February 20, 2007

Detainees Can't Use Federal Courts

The Bush Administration has been vindicated on the rights of terrorists detained at Gitmo.

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a new law stripping federal judges of authority to review foreign prisoners’ challenges to their detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The decision set the stage for a third trip to the Supreme Court for the detainees, who will once again ask the justices to consider a complex issue that tests the balance of power among the White House, Congress and the courts in the murky context of the fight against international terrorism.

It also prompted some senior Democratic lawmakers, who have fought the Bush administration on the matter before and who now hold sway in Congress, to vow enactment of a law more favorable to the prisoners.

Question -- do the Democrats rewrite the law to give terrorists more rights? Or do they recognize that there is a war on, one not of our choosing which will end with either our victory or our destruction?

Great analysis over at SCOTUSblog.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.

1 They're probably not terrorists, and that's the problem.  You are accepting this regime's judgment on this matter, even though they have been wrong on almost every single thing they have said from the time they said the air was safe at the WTC site to the present.  These bozos just can't get anything right.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Feb 21 01:30:01 2007 (IU21y)

2 Yeah, Dan, you are probably right -- they are just poor innocent bystanders picked up on battlefields while firing weapons at American troops.

And as far as your use of the word "regime", why don't you just go the rest of the way and add "fascist" to it like the rest of the Nutroots.

Posted by: Jacob at Wed Feb 21 02:03:46 2007 (4nXaP)

3 Jacob, you must not have read anything about the incredible screw-ups in gathering the detainees.  Many of them are mistaken identities, or imprisoned based upon false information provided to settle old scores.  Yes, indeed, Jacob, I am probably right.

As for the use of the word regime, the dictionary defines it as "the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit".  Once again, I'm right and you're wrong.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Feb 21 12:57:29 2007 (IU21y)

4 Well, those are the claims they and their supporters make -- and I trust them as much as I believe the 98% of inmates in our state and federal prisons who claim that the government got the wrong guy.

And as for your appeal to the dictionary definition of "regime" to rebut Jacob, you are right BUT need to recall that is not how the word is customarily used -- it contains an implicit judgment of the nature that he indicates. It is sort of the difference between "prostitute" and "whore".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Feb 21 13:29:15 2007 (cuIH7)

5 My understanding is that there is evidence to support the claims. Regardless, it sure is sad that the Bush regime is preventing the truth from coming out, rather than seeking to the truth, isn't it?

Your refusal to believe anyone other than the big government authorities calls to mind a funny story about a governor here in Missouri who took a tour of the penitentiary. Besieged with dozens of prisoners professing their innocense, he finally encountered one inmate who admitted frankly that he had committed the crime for which he was serving time. The governor ordered him released immediately, explaining, "I don't want this criminal in here corrupting all these fine, innocent men."

Posted by: Dan at Thu Feb 22 00:23:08 2007 (IU21y)

6 Well, Dan, to see a liberal complain about believing in and trusting "big government" is rather amusing, since you folks spend most of your time insisting that big government is the solution to all our problems.

And your choice to again use the word "regime" after my comment and Rhymes' amplification of my point pretty well shows me that I had tagged you right the first time.

Posted by: Jacob at Thu Feb 22 04:17:12 2007 (vECXi)

7 Jacob, I cannot get your comment to show up. Judging from the snippet in the "Recent Comments" section, it appears we agree that the Republicans have abandoned their beliefs in small government and freedom.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Feb 23 14:49:28 2007 (IU21y)

8 There it is - I see you have nothing to respond with, save for a yearning for the days when Democrats, and not the Republicans, were the party of big government. The real difference was that democrats wanted to use government programs to help people, while the republicans want to use them to spy on people and restrict their freedoms.

And at least RWR had the integrity to agree that I was right on the use of the word regime (and I suspect he saw the humor in my repetition of it, though you apparently lack in that category).

Posted by: Dan at Fri Feb 23 14:54:33 2007 (IU21y)

9 Actually, Dan, I was rather pointedly disagreeing with your use of the word, and did not find its repetition amusing at all. I simply felt that Jacob had said all that needed to be said on the matter.

And as for Democrats using big government to "help people", we can see where that has failed virtually every time it has been tried, fostering dependency and helplessness among those receiving "help" and taking from the productive members of society at the same time. Similarly, they want to use big government, in the form of laws against forms of speech they reject, to silence those with whom they disagree.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 24 02:52:32 2007 (XfhvZ)

10 RWR - using big government to help people HAS had some bad effects, I agree. Why is the right so eager to use big government to control them?

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 24 04:18:34 2007 (IU21y)

11 Why is the left opposed to stopping America's enemies?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 24 05:44:02 2007 (pndOg)

12 We're not. We just don't like the government treating all of us like enemies.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 24 12:58:24 2007 (IU21y)

13 Or America's enemies like enemies.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 24 13:34:14 2007 (gLQDn)

14 No, if they get a search warrant, they can be treated like enemies. If they can prove the detainess are terrorists, they can detain them. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Do you understand that police are not always right, or good?

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 24 16:36:33 2007 (IU21y)

15 Actually, Dan, the tactics under use now are the same as those used by Roosevelt during WWII. Indeed, illegal enemy combatants were tried before military courts and executed following those trials -- and the Supreme Court ruled it had no jurisdiction in those cases.

But then again, you probably would have objected to going after Hitler because, after all, Germany wasn't responsible for Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Feb 25 02:09:04 2007 (NBzjc)

16 Good God, man, you cannot help but make things up, can you? Yes, of you're right. I'm a very bad, nonpatritotic person who loves terrorism but hates democracy, if that maks you feel better about being spied on.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Feb 25 02:32:44 2007 (IU21y)

17 Except, of course, that I am making nothing up -- while you clearly object to this administration using the tools available to previous ones to protect the country during time of war.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Feb 25 03:14:37 2007 (39aMb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.0237, elapsed 0.0428 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0302 seconds, 46 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]