Supreme Court says terrorists get Geneva Convention protections

[nelson]

Fox News 6/29/09: Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,201530,00.html)

This is an interpretation the liberal left absolutely loves, because it gives the terrorist enemy another weapon against us in the public relations war, making our victory over them more difficult to achieve. It essentially will afford protections under the Geneva Conventions to un-uniformed terrorists who do not fight for any particular country, but for their religion, and who conceal themselves among civilian populations. And terrorists may now get a taxpayer-funded defense in the US court system. Our military still has options and may overcome this, but it is definitely a blow to our efforts in Iraq.

["shazbat"]

Whew!!! Sure glad it wasn't a "liberal" court.

[The_Man]

Our military still has options and may overcome this, but it is definitely a blow to our efforts in Iraq.

A .17 cent bullet is still the best option and saves the taxpayer the cost of a trial. They are trying to kill us so why bother with a capture and trial.

[nelson]

I agree, a bullet is the best and swiftest justice for terrorists!

The good news is, the Court is inching toward constitutionalism with Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It's about time. But in the mean time the bad news is wacky rulings like this one since the left still has Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and usually Kennedy.

["shazbat"]

A .17 cent bullet is still the best option and saves the taxpayer the cost of a trial. They are trying to kill us so why bother with a capture and trial.

Though I consider myself "liberal", liberal justice can at times mean a liberal application of swift justice. nudge,nudge, wink, wink

[Sonrisa]

"This is an interpretation the liberal left absolutely loves, because it gives the terrorist enemy another weapon against us in the public relations war, making our victory over them more difficult to achieve."

Wow, always good to know what you think. One minute you insist the terrorists are "the enemy" and it is a different kind of war, and now they are not really an army because they are all spread out.

I don't like them any better than you do. Those laws are in place to protect everyone! When they are through executing all of them without a trial, I guess the liberals, since they are an "enemy of the state" are next. Then, I believe that long quote goes, and then "when there is no one else left, they will come for you" or something to that effect.

Getting a fair trial is one of the things that makes the United States a crown jewel among nations. As flawed as our legal system is, it is the best in the world.

Those forefathers people are so fond of quoting, etc., I hear them spinning in their graves, watching all that they did being torn down systematically.

Hmm, maybe I will vote against the current status quo this coming election after all, just for the hell of it.

Sonrisa

[nelson]

Terrorists are the enemy. It is a different kind of war. And they are not an army. I'm not accusing anyone of liking them. Just the Supreme Court of wrongly interpreting our laws.

The organized terrorists in question not only kill or try to kill American soliders and civilians, they also do not wear uniforms, do not represent a particular nation, hide in religious sanctuaries and among civilians, do not abide by the code of war themselves, and are not US citizens.

Do you think they deserve the same rights as an American citizen?

[Sonrisa]

What is being an American citizen got to do with it? I used to be a non-US citizen and lived in the US before I got my citizenship. If I had been arrested it was presupposed that I would be accorded the same legal rights as anyone else.

If they admit to being terrorists, yes, but what about the ones who don't?

This reminds me a lot of the arguments for and against the death penalty. I used to be very much for the death penalty and if it is certain, not circumstantial and they admit to murder, I still am. They have since proven with DNA evidence that some innocent people have been executed. As much as the urge to execute the ones who "really need it" and boy, there are many of them, as long as an innocent person could be executed, I would have to pass.

Same thing with those terrorists. (the term is tricky because the US names two groups I have empathy for terrorists, though certainly not the ones you are referring to). IMHO the Irish and the Palestinians are just attempting to protect what is rightfully theirs. I understand not everyone agrees with this, but it is my opinion. So when we say terrorists I need to be clear which group.

No one in their right mind wants Al Qaida alive. I don't. Do I believe they mean to kill us - absolutely. Recriminations over how badly and falsely the war was started in Iraq and mismanaged since then, aside, being aware that terrorists are all over and it is a totally separate issue from Iraq, I would have to pass. It has been proven in every country in the world that when they are at war acts of atrocities born out of fear happen. No reason whatever to think that some people could be accused of being terrorists who were actually innocent.

The use of the term American citizen is confusing. Does that mean that non-US citizens who are innocent can't expect not only a trial, but a fair trial in the US? If someone is arabic and a muslim does that automatically render them a terrorist? I think your questions raises many more questions. Who is going to determine who is a terrorist if you don't have a trial?

I don't know the answer - for me I would have to say for now, yes, they should have a fair trial. I would prefer either a proper trial and the usual legal procedures, or just quit fooling around and wipe them out ruthlessly. I hate that our civil liberties are being dragged through the mud and attempts are made to obliterate them. In a phrase, fish or cut bait. We certainly do not need that man in the white house to rewrite the constitution for us. I am fond of it in its original form. I have no doubt we all love the United States and want only the best for it, and for ourselves. It will be interesting and possibly even horrifying to see how this plays out. I wish we had a different administration and I hope none of the usual suspects on both sides of the fence get elected next election. We need calm, sane, intelligent leadership more now than ever before.

Sonrisa

[nelson]

We need calm, sane, intelligent leadership more now than ever before. Sonrisa, you and I may disagree on many things -- maybe even most things -- but we can definitely agree on this statement. That being said, we'll surely disagree on what exactly intelligent, sane, calm leadership is, and on how close we are to having it already. :) All things aside, there is nothing wrong with disagreement or debate; nobody's opinions are threatened by it. And I am glad to have this discussion with you.

[The G]

Come on now they wanted a conservative court and now they complain about their rulings. Guess they should do away with the courts and make THEIR rulings from the White house.

[The_Man]

I don’t think you will see this happen because Bush does understand the rule of law.
The big problem is the liberal judges across the country that tend to try to legislate from the bench.

[The G]

We talk about these judges we need to look at who appointed them. If you look back at the ruling on the "In god we trust" Regan appointed him.

[The_Man]

Sure go back even farther to the Eisenhower appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren and many of his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. In fact Ike was latter qouted as saying "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made” when reflecting on his decision to appoint Warren.

While the President can nominate anyone, it is the “advice and consent” of the Senate that is required for the appointment. Do you not remember what happened to Reagan’s first choice Robert Bork.

[The G]

I like the Warren act , wonder if hes the same ?

[nelson]

IMO, when there is a conservative in executive power, out of fear the media really pressures the executive and legislative branches for "bi-partisanship" ... which really means the conservatives must cave to the liberal wish list. This is especially the case in judicial appointments - personally I think the left has gotten their way over the years (looney Ginsburg was confirmed by a 97-3 vote), and this has tilted the courts to the far left, creating the judicial nightmare we have now. Fortunately Bush ignored the media pressure in his Supreme Court appointments, and now we have 4 solid constitutionalists instead of just two.

[Teiwaz]

Applying the Geneva Convention to Terrorists is like fighting under the Queensbury Rules against a Hells Angels enforcer. You're gonna get your arse handed to you on a plate, and sane observers will wonder what the hell you're thinking.

[Captain Dan]

A Lady libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo Bay. She received back the following reply:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Quaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.

You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed
guard to your residence next Monday.

Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant
caretakers.

We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing
these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at
your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code
that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the Burka -- over time.

Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job.

You take good care of Ahmed - and remember.. we'll be watching.

Good luck!

Cordially, your friend,
Don Rumsfeld:D

[The G]

Their prisoner's of war no matter what you call them. If it where our troops would expect nothing less.