Say Anything Blog

SCOTUS opinion is an opinion for a reason.  The president should issue an intend to ignore the ruling, state the laws that clearly contradict the court opinion.  It’s time for to institutional put the court in it place.  The president duties is to protect the country and the constitution, the cour opinion is clearly undermining both, ignore the court and see if it can enforce it’s opinion.

This sounds like a good vote to have in, say..... October?

Anh:

SCOTUS opinion is an opinion for a reason. The president should issue an intend to ignore the ruling, state the laws that clearly contradict the court opinion.

I think there are a lot of us here who don’t agree with you that the Supreme Court RULING (which carries the weight of law) should be ignored, or even is in error.

The mistakes made by the Administration are obvious and should be admitted to by Bush, if for no other reason, so people can MOVE ON from here.  He was, I think, given very poor advise on this (and on the establishment of GITMO, which I thought at the time was a stupid idea), and it’s time to pay the piper.

That is crap. The constitution do not give SCOTUS the only say on what the constitution say. 

The President can neither ignore the “ruling” or executed all the terrorists after we are done processing them.

Anh, the Supreme Court ruling (in so far as it states that the President cannot violate military rules as written by Congress nor create new courts (or tribunals in this instance) without the concurrance of Congress) is correct.

Ignoring it would be both unconstitutional and political folly.

Clearly, the President should have gone through Congress with this.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, careful what you wish for.

Tony, I’m not wishing for anything.  The law is the law, and under the Constitution the Congress establishes the rules for the military and establishes the federal courts.

President Bush set up tribunals that were outside the current laws of this country.  That is both unconstitutional and against the terms of the Geneva conventions.  The President should have gone to Congress for new laws.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, two things.  Illegal combatants are specifically exempted from the Geneva Conventions.  Also.  I’m just guessing here, but I don’t think you are going to like Congress having this debate about how to treat terrorists before this upcoming election.

Tony, I’m not sure that the status of the detainees makes all that much difference.  Illegal combatants or legal, uniformed combatants...the President simply does not have the power to create for them a tribunal that is outside the military rules set by Congress.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, I agree.  Which is why this will be taken up by Congress.  I can’t wait to see who in Congress is against the tribunals.

Rob, also, I’m a blithering idiot.  I thought you were somebody else.  From what I have read from you, I think you WILL like the congressional debate that is sure to come.

Tony, it will certainly be interesting to see how Democrats parse the issue.

Acting in the defense of terrorists isn’t something you can win a lot of popularity with.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

All 435 members of the House are up for re-election this November, so unless the GOP leadership allows this to be attached to some other legislation that would give cover to those who wish to defeat the President on the issue but need soome sort of plausible deniability, the real problem is likely to be in the Senate… as usual.

Again, this needs to be a single piece of legislation, appropriately titled, with sufficient wording to bypass any argument about ex post facto concerns. 

Similarly, any hint of a potential filibuster should be headed off long before the threat can become a reality.  All 100 Senators should have their feet held to the proverbial fire, and all should be well aware of the potential consequences of voting against the administration, and our military men and women in the field, on this issue.

I think this is the perfect issue for the GOP this fall.  We should know what our representatives think on this before we vote in November.

Rob: One thing.  You can’t win a war by committee, especially one made up of politicians.  We learned that lesson in Vietnam(I hope).  The Commander in Chief is the logical man for the job.

Why don’t people here who want the President to have almost unlimited power just invite him to join you on a one-way trip to a small island and set up your own dictatorship?  Then the rest of us wouldn’t have to worry about having a dictator and you would feel much more comfortable as well.  I think he’d much prefer being a dictator and you love him enough to not fear him, apparently.

This is a Public Service Announcement:

Please don’t feed the troll.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

And here’s another:

Trolls are middle aged men with greying beards with a vocabulary straight out of Victorian times.

If you feed them, make sure there’s some fiber in it.

If it should fail reason there’s always the other part of what the SCOTUS said. The prisoners can be held until cessation of hostilities without a trial at all. Bush trying to hold trials is exactly what the left doesn’t want, they claim to care about the detainees’ rights but they’d rather be able to whine that we’re holding people who haven’t been convicted. One more instance of the Left’s claiming to help doing the exact opposite.

Diane, there is a long history of trying people who don’t follow the rules of warfare by military tribunal.  This has very little to do with who is president.

Tony B:  What has everything to do with this President is what is going on right now in Guantanamo Bay.  And that is what the Supreme Court has ruled on and made their feelings known on and what the President and you folks will most likely be able to ‘legally’ puke on.

Holding trials is fine as long as the trials are fair trials.  It’s obvious what type of trials people here would cheer for, they have already talked about immediate executions (Boy) and various forms of vengeance.

“Until cessation of hostilities”.  Bush won’t allow cessation of hostilities, so that’s a very bad idea, Triple.

Diane, even the liberals on the Supreme Court recognize that holding combatants until the end of hostilities is not beyond the scope of the Executive.  When has that EVER been the case?

Tony B,

For pity’s sake, don’t feed the troll.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Yes, Tony, Rodney’s had plenty to eat, it appears.

P.S. Tony, if Rodneykins stops following me around and causing a juvenile distraction, perhaps you and I can actually discuss.

Diane, it is CLEARLY within the bounds of the military to hold people we capture when fighting a war (or if you want to get into semantics, any hostile action involving a foreign entity).  The Supreme Court has ruled on this in the past.  I’m not going to dig up the links to the decisions because it is a rather obvious point.  The Courts never ruled that Germans being held IN AMERICA should be released because their constitutional rights were offended.  They didn’t HAVE constitutional rights.  Are you honestly arguing that people who AREN’T POWs have more rights than honorable soldiers of enemy nations?  Whether a combatant has conducted himself according to the rules of warfare or not is irrelavent to whether he can be held until the end of hostilities.

And as a side note to the legalities, what do you want done with them?  You want them rendered to their home nations to face THEIR governments?  You want them put in OUR justice system where we may not even have the jurisdiction to try them.  Or do you want us to set them free?

The last option may be the best.  It might allow us to finally kill them and be done with this nonsense.

Tony B,

Also worth noting that something like an even dozen “non-combatants” released from detention at Guantanamo were subsequently re-captured or killed bearing arms against the United States and its allies.  As I wrote before, lots of bad and worse options.

And you’d still do well to avoid feeding the troll.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Tony, with some rare respectable attitude for a poster here says:
Whether a combatant has conducted himself according to the rules of warfare or not is irrelavent to whether he can be held until the end of hostilities.

The last option may be the best. It might allow us to finally kill them and be done with this nonsense.

“This nonsense’ gives away your attitude completely.  To you they are non-entities.
Leaving that aside, they should be treated EXACTLY as you would want an American military person treated should they be captured.

Anything less puts you right on the level with those you condemn.

Rodney, you’re the troll.  It’s obvious who’s ‘bugging’ who here.  Go get another cookie and clean the wax and hair out of your ears.  That will give me at least 2 minutes of breathing room.

Diane which is why they should have these tribunals.  There were NO hearings to determine if someone captured in WWII was a combatant or not.  They were just held until cessation of hostilities.

I gave you my answer, Tony, you gave me yours.  There is obvious disagreement on what should be done.  Thank you for honest and respectful dialogue.

Leaving that aside, they should be treated EXACTLY as you would want an American military person treated should they be captured.

diane, that could possibly be the most intelligent thing I’ve ever read of yours.  However, how do you feel about these insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them, fighting without uniforms and using innocent civilians as shields???

Surely you are not putting them on the same playing field as American, Coalition, and Iraqi soldiers are you?

Diane, American military personnel FOLLOW the Geneva Conventions.  If they don’t they are punished.  Our soldiers take pains to PREVENT civilian casualties often at risk to their own lives.  I’m not just talking about holding fire when the civilians are in danger.

They wear uniforms that clearly mark them as combatants.  Our enemies that you want to give the RIGHTS of honorable soldiers do the exact opposite.  They use civilians as shields.  They try to pretend they ARE civilians.  That has the effect of getting civilians killed.

There is a reason for the Geneva Conventions.  It isn’t to protect combatants.  It’s to protect NON-COMBATANTS.

Maybe we should afford the detainees the same treatment given to our captured servicemen.  On the other hand, we are not that barbaric, not by a long shot.

J.R., your compliment to me was the most intelligent thing you’ve ever said on the board.

To both of you:  One charge leveled at this administration from a number of directions, has been disregard for the Geneva Conventions guidelines.

The charges have not been leveld by little ol’ me, but by lawyers and Human Rights organizations.

Diane that charge is levelled by people who forget, either intentionally or by ignorance, that the Geneva Conventions don’t APPLY to people who aren’t signatories and aren’t following the rules of warfare.  Which are you?

She is an envoy from Planet Moonbat, so the question of whether the Geneva Conventions apply to her is an open one.

Please understand.  I was asking whether she was intentionally misunderstanding who the Geneva Conventions applied to or doing so through ignorance.  Not whether they applied to her.

Awe, Tony, you peeked at my questions to J.R., fess up.  Either that or we’re on the same wavelength, and I don’t think you’d like that.

Here was my statement:

One charge leveled at this administration from a number of directions, has been disregard for the Geneva Conventions guidelines.

The charges have not been leveld by little ol’ me, but by lawyers and Human Rights organizations.

Here are some examples:
http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/109
hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/usdom9853.htm

The U.S. government has classified the detainees in Camp X-Ray as “illegal combatants,” rather than prisoners of war (POWs), which they claim means that they do not have to be conferred the rights granted to POWs under the Geneva Conventions (at least under that convention). The U.S. government justifies this designation by claiming that they do not have the status of either regular soldiers nor that of guerrillas, and they are not part of a regular army or militia. In July of 2003, about 680 alleged Taliban members and suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists from 42 different countries were housed there. None have been allowed to meet with attorneys.

The human rights organization Human Rights Watch has criticized the Bush administration over this designation in its 2003 world report, stating: “Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorist suspects. It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of “illegal combatant” to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray

etc
etc
etc

So, what about my statement is in error?

I know I know Tony, but really, don’t expect anything close to a cogent answer from her.

Right now she is probably on Wikipedia just trying to figure out what the Geneva Conventions are, let alone how to apply them.

Khen, you really are not much more than a ‘schoolyard namecaller’, as Robert108 would say.

I’m guessing that’s because of your lack of self-confidence.  You were probably the boy in school who carried the equipment and had to sit and watch while the more developed boys made the team.  You were most likely the target of a number of very painful wedgies that have stayed with you to this day.  As a former cheerleader, I saw it Khen, and I hope you can overcome it.  Obviously, your career status hasn’t been sufficient to remove the pain, nor your other small achievements in life.  There’s not much more you can do at this point, Khen. 

But the Bible says that even a fool is considered wise when he keeps silent, so that’s, hopefully, a helpful hint for you.

Hahaha, Khen...just proved out my theory.  But couldn’t you have been more creative than to look at what I posted first.  Thank goodness I had other references. 

Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorist suspects.

Heh, according to who, Human Rights Watch?

That means exactly nothing.

Hahaha, Khen...just proved out my theory. But couldn’t you have been more creative than to look at what I posted first. Thank goodness I had other references.

Proved what theory - that you know how to cut and paste?

But the Bible says that even a fool is considered wise when he keeps silent, so that’s, hopefully, a helpful hint for you.

Calling me a fool, eh. Guess you are going to hell Dhiane.

Mark 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Heh, your psychoanalyzing of me is pretty funny, Miss Cheerleader (go figure) but keep guessing - ‘cause you don’t know a damn thing about me.

Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorist suspects.
Heh, according to who, Human Rights Watch?

That means exactly nothing.

Of course not; not to terrorists like yourself and your Chief Terrorist Mullah, Khen.

Proved what theory - that you know how to cut and paste?

Ken McCracken on June 30, 2006 at 7:36 PM

But I don’t know how to paste dramatic and misleading photos like you did here, Khen? 
Howdja do it, c’mon, howdja do it?  I’m so helpless and untechnical, Khenny.  Help me, oh help me.  I wanna paste misleading photos too, Khen.

But the Bible says that even a fool is considered wise when he keeps silent, so that’s, hopefully, a helpful hint for you.
Calling me a fool, eh. Guess you are going to hell Dhiane.

Mark 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

And one of John’s letters said that if a man doesn’t love his brother who he has seen he cannot love God who he hasn’t seen, Khen.  Do you love your Muslim and Arab brothers, Khen.
I didn’t call you one, I told you what the Bible said.  It’s up to you to decide if it applies.  I think it’s a good hint, though, for someone who constantly follows someone they apparently consider a sister in Christ (since that’s what the Scripture is saying) and calls her absolutely horrendous names. 

Heh, your psychoanalyzing of me is pretty funny, Miss Cheerleader (go figure) but keep guessing - ‘cause you don’t know a damn thing about me.

Ken McCracken on June 30, 2006 at 7:41 PM

Nor you about me.  But what you say says alot about you, Khen.  And so does your treatment of me since Day One, and your public bullying in front of your ‘cyberfriends’.

’Misleading’ photos?

How exactly is it ‘misleading?’

And Dhiane, I do not have time to dispense HTML lessons to slow learners, you will just have to figure it out yourself.

Khen can’t discern when someone is pulling his leg.  I was pulling your leg, Khen.

It was misleading in the same way that the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam would be considered misleading by you, Khen.

Either of us could pull up photos of public figures that could be subject to misinterpretation or supposition.

I’m through for today, Khen.

Thanks for all your kind words, as usual.  You’re a real brother in...well, no, it doesn’t appear you are by your habitual...well,

Nite, Khen.

Diane, the statement by you isn’t in error.  You are exactly right that those groups have said those things.  You are simply repeating the statements of a group that I know aren’t saying things because of their ignorance.

I KNOW they know who the Geneva Conventions are supposed to apply to, so they are doing this out of dishonesty rather than ignorance.

they are doing this out of dishonesty rather than ignorance.

Oh really.  I believe that they are less dishonest than an administration that, as Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson has said of the administration he worked so hard for (Bush’s):
They played a hoax on the American people.

diane says, J.R., your compliment to me was the most intelligent thing you’ve ever said on the board.

Yikes! Talk about a big head diane!

To both of you: One charge leveled at this administration from a number of directions, has been disregard for the Geneva Conventions guidelines.

And that charge makes absolutely no sense considering that the Taliban and Al Quada haven’t signed the Geneva Conventions. We have no treaties with those two and so therefore, the Geneva Conventions do not apply here.

"They played a hoax on the American people.”

That is Al Gore and the Global Warming crowd.

likwidshoe,

The Customary Laws of Warfare are considered to be globally binding.  The inbuilt enforcement element being that a belligerant not observing the Customary Laws was subject either post war war crimes trials or wartime retribution of like kind.

Out Here
Rodney Graves