Dax, thats so much bullshit and you know it. Its partisan clap trap...the very sort of thing you claim to revile. Those in power are not out to victimize the helpless. You make such claims because you hope to instill fear of victimization in the audience and get them to oppose those currently in power. You miss, or ignore, the hypocracy of your position as you continue to "lament" the politics of fear you claim the administration has embraced.

I get it, Dax. You are jaded, you're cynical. You ascribe the worst possible motivations to everything the Administration does because you hate their politics. Ray touched on that...What you miss is the impact your behavior has. You and those like you are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the radical polarization of American politics. You are either unwilling or unable to see that despite the differences of opinion, the Administration actually has the best interests of the nation at heart. They may not agree with YOU about what those interests are or how to achieve them but that does not mean they are evil fiends or villians or criminals.

Frankly, Dax, its not me and Ray or the Neo-Cons who are the problem. No, sir! The problem lies squarely in your lap. Its the polar attitude you so often envince here. The one that refuses to accept ANY idea or solution offered by your political rivals simply because it was offered by your political rivals. It is the attitude you personally expressed here that no Republican judicial nominee would be acceptable because he or she was nominated by a Republican. You have become the sort of radical with whom it is impossible to reason or compromise.

No,you've read me incorrectly.

I am not suggesting that Dick Cheney sits down with his energy executive buddies in a secret meeting and says "Let's see how we can screw the little guy." Not at all. He's not thinking about that. He's thinking about how he can maximize profits for his friends in the energy business and for himself.

That's merely an example, you'll also find it in Phil Gramm, who created the Enron loophole and told us the American people was a nation of whiners.

I certainly don't think the neocons are intentionally out just to screw the little guy, but under their policies that's what happens, and they aren't particularly concerned about it.

Any fair reading of this board will also show that I do not slavishly adopt left wing positions nor reject all right wing positions.

But I'm still looking for a positive accomplishment of neo-conservative politics, one that helps more people than it hurts.

Mukasey has proved to be as much of a "hore" to Bush as Gonzales was. Asking for a declaration of war against al-Qaeda, a war he well knows will be as interminable as the U.S. wants it to be is simply asking Congress to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desire to keep the detainees at Gitmo in custody forever, preferably without ever having to come up with evidence to charge most of them, without even having to prove that they are in fact al-Qaeda members. I would hope Democrats in Congress don't give in to this outlandish request, but have no confidence in that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/pl_nm/security_usa_detainees_dc

Did we have to come up with charges to keep German or Italian or Japanese prisoners during World War II, CG? Thank the gods you people were not around to influence policy then...

Those prisoners were uniformed prisoners of war, captured in combat, and not simply picked up on a battlefield, as some of the Gitmo prisoners were, after being pointed out to authorities. The flimsiness of this sort of arrest is self-evident, therefore the government should be forced to show that the detainee is an actual enemy.

And I suggest that the German, Japanese and Italian prisoners of war were treated far better by the United States than we are treating the Gitmo prisoners. I can't think of a single case of waterboarding of a WWII axis prisoner.

Here on the west coast essentially, possibly literally, all of the Japanese civilians--entire families--were rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps, where they spent the entire war. Those that had farms or businesses, usually lost them. There were no charges brought against them.

These were civilians! I rather wish to God that some "--people (had been) around to influence policy then". Am I to assume that all of the prisoners in Gitmo without charges were soldiers?

The Italian soldiers 'held' at Ft. Lawton, in Seattle, were allowed to leave, to drink and to date. American women found them to be clean, great cooks and dancers, with hair that smelled of lilac. Are Gitmo prisoners comparable?

As it happens, Dax, I agree with you. The government should have to show exactly that. Of course, the Geneva COnventions require the same thing. The issue seems to be HOW does the government demonstrate such a thing. The Geneva Conventions dictate a process called a status review tribunal. The government tried to hold such reviews but certain elements on the left of our political spectrum argued against it and demanded that we address these issues in actual American courts. I disagree with that for several reasons. One, it sets a dangerous precedent to drag combatants, lawful or otherwise, into the civilian court system. It leaves americans in future conflicts open to the sort of kangeroo courts we saw in the Vietnam War or worse. Two, it seems an unconstitutional intrusion of the Judiciary into what is Constitutionally reserved for the Executive, the prosecution of a war effort. The Judiciary branch of our government does not, and ought not, have the authority to order the release of those with whom we are engaged in a military conflict. I have other reservations but we are drifting rather far from the issue of Obama's lies.

I kind of agree, Lawmage, but with some reservations. Certainly prisoners of war, or enemy detainees should not be involved in the American criminal justice system.

However, as a former military court reporter, I know from personal experience that if a military court wants an individual convicted, that's what happens. There is a certain element of kangaroo court about military trials, and unless the judge or presiding officer is eminently fair and genuinely disinterested, conviction is almost guaranteed.

I am not suggesting that all military hearings operate this way. But if the hearings were to be held in secret, with transcripts also classified so they couldn't be seen by the public, there is great and grave danger is such a court.

And...I'm sorry, you're going to hate this, but...given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy, there's precious little I would trust about such tribunals and/or hearings. Daylight and transparency are the solutions, and I fear we aren't going to get much of that from this gang.

So, do we disrupt the entire system because you mistrust the current Administration?

Incidently, Dax, I have to disagree with you about the military court system. The US military justice system is almost universially recognized for its fairness. There is a very, very high conviction rate I grant you but I believe that rate is attributable to the fact that only the most clear cut and well evidenced cases go to trial. Sketchy cases are typically dealt with through non-judicial punishment.

In any case, we are not really talking about cases with charges. We are talking about tribunals to determine a particular detainee's status. The findings in such tribunals are limited to a classification of the detainee as either a combatant (lawful or otherwise), a noncombatant, or a civilian internee. Those classifications have an impact on what can be done with the detainee in terms of treatment, movement, length of confinement, conditions of confinement, and some other issues.

My concern, and from my immediate and personal perspective it is a significant concern, is that this push to have our court system involved in this process sets a very dangerous precedent. It is all too likely that such proceedings become focused on determinations of guilt or innocence and those determinations are actually irrelevant when determining a detainee's status. Also troubling is the SCOTUS decision to extend habeus protections in these cases because concommitant with those protections is the power of the court to order the immediate release of the petioner. This is an ENTIRELY new finding and I think this intrusion by the Judiciary into the conduct of war, which is specifically delineated as a power of the Executive, represents a further erosion of the seperation of powers doctrine. Throughout history and integral to the law of War is the power of a belligerent to detain any and all persons taken on the field of battle. It was the explicit recognition of this power to detain that necessitated the Geneva Convention agreement on developing a method (the status review tribunals) to determine just how such detainees should be treated and where they should be held.