Judges Say U.S. Can’t Hold Man as ‘Combatant’

[JLB]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/washington/12combatant.html?hp

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled yesterday that the president may not declare civilians in this country to be “enemy combatants” and have the military hold them indefinitely. The ruling was a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism.

[sukie]

Vey good. One less thing that will cause a tear to roll down the left cheek of so many here. LOL

[TRIPLE P]

Vey good. One less thing that will cause a tear to roll down the left cheek of so many here. LOL

So you'ed rather have the government have the right to violate the constitution?

[sukie]

Nope I'm saying... Move along.... topic closed.

[35Pete]

The court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said a fundamental principle is at stake: military detention of someone who had lawfully entered the United States and established connections here, it said, violates the Constitution.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians,” Judge Motz wrote, “even if the president calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our republic.

Do you guys realize that, and I am pretty sure of this, that everytime a provision of the Patriot Act or Military Commissions Act has been challenged in a Federal Court the bench struck it down as unconstitutional and lambasted Bush for it?

What does that tell you about our ****sucker in Chief?

[35Pete]

Judge Motz suggested that the government’s purpose in moving Mr. Marri to military custody was one the Supreme Court held improper in a 2004 decision, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that of subjecting him to harsh interrogation.

[35Pete]

All three judges yesterday agreed that a new law, the Military Commissions Act, did not defeat the court’s jurisdiction. The law says the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear challenges from any noncitizen “who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.”

Translation: "We the judiciary branch be da man when it comes to interpreting laws that you write up Furher Bush. If you don't like it **** off".

Here's the killer! If Bushco ignores the court decisions then that's the ultimate in HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. That's surefire impeachment, and possible federal criminal trials for blatant and willfully ignoring checks and balances.

[35Pete]

This is a fantastic decision. Uppy, it repudiates your ass hole COC. This is a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR defeat for you neocons.

The courts are basically calling you guys are bunch of mindless Nazi bastards.

[Gilly]

This is a fantastic decision. Uppy, it repudiates your ass hole COC. This is a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR defeat for you neocons.

The courts are basically calling you guys are bunch of mindless Nazi bastards.


say all that eh? tells me the sytem is working as it is suppose to. you and others think BA went to far, courts agreed, problem fixed, problem solved.

all this mindless blather about BA taking away everyones civil rights is moot.

checks and balances is working perfectly. gotta love the United States

[dilbert]

say all that eh? tells me the sytem is working as it is suppose to. you and others think BA went to far, courts agreed, problem fixed, problem solved.

all this mindless blather about BA taking away everyones civil rights is moot.

checks and balances is working perfectly. gotta love the United States

We'll see. They have ignored courts and Congress before.

Regardless, these tactics should have never been attempted. Anybody with a double digit or higher IQ knew there was no legal (or moral) justification for actions lilke this.

[TRIPLE P]

say all that eh? tells me the sytem is working as it is suppose to. you and others think BA went to far, courts agreed, problem fixed, problem solved.

all this mindless blather about BA taking away everyones civil rights is moot.

checks and balances is working perfectly. gotta love the United States

The President shouldn't need to be told this is illegal.

[Maz]

say all that eh? tells me the sytem is working as it is suppose to. you and others think BA went to far, courts agreed, problem fixed, problem solved.

all this mindless blather about BA taking away everyones civil rights is moot.

checks and balances is working perfectly. gotta love the United States

GREAT post! I think our doubt in the administration and President shows our dedication to our people and way of life. This is something that would HAVE to be addressed if not now then at some point in time, Bush just took one for the team seemingly. My question now is, HOW do we treat captured terrorists? Does everyone feel that this IS this REALLY the lesser of the two evils?

[dilbert]

GREAT post! I think our doubt in the administration and President shows our dedication to our people and way of life. This is something that would HAVE to be addressed if not now then at some point in time, Bush just took one for the team seemingly. My question now is, HOW do we treat captured terrorists? Does everyone feel that this IS this REALLY the lesser of the two evils?

How do we know these people are terrorists or not? We won't let them have a ****ing trial, won't charge them a crime and won't declare them POWs.

[Gilly]

nope we need to coddle those who would strike against us, stroke and show them our support. understand their pain, their misgivings towards us. when someone is planning to nuke Chicago we simply need to use our firm hand of diplomacy. is that correct leftys?


off topic- "Don't throw rocks at a man who's got a machine gun." is ***** hilarious

[dilbert]

nope we need to coddle those who would strike against us, stroke and show them our support. understand their pain, their misgivings towards us. when someone is planning to nuke Chicago we simply need to use our firm hand of diplomacy. right leftys?

Maybe we should just follow our own constitution instead of using at bird cage liner.

If they are guilty of an act, charge them, send them to trial, convict them and setence them.

Pretty easy concept.

[dilbert]

off topic- "Don't throw rocks at a man who's got a machine gun." is ***** hilarious


You can thank Rowdy Roddy Piper for that one!

[TRIPLE P]

nope we need to coddle those who would strike against us, stroke and show them our support. understand their pain, their misgivings towards us. when someone is planning to nuke Chicago we simply need to use our firm hand of diplomacy. is that correct leftys?


We need to treat citizens of this country with the rights citizens of this country are afforded by the constitution...if you don't believe that than you are an enemy of this country and should be executed for treason

[Maz]

How do we know these people are terrorists or not? We won't let them have a ****ing trial, won't charge them a crime and won't declare them POWs.

I admit it is without a doubt a terrifying precedent but HOW then do we defend ourselves against the people who would like nothing more than to see us erased off the globe? It's a horrible situation, in all ways stuck between a rock and a hard place.... IF Jose Padilla was indeed planning and detonating a dirty nuke on American soil you REALLY think he deserves the same rights we are all afforded? I am not saying who is wrong or right on this issue, I'm playing devils advocate here. It's a REAL perplexing issue, there is NO simple solution. By what standards do we hold a person as a POW? By all inclinations of the Geneva Conventions and Hague a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban would NOT be a POW, am I wrong?

[Maz]

We need to treat citizens of this country with the rights citizens of this country are afforded by the constitution...if you don't believe that than you are an enemy of this country and should be executed for treason

what if they aren't legal citizens? Do we throw all respect for human life to the side in that case? Anyone who conspires with these groups is NOT a citizen any longer also if you ask me. When you lay down with the likes of these groups you willingly forfeit ALL the rights you are given as a citizen.

[TRIPLE P]

what if they arent legal citizens? Do we throw all respect for human life to the side in that case?

Not what this article is about....

I believe everyone should be afforded a trail...but this article is about citizens, so i'm only talking about that.

[Gibby]

Its a good day in America, give me my liberal activist judges any day. Legislating from the bench? Perhaps, but **** when they are dealing with a mad man who is ignoring or burying the constitution. Good to see that we still have at least 1 branch of government working for the people. Oh and sukester since this is headed to the supreme court it ain't over quite yet.

[Maz]

I see, well I can obviously see the reason in that. What about these radical clerics and of hate and terrorists though that infiltrate the United States, should they be afforded the same rights as you and I really? There is NO fundamental principal of war that a terrorist subscribes to so why is it the United States should be the only one playing by the rules? Once again I am not saying it's right I am simply trying to coax some thoughts out of people here. I personally see both sides logic as complacent or as tyrannical either sounds.

[dilbert]

I see, well I can obviously see the reason in that. What about these radical clerics and of hate and terrorists though that infiltrate the United States, should they be afforded the same rights as you and I really? There is NO fundamental principal of war that a terrorist subscribes to so why is it the United States should be the only one playing by the rules? Once again I am not saying it's right I am simply trying to coax some thoughts out of people here. I personally see both sides logic as complacent or as tyrannical either sounds.


Because we need to maintain our principles and act like the nation and people with moral standards. We can not and must not lower ourselves to act as they do.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[TRIPLE P]

I see, well I can obviously see the reason in that. What about these radical clerics and of hate and terrorists though that infiltrate the United States, should they be afforded the same rights as you and I really? There is NO fundamental principal of war that a terrorist subscribes to so why is it the United States should be the only one playing by the rules? Once again I am not saying it's right I am simply trying to coax some thoughts out of people here. I personally see both sides logic as complacent or as tyrannical either sounds.


Because we are taking the role as the moral authority in other related cases... the United States as a country should be held to a higher standard when we're taking it upon ourselves to be liberators, and to spread democracy (not that I agree with tha either...but it is what it is)

[Gibby]

I see, well I can obviously see the reason in that. What about these radical clerics and of hate and terrorists though that infiltrate the United States, should they be afforded the same rights as you and I really? There is NO fundamental principal of war that a terrorist subscribes to so why is it the United States should be the only one playing by the rules? Once again I am not saying it's right I am simply trying to coax some thoughts out of people here. I personally see both sides logic as complacent or as tyrannical either sounds.

Many problems with this post so lets look at it

1)
Q: . . . . Should they be afforded the same rights as you and I really?

A:Are they American citizens? If so then yup thats all the constitution should look at really, and they are American citizens in all the cases being discussed really. So you are missing the point that your boy Bushmonkey is violating the constitution and that's all there is really.

2)
Q: There is NO fundamental principal of war that a terrorist subscribes to so why is it the United States should be the only one playing by the rules?

A: Hitler and Tojo did not follow the rules of war and yet we did and we did just fine. Anyway, when did it become justifiable to stoop to your enemy's level? We are, and always have been, the shining city on a hill. We should do all that is above reproach. We are a republic and the absolute unyielding rule of law is what runs a republic. We stop doing things by internationally accepted rules of war then we have already lost the moral high ground for this war and are no better than them. Sure if the terrorists in question are not American citizens let them sit in Gitmo forever, bring in the red cross, treat them humanely (this means no torture or intensive interrogation), let them correspond with family --ensuring that you have censored it to remove threats to national security- and let them sit as POWs until the end of this war as long as you are following the spirit and letter of the Geneva convention so as to reach the high esteem of the American idea. The American citizens, however, should be given all manner of their constitutional rights and they should lose not one.

See Mazzio there used to be another international organization -that theoretically was franchised in each country even though it worked with the USSR- called Comintern that was terroristic in nature. It axed people like Trotsky, it hung people who denounced communism like Krivitsky, it poisoned and killed all matter of people. It even stole plans for the bomb which it sold to Stalin. There was a couple, the Rosenbergs, who we found guilty of treason and we tried them, a jury of their peers found them guilty, and we fried em. Communism IMHO was just as dangerous, if not more so, than the current terrorist movement. However we followed the principles and ideas that made our nation strong and well to quote Bush "Freedom Won" and communism joined the ash heap of history. In the War of Terror, we are not aiming for those lofty principles and we are doing quite badly.

[shiva2999]

I admit it is without a doubt a terrifying precedent but HOW then do we defend ourselves against the people who would like nothing more than to see us erased off the globe?

Stop being such gigantic ass holes.

[Gibby]

Because we are taking the role as the moral authority in other related cases... the United States as a country should be held to a higher standard when we're taking it upon ourselves to be liberators, and to spread democracy (not that I agree with tha either...but it is what it is)

A-friggen- Men

[Gibby]

what if they aren't legal citizens? Do we throw all respect for human life to the side in that case? Anyone who conspires with these groups is NOT a citizen any longer also if you ask me. When you lay down with the likes of these groups you willingly forfeit ALL the rights you are given as a citizen.

1) Anyone who conspires with these groups is NOT a citizen any longer also if you ask me.

I am sure glad that nobody asked you, the far more important question is what the constitution says.

2) what if they aren't legal citizens? Do we throw all respect for human life to the side in that case?

A: No we do not toss our respect for human life in that case. We treat them as EPWs. We do not use torture to interrogate (that always has been, is now, and always will be below the high ideas of America) against them. We don't have to bring them to trial and they can just sit there but we need to let the international court of justice in, we need to have adequate oversight of our camps by the Red Cross, we need ensure that no human rights violations take place.

3) When you lay down with the likes of these groups you willingly forfeit ALL the rights you are given as a citizen.

Again that is not what the constitution says, then again its just a Goddamned piece of paper why should I care. Seriously though it would make them traitors but the constitution demands legal process to determine this. I am a big fan of history and the constitution and trust me, as with the Rosenbergs, you can have you constitution and roast them too.

[Maz]

THANKS for the input from Gibby, Shiva, and Triple P... I never claimed to be right it just seems like a real complex issue to me and I just wanted to hear some other thoughts. You are all right, our constitution should never be underminded in such situations but WHAT exactly do we do then? If we cannot overstep this line in the sand to defend ourselves then how do we change this imperialist smug little image we have earned in the world?

[Gibby]

If we cannot overstep this line in the sand to defend ourselves then how do we change this imperialist smug little image we have earned in the world?

Good question, with a simple enough answer. We back off from trying to be the world's policeman. I assure you that if we stop meddling in the internal affairs of other countries that they will leave us alone. However, we also have made lots and lots of foes as it is, and because this is a real world situation where we have lots of enemies. Because of this I would move most of our troops, ships, and planes closer to home, but I would have forward operating bases across the globe. Now some, such as Uppy and MPW, say Iraq is a perfect FOB but I say why do we need Iraq? We have Qatar and dagnabbit most people there seem to like us. I say we radically reduce the number of troops and assets deployed overseas. Really we only need about six to eight bases across the globe where we could stage troops and equipment en masse for attack. To me, the big threats to American security in the coming decades are going to be China, a revived Russia (yes what Bush is doing only aggravates that, but they are always a threat), The instability of the Middle East, and PDR Korea.

So what I would do is have FOBs more or less permanently under lease from the governments of the following nations.

Mannheim and/or Landstuhl in Germany so we can always keep an eye on Russia.

Qatar- I am not sure what the base is called but its vast and the people of Qatar actually seem to want us there. Lets stay.

Maldives- Further East in the Indian Ocean we have a great bomber base to fly into central Asia and Iran.

Okinawa- Allows us to closely monitor Korea and China.

The Navy- Keep carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean as well as in the South China Sea and Sea of Japan

The United States: Have most of the fleet and Army at home to protect the United States and man the boarders. Furthermore I am all for an SDI type missile shield in case some bastard wants to hurl nukes at us so lets build an Anti Missile shield to protect the United States. Also have a vast intel network with technical and human factors both heavily invested in.

[35Pete]

nope we need to coddle those who would strike against us, stroke and show them our support. understand their pain, their misgivings towards us. when someone is planning to nuke Chicago we simply need to use our firm hand of diplomacy. is that correct leftys?


off topic- "Don't throw rocks at a man who's got a machine gun." is ***** hilarious

If you don't want Chicago nuked then call your senator and ask him to beg Buscho not to do it.

We're not gonna fall for it.

[35Pete]

say all that eh? tells me the sytem is working as it is suppose to. you and others think BA went to far, courts agreed, problem fixed, problem solved.

all this mindless blather about BA taking away everyones civil rights is moot.

checks and balances is working perfectly. gotta love the United States

Yet NOT ONCE you have ever refuted this "blather". Why? Because you don't have a pot to piss in and EVERYONE, including you, knows it.

[35Pete]

what if they aren't legal citizens? Do we throw all respect for human life to the side in that case? Anyone who conspires with these groups is NOT a citizen any longer also if you ask me. When you lay down with the likes of these groups you willingly forfeit ALL the rights you are given as a citizen.

Thank God we have the constitution. It was specifically written to protect us from guys like you.

Section 1, 14th Amendment, United States Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

* Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.
* Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions which demonstrate an intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

[Gilly]

Yet NOT ONCE you have ever refuted this "blather". Why? Because you don't have a pot to piss in and EVERYONE, including you, knows it.

dont need to refute it , if its against the Constitution the courts will take care of it like it has for 200 years, for the last 5-6 week you ve been screaming like chiken little, i ve be saying all is well, i was and been right all along

[Maz]

Pete you should READ ALL the posts before you try and refute or insult me... I never claimed to be right or now how to solve the problem. I am not so pompous to think I have the world figured out like the most of you do....

[35Pete]

dont need to refute it , if its against the Constitution the courts will take care of it like it has for 200 years, for the last 5-6 week you ve been screaming like chiken little, i ve be saying all is well, i was and been right all along

Doesn't it bother you that the president regularly and willfully engages in unconstitutional activity? Doesn't that bother you in the least?

And what about all the illegal stuff we don't know about? Afterall, most of the stuff that has come to light has been by whistleblowers. It's not like the BA is voluntarily telling us what they are up to.

They're getting caught.

[Gilly]

thats what elections and term limits are for, if it goes too far one way or another an election can remedy. if people do stuff against the letter of the Constitution the courts will take care of it.
going apeshit in rants for weeks cause BA did something you didnt like was a simple waste of energy.

checks and balances are working as they should.

[dilbert]

thats what elections and term limits are for, if it goes too far one way or another an election can remedy. if people do stuff against the letter of the Constitution the courts will take care of it.
going apeshit in rants for weeks cause BA did something you didnt like was a simple waste of energy.

checks and balances are working as they should.

Then all rants here are a waste of energy. But that is what this forums is all about (or aboot for our Canadian friends). We all rant here on different subjects.

The problem is sometimes the courts should not be needed to say "no!" to stop the BA from trying to do something. Yet they continue to pull this crap and then try to avoid court rulings or Congressionally passed laws when it suits them to do so.

That is the problem. GWB took an oath to uphold the laws of the US and the Constitution and he is not doing so. Not a good scenario.

[Gilly]

Doesn't it bother you that the president regularly and willfully engages in unconstitutional activity? Doesn't that bother you in the least?




no, i dont think its willful to the exent you claim. he is doing what he deems necessary and thats why i voted to give that power to him.

the system will take care of him, i believe alot of people in the middle east want to pull another 9/11. (i believe they caused the 1st one) Bush hasnt let another attack hit here and that is why I support him. if he goes to far then the system will fix it. simple.

[dilbert]

no,

the system will take care of him, i believe alot of people in the middle east want to pull another 9/11. (i believe they caused the 1st one) Bush hasnt let another attack hit here and that is why I support him. if he goes to far then the system will fix it. simple.


Bad logic.

He let the first one happen, so why do you support him?

[Gilly]

Then all rants here are a waste of energy. But that is what this forums is all about (or aboot for our Canadian friends). We all rant here on different subjects.



there is ranting and then there having your head explode. pete and gib have been the latter for last couple months.

like chicken little..

[Gilly]

Bad logic.

He let the first one happen, so why do you support him?

first one was a system wide failure, Bush, Clinton both cabinets, etc..

that plus obl had a decent plan,

now people know on planes know they need to fight back the plan wouldnt work again.

a big difference between myself and all the loons is simply this, i trust the goverment alot more than they do. i dont think the entire BA is a bunch of criminals. i think they are a bunch of people making alot of difficult decisions. some i agree with some i dont. they have 2 other branches of gov watching them so i dont think they can get away with much. (as this case proves)

[Gibby]

first one was a system wide failure, Bush, Clinton both cabinets, etc..

that plus obl had a decent plan,

now people know on planes know they need to fight back the plan wouldnt work again.

a big difference between myself and all the loons is simply this, i trust the goverment alot more than they do. i dont think the entire BA is a bunch of criminals. i think they are a bunch of people making alot of difficult decisions. some i agree with some i dont. they have 2 other branches of gov watching them so i dont think they can get away with much. (as this case proves)

you miss the point. Why does this particular president, and to an extent the one before him, go out of his way to weaken the constitution. This isn't a one time only deal, this behavior has continued throughout his presidency and its getting a bit old.

[Gilly]

you miss the point. Why does this particular president, and to an extent the one before him, go out of his way to weaken the constitution. This isn't a one time only deal, this behavior has continued throughout his presidency and its getting a bit old.

i dont miss the point, i just dont think Bush can do that much damage. if he, or someone else try to take too much power a guy like Ron Paul gets elected and reverses things. congress and courts keeps an eye on things between elections. the system is working fine. the framers were bloody brilliant.

[35Pete]

first one was a system wide failure, Bush, Clinton both cabinets, etc..

that plus obl had a decent plan,

now people know on planes know they need to fight back the plan wouldnt work again.

a big difference between myself and all the loons is simply this, i trust the goverment alot more than they do. i dont think the entire BA is a bunch of criminals. i think they are a bunch of people making alot of difficult decisions. some i agree with some i dont. they have 2 other branches of gov watching them so i dont think they can get away with much. (as this case proves)

Bush personally ordered the murder of those 3,000 people on 911 and in your heart you know it.

He's as bad as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, or Idi Amin.

[Green Lantern]

Bush personally ordered the murder of those 3,000 people on 911 and in your heart you know it.

He's as bad as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, or Idi Amin.

I liked Idi. He was cool.

[Green Lantern]

I liked Idi. He was cool.

...
7207

[Gibby]

Bush personally ordered the murder of those 3,000 people on 911 and in your heart you know it.

He's as bad as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, or Idi Amin.

Oh he's worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pot, and Amin -afterall- never made any pretenses to be democratic.

[Gibby]

...
7207

quoting yourself? That's a sure sign of JLBdisease. :D

[Green Lantern]

Oh he's worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pot, and Amin -afterall- never made any pretenses to be democratic.

Charisma makes up for alot too and Bush is flat.

[uppy]

Bush personally ordered the murder of those 3,000 people on 911 and in your heart you know it.

He's as bad as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, or Idi Amin.

:rofl:


you have lost it

[uppy]

This is a fantastic decision. Uppy, it repudiates your ass hole COC. This is a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR defeat for you neocons.

The courts are basically calling you guys are bunch of mindless Nazi bastards.

The high court will over turn this...lol

Don't forget Pete we are at war

[Gibby]

The high court will over turn this...lol

Don't forget Pete we are at war

lets hope not because if it does the terrorists have won.

[uppy]

lets hope not because if it does the terrorists have won.

Is that what the kool-aid tells you to say......"the terrorists have rights"


lol

[Green Lantern]

Is that what the kool-aid tells you to say......"the terrorists have rights"
lol

R.I.F.

[Gibby]

Is that what the kool-aid tells you to say......"the terrorists have rights"


lol

No, but the American citizens do and that includes those who are accused of being terrorists. Read the entire thread before making a fathead statement.

[ckg68]

:rofl:

you have lost it

You never had it in the first place,choosing to parrot what the administration says and willing to basically sully a day that is seared into the public's memory just to score cheap political points for your side.

[Gibby]

R.I.F.

what is R.I.F?

[Green Lantern]

what is R.I.F?

Reading Is Fundamental.

How young ARE you?

[Gibby]

Reading Is Fundamental.

How young ARE you?

Oh wait, was that the part of the Book-It campaign? I have had lots of those through the years. A better question, than how young am I, would be where have I been?

[uppy]

No, but the American citizens do and that includes those who are accused of being terrorists. Read the entire thread before making a fathead statement.


You read the post ....he has no rights as an American


The ruling came in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., who is the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant. The court said the administration may charge Mr. Marri with a crime, deport him or hold him as a material witness in connection with a grand jury investigation.

[uppy]

You never had it in the first place,choosing to parrot what the administration says and willing to basically sully a day that is seared into the public's memory just to score cheap political points for your side.

Is that so Carl ....the man is not a citizen of our country in fact he was

planning to kill our people.....but its kool you can give him some kisses and


hugs sweet pee

[Green Lantern]

You read the post ....he has no rights as an American

He also has no standing as an enemy combatant.

You can blame those liberal military tribunals or those incompetent justice dept. advisors who don't know how to draw up laws capturing those they've captured.

I can't see how you could possibly manage to pin this on anyone else.

[uppy]

He also has no standing as an enemy combatant.

You can blame those liberal military tribunals or those incompetent justice dept. advisors who don't know how to draw up laws capturing those they've captured.

I can't see how you could possibly manage to pin this on anyone else.

You are right the terrorists should have been shot in the field after an

Aggressive Interrogation.....bush is soft on terror

[Green Lantern]

You are right the terrorists should have been shot in the field after an

Aggressive Interrogation.....bush is soft on terror

Too true. But if we had been men about it, we would have lost one of our terror tactics against the enemy: Death? No. Death is too good for you. We will throw you in a bottomless pit and let you rot there for a decade...

[mark3274]

The high court will over turn this...lol

Don't forget Pete we are at war

the war seems important to you why not reup and get back at it the army afer all is taking people upto 41

[Gibby]

the war seems important to you why not reup and get back at it the army afer all is taking people upto 41

He should, but I don't that pfc uppy will be able to affect much good.

[dilbert]

Is that so Carl ....the man is not a citizen of our country in fact he was

planning to kill our people.....but its kool you can give him some kisses and


hugs sweet pee


Fact?

We will never know since trials are no longer needed.