to the nearest camera to bash the President for it in their hypocrisy.

The "Supremes" liberal majority has continued to embarrass this nation. Whether it is the "Kelo" decision, which allows local and state governments to seize, under Eminent Domain", private property NOT for universal public use, but for increased local and state tax revenues...

Or, Justice Kennedy's 2005 (ims) missive that international law must be considered in American Supreme Court decisions...

Now, allowing Habeas Corpus and access to American courts to the new threat, Islamofacist terrorism, when there are NO allowances or precedents for it.

Sorry, chief, but there is no "unringing the bell" of FDR's racist containment of Japanese CITIZENS in WWII. Reagan apologizing for FDR's racist actions just cements the opposing opinion in this. Noting the "dissenting" S/C opinion is useless, as it would be for me to lean on it in this latest brainfart, er liberal / ACLU push forward in corroding our essence as a nation - the S/C made law here.

Anyway, as liberals fall all over themselves to undermine who and what makes America the greatest nation on Earth = leave it to the five liberal black-robed dictators to show we all once again the dangers and corroding influence they have on our people and nation.

Will Osama bin Laden get habeas corpus rights as well? Will OBL "get off" legally if he's not read his "rights" in the field?

This liberal S/C decision is MORE reason why McCain should be selecting the next S/C justices, instead of the social communist, Obama (already endorsed by Achimini-jihad(sp), Chavez and other enemies of America.
By JohnF

6/19/08 at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

"liberals fall all over themselves to undermine who and what makes America the greatest nation on Earth..."

Did you happen to see the front page of the RJ today? Does the torturing of prisoners make us the greatest nation on earth? How about the holding of suspects indefinitely with no charge?

President Bush has consistently undermined what truly makes us the greatest nation on earth: the elevation of individual liberty above the power of the state and the right of the people to govern themselves. To wit:

1) He has instituted a program of warrantless surveillance of the communications of citizens and continued that program even after assuring the public it had been discontinued.

2) He has abrogated treaties signed by previous Presidents and confirmed by the Senate unilaterally; treaties which, once confirmed by the Senate, carry the force of law (read your Constitution).

3) He has suspended habeas corpus, a power which the Constitution grants only to Congress in times of war or insurrection.

4) He has instituted a policy of torture of prisoners and lied about that policy to the American public (again, check the front page of taoday's RJ).

5) He has arrogated unto himself the right to declare anyone a terrorist and to imprison that person indefinitely. This is a dictatorial power.

The list goes on and on. These things are not what makes us the greatest nation on earth; our consistent rejection of these things throughout our history is what has made us the greatest nation on earth. The day we rid ourselves of this President will hopefully return us to a time when we can say to the rest of the world that we reject the tactics of terrorists and dictators, even when fighting terrorists and dictators.

Mr. Telloian,

There are no prisoners of war in American custody as Congress has not declared war on anyone. Further, you state that these prisoners are protected from abuse. I refer you to the front page of today's RJ.
By NVMakz

6/19/08 at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Point #1: There has been not a one single citizen who has been brought forward that has had their constitutional rights violated by the "signals intelligence" efforts on electronic communications originating from OUTSIDE the U.S. coming in. Several Senators, liberal, two years ago give or take, asked any source to refer citizens who had been harmed by this, none were vetted as being violated.

Of course, with the lib-mindset on this, terrorists INSIDE America can call and e-mail unfettered to their masters outside the country without fear of legal sanctions under the current liberal efforts. Thanks, liberal....

Point #2: Name the treaties approved by the Senate which the President has "abrogated"?? Name them all! Prove your point.

Point #3: No citizen of the US has had their habeas corpus rights violated without court oversight (I'm thinking the convicted / in prison Jose Padilla - the domestic terrorist here).

Point #4: Name a citizen named by the government as a "terrorist" that the Administration has not adhered to final (not in process legally) judicial dictum on their case. The definition of "dictatorial power" is the opposite of this.

Libs love lying about Bush being a "dictator", when the devices (especially "rendition" and secret / traveling detention) and "terrorist courts"(mq) were devised during the Clinton Administration - after the 1993 WTC bombing. "Water-boarding" has been around for centuries, but becomes re-designated "torture" when attacking Bush, lol on the hypocrisy.

The list does NOT "go on and on". If so, list it all out so I may crush it. Liberals need to amplify the negative, lie and whine about the "possible abuses"(mq) - especially when the POTUS is a Republican - that the lie eventually becomes viewed as the truth. It's still a lie, though - as is most of liberal politics in this era.

The "not a war" theorem has already been crushed. Squawk on, though.....

The liberal - each day - efforts diluting what being an American citizen is. Whether it's giving terrorists citizenship rights or not stopping the massive influx of illegal aliens crossing our border or corroding continuously from within....
By jfnance32

6/19/08 at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

1) He has instituted a program of warrantless surveillance of the communications of citizens and continued that program even after assuring the public it had been discontinued.

Rebuttal: I believe Bush Sr. started this program and it was continued under Clinton and Bush Jr.

Congress that is controled now by Democrats have passed laws allowing Bush Jr. to continue the program.

Hussein will continue the program.

I guess you should get a head start now and start to get congress and Hussein impeached.

+++++++++

2) He has abrogated treaties signed by previous Presidents and confirmed by the Senate unilaterally; treaties which, once confirmed by the Senate, carry the force of law (read your Constitution).

Rebuttal: Please list the treaties.

++++++++

3) He has suspended habeas corpus, a power which the Constitution grants only to Congress in times of war or insurrection.

Rebuttal: Habeas corpus has never been extended to non-citizens not held on US soil under any president ever. The Supreme Court has just extended it that group of fine young men and women. This means if we fight WWII all over again then over 2 million POW's could file briefs in federal courts.

+++++++++++++
4) He has instituted a policy of torture of prisoners and lied about that policy to the American public (again, check the front page of today’s RJ).

Rebuttal: Bush's interrogation policy is much stricter policy then what FDR did in WWII, Truman in Korea, JFK, LBJ and Nixon did in Vietnam wars. So if Bush is evil then FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Nixon were really evil people. Remember, all those presidents order the deaths of foreign leaders, too.

+++++++++++++
5) He has arrogated unto himself the right to declare anyone a terrorist and to imprison that person indefinitely. This is a dictatorial power.

Rebuttal: If Bush Jr is a dictator than FDR and Lincoln were super dictators. FDR is the first president that held and executed people and called them “unlawful enemy combatants”. There were spies that were arrested on US soil. He declared that they had no habeas corpus rights. After their short trial they were immediately shot. He also ordered 1,000’s of citizens held in camps because of their heritage.

For citizens in NORTHERN states, like Maryland, Lincoln offically suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Remember there was no declaration of war by Congress. He placed the governor, various state senators and press members in jail.

I notice that FDR and Lincoln won their wars. I hope we do too.
By NVMakz

6/19/08 at 5:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

"jf":

Wasn't FISA (1978) signed under (the biggest failure in and out of office...) Jimmah Caaa-ter.

I - think - so?

If so - the liberals are whining about a law regarding electronic surveillance enforced today - developed in an era in which there was no internet, cell phones, modern-day encryption standards etc == the Stone Age, hell, barely hand-held calculators that worked worth spit and no gas pumps which allowed credit-cards????

Secret courts without the "accused" represented; unreviewable "evidence" against (???, foreign AND domestic?), not reviewable (then?) by civilian courts?? = sounds liberally fishy.

Stone age laws regarding world-wide terrorist communications that da liberal wants adhered TO THE LETTER without fail (while a (R) is POTUS, of course)- developed in 1978 - still demanded by today's corrosive liberals to tie down Bush and help the terrorist (in effect).

All thanks, in this age, to da liberal....

Didn't Democrats dominate Congress then?? The Democrat was more patriotic back then.......
By NVMakz

6/19/08 at 6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Last word today:

As da liberal efforts putting the Islamofacist terrorist "at the Ritz"(mq), the rights and abilities of American / Coalition service-people and local civilians continues to consist of being blown to bits suddenly, usually doing mundane chores like grocery shopping -- or in the case of military, being found in pieces by the roadside or in a river after immense torture and.

All, without habeas corpus..............

Although, under every conflict in our history, America has treated the captured enemy better than the American service-person had been treated.....

Liberal, thy name is corrosive, rabidly-political hypocrite..........
By JohnF

6/19/08 at 8:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

The treaties Bush has violated include:

1) The Geneva Conventions
2) The Nuremberg Principles (not technically a treaty)
3) The United Nations Climate Convention
4) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
5) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

There isn't any individual who can claim his phone calls have been intercepted because of the way the surveillance is being conducted. ALL INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS ARE BEING SCANNED. When those phone calls include certain key words they are kicked out and examined. Once that happens the government can say that the call was monitored as a result of an investigation into the person on the other, non-American, end.

Because FDR, Lincoln, and others did things that were beyond the bounds of the Constitution is no reason to countenance Bush doing so. Remember what your mother said when you told her, "But Billy did it"?

Further, habeas corpus is not being denied to people not on US soil; Guantanamo is US soil as long as we hold the treaty rights to the land. Of course, if Bush has decided that treaty no longer applies...

Habeas corpus doesn't apply only to US citizens; it applies to all people held by the US government except prisoners of war who fall under the Geneva Conventions. Neither US law nor the Geneva Conventions allow the torture of prisoners.

Using this so-called war on terror to justify the granting of dictatorial powers to the President is anti-American and I will say the same thing if either Obama or McCain tries to retain these powers.

As far as the list going on...

The President revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to discredit her husband

President Bush violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of his education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams

Federal prosecutors were fired for failing to bring politically-motivated prosecutions

Check out the Bush administration's involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman.

Who can forget "you're doing a heckuva job Brownie!"

Again, I refer you to the front page of today's RJ; our own retired General will tell you the President has committed war crimes.

You want me to go on? I can.
By jfnance32

6/19/08 at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

"There isn't any individual who can claim his phone calls have been intercepted because of the way the surveillance is being conducted"

Again, Congress has passed laws even today that empowers Echelon. Hussein will continue the program in office.

Are you going to demand Hussein get impeached if he does not terminate the program?

+++++++++++++++++

"Guantanamo is US soil as long as we hold the treaty rights to the land"

We are leasing the land. In the DC Circuit, they decleare that Guantanamo is not US soil. The British lease parts of Nevada for their military. I guess in your world that makes parts of Nevada part of the United Kingdom.

The DC court ruled "[U]nder the common law [habeas corpus], the dispositive fact was not a petiotioner's alien enemy status, but his lack of presence within any sovereign territory."

The Supreme Court in its ruling agree with the DC court on this technical point. They just dropped the sovereign territory as a requirement for a non-US citizen earning habeas corpus rights. Only requirement now is that the non-citizen has to be held by a US government entity like the Army. I bet soon some guy after he kills a dozen GI's by blowing them to bits will ask for a lawyer and will file a writ saying that his other rights were violated. He will say that his miranda rights were not read. His meal was cold and he could not call home to mommy.
By JohnF

6/19/08 at 10:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

I'm not demanding that Bush be impeached. I'll just be glad to be rid of him.

The wiretapping program was declared illegal in US District Court but the decision was overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals because the plaintiffs could not prove that their phone calls had been intercepted. Therefore they had no standing. The Court did not rule on the legality of the wiretapping itself.

So where the law stands right now is that the wiretapping is illegal on first and fourth amendment grounds, but it can't be challenged in court because nobody can prove that his/her phone calls were intercepted. Therefore the government now has the unlimited power to listen in on your phone calls and read your e-mails as long as they do so in such a way as to make it impossible for you to prove that you were the actual target of the surveillance.

Not what our founding fathers had in mind, I do believe.

The people who support this sort of thing place safety above freedom, but they are deluded. This behavior certainly makes us less free, but it doesn't make us any safer. In any event, the Presidential oath of office requires the President not to protect us, but to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Any President who willingly abrogates the Constitution has violated that oath. Saying that other Presidents before President Bush have violated their oaths in no way excuses President Bush doing so.
By JohnF

6/19/08 at 10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh, I forgot to add that regardless of whether Guantanamo is US soil, US law prohibits torture, as does the UCMJ. So if Guantanamo is US soil then the practitioners of torture there have violated US law. If it's under the control of the military then the practitioners of torture have violated the UCMJ.

Further, as far as Guantanamo is concerned, if it's not US soil, what is it? Is it Cuban soil? Whose laws rule Guantanamo? Or are you saying that no law applies there?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with our military holding as prisoners enemies for the duration of a war (as long as we obey the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners). There are a number of problems here, though. First, the prisoners at Guantanamo are not prisoners of war as no war has been declared. Second, and more importantly, if you call the "war on terror" a war, when will it be over? On top of that, we have ceded to the President the right to declare anyone an unlawful combatant and to detain (and torture) that person for as long as he sees fit. Since this "war on terror" likely has no end the President now has the power to imprison anyone he likes for as long as he likes. This is the power of a dictator. It's the sort of thing we criticize the Syrians, Iranians, and North Koreans for all the time, and we are right to do so. I never thought I'd live to see the day that we would be doing this sort of thing in my United States. Not only that, but my fellow Americans are standing up and cheering on the torture. It's disgusting.
By jfnance32

6/19/08 at 11:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

I will break it down.

Before the latest supreme court ruling:

1) Non-US Citizens
2) Not held on US soverign terrority
3) No habeas corpus rights
4) DC circuit (one level below the Supreme court) had ruled that Guantanamo is not sovereign US terrority

The supreme court handed this decision:

1) Non-US Citizens
2) Supreme court agreed that Guantanamo is not sovereign US terrority
4) Supreme court throws out the "US soverign terrority test"
5) Now any person anywhere in the world that is captured by the US government (like the US army) will have habeas corpus rights

You get it now?

The enemy gets captured in some ditch in Pakistan by US Army Specials forces. The very second that the enemy is captured then the person will have habeas corpus rights. That means that the person can petition a US court to address any complaints the person has.

Habeas corpus is a common law (that means it is a custom from old England) concept. It means that person being held can submit a communication to court protesting anything. Most people will protest the fact that they are being held in the first place.

The net effect of this ruling is that we will have to hire a ton of lawyers to service the legal needs of our enemies who are desperating trying to kill US soldiers and citizens.
By NVMakz

6/20/08 at 7 a.m.

Suggest removal

"The treaties Bush has violated include:

1) The Geneva Conventions
2) The Nuremberg Principles (not technically a treaty)
3) The United Nations Climate Convention
4) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
5) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

#1: Prove it! Enemy combatants, out-of-uniform, not a military force == and on and on. Haven't heard or read of much of an effort to put Bush's feet to the fire on it.....

#2: Not a treaty (ratified by the Senate) - you null out your own point by pulling from outside your own argument guidelines, Thanks!

#3: Not a treaty ratified by the Senate (the "goal posts" stay right where they are), but another Kyoto-type treaty (blown out 95-0 in 1999, before Bush took office. Even Clinton/Gore too embarrassed to re-present for ratification).

#4: The ABMT allows for either nation to pull out (NOT an abdication at all). The advancements in the missile defense program is the result. As a lib, tying us down to outdated agreements with enemy entities as russia was and the UN IS - IS the thing. . Not surprising....

#5: "Int. convention...." (death penalty) Again, not a treaty - as you set all of this up for. Not ratified by Senate.

Some notes to cut through the blizzard of B.S..

"But, Billy did it": The BASIS of modern liberal thought. First line of attack of the lib, lol... Hypocritical of the lib, but typical.....

"International phone calls / No standing": You try to call out conventions unratified and treaties unratified, then ignore legal court decisions of "no standing"??? No standing means no standing, as well as it seems like rank political attacks. Guess the (shopped) liberal judge wasn't lib-enough, eh??

Next, "the list", lol......
By NVMakz

6/20/08 at 7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

"The List":

The President revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to discredit her husband

((Remember getting crushed last week or two about Richard Armitage (THE source), Colin Powell (who knew from right after Novak's column) and the Wilsons being branded liars from the Senate Intelligence Investigative Committee (on this issue) AND the British High Court (can't remember the specific name) which verified that the "16 words" were correct?? MI% never retracted the information about Saddam TRYING to buy "Yellow-cake". Guess truth and fact isn't trumped by liberal squak and brainwashing....))

President Bush violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of his education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams

((Who this Williams person? Never heard of him, but anyway -- Considering the massive advantage of liberal major media pimping for the liberal, (and being paid for it), the point is hypocritical.....))

Federal prosecutors were fired for failing to bring politically-motivated prosecutions

(( POTUS can fire them for ANY reason. Clinton cleaned house of all Republican-based prosecutors in 1992. Liberal whining over presidential prerogative came to nothing but 24/7 propaganda = the specialty of the 2006 lib-led Congress (15% approval ratings as of last week / 1/2 of Bush's, lol) ))

Check out the Bush administration's involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman.

((Tell me about this person. Never heard of him? ))

Who can forget "you're doing a heckuva job Brownie!"

(( Who can forget the abdication of LOCAL and STATE government in louisiana for about 80 years of liberal rule. Billions in federal levee money moved to other projects, etc... That Gov Blanco (blown out of office in disgrace, er, didn't run again, lol..) STALLING for 3 days to embarass Bush - while her constitiuients suffered for the cameras. How many school buses didn't carry people to safety, then were drowned? LOL... Brown was a convient liberal media scapegoat, as facts later proved ))

More next... I'm having fun....
By NVMakz

6/20/08 at 7:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Johnf":

the 10:15pm screed....

"no war declared": Again, you were crushed on this up front. Anyway, why does the lib-congressional keep voting / paying for it? To keep our kids in the field, IN DANGER, for liberal political calculus, I guess? OR, are Reid, Pelosi AFRAID to take on the "chimp", Bush, eh??

The rest is an inaccurate mumble-jumble of what?? DNC talking points?

Remember, the main tools used by Bush etc were invented by Carter and Clinton....

Guess only a liberal Democrat POTUS can use them unfettered, eh??

I'm gone for the weekend - keep drowning in "your" delusioning, liberals........
By JohnF

6/20/08 at 9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

NVMakz,

At 6:13 p.m. you said it was your last word for the day. Where did you learn to honor your own word, from John McCain?

As far as Armstrong Williams and Don Siegelman go, I guess if you've never heard of them then Bush didn't do anything wrong, right? Why don't you just google their names and do a little reading before belittling me for something you admittedly know nothing about?

Certainly federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time. That doesn't mean they were fired for legitimate reasons. These prosecutors were fired because they would not abuse the power of their offices to benefit the President politically.

As for "Brownie" (Michael D. Brown), prior to joining FEMA he was the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association. He had no background in emergerency preparedness; his hiring was the result of his political connections. It is no wonder that the response to Katrina was botched so badly. The man responsible for preparing the response had no idea what he was doing. I don't blame Brown nearly as much as the people who thought it best to put him in that position. What were they thinking?

Some things President Bush has done are absolutely indefensible. Your case would be a lot stronger if you stuck to defending him when there's an argument to be made for him and if you knew something about the subject matter before you criticized others for their views.

Write back after you've read up on Spiegelman and Williams.

jfnance,

The simple solution, therefore, would have been to declare war on Iraq. That way everyone captured there could have been held indefinitely. Right?
By jfnance32

6/20/08 at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Not anymore. It no longer matters what status they are. They could be POW's or unlawful enemy combatants.

Now, any person captured by US armed forces will have habeas corpus rights no matter where they are being held.

It does not mean that get full US citizen rights, like they do not get a right of privacy or have to be mirandized or have to have an attorney present.

It just means that they can file a petition to the US courts. The US courts will be require to read the petition and then either dismiss it or move to have it judicated.

It is a slippery slope and is just plain crazy.

It could lead to lawyers being present on the battlefield.

Perhaps some will get shoot which will be good news.
By NVMakz

6/20/08 at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

From the airport, just for you, "J":

"Certainly federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time. That doesn't mean they were fired for legitimate reasons. These prosecutors were fired because they would not abuse the power of their offices to benefit the President politically."

Thanks for negating your own point. Serving at the pleasure of the president means no reason needed = so much for "legitimate" there, eh. Did you know that one of the Fed. Attys Clinton fired was in the process of investigating HIM in Arkansas?

"Abusing power" = learn a better joke.... Or, abusing power is the province of the liberal these days, since Watergate...

If the two names aren't important enough for you to put them in context = then there's no case you have here. Maybe, other than lib-squakking and picking nits....

Thanks for not being able to refute the oft-mentioned facts from before. i'll take it. your goal posts don't move...

I'll "revise and extend" and give you Brown. One point while swamped in my factoids is the very least I can do.

Stop lying on the boards, and I'll stop smashing you into the e-turf.
By JohnF

6/20/08 at 8:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

NVMakz,

Please tell me it's a one-way ticket! :-)

Since you refuse to edify yourself, allow me. The Bush administration paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the no child left behind law on his nationally syndicated television show. They used taxpayer funds to do this. Williams did not disclose this to his viewers, which was certainly unethical. Worse, "Federal auditors (from the Government Accountability Office) said on Friday(in 2005)that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party." (NY Times, October 5, 2005)

Don Siegelman is the former Governor of Alabama who was indicted and convicted of bribery based on trumped-up evidence. The campaign to prosecute Siegelman was aided and abetted by the Bush administration in the person of Karl Rove. The prosecution was so suspect that fifty-two former state attorneys general asked Congress to investigate. To date, Karl Rove has defied a Congressional subpoena to testify on the matter. Further, on appeal a federal appeals court agreed that the prosecution was spurious, agreeing that Siegelman's "appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal" of his conviction. Siegelman is free now while his appeal is heard. If you do a little reading (i.e. not remain willfully ignorant) you can find out more about how this scurrilous prosecution went forward.

Again, you're either missing the point or don't want to see the point on the prosecutors. Those prosecutors who used the power of their office to pursue politically motivated prosecutions like the Spiegelman case were rewarded, while those who chose to remain ethical were fired. The Bush administration fired prosecutors who refused to engage in illegal conduct. How can you defend this?

jfnance,

I don't read the decision that way. I guess the only way we'll find out which of us has interpreted it correctly will be to have a POW sue for habeas corpus. Of course, we'll have to wait until we have a declared war to find out. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

In any event, the torture bothers me far more than the detention.
By CaptJack

6/20/08 at 9:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Any American, especially of the small government right wing, who believes it's okay to hold prisoners, citizens or not, for several years without a hearing should really take a long look at themselves in the mirror.

We didn't win the Cold War to begin using the same tactics we were fighting against. This action has sullied our reputation as the light on the hill and it’s really pathetic that “Constitution loving” conservatives would argue that suspension of Habeas is a good idea.

Thank God for the system of law the Founding Fathers set up.
By JohnF

6/20/08 at 11:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

CaptJack,

Well said.
By jfnance32

6/21/08 at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

I guess this is how Capt Jack will fight the war.

1) When engaging the enemy, shout to them "You are under arrest, please put down the bomb and your guns."

2) When you captured the enemy read him miranda rights.

3) Be sure to place tape around the battle scence ...... oh I mean crime scene

4) Call CSI to collect evidence and try to interview all enemy friends

5) You should attach a lawyer to every platoon to make sure that you doing this correctly

6) You should have a platoon of lawyers attached to each platoon of soliders. This will be used to give the captured enemy access to free lawyers because most will not afford to hire an attorney

7) If you need to search the surrounding houses for evidence or bombs or other enemy be sure to get a warrant first.

Excellent way to fight a war.
By CaptJack

6/21/08 at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

J, you're the king of the straw man argument. Affording Habeas rights to prisoners that we're planning to hold indefinitely has nothing to do with how we fight a battle.

So no, none of your examples apply. If you choose to use logic and want to argue a point that isn't a total fallacy, come back and type one out...
By jfnance32

6/21/08 at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Let me understand your logic.

We will give them Habeas corpus rights to do what? So they can petition the court on challenging on why they are being held.

So if the court then agrees with the petition then US has to charge the person with a crime to hold them. That means we have to collect evidence on them in war conditions in a middle of a battlefield which is dumb.

Perhaps you can explain to me the process that you see.
By JohnF

6/21/08 at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance,

You'd have an argument if all the people being held at Guantanamo had been captured on a battlefield. Many of these people, though, are being held because they've been denounced by other Iraqis. They are not being held - and tortured - on the basis of any evidence other than the say-so of people who might have any number of axes to grind.

Anyway, what's your worry? If we have evidence that the people being held are terrorists then we can continue to hold them. If not, why are we holding them in the first place?

Go read The Gulag Archipelago. We're turning Iraq into our own little version of Soviet Russia.
By jfnance32

6/21/08 at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

You guys are going to make it so hard on the battlefield. They are going to capture bad guys and not be able to hold them so they are going to release them.

Those released enemies will come back and kill some soliders or US citizens.

This has already happened several times.

We should just give up and turn this country into a Mulsim religious state. I am sure that you make you very happy.
By CaptJack

6/21/08 at 4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spoken like a true idiot who hasn't read the ruling. It's on the USSC's website...

The ruling doesn't apply to prisoners of war. Are you too stupid to realize that? The ruling applies to those classified as enemy combatants -- that legal gray area the Bush Admin has used to hold these guys indefinitely.

If you want to hold someone in the midst of a war, you must classify them as POW's and apply the Geneva Conventions. If you don't want to treat your prisoners with the dignity of the Conventions, and thus create a new classification so you can torture, you've got to send them to Fed Court to argue their detention.

If you want to keep looking like a fool by arguing a topic that you are not familiar with, feel free. It's rather comical.
By jfnance32

6/21/08 at 6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Capt Jack, your insults show that you are a true intellectual. You should work on upgrading them. I believe they are on the 4th grade level. Work hard you might get to 5th grade.

You do not understand the ramifications of the ruling. You have heard of the slippery slope of US courts rulings.

This is the first time that non-US citizens held on land that is not sovereign US territory will get the right of habeas corpus.

It opens the door to future rulings. I am sure that one day a prisoner of war will get some liberal lawyer group to file a habeas corpus and the Supreme Court citing this ruling will open the door wider.

So if Bush calls them prisoners of war then they do not have the right of habeas corpus. He can hold them forever too. There is no time limit on how long you can hold POW's.

I think that would last about 2 seconds in your “I love the terrorist" world.

If you say that he cannot because no formal declaration of war has occurred then I guess in the Korean and Vietnam War there were no prisoners of war because there was no declaration of war in those either.

So educate me. What do you want to call these guys? Should we call them unlawful enemy combatants, criminals or prisoners of war?

It was FDR that started calling people unlawful enemy combatants. Saboteurs were landing on US soil and he did not want to call them prisoners of war or criminals.

Some 30 guys have been released and they have later been re-captured or killed on the battlefield. Some have killed US soldiers.

Because of this ruling we might have to release the more evil guys. Many of them would love more than anything to cut the throat of your love ones.

I know that you could care less about that.

They are estimating that a flood of lawsuits will filed in federal courts because of this ruling. At least the lawyers will be making tons of cash.

This ruling harms our military and places our soliders and country at grave risk.
By JohnF

6/21/08 at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance,

The prisoners at Guantanamo are being held without respect to either the law of the United States or the Geneva Conventions. For one thing, neither allows torture.

Since they need to be held under one or the other, the Supreme Court had to define what these people are, POWs or criminal defendants. Since no war has been declared they couldn't very well classify them as POWs, so they had to grant these people access to the courts. To do otherwise would be to say that both captors and captives are subject to the rule of no law.

I, too, share your concern for the safety of our troops and of our people. I lost friends in New York on September 11th, 2001. But throwing away the things that make this country great is no way to combat terrorism. We are a nation of laws and are supposed to be bound by the rule of law. We need to treat these people either as ciminal defendants or prisoners of war (I prefer the latter). If they are guilty of war crimes punish them according to the UCMJ. But rounding up people based only on hearsay, throwing them in jails 5,000 miles from home, holding them indefinitely and without charge, and torturing them is not showing respect for either the rule of law or even common human decency. My friends, were they here to tell you themselves, would say that this is not an appropriate way to react to their deaths.
By jfnance32

6/21/08 at 8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

If they are POW's then we can hold them until the end of the war. I doubt that the extreme mulsims are ready to call it quits.

If our soliders are going to act has cops on the battlefield, then that will put them in grave danger.
By CaptJack

6/21/08 at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Once again you show how foolish you are. You openly admit your hyperbole of massive POW lawsuits and CSI units dispatched to the ground is only a might.

I'm sorry that the Bush Admin has hijacked the Constitution and international law in such a way that the USSC has to rule on non-US citizens being given Habeaus rights. It's really a shame. But when you change the game so completely, new legal territory must be forged. Make them POW's and stick to the Geneva Conventions and we wouldn't be in this situation.

You get one or the other. Sorry you don't understand this. I'll draw you a picture if that'll help.

And I know it's fun to call liberals "terrorist lovers," yet it's liberals fighting to uphold the Constitution. It's liberals who want to prove that the men in Gitmo are actually terrorists. It's liberals who want to put these people on trial and charge them for their crimes.

Really, why do you hate America, the Constitution and our system of government?
By jfnance32

6/22/08 at 12:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

You say, “It's liberals who want to prove that the men in Gitmo are actually terrorists. It's liberals who want to put these people on trial and charge them for their crimes.”

You admit now that our soldiers will have to become cops.

I can see it now. GI Joe in the fox hole, he just captured the enemy. Oooops, we forget to collect the evidence. I know that you just blew my buddy in half, but we did do a DNA check on the bomb parts and we did not do a background check to see if you signed up for the Muslim Extremist Army. It was kind a hard to do with all the bullets and grenades going off. So sorry to hand cuff you. Mr. Mass Killer, you are now free to go blow somebody else up.

These SOB’s in Gitmo are not your regular army soldiers. They have no rank. They have no country. They have no uniform. They drill holes in the heads of regular civilians and chop of the toes of children in front of their parents. They plant bombs next to roads and detonate them remotely. They sneak up on our guys and slit their throats and then quietly go mix in the crowd.

You want our GI’s to be cops to these evil men, collect evidence on them and arrest them. Do you know the grave danger you would be putting our men in? Do you realize how silly this is?

If we declare these pieces of scum as prisoners of war then we could not ask them anything but name, rank and serial number. As you can see this would greatly damage our ability to gather intelligence. Do you realize how much danger that you would put us in?

Bush could have declared them POW’s. If he did that then he could kept them there forever because this war is not ending in the next 50 years. Also according to you, they would not have habeas corpus rights (yeah right..lol). If would have been easier politically to do that. But he realized the value of the intelligence that one can gather by questioning them.

Bin Laden’s goal on 9/11 was not to kill Americans. His ultimate goal was to create economic chaos in the US so that we would become lesser of a dominate force on the planet. On that day, our country loss nearly 3,000 lives but our economy in the months afterward lost trillions of dollars in value. It took Las Vegas an entire year to recover.

If NYC is nuked can you imagine the economic havoc that will cause to the US and to the world?

A NYC nuke event would likely trigger WWIII.

A NYC nuke event would probably cause a dramatic shift in how our government works, like a significant lost of freedoms and I am not talking about BS like library books or somebody listening on my call to Pakistan.

What do you think the population will demand? I think on that day there will not be crazy discussions on giving our enemy habeas corpus corps rights. We all will be concentrating on how to eliminate the enemy off the face of the earth.

Baby, that is truly the end game. It is either them or us.
By thebs

6/22/08 at 3:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nance, you're not this dense. Obviously you see that BUSH is the reason we can't declare these guys POWs.

BUSH took the singular action in declaring them enemy combatants.

BUSH forced the hand of the Supreme Court in deciding the legal status of enemy combatants.

BUSH chose not to ask for a formal declaration of war.

You can live in your fantasy world of NYC nuclear explosions and battlefield CSI, but the reality is that Bush's sole decision-making ability as President is the reason these guys were given the right to challenge their cases.

It's a systemic problem with the Bush administration's expansion of the powers of the Executive. When you forge new policies, those policies will come under scrutiny.

No one is arguing with the legal status of POWs, except for you. That's not the issue. They're not POWs. The issue is that Bush created this new (sham) framework of a justice system and it rightfully came under review.

The person to blame here is - say it with me - Bush.
By jfnance32

6/22/08 at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bush did the right thing.

He could not call them POW's because then he would only been able to ask them name, rank and serial number. By the way, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia had no declaration of war by Congress. Were those guys POW's or criminals or enemy combatants?

Saying that they were criminals would have thrown them into the US legal system. First, it is very hard to collect evidence in a chaotic battlefield situation so many of them will have to be release immediately. Second, the enemy will try to turn the court trials into circuses and propaganda platforms.

He made the right decision by labeling them unlawful enemy combatants. It allows us to keep them off the battlefield and to collect intelligence.

Because of liberals like you we are being forced to release the enemy and some are returning to the battlefield to kill GI's. Now, we will see the circus and propaganda when these guys are in court.

This entire silly BS will one day go away. The enemy is very determined. They have been fighting this war for decades. We just did realize it until 9/11. They have no fear to die. They have no fear if all their love ones die. It is all in the name of Allah and Allah will greatly reward them for their sacrifices.

They will not stop until they inflict great harm to our homeland.

One day, some day, probably 20 to 80 years from now, NYC will be nuked. All this silliness about how to treat our enemy will melt away. Too bad, so many will have to die. Too bad, our economy will be in shambles. Too bad, our Constitution will be shredded soon after that day. The people will not surrender their lives and livelihood to this enemy. On that day, they will wonder why Bush was not aggressive enough.
By CaptJack

6/22/08 at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

No, I admit there may be people in Gitmo who aren't terrorists -- as there have been many examples of... If we want to hold them indefinitely, let's make sure we have the right guys.

Sorry it's okay for you to jail someone without the basic hearing to prove whether or not they're truly a terrorist. It's actually quite pathetic and smacks in the face of your right wing fathers.

What's scary is your seething hope for a U.S. city to get nuked so you can be proved right. Perhaps it's you who should be jailed indefinitely.

As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So again, why do you hate this country and the Constitution?
By jfnance32

6/22/08 at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

You liberals are requiring our soldiers to be cops and to collect evidence on the battlefield in war conditions.

If we declared them to be POW’s then we could keep in prison until the end of the war. I am sure you that you would be crying about that too.

The net result of this is that some of soldiers will die and perhaps one day US civilians will be dead too.

HOPE YOU ARE SO HAPPY NOW.
By thebs

6/22/08 at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

That's ok... Nance just announced on this page that anthrax isn't terrorism:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jun...

Apparently, to Nance, it's a party treat. Or something.

"If we declared them to be POW’s then we could keep in prison until the end of the war." There's no WE here, there's BUSH. BUSH did this. BUSH made the Supreme Court interpret his actions.

Only one person can declare them enemy combatants. That power lies solely with Bush. The only person to blame for this is Bush.

Your warped NYC nuclear attack fantasy says more about how the right desires a massive attack with casualties to push their agenda.

Nance's fetish for more American casualties is truly disturbing.
By CaptJack

6/22/08 at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

So true Thebs. He's praying for a terrorist attack so we can start detaining anyone we want. Despite his argument proven to be a straw man and a total fallacy, he continues to scream "BATTLEFIELD CSI!!!"

He's like a child who's had his toy taken away.

It's clear J hates America, the courts, democracy and the system our Founding Fathers set up.
By jfnance32

6/22/08 at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Capt Jack...again you really really need to work on your insults.

"That's ok... Nance just announced on this page that anthrax isn't terrorism:" There is no proof yet that a terrorist group committed these acts. No group has claimed respondibility. There was one person of interest and his motive was money and was not political. Shortly after the FBI question him the attacks stop. I guess if we use your logic on that then every murder in the USA is a terrorist attack.

I hope that I am wrong about the nuke attack on NYC happening in the next 20 to 80 years. I am not the only one predicting. One of the richest man in the world who has made billions off his predictions has said so, too. Warren Buffet declared that detonation of a nuclear device in an American city—"$1 trillion nuclear event" in Manhattan, for example—was inevitable. He said, "We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country. It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty."

It is you guys that are screaming CSI, CSI. You keep saying that Bush needs to show proof. The only way to do that is to have the GI's in battlefield to collect that proof.

Bush would have been politically better off if he declared them POW. And he could have keep them in prison for as long this terror war last without Haebas corpus issues. But USA needed the intelligence so he declared them unlawful enemy combatants which was the correct thing to do.
By thebs

6/22/08 at 8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Every murder in the USA is not a terrorist act. Causing nationwide panic by murdering five people and attempting to murder more by use of a weaponized neurological toxin is the very definition of terrorism.

That you're too dense to recognize this makes me fear for the Republicans.

And there's "respondibility" again.

"You liberals are requiring our soldiers to be cops and to collect evidence on the battlefield in war conditions." Wait, who is screaming about battlefield CSI, again? You are, Nance.

You need to take some respondibility for yourself, man.
By jfnance32

6/22/08 at 9:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

I will go very slowly for you.

1) Soldier X captures enemy B.

2) Enemy B is placed in prison camp.

3) Somebody is requiring that there should be “proof” so that Enemy B can be held. (I am not sure. Perhaps that somebody is you and your liberal friends.)

4) The only person that can collect “proof” is Soldier X.

5) Making Soldier X to collect evidence greatly endangers Solider X on the battlefield.

6) Because of Enemy B’s friends are trying to kill Soldier X, sometimes Solder X cannot collect the evidence and Enemy B is released.

7) Enemy B is free to attempt to kill Solder X again.

Did I go to fast?

Did you skip over part 3 and part 4 again?

Do you need pictures or cartoons?
By JohnF

6/22/08 at 10:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance,

You might have an argument there if the people in Guantanamo had been captured on some battlefield. But many of them are there simply because they've been denounced by their fellow Iraqis to collect a reward. If we used that system here I wouldn't be surprised if you and CaptJack denounced each other. :-)

You might have an argument, but you don't. You will notice that prisoners being held in Iraq are not being granted habeas corpus rights. It's only the prisoners who were removed from Iraqi or Afghan territory and brought to Guantanamo that were granted access to US courts. People being held in Iraqi and Afghan prisons are being held without habeas corpus rights and nobody is letting them out unless the Taliban shows up to spring them as happened in Afghanistan this past week.

The people brought to Guantanamo are there because we brought them there. Had we left them in Iraqi or Afghan prisons - or even US prison camps in Iraq or Afghanistan - they never would have had access to US courts.
By CaptJack

6/23/08 at 1:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

J,

Soldier is asked for proof said terrorist is an EC... Soldier says, "He shot at me." CO shrugs shoulders and moves on...

Damn, that was hard.

And as John pointed out, many in Gitmo were simply dimed out by their neighbors to collect reward money. They should be able to argue their indefinite detention.

It's interesting you believe so strongly in detention without proof/hearings because collecting such is "hard." Our country wouldn't stand for such cavalier detention of one of our citizens and we specifically don't detain indefinitely domestically.

Again, it's sad that you hate this country and the system of government the Founding Fathers set up.
By jfnance32

6/23/08 at 1:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

You say, "Had we left them in Iraqi or Afghan prisons - or even US prison camps in Iraq or Afghanistan - they never would have had access to US courts".

I disagree. The Supreme Court changed the rules for qualification of habeas corpus rights by non-US citizens.

The rule use to be:
Must be held on sovereign US territory

Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion agreed by saying "It is true that before today, the Court has never held that non-citizens detained by our government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution",”

Now the rule for qualification is:
Must be held on territory that is under de facto US control

This second new test is a new door that is available for other non-US citizens to enter. As you look at the sources below, you will see that the lawyers are ready to jump through this door.

In this article at law.com, http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=12... , the author believes that the decision “has strong implications for the rights of suspected terrorists being held by the United States in other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.”

She quotes a lawyer. "The combination of the jurisdictional result in Boumediene and the jurisdictional result in Munaf leads me to believe they will accept habeas review of U.S. terrorism or post-9/11 detentions anywhere where the U.S. is in control of the detention," says Joseph Margulies, a professor at the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University Law School

Also in her article it says, As Margulies sees it, Kennedy's reasoning could well apply to suspected terrorists being held at the U.S. base in Afghanistan. "They built [Bagram] and expanded its operations substantially because of decisions about Guantanamo," says Margulies.

Lastly, here is an lawyer that is ready to attempt to go through that door, “According to Eric Lewis, a partner at Baach Robinson & Lewis in Washington, D.C., who also represents detainees at Bagram, "the logic of [the Boumediene] decision should apply to victims of arbitrary detention by the U.S. government and give them the right to challenge their detention."
By jfnance32

6/23/08 at 2:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Capt Jack, I would be OK if the level of evidence required will be not the same strict level required in our criminal courts nor should the enemy have criminal trials in federal court system. Like you said, Enemy B shot at soldier X. The statement by the soldier should be sufficent evidence.

An higher level of evidence would be definitely a hard standard on our troops to meet and most likely result in a revolving door of capture, release, captured again and released again. That scenario is already happening on a limited basis.

I agree that at some point in time that the detainees should be able to have some due process rights. It should be a process that protects our troops, our country but also give a means for a person demonstrate that should not be held. I believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were accomplishing those goals.