The United States suffered a major defeat on the global war against Jihadistan as terrorist allies in the U.S. Supreme Court handed them a strategic victory in their war against the West.

In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court extended the umbrella of the Constitution of the United States to non-citizen prisoners of war, non-combatants, foreign terrorists, and what have you. According to the Associated Press:


I love how the media always like to describe this a "a defeat for Bush." Hell, it's a defeat for the whole damned country.

And what are the unintended consequences of this decision by the left-wing? Are we going to see all those captured on the battlefield petitioning federal courts: "Uh...excuse me, your honor, but I just don't believe I belong in custody." You think the courts are clogged up now? Just wait.

Are we going to be grabbing up soldiers off the battlefield and whisking them 8,000 away to testify in court hearings like traffic cops supporting a speeding ticket?

But here's another possible unintended consequence of the decision. Take no prisoners! Hell, that will solve the problem, won't it? If the Supreme Court is that determined to empty out Guantanamo perhaps the military can save them some trouble by making sure they don't bother sending anyone to Guantanamo. That would certainly streamline the process.

But, at least, there are some who still stand with America:


It's difficult to fight a war on multiple fronts.

What you're saying, essentially, is that American detainees should not have an opportunity to force the government to prove its case against them.

This suggests that you believe that every Gitmo detainee, without exception, must be guilty of what the US has charged him with, or is detained legally if no charges have been brought forth.

And the evidence you offer is that the U.S. says so.

I sincerely hope you never have to be tried under such conditions, for you would surely find them unAmerican, unconstitutional, and to your detriment. And if you were innocent of the charges some overzealous official or jealous husband laid upon you, you'd like it even worse. This is still, despite the Bush administration's attempts at changing things, America.

But I suppose because these folks are foreigners, or Arabs, or Afghanis, or Muslims, they must be guilty of something.

Man, I would hate to live in a country ruled by your version of Constitutional Democracy, although Bush & accomplices come close.

Should this be quoted from the media or is this your commentary that this a victory for the Jihadists? Does the court system these Jihadists might have to endure assure them a favorable result?


Did they extend it? Did this used to be different, undefined or something, where this is extending it?


I do wish you include the pertinent information you comment on when you say they describe it as a "defeat for Bush". Is it that the third rebuke means the same as "defeat for Bush"? We're worried about a constitutional ban on gay marriage but never thought of one on protecting enemy's rights? Or have we?


What the hell do you think the court has been making it harder for American citizens to get thier complaints heard is all about?


That wasn't made clear in the article. Are most of the detainees there because of what soldiers observed them doing?


No shit. And you seemed worried.


Can you give me a little history of "eneny combatants"? I think George Washington gave orders not to treat our prisoners the same way the British treated ours out of some misconception that that was the way to be but we survived that period.


I imagine the Jihadist cowards that were afraid of being imprisoned will now have the courage to blow themselves up, knowing it's legal and all now, but I'm almost not sure if the certainity is almost certain that more American will be killed because of this ruling.


No one said democracy and civility would be a walk in the park.

Did I put quote marks around it? Did I attribute it to any news source? Then I guess you can assume those are my words and I'm saying it. However, your confusion is understandable. Having been a professional journalist back in the day I can, when the occasion calls for it, still put down a paragraph as if I was, well, a journalist.


Did they extend it? Did this used to be different, undefined or something, where this is extending it?[/quote]
Again, your confusion is understandable. Up until today, the protections of the Constitution of the United States of America have applied to the citizens of the United States of America and to those foreign nationals who are residing in the United States. It has NOT been regarded as a balm to enemies captured during a time of war.


(sigh) OK. Let me try it again:


Was it the word "rebuke" that had you confused?


We are already showing our military prisoners more priviledges than we, or any other country, have shown to any prisoners in the entire history of the world. But I can understand where you're complaints come from. These people who are applauding today's Supreme Court decision are the same ones who whine about "human rights" when imprisoned felons don't have cable TV in their cells.


Nobody said the Bill of Rights was intended to be a suicide pact, either, but tell that the black-robed mullahs in the Supreme Court.

I think the use of hyperbole should be in the same boat as using the term "Nazi" as it appears that's all Ray knows.

I'm sure Ray didn't have a problem with the terrorist allies that appointed Bush to the White House in 2000.

Say, did I ever tell you about the time George Washington chopped down his father's favorite cherry tree? No? Well, when George was just a little boy, his father gave him a brand new hatchet. One day, little George was playing outside with his hatchet when...

Let me clarify “Rebuke” versus “Defeat”. A rebuke is just a verbal tongue lashing. A defeat comes in November when your ideological heir apparent is soundly trounced-- with the support of great many of your own former supporters.

Really? MY "ideological heir apparent?" Who might that be? You can't be talking about Barack Obama because he and I surely don't share the same ideology. And you can't be talking about John McCain because he doesn't have an identifiable ideology. John McCain's biggest problem is he's a pinball rolling around looking for something to bang against.

That puts you in a mighty tough position now, don't it.

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.

Ahhhh! I see, Bad Boid (I'm from Joisey) I shall happily bow to your explanation of the context and stipulate to your grammatical, as well as to your analytical interpretation of the matter.

Cheers,
Ray

Yes, I remember how we used to torture and waterboard those German POWs.

I remember how the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg were subjected to sleep deprivation, loud noises, having female prisoners point at their genitals while they were photographed in the nude, and how the poor folks like Goehring, Goebbles etc. were physically beaten and humiliated by the Americans guarding them.

Good analogy. The only war where Americans treated prisoners worse than they do now was the civil war, Amereican vs. American.

And we've come to the reason why McCain would be such a dangerous President. His Supreme Court nominees would close the gap between our American democracy and,say, Syria, because it will become constitutional to torture prisoners, deny tnem their day in court, and generally kangaroo them into confinement forever.

You're a real American, you are. America for Americans!

.

Your post suggests that the Bush administration gives a shit about the Geneva Convention, which disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales termed, with full approval from Bush & Co., as "quaint."

And we modern day Americans can't be bothered with "quant". This is the 21st century. Torture and kill. That's not only the terrorist way, it almost became the American way.

It's only a few short, easily taken steps from denying detainees Geneva Convention and Constitutional protection to denying it to you and me. Although if the Conservatives get their way, it'll only be denied to me, for my traitorous liberal views, and not to you real patriots.

Can you explain how the ruling seems to suggest Prisoners of War are entilted to a court ruling? I thought prisoners of war were seen as just doing their job and once the war is over they go back to thier old jobs, depnding on who wins and just how involved they were in certain acts. I thought this was a ruling on whether or not someone can be held without charge simply on the suspicion they may be involved in terrorism?

I haven't read the ruling but will if you can tell me what to look for.

Waterboarding is NOT torture. You lefties need to move on to different lie. This one is getting old.


Again, half-truths and outright lies mixed in with a reference that has NOTHING to do with Guantanamo.


Gosh! Another outright lie. Your cup runneth over, doesn't it?


Your unfounded hysteria is commendable. Maybe the Rt. Rev. Al Gore can use you on his Man-Made Myth of Global Warming Church Board.