No, you didn't. And yes you did. It reads very professional. I haven't heard one of the strategy's of the Jihadists was to test our resolve in our justice system but see now how this self-inflicted major defeat would surely be part of thier plan had that been part of thier plan. I think they might think it a victory if we fold up the umbrella, too.




Well, I don't believe we've had a time of war against an idealogy where these types of issues may arise. The "War on Terror" is not likely to be with end. I don't see an occasion where we accept the surrender of the 'terrorists' and bring an end to these detainments so it might be prudent to afford the innocent some chance to question thier detainment in the unlikely event they may be. This is a generational battle which gives a different meaning to "held indefinitely" than would be imagined happening in a typical war.




Well, yes. I guess I don't automatically take criticism as a defeat but it's understandble that in defense of the administration you would.



Are we talking military prisoners or felons? "Enemy combatants" are niether are they? By the way, I don't have cable so don't think it should be a right of prisoners to have cable TV in thier cells. Why anyone would argue for such a thing is actually beyond me. Well, maybe the cable companies arguing for it would make sense.



Obviously, my telling mullahs something like that would be useless, if not dangerous. Why would you suggest I go on such a suicide mission?

Come on, Ray. Stop being so egotistical. The paragraph that you only took one phrase from was talking about the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Since when did your have any heirs apparent or any supporters?

Do you not read the posts you are responding to, or do you go off on these tangents to deflect the thread?

I do go along with your description of McCain, however.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede your point. IF you can take this sentence...

"...when your ideological heir apparent is soundly trounced-- with the support of great many of your own former supporters."

...and please explain to whom the word "your" refers.

George I (Washington) would have been soooo pleased with today's decision by the SCOTUS! He can finally rest a little easier in his grave... It has been a looong 7 1/2 years of restlessness and rolling.

I'll bet Benedict (not XVI, but Arnold) has a real stiffy in his grave. Never in the history of the U.S. has our military been so betrayed. Well, of course there was that Rosenberg thing, but the difference is, Julius and Ethel didn't do what they did, publicly with big grins on their faces.

What the Hell are they thinking giving our rights to Al-Qeada members? The ones who want to destroy us and our ways surely don't want to enjoy the rights we get, do they? Maybe Osama will come out of hiding now that he has rights in America.

Clearly those who complained about Bush creating a conservative Supreme Court were wrong.

Now if only we can "catch" OBL. We all know he "did it"..why does he needs a trial? What the heck, why did we give Saddam a trial? Why didn't we just through the guy in GITMO and save the "new Iraqi government" and ourselves a little time and money.

Thank you for your grudging concession.
First off, that incomplete quote isn’t a sentence, which is a demonstration of your selective reading.

I will however, explain what “your’ refers to.

In your next to last post you said:
And you subsequently said:
My whole sentence to which you are fixated was:
Now who the hell do you think "your' was referring to? (Hint: it starts with “B” not “R”)
And in case you cannot figure out what an “heir apparent” is, it starts with “Mc”

If they are Al-Qeada members will their detention be found to be illegal and their release ordered? I'm just wondering. Is being a member of this group reason enough to be detained? I would think so. This ruling doesn't make it legal to commit crimes against the US or acts of terrorism. I think it just gives the human beings being held on suspicion an opportunity to prove the suspicions are unfounded.

Are you saying you don't trust our legal system? Do you suspect judges will side with the defendents because they want to release as many terrorists that will attack the US into the population as they possibly can?

I'm not sure they want to enjoy the rights we have as much as we should respect the system we've decided creates fairness. I'm afraid of the days when "justice for all" is seen as "except the ones we don't like for one reason or another." I'm afraid of the day when simply calling me a terrorist sympathizer because I sympathize with someone locked up without charge for an indefinite period, gets me the same treatment. At that point, I wouldn't expect anyone to sympathize with me.

If you want to talk Osama check out what he said he wanted and compare it to the current situation and let me know if you think this ruling would be any reason for him to start shopping at the Mall of America.

I take it, up until now, you've been quite happy with the conservative courts rulings. You're lucky to be in such a position but like anything these days I'd watch out for the rulings that didn't get everyones panties in bunch.

I think the Supreme Court's decision was in error, not so much for what it says but for what it sets up.

I have said consistently here that EPWs (enemy prisoners of war) ought not to be afforded a "day in court" unless and until they face a criminal charge. The Court's ruling seems to suggest that EPWs are entitled to a court ruling...which sets the stage for them to be subjected to a court imposed punishment as well. Again, absent a specific criminal charge, that is a really bad idea.

Very, very few of the GITMO detainees are actually afforded EPW status...most are held as unlawful combatants. Even then, I would suggest the Court erred in extending habeus corpus protections to them. The Geneva Conventions already entitle them to a tribunal hearing to determine the appropriateness of their status. I think it is unwise to have that tribunal take place in ou regular court system. The Conventions do not require that a detainee face criminal charges. The Court's ruling seems to suggest that the government needs to file such charges if it wishes to continue to detain these unlawful combatants. Again, I think that sets a very, very dangerous precedent. A system that encourages or requires criminal charges be filed against combatants strips Soldiers around the world of the traditional protections the Geneva Conventions were meant to provide.