PDA

View Full Version : Bush suffers court setbacks



jetdawgg
06-18-07, 09:29 AM
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/bush-suffers-court-setbacks-in-war-on/n20070617084209990002?ecid=RSS0001



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush (javascript:;) 's broad assertions of power in his war on terrorism (javascript:;) are under assault by U.S. judges who have rejected his indefinite imprisonment of enemy combatants and the domestic spying program.

A pair of recent rulings, one from military judges and the other from a U.S. appeals court, delivered new legal setbacks for Bush's tactics in dealing with terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in the United States.

"In case after case, this nation's judicial branch has told the administration that it may not trample on fundamental rights in the name of national security," said Hina Shamsi of the New York-based group Human Rights First.

A federal appeals court panel in Virginia ruled 2-1 on Monday that Bush could not declare civilians in this country to be enemy combatants and have the military hold them indefinitely.

The ruling said Bush overstepped his authority in the case of a Qatari national and suspected al-Qaeda operative, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who has been held in military custody for four years without any charges.

Human rights and civil liberties groups said the decision underscored the importance of judicial review as a check on Bush's executive power.

"Once again, the courts have stepped in to rein in the executive and restore the rule of law," said Jennifer Daskal, U.S. advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

The ruling came a week after military judges dismissed all charges against the only two Guantanamo prisoners facing trial, saying they had been designated only as "enemy combatants," and not "unlawful enemy combatants" as required by a 2006 law.

The decisions added to a number of earlier rulings that went against the Bush administration over the past three years.

Last August, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that Bush's domestic spying program, adopted after the September 11 attacks, violated free-speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency.

Five months later, the administration abandoned the program and agreed to get court approval for the electronic surveillance. It still has appealed the ruling to a U.S. appeals court, which has yet to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court (javascript:;) in three rulings since 2004 has rejected Bush's position in terrorism cases, including the most recent one a year ago that struck down as illegal his initial system of military trials for Guantanamo prisoners.

Bush administration officials predicted the al-Marri decision would be overturned by the full appeals court, which is controlled by conservative judges and has ruled for the administration in at least two other terrorism cases.

'LAW IS ON OUR SIDE'

"We think the law is on our side in this one," one U.S. official said. The official and others said al-Marri trained at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan (javascript:;) during the 1990s and entered the United States just before the September 11 attacks as a "sleeper agent."

The officials also expressed confidence the two Guantanamo trials ultimately would go forward.

The Pentagon has asked the military judges to reconsider their decisions. If the judges refuse, the administration next could appeal to a military court, they said.

The officials point to some significant wins for Bush's terrorism policies.

A U.S. appeals court in February upheld the law that Bush pushed through the then-Republican (javascript:;) -led Congress (javascript:;) last year that took away the right of the Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their confinement before U.S. federal judges.

That law also created the new system of military trials for Guantanamo prisoners to replace the one struck down by the Supreme Court.

With Democrats now in control of Congress, legislation is moving forward that would restore the rights of the approximately 380 prisoners now at Guantanamo to challenge their imprisonment.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 07:39 PM
Jet, just when I thought we were making a Republican outta you....

However, this is again a case of the court meddling in things they have not a clue about. Stupid.

Typical "9/10" mentality rolling here.

erased
06-18-07, 09:10 PM
Why, did God appoint Bush king of America on 9/11?

Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 09:21 PM
Yes, didn't you get the message? :)

erased
06-18-07, 09:30 PM
Oh... ok... well... that sucks.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 09:44 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That one was too easy.... Sorry dude...

jetdawgg
06-19-07, 08:52 AM
SGT Lep, I am a conservative leaning independent. The current policies have made a mockery of being one.

JinxJr
06-19-07, 09:14 AM
As a conservative, leaning Independant I'm giving "W" the benefit of the doubt on some of this. I think the process is a little convoluted in the handling/management of the detainees but we've had our hands on some of these bad guys and let them go only to get bitten in the backside later. Besides, what is the difference between "enemy combatants" and "unlawful enemy combatants"? Are there LAWFUL enemy combatants? That kind of semantics is pure, unadulterated crap! If you're a combatant for the enemy, lawful or...whatever...and you're incarcerated, you lose. Getting fed? Allowed to practice your religious beliefs? Being sheltered? Hey, your fundamental rights have just been covered. If I get captured in the Middle East I'll get none of the above for the brief amount of time I'll be allowed to live.

jetdawgg
06-19-07, 09:19 AM
As a conservative, leaning Independant I'm giving "W" the benefit of the doubt on some of this. I think the process is a little convoluted in the handling/management of the detainees but we've had our hands on some of these bad guys and let them go only to get bitten in the backside later. Besides, what is the difference between "enemy combatants" and "unlawful enemy combatants"? Are there LAWFUL enemy combatants? That kind of semantics is pure, unadulterated crap! If you're a combatant for the enemy, lawful or...whatever...and you're incarcerated, you lose. Getting fed? Allowed to practice your religious beliefs? Being sheltered? Hey, your fundamental rights have just been covered. If I get captured in the Middle East I'll get none of the above for the brief amount of time I'll be allowed to live.

What about the ones that are not guilty of anything? How long do we continue to hold those prisoners?

This sh1t stinks.

JinxJr
06-19-07, 09:31 AM
I did mention that the process was a little convoluted. I didn't say there weren't some who were caught being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can find examples of that in our own prisons...doesn't make it right but when the boy next door hangs out with the meth lab operator across the street he's gonna look guilty. Sure it stinks but isn't "better safe than sorry" a good philosophy?

jetdawgg
06-19-07, 09:35 AM
JInxJr, safe but sorry is one thing. This policy is an unequivocal disaster and now with the democrats enabling the republicans, there looks to be no end in sight.

The only ones getting something out of this other than the defense contractors are a few lawyers that work for the gov't. The prisoners can't get lawyers.

JinxJr
06-19-07, 09:51 AM
We aren't that far off from agreeing here; I don't think "disaster" quite fits though. There are some cases of damn shame but these guys didn't get caught with Darwin Award candidates who rob convenient stores or steal cars in Cleveland, Ohio. They should have some legal "counsel" sure.

jetdawgg
06-19-07, 09:59 AM
The disaster part that I speak of is that this policy is not scableable. We have now let Iran take the moral ground when it comes to prisoners. Iran let the British Marines and Sailors go back in Mar/Apr.

They held us prisoners for 444 days (including 10 Marines) and now we have held some prisoners for 3/4 years in GTMO. With no counsel, torture and who knows what other human rights violations.

In fact one guys was a car thief.

erased
06-19-07, 01:11 PM
"Besides, what is the difference between 'enemy combatants' and 'unlawful enemy combatants'?"

Enemy combatants are protected under the Geneva Conventions... unlawful combatants apparently aren't.

jetdawgg
06-19-07, 03:49 PM
"Besides, what is the difference between 'enemy combatants' and 'unlawful enemy combatants'?"

Enemy combatants are protected under the Geneva Conventions... unlawful combatants apparently aren't.

erased, that is where the Wasnington lawyers got paid.....

drumcorpssnare
06-19-07, 03:56 PM
erased- "enemy combatants" wear uniforms, are part of a recognized organized military unit, with rank structure, etc., etc. (Like the Marine Corps)

"unlawful enemy combatants" are cowardly, brainwashed, poor ignorant fools without uniforms or an organized infrastructure commonly accepted as "a nation's army, navy, etc." In the opinion of all but the liberals, they have no rights. Except maybe the freakin' right to die!:evilgrin:

erased
06-19-07, 04:18 PM
I agree with most of that. However, we went to their countries and grabbed them and brought them to GTMO, it is our responsibility to follow our own rules. Like I said a couple times now, we may be right in putting those people in GTMO, but we'll never know if we never charge them with anything.

Many people here lack empathy (which is a sign of a sociopath). Imagine the police kicked down your door, dragged your ass to jail, and kept you there for four years, questioning and beating you, but never telling you why. Then imagine after four or five years, they let you go, still never telling you why... you'd probably hold a grudge and want to get back at those who treated you so badly. Your family would probably want a piece of whoever did it, too.

Just like the War on Drugs created a huge black market and powerful cartels, the War on Terror is creating hatred toward us and giving the extremist leaders fuel with which to recruit others.

jetdawgg
06-19-07, 04:51 PM
This is why a sane foreign policy would come in handy. Even following the rules already in place would make a difference.

Also, herein lies the thoughts of war crimes for people in this admin. Other countries have rules in which to try others also.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 06:32 AM
And, Jet, you are now swinging so far left I'm getting a nosebleed. You actually are saying the Iranians, who illegally snatched the Brits, are more moral than the US because they let them go?

Holy dripping Irony, Batman.

Your hatred of the administration is clouding your judgement a tad there buddy.

And, someone please explain to me why UNLAWFUL enemy combatants should be given protection under the Geneva convention?????

The only 'representation' those found acting as such, should get, is an advocate (not a lawyer) to ensure they are fed, clothed, and not tortured. Anything else is giving them far more than they deserve.

erased
06-20-07, 06:43 AM
"The only 'representation' those found acting as such, should get, is an advocate (not a lawyer) to ensure they are fed, clothed, and not tortured. Anything else is giving them far more than they deserve."

Sure, I'll agree with that, but again, if we never charge them or provide evidence against them, how guilty could they be?

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 07:34 AM
I'm going with the notion that they have been captured bearing arms against coalition forces or some such.

jetdawgg
06-20-07, 09:25 AM
And, Jet, you are now swinging so far left I'm getting a nosebleed. You actually are saying the Iranians, who illegally snatched the Brits, are more moral than the US because they let them go?

Holy dripping Irony, Batman.

Your hatred of the administration is clouding your judgement a tad there buddy.

And, someone please explain to me why UNLAWFUL enemy combatants should be given protection under the Geneva convention?????

The only 'representation' those found acting as such, should get, is an advocate (not a lawyer) to ensure they are fed, clothed, and not tortured. Anything else is giving them far more than they deserve.

SGT Lep, when are you going to come out of the 51st state? It is called DENIAL!!!!.

Just a few days ago I posted a listing of 121 nations. The USA was number 96. It is not me making these things up.

The world is now percieveing the USA as such. Open your eyes Marine

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 10:05 AM
Number 96. By golly, then we should start surrendering and appeasing IMMEDIATELY if we ever hope to be "number 1", which if I recall, was something like Norway. Certainly a world power if ever there was one.

I don't really care, as I've stated before, WHAT 'the world' currently thinks. Because, quite frankly, 'the world' will come begging and pleading to Uncle Sugar and his taxpayers as soon as it's in a jam. I do support 10Z in this regard, because I'm of the attitude that unless 'it', whatever 'it' is the next time (be it Kosovo, Bosnia, etc etc) should be allowed to handle 'its-elf' without the big mean old US intervening.

Perhaps my state is 'denial'. Better to be there than in "Cloud Kuckoo Land".

I take it by your post that you believe the Iranians are more moral than the US at this point. How nice.

jetdawgg
06-20-07, 10:11 AM
SGT Lep my intentions are to show that USA is in need of a sane foreign policy.

The current one is a debacle. Iran used the world press to show the world that we are a broken nation. Going against the seeds of freedom that we profess.

Again, it is this admin that you support without question that is mis managaing these events. Not my doing as I did not vote them in office.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 11:30 AM
I guess, then, by some of the lefties here, I'm a 'sociopath' LOL. Fine, so be it.

I don't 'support without question' this administration. I've publicly said, here, they've made dumb*ssed mistakes. Several times.

I still think they are better than who you voted for, however :)

But, on that we shall agree to disagree.

erased
06-20-07, 02:37 PM
I guess, then, by some of the lefties here, I'm a 'sociopath' LOL. Fine, so be it.

I don't 'support without question' this administration. I've publicly said, here, they've made dumb*ssed mistakes. Several times.

I still think they are better than who you voted for, however :)

But, on that we shall agree to disagree.

I gotta tell ya, I'm getting fairly sick of being called a lefty already. I understand that I'm a moderate conservative and that terrifies you, but seriously, do you have to respond to everything you can't refute with "psh, lefties"? I only take up the defense of the left here because there's a fairly obvious imbalance here, but you can see I, like 10thz and jetdawgg, am very critical of the left too. It's not a team sport, we all lose either way.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 02:46 PM
Oddly, while I can buy that line from Jett (who I know sometimes posts stuff just to annoy the conservatives, and who also believes some, but not everything...) I haven't seen you 'tongue in cheek'. If having the label of 'lefty' concerns you, then stop acting like one.

"Moderate Conservative" what? From what I've seen of your posts thus far, if you are a "moderate conservative", then I must be a member of the Waffen SS. Boy, will my wife be upset.

erased
06-20-07, 02:51 PM
"From what I've seen of your posts thus far, if you are a "moderate conservative", then I must be a member of the Waffen SS."

Maybe you should take that more seriously than you think.

drumcorpssnare
06-20-07, 03:02 PM
The detainees are not being beaten, and they have been told why they are being held. If they were Americans, I would agree they deserved the due process of our laws. But they are unlawful enemy combatants, during a time of war. They are entitled to be fed, clothed, and not tortured, as Sgt Leprechaun stated...and nothing more.

and BTW erased...black market drugs and powerful cartels existed long, long before the "War on Drugs."
And the extremist's "hatred" has been burning since Napolean occupied Egypt, and since the Ottoman Empire folded, and the British established themselves in the Middle East, and the Caliphate was abolished, and the nation of Israel was created...
So...their "hatred" was firmly in place, long before George W. ordered American troops into Iraq, and long before 9-11, for that matter.
But, it's so much easier to just blame Pres. Bush, than it is to do a little research and simply face the facts. Knowing the philosophy and history of the extremist Islamic movement to the extent that I do...I FIRMLY believe they would have perpetrated 9/11 EVEN IF AMERICAN TROOPS HAD NEVER SET FOOT IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!
This entire issue has been brewing, and bubbling, and simmering, and cooking since the freakin' Crusades. These are a proud, macho breed of people who in the 1920's started to feel the modern world encroaching on their medeival civilization. Realizing they didn't have the resources to wage a "conventional war", they followed the writings in the Qu'ran to wage "jihad."
This war is not about oil, or G.W., or Haliburton, or Saddam. It's a war between "believers" and "unbelievers."
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

erased
06-20-07, 03:16 PM
"And BTW erased...black market drugs and powerful cartels existed long, long before the 'War on Drugs.'"

Maybe before the coining of the phrase "War on Drugs", but in the US there were no black market drugs and cartels before 1875 when San Francisco banned opium dens using the threat of Chinese immigrants using the drug to seduce white women to justify the ban.


Maybe I do blame Bush more often than is necessary, but I think if we had a more conservative foreign policy that protected our interests without trampling on the interests of other nations, even the extremists may be less likely to want to mess with us.

EDIT: Some of the extremists... others are actually bat-**** insane.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 03:46 PM
"From what I've seen of your posts thus far, if you are a "moderate conservative", then I must be a member of the Waffen SS."

Maybe you should take that more seriously than you think.

I've married interacially and had kids. Therefore, I'm inelegible for membership in that, or any of the other white power organizations those on the left assume a fascist like me would normally belong to:scared: .

But thanks for the kind words. Means alot. I'd like to think I could have been a good member of the Liebstandarte.

Then again, I'm not 6 foot and had fillings, so I wouldn't have met pre-war requirements, either.

Sigh.

Maybe the GrossDeutchland Regiment, or perhaps the Fallscirmjaegers?

drumcorpssnare
06-20-07, 03:50 PM
erased- You seemed to be insinuating that the "War on Drugs" from the Reagan era to the present, "caused" a black market and the cartels. This is, in fact, not so.

I don't disagree that maybe America could have a more conservative foreign policy. But, NOT at the expense of the security of our nation. I have always been a strong proponent of Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak Softly...And Carry a Big Stick" policy.

There is much more to our foreign policy, than just Iraq and Iran.

"My" ideal foreign policy starts with illegal aliens. They are "foreigners", not Americans. They need to leave, and if they choose to come back legally, through proper channels, they're welcome. But, not until every American who "wants" a job..."has" a job. And foreign "humanitarian aid"? Sure...as soon as there are no hungry Americans in this country. Then, we can ship corn, rice, and wheat to poor countries...not until.
And regarding the military/political spectrum of foreign policy...sure, let's pull all our troops back within our own borders. But here's the catch! Let the world be warned...if so much as one American is harmed...anywhere in the world...by YOUR nation....WE WILL CRUSH YOU!:evilgrin:
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

erased
06-20-07, 03:58 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean the actual "war on drugs", I just meant the country's prohibition.

I agree with you about 95% on the foreign policy. The problem here is that we currently aren't "speaking softly" we're being loud and obnoxious where it is inappropriate... however, the immensity of our stick is undeniable.:flag:

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 04:00 PM
Our response to terrorist attacks and attacks against the United States should make the world gasp.

drumcorpssnare
06-20-07, 04:00 PM
erased- See...not only am I smart enough to "breathe", but I am capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation, too.:D
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

erased
06-20-07, 04:02 PM
Indeed. I feel like you and Sgt Lep are playing "good cop - bad cop" with me... but constantly switching roles. :yes::no:

jetdawgg
06-20-07, 04:06 PM
erased, it is more like being rubbed against the boards in hockey at this site:D

erased
06-20-07, 04:08 PM
I guess I'll get used to it.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-20-07, 04:13 PM
You'd better. We play rough. Only the strong survive here.

Drums, just cause you are breathin, you are still a nazi sociopath. I can't believe you are even allowed to walk in polite society. Who knows, when the left re-writes the Constitution, maybe we can be bunkies in the re-education camp!

"OMMMMMM.....OMMMMMMMM.....Mooooslumss are gooooood.....Socialized medicine.........GoreisGreat.....OHHMMMMMMMMMM.... OHHHMMMMMM....I willlllllllreeeeppeeeentttt my evil BushChimpyHitler wayyssssssssss....OOHHMMMMMMM"

Followed by a nice round of plain oatmeal and Evian water.

Ah, that'll be the life then!

erased
06-20-07, 04:14 PM
I think I just burst a blood vessel in my eye.

jetdawgg
06-20-07, 04:17 PM
You'd better. We play rough. Only the strong survive here.

Drums, just cause you are breathin, you are still a nazi sociopath. I can't believe you are even allowed to walk in polite society. Who knows, when the left re-writes the Constitution, maybe we can be bunkies in the re-education camp!

"OMMMMMM.....OMMMMMMMM.....Mooooslumss are gooooood.....Socialized medicine.........GoreisGreat.....OHHMMMMMMMMMM.... OHHHMMMMMM....I willlllllllreeeeppeeeentttt my evil BushChimpyHitler wayyssssssssss....OOHHMMMMMMM"

Followed by a nice round of plain oatmeal and Evian water.

Ah, that'll be the life then!

http://www.andreaharner.com/archives/MichaelJackson2.jpg