Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HAMDAN AND THE NSA....Is the NSA's domestic spying program legal? It plainly violates the FISA Act, which requires the government to get warrants before it places wiretaps on "U.S. persons," but the Bush administration has offered up two reasons that it may be legal anyway: First, that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed shortly after 9/11, overrides FISA. Second, that even if it doesn't, FISA is an unconstitutional infringement of the president's inherent commander-in-chief powers.

But guess what? It turns out that these were exactly the arguments the administration made in the Hamdan case, and the Supreme Court rejected both of them. Jack Balkin explains:

The Court...held that "Neither [the AUMF or the Detainee Treatment Act] expands the President's authority to convene military commissions. . . .[T]here is nothing in the text or legislative history of the AUMF even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in Article 21 of the UCMJ."

....What about the President's inherent powers under Article II as Commander-in-Chief? Don't they override Congressional limitations? No, said the Court in Hamdan in a footnote: "Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers."

In other words, if AUMF doesn't override the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there's no reason to think that it overrides FISA. And if Congress can limit the president's Article II powers when it comes to military tribunals, it can also do so when it comes to domestic surveillance. Marty Lederman follows this up with a pointed question:

What will OLC do when presumably within 45 days the NSA program must be reapproved? A.L. suggests that responsible lawyers, even those who are charged to push the legal envelope, should call a halt to the program. David recommends that Congress should tee up the question to DOJ.

This seems pretty clear cut. But apparently not clear cut enough: On Monday, the Department of Justice wrote a letter to Chuck Schumer saying that it stood by all its old arguments for the NSA program even though Hamdan has rather clearly eviscerated them.

So what happens next? The Supreme Court has spoken and the president has decided to flatly ignore them. Stay tuned.

Kevin Drum 12:36 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (112)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Is it hot enough in that pot yet for ya little froggies?

Posted by: joe on July 12, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

They're dragging out the same old arguments in the Detroit case in their request for invoking the state secrecy privilege.

Posted by: Brian Boru on July 12, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

There are people who want to kill us and liberals are worried about the possibility that some government flunky sitting in some dark basement in the guts of Virginia is going to listen in on their inane conversations.

Posted by: nut on July 12, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

Posted by: Calling All Toasters on July 12, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

So what happens next? The Supreme Court has spoken and the president has decided to flatly ignore them.

He also ignores laws passed by Congress...

Hey:

The Declaration of Independence contains these lines:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers."


King George redux...

Now you know why the forefathers wanted to hang the first one.

Posted by: koreyel on July 12, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

"Anthony Kennedy has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Posted by: llama on July 12, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

It's hard to type this from under my desk but I heard there are people who want to kill us. I'm not moving until nut gives me the all clear.

Posted by: Foundation of Mud on July 12, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

Glenn Greenwald's been all over this point: here, here and here.

Posted by: bad Jim on July 12, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

It turns out that these were exactly the arguments the administration made in the Hamdan case, and the Supreme Court rejected both of them.

Sorry, Kevin, your "legal" arguments are completely fallacious. Hamdam only ruled whether the AUMF repealed the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention is a treaty and the Court ruled treaties are not repealed by the AUMF unless the President says so. But FISA is not a treaty so the AUMF did repeal it. Therefore FISA was repealed by the AUMF. This is a real legal argument which every conservative lawyer would agree with and only a liberal judicial activist would reject it. Furthermore, under our constitution, the President can repeal treaties so if George W Bush decides to repeal the Geneva Conventions, Hamdam would no longer be applicable anymore because the Geneva Conventions would no longer be the law in the United States.

Posted by: Al on July 12, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Furthermore, under our constitution, the President can repeal treaties so if George W Bush decides to repeal the Geneva Conventions...

Does the US constitution really allow the US to repeal treaties? Sounds improbable - I think the word fAllacy is looking for is reject. The Geneva Conventions (like other international treaties) are not US legislation so I'd be surprised if the US can 'repeal' them.

I guess you could also use ignore or withdraw from.

Posted by: floopmeister on July 12, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

I think the odds on the elections being cancelled, I'm sorry, "postponed", just got a little shorter.

Posted by: craigie on July 12, 2006 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

It will be interesting to see if an NSA case makes it to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration has done everything in its power to prevent any such case from proceeding, which gives you an idea of just how strong they think their legal arguments are.

Posted by: PaulB on July 12, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin...why do you liberals hate America so much and why do want to put our country at risk from the terrorists?

Posted by: Nathan64 on July 12, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin...why do you liberals hate America so much and why do want to put our country at risk from the terrorists?

I love the classics, don't you?

Posted by: craigie on July 12, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get it Kevin, your grrlfriend Ann Althouse always loves it when you link to her. You have said you read her blog everyday. And she is the master of this topic. She was all over the NSA Wiretapping and why Abu Gonzales and the AUMF made this all okay.

She posted all the time on NSA Wiretapping, but hasn't had a single post on Hamdan and its impact on the NSA Wiretapping. It's odd her keeping quiet about this. When others have asked her, she has gone so far as delete their posts.

So Kev my friend, why not ask Althouse what she thinks of Lederman's and Greenwald's arguments?

Posted by: jerry on July 12, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't you get that recent White House memo? It was the one from that deputy assistant associate aide type lawyer in the AG's office who proudly stated that the President uses signing statements because that way he can protect us from laws which he thinks could be unconstitutional. He is so wise and always correct and loving and caring, that of course we really don't have any need for that group of nine guys and gals they used to call the Supreme Court and now call the Appendix of American Government -- a vestigal organ with no known function or purpose.

You see...I am the decider.

Posted by: dweb on July 12, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

It's practically impossible to distinguish between the bedwetters' arguments and the fascists'. "People are trying to kill us, and we must give the maximum leader everything he needs to keep us safe."

Posted by: bad Jim on July 12, 2006 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

Duh, Kevin. Glenn Greenwald and The Anonymous Liberal have been all over this for days.

Posted by: The Fool on July 12, 2006 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINK

It will be interesting to see if an NSA case makes it to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration has done everything in its power to prevent any such case from proceeding, which gives you an idea of just how strong they think their legal arguments are.

设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防

Posted by: sam on July 12, 2006 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

There are people who want to kill us and liberals are worried about the possibility that some government flunky sitting in some dark basement in the guts of Virginia is going to listen in on their inane conversations.

It was necessary to destroy our freedoms in order to save them.

Posted by: NBarnes on July 12, 2006 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK

The people who hate our freedom turn out to live among us. Chickenhawks and bedwetters, prairie muffins and dominionists, and, of course, the executive and legislative branches of government, and at least 4 out of 5 judges on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: bad Jim on July 12, 2006 at 6:12 AM | PERMALINK

I'd love to know what happens next, maybe a lawyer will post. I suppose someone has to sue the WH and DOJ? Maybe the ACLU would be up to it.

Posted by: jerry on July 12, 2006 at 6:14 AM | PERMALINK

They're still living by John Mitchell's mantra-watch what we do, not what we say.

Posted by: Palolo lolo on July 12, 2006 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps he'll just make a "signing statement" to cover his lack of acceptance of Supreme Court rulings he doesn't like now. Talk about "activist judges"...how about a "My way or the highway" president! Way to go "nut" (what an appropriate moniker)...just keep throwing your (and my) freedoms out the window and you'll be SAFE...fool!

Posted by: Dancer on July 12, 2006 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

I love the classics, don't you?

Mwmfff! (mopping coffee off own chin)

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

I have to say Graham is right. We need to use the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as a starting point and go OPENLY from there to adjust it to work in today's environment. The UCMJ was not written by the hated liberal pinkos. As is alluded to above, (as well as in other posts) it is important to prioritize your fears. You could set every person in Guantanamo free and they could not pose anywhere near the danger to the USA as having an executive branch that is free to ignore the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

President Bush is our duly-elected Leader and he must not be questioned while we are locked in mortal combat with the greatest enemy mankind has ever faced!

Posted by: "Conservative" on July 12, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, bushburner, that was so well put it should be bannered across every monitor and pasted across every flat surface in the country:

You could set every person in Guantanamo free and they could not pose anywhere near the danger to the USA as having an executive branch that is free to ignore the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

You could set every person in Guantanamo free and they could not pose anywhere near the danger to the USA as having an executive branch that is free to ignore the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

You could set every person in Guantanamo free and they could not pose anywhere near the danger to the USA as having an executive branch that is free to ignore the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

Indeed.

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

shorty, please please please make that the banner for the '08 platform.

Drama queen hysteria and victimhood has always served the Democrats well. I promise.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

The Geneva Conventions (like other international treaties) are not US legislation so I'd be surprised if the US can 'repeal' them.

While the Geneva Conventions are not US legislation per se, they are the law of the land under Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Geneva, therefore, as a treaty ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, is the supreme law of the United States as much as any Congressional legislation is.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

But what about this?

"U-turn as White House agrees to Geneva Conventions protection for detainees"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/12/wus12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/12/ixnews.html

Posted by: Elevator on July 12, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting choice of words Stefan; "supreme law of the US" hmmm......

However I do agree that Geneva Conventions should abe adhered to, therefore, Gitmo detainess do no qualify. Why do you want to violate the "supreme law" by not following the accords? Jihadists wear no uniform, protect no borders and do not engage in the rules of combat. You are advocating breaking the supreme law and since the left are such sticklers for the rule of law, I am sure you will all agree that the US would be in violation of that law if we allow Gitmo detainees those protections.

That's settled.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Why do you fear the Constitution, Jay?

No, don't bother answering that. We know why.

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

However I do agree that Geneva Conventions should abe adhered to, therefore, Gitmo detainess do no qualify.

Incorrect. As I've explained numerous times before, the Guantanamo captives fall squarely under the protection of the Geneva Conventions (as the Pentagon admitted today). You don't have to wear a uniform to be protected by Geneva, as it covers not only POWs, but also irregular combatants.

The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All prisoners fall somewhere within the protections of the four Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."

Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions also protects persons such as guerillas, spies, resistance fighters, and saboteurs (such as for example members of Al Qaeda):

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State.....Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power.....In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as the case may be."


Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

well shorty first of all we're talking about the Geneva Convention accords, but I know how easily distracted liberals are, so just to entertain you, Gitmo detainees are not citizens of the US (as much as you want them to be, those fun loving freedom fighters) therefore, they do not qualify for US Constitutional rights.

Why do you want to re-write the constitution and the Geneva Convention accords to allow murderers protections they do not qualify for under the "rule of law"? Interesting.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

"Gitmo detainees are not citizens of the US (as much as you want them to be, those fun loving freedom fighters)"

Because it's the job of the religious fanatics in the GOP to destroy American freedom, and they don't need any competition from them furrin religious fanatics.

Posted by: Red on July 12, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

The Supreme Court has spoken and the president has decided to flatly ignore them.

Well, despite the reverence paid by liberals to our judicial overlords casting down opinions from their thrones on Mount Olympus, the President is part of a coordinate branch of government, and is not obligated to guess at how the Court might rule in the future. The case that was actually decided was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and does not concern any sort of surveillance issues at all. Until such a case or controversy comes before the court, the President is free to continue the program. Doing so is not "flatly ignoring" the Court. It makes good copy for preaching to the choir I suppose, but it's not accurate.

Balkin also states that

To be sure, the Bush Administration might try to argue that the power to engage in foreign inteligence surveillance is importantly different from the power to try detainees by military commissions. The former, but not the latter is so centrally part of the President's core powers that Congress may not restrict it in any way. Therefore although it would be within Congress's "proper exercise of its own war powers" to limit military commissions, it would not be within the proper scope of Congress's powers to limit electronic surveillance of American citizens.

Balkin poo-poos this of course, but the Court did base its holding in Hamdi on a similar line of reasoning, holding that the AUMF authorized the detention of enemy combatants:

We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the necessary and appropriate force Congress has authorized the President to use.

It wouldn't surprise me if they found surveilling known terrorists was an exercise of "necessary and appropriate force." But then again, it wouldn't surprise me either if our robed masters once again substituted their own judgment as to what is necessary and appropriate for waging war for the President's.

Posted by: Homer on July 12, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, I will concede that you are probably right on Article 5 and the protections therein. However, I do have one serious question for you. Since you are such a stickler for law, civility, human rights and taking the moral high road, why are you not more enraged as to the actions of the jihadists? How can you overlook the sheer inhumanity and brutality that these murderers inflict on innocent people worldwide nearly everyday? How can you witness an incident like Beslan, Russia wherein 330 women and CHILDREN were shot in the back as tried to flee and not be enraged? I have yet to hear one condemnation from you re: the jihadists and their complete disregard for the very values you so righteously extol.

I can only surmise that you support their effots and am convinced of that fact every time I read your posts.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Gitmo detainees are not citizens of the US (as much as you want them to be, those fun loving freedom fighters) therefore, they do not qualify for US Constitutional rights.

A person held captive by the United States does not have to be a citizen to enjoy Constitutional protections, but merely has to be a "person" subject to our laws. While not all constitutional rights apply to non-citizens (such as voting, holding office, etc.) it is well-established that non-citizens facing legal jeopardy are entitled to the full panoply of constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First and Fifth Amendments acknowledge no distinction between citizens and foreigners resident in the United States, and a few years ago reaffirmed that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.

See, for example, Amendment VI, which provides that:

"No person [not "no citizen"] shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

If only you would go to these lengths to protect the unborn, the right for religious observance in the public square, the right for our own POW's that have their heads cut off, the right for Tom Delay and Scooter Libby to have a fair trial.

Why do you only protect the jihadists?

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, I will concede that you are probably right on Article 5 and the protections therein. However, I do have one serious question for you....I have yet to hear one condemnation from you re: the jihadists and their complete disregard for the very values you so righteously extol.

I don't do condemnations on demand, as I have nothing to prove in this regard. However, on a more general level people such as Al Qaeda are my enemy -- therefore, I have no control over them, and my condemnations of them will fall on rather deaf ears.

However, I am a citizen of the United States, and my good name as a US citizen is tied up with the actions of my government. If I see my government acting in ways which I believe to be illegal and immoral, I not only have a right, I have a solemn duty to speak up and try to help put my country back on the right course.

And that's not even addressing the other isssue, which is that I believe that the Bush regime's efforts are actively harmful in the US effort against Al Qaeda, and that our safety and national security would be enhanced if they were no longer in power.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, your question is unserious. Stefan has never written anything in "support" of the "jihadists." In fact, what he has consistently said here comprises a much more effective method of protecting us from these jihadists than you have ever offered. Why do you persist in being such a flaccid chickenhawk?

Or...because I've missed where you condemned all the Republicans who work to deny voting rights to blacks, I can only surmise that you are a bigtime racist and a dues-paying KKK member. I am more convinced of that every time you post here.

Have a nice day...in hell.

Posted by: Nash on July 12, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, I am more and more convinced that you really have NO regard for the rule of law in that it is strictly a one way street to you. Others need not adhere to the values you so insincerely cite, only the US, and only if it handicaps their efforts.

If you truly believed in what you say, you would demand that the rules of law are applied consistently across the board by all parties. YOU DO NOT.

I will therefore disregard any future post of yours that trumps the rules of engagement, unless and until you demand reciprocation.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

So true:

...the Bush regime's efforts are actively harmful in the US effort against Al Qaeda, and that our safety and national security would be enhanced if they were no longer in power

And because Jay enables these actively harmful actions, it necessarily follows that Jay is working actively to harm the US and its citizens.

Posted by: Nash on July 12, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

I will therefore disregard any future post of yours that trumps the rules of engagement, unless and until you demand reciprocation.

OK: I demand reciprocation!

Satisfied?

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Nash, just so you know, anyone that points to the color of skin as a point of identification is a racist. In fact that is the definition of racism.

And if you are sooooo concerned with everyones right to vote, why didn't the Democratic stronghold of New Orleans see to it that transportation to the polls was afforded to those underpriveledged in that city?

And if you are soooo offended by the KKK, why do you continue to support Robert KKK Byrd as a senior member of your party?

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Nash, it's hard to take the comments from a racist and KKK sympathizer, as you are, seriously.

And Stefan, no, not satisfied yet. I will continue to monitor your future posts and will only be convinced of your neutrality when I begin to see more balance.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Jay,
As Stephan points out it is incumbent on me to make sure that I hold myself to moral and legal standards first. Then acting within the framework of the law I should also hold others to legal standards (please notice I can not and should not hold others to my moral standards). Conservatives all to often want to hold others to their high moral standards but not themselves.

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

It turns out that what Jay is "convinced of" is meaningless, since he is incapable of rational thought, believing that the "rule of law" is a zero-sum game. A perennial hypocrite, Jay displays the stunning depths of moral relativism brought to you by the same crowd that claims moral relativism is a mortal sin.

I'm sure you need no "buck up" from me, Stefan, but there is no sting whatsoever in having your comments disregarded by someone who thinks that because other people run red lights, it is not only proper, but necessary for you and him to do so as well.

Posted by: Nash on July 12, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Jay, until you denounce the Republicans who have worked tirelessly to keep minorities from voting, we are forced to continue to regard you as a racist.

Glad to see it's a hot-button topic for you...means you might be able to redeem yourself and come clean about your vicious racism. Repent, Jay, repent.

Posted by: Nash on July 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

And Stefan, no, not satisfied yet. I will continue to monitor your future posts and will only be convinced of your neutrality when I begin to see more balance.

Ooooo, spooky!

And will you continue to look out that window, monitoring those pesky kids to make sure they stay off your lawn?

Posted by: craigie on July 12, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Nash, a record number of people voted in the '04 election, please explain how your tiny little brain equates that to vote suppression.

The rest of your drivel is strictly baseless partisanship and hardly needs to be acknowledged.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, let me help you out here:

First, the Constitution makes ratified treaties, including but not limited to the Geneva accords, part of the "supreme law of the land." That's the Framers' language, not mine.

Second, noncitizens most often DO qualify for U.S. constitutional rights, but it's a moot question here because one or another of the Geneva articles covers any and all combatants in U.S. custody. And those articles impose broad and strict standards of behavior on the part of the custodian.

Clear now?

Posted by: Lex on July 12, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry Jay, not satisfied yet. I will continue to monitor your future posts and will only be convinced that you have dropped your racist ways when I see you condemn Republican actions to depress minority votes.

Posted by: Nash on July 12, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, Kevin:

you might want to read Hamdan. the administration's assertion of the AUMF as authorizing military commissions was rejected, in part, because the AUMF referred to the "rules of war" or something to that effect...
contrariwise, the administration argues (rightly in my view) that the collection of intelligence is part and parcel of warfighting and is thus expressly authorized by the AUMF.
further, this line of thinking is at least as well supported by Hamdi as it is (purportedly) rejected by Hamdan.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK
The Geneva Conventions (like other international treaties) are not US legislation so I'd be surprised if the US can 'repeal' them.

Treaties have the same standing as statutes and, as far as there standing as US law goes, may be cancelled or limited by a subsequent statute. However, Al, naturally, is wrong about the Hamdan holding, which is simply that the AUMF is not broader than a declaration of war, and does not withdraw the limitations of the Geneva Conventions which, by their very terms, apply to the use of force; such a limitation or outright 'repeal' would have to be express.

This doesn't, BTW, give special standing to treaties; its a fairly common rule of construction that a subsequent law doesn't repeal an earlier law of clear application where they can be read together. Thus, given that FISA has specific rules for wartime application, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would find the AUMF to go beyond a declaration of war and suspend FISA implicitly, for the very same reason it did not do so when the similar argument was made with respect to the Geneva Conventions in Hamdan.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

"There are people who want to kill us and liberals are worried about the possibility that some government flunky sitting in some dark basement in the guts of Virginia is going to listen in on their inane conversations."

Over a million soldiers have died to create, enforce and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet we have so called "patriots" who can't wait to bend their knee to oligarchy in renunciation of the Constitution. They would give the lie to the sacrifices of so many.

Posted by: m on July 12, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK
Yet we have so called "patriots" who can't wait to bend their knee to oligarchy in renunciation of the Constitution. They would give the lie to the sacrifices of so many.

Precisely so. And their name is not Legion, it is Jay.

Posted by: Nash on July 12, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

contrariwise, the administration argues (rightly in my view) that the collection of intelligence is part and parcel of warfighting and is thus expressly authorized by the AUMF.

When you step back and look at it, you see that this is a claim that Bush has the right to use any and all war powers against American citizens even within the United States, and neither Congress nor the courts can stop him.

As Glenn Greenwald (blessed be his name) summarized: "Put another way, the Administration has now baldly stated that whatever it is allowed to do against our enemies in a war, it is equally entitled to exercise all of the same powers against American citizens on American soil.....

"The 'war powers' which a President can use in war against our enemies are virtually limitless -- they include indefinite detention in prison with no charges or access to lawyers, limitless eavesdropping, interrogation by means up to and perhaps including torture, and even killing. The reason the Administration claims it can engage in warrantless eavesdropping against Americans is because it has the general right to use all of these war powers against Americans on American soil, of which eavesdropping is but one example. Without hyperbole, it is hard to imagine a theory more dangerous or contrary to our nation's principles than a theory that vests the President -- not just Bush but all future Presidents -- limitless authority to use war powers against American citizens within this country."

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

The trouble with police states, is the need for police.

The more government intrudes on individual liberties, the more 'enforcers' are required for surveillance and enforcement.

The problem is, and has always been, the demographic that gravitates to public employment in military or police work.

Public employment is the employer of last resort in America - and what we have now is a police state filled with postal workers with police state power.

Witness the personal agenda at work at highway checkpoints and airports - and most would quickly agree that the ratio of loons to goons is alarming.

These are people who are, and will alway be at the bottom of the capitalist food chain - and to protect oneself from them, one must be situated in one of the protected classes.

This kind of snooping crosses the line, wherein postal workers are now snooping on international business.

The police state can only function if it's excesses are confined to policing the powerless - and the occasional high profile lynching of a certified baddie like Lay.

But a fishing expedition by washington bureaucrats into the flow of money around the world??? - not on your life.

Posted by: pat on July 12, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

And Stefan, no, not satisfied yet. I will continue to monitor your future posts and will only be convinced of your neutrality when I begin to see more balance.

Wow, monitored by Jay, him watching my every move. Now I know how those twelve year old girls feel....

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

The trouble with police states, is the need for police.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

There's reason to believe the NSA program is legal. General Hayden gave a speech to the National Press Club a few months ago in which he said that three lawyers had vetted the NSA program and found it legal. All three were experts.

Now, these lawyers might have been wrong. It's quite possible that the Supreme Court would rule the other way. Kevin may be right that the SC would rule similarly to their ruling in Hamden.

So, where are we? The President pushed the envelope on legality in order to better protect the American people. I fully approve. I want the country to use it full powers to foil terrorist attacks.

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 12, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Jay said,record number of people voted in the '04 election, please explain how your tiny little brain equates that to vote suppression
How non sequitur can you get? In a growing population where (on a good day) 40% of possible voters actually cast a ballot it is easy to have both more voters and more vote suppression. If you need me to I will explain it to you.

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

But FISA is not a treaty so the AUMF did repeal it. Therefore FISA was repealed by the AUMF. This is a real legal argument which every conservative lawyer would agree with . . .

Doesn't even need a punch line, does it?

Posted by: Brautigan on July 12, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

My prediction: The Court was willing to curb the President's war-making authority when it came to levying punishment on accused war criminals because crime and punishment are traditionally thought of as part of the judicial function. I would be very suprised if the Court attempts to impose limits on the President's war-making powers when it comes to things that are traditionally viewed of as purely military in nature, such as intelligence gathering or the proper use of force.

Posted by: DBL on July 12, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

DBL, especially when said military functions were authorized by Congress in the AUMF.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that during debate on AUMF there was a proposal to include giving POTUS some of these very authorities to override FISA and it was decided that AUMF would not do so. Would not this intent be considered during a SC ruling? Or am I confusing this with another law?

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK
I thought that during debate on AUMF there was a proposal to include giving POTUS some of these very authorities to override FISA and it was decided that AUMF would not do so. Would not this intent be considered during a SC ruling?

ISTR this is true, and it certainly would be the kind of thing you'd think would be considered if the Court were to address the argument that the AUMF might have implicitly overridden FISA.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that during debate on AUMF there was a proposal to include giving POTUS some of these very authorities to override FISA and it was decided that AUMF would not do so. Would not this intent be considered during a SC ruling? Or am I confusing this with another law?

No, that's correct. During the debate on the AUMF some of these same provisions were considered and rejected, which shows that the AUMF was specifically not a grant of such authority to the executive.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Stefan, I will concede that you are probably right on Article 5 and the protections therein. However, I do have one serious question for you. Since you are such a stickler for law, civility, human rights and taking the moral high road, why are you not more enraged as to the actions of the jihadists? How can you overlook the sheer inhumanity and brutality that these murderers inflict on innocent people worldwide nearly everyday? How can you witness an incident like Beslan, Russia wherein 330 women and CHILDREN were shot in the back as tried to flee and not be enraged? I have yet to hear one condemnation from you re: the jihadists and their complete disregard for the very values you so righteously extol."
What has one got to do with the other or how does one justify the other? Isn't America supposed to represent something better and something nobler? What is done in the name of Islam is shameful,barbaric and should be condemned & fought at every possible turn but it doesn't mean we should abandon our nation's core principle to bring us to the same level in order to "win" the battle. Laws & treaties are either blind or they are not and if we abandon those laws & treaties for political convenience not only to we begin the descent to our enemies level but we also place our own troops in greater danger. Is that really so hard to grasp?

Posted by: Nathan64 on July 12, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan said:
"No, that's correct. During the debate on the AUMF some of these same provisions were considered and rejected, which shows that the AUMF was specifically not a grant of such authority to the executive."

well, no, it doesn't show that. this may be evidence of such (if a court deemed it relevant) but its not dispositive.

it could also show that such authority was already implicit within the AUMF and therefore hardly needed to be spelled out explicitly (especially since such an explicit statement could wrongly be used to argue in the future that intelligence collection was not part and parcel of military action)

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,

I think that your argument could be correct (I am not a lawyer so take that w/ gr. nacl). However in the debate I believe that it was argued not that the authority was implicit but that they did not want to extend this authority.

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

"representing something more noble" is only in the minds of weak liberals, whom yet to define what "more noble" exactly is. Representing the "right" from wrong more aptly describes the framers vision of this country. Parsing legalese in defense of brutal murderers is not exactly representing "right".

I do not care one bit what others think of me, I am not that insecure. I do care a hell of a lot when dirty scum roam the world and kill innocent men, women and children. (if only they could set their sights on many of you here though I might be pleased).

A record number of people voted in '04, yet many of you still cite voter suppression. Wouldn't that clearly be the case than in '92 and '96 when much less turnout at the polls were realized?

Why did Clinton suppress the minority votes to win in '92 and '94? And clearly he did considering the example all of you have provided for that.

"What is done in the name of Islam is shameful.......and should be fought and every possible turn". Really?

"We need to bring our troops home now!" Nancy Pelosi. So what is the left's position on fighting jihadism again?

Anything?

Anyhting at all?

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Do any of you find it ironic that most of you were willing to convict and imprison Libby, Cheney and Rove with no evidence, yet willingly able to parse legal definitions in order to defend jihadists?

And since you consider yourself to be sooooo noble and to set the example of the moral high ground, how is it that you would even think of condemning your own countrymen without so much as due process. I tell you I am shocked.

What about the Israeli soldiers currently being held hostage in Lebanon? How many of you will I hear from demanding to know of their conditions and treatment, as concerned and noble citizens of this world? Do they deserve Geneva Convention protections? And if so, shouldn't the UN be demanding visitation?

Nearly 1.2 million unborn babies are aborted every year. How are you not able to parse legal definitions to protect them?

Women and children are being murdered every day in the Darfur. Why is that not "shameful.......and being fought at every turn" by the UN?

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Jay said, I tell you I am shocked.
I tell you, you are an idiot (and an asshat as well).

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oh I get it Jay. You don't understand that when someone talks about voter suppression they are not talking about suppressing all voters only those that do not vote the 'right' way. You can energize one part of a voting body and suppress another and still have a net gain. Though I alluded to this in my previous post, you obviously did not get it.

Posted by: bushburner on July 12, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Jay...blah, blah, blah. First off, I'm hardly what most people would call a liberal....although in today's Republican party I might be.....but the thing remains, by throwing away treaties & laws we put our own soldiers at greater risk. If we can't abide by laws protecting soldiers & prisoners, why should we expect anyone else to? I'm also in the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with Bush's Iraq folly from the beginning....I was never convinced by the evidence presented and I thought we needed to finish Afghanistan & deal with N. Korea & Iran.... but thinking we can't just leave Iraq the way it is now. An Iraq in chaos further destabilizes the region while also strengthening Iran's hand....surely the worst of both worlds. I don't pretend to know what the solution is but I can tell you what hasn't worked. America has to stand for something and the second we stoop to the level of the murderers & terrorists we blur the line of what is right & what is wrong. The end never justifies the means when it involves the selling of a soul. That isn't a Republican or Democratic viewpoint, it is the viewpoint of someone who loves their country deeply and a person who wants to protect its citizens, its borders and its ideals as forcefully as possible. America either stands for something better or we've lost the most important battle. That you & people like you who can't see this painfully simple truth, well, you are totally missing out on one of this battles most important elements.

Posted by: Nathan64 on July 12, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK
I do not care one bit what others think of me, I am not that insecure. I do care a hell of a lot when dirty scum roam the world and kill innocent men, women and children. (if only they could set their sights on many of you here though I might be pleased).

Jay is mentally ill, bushburner. So put his remarks in that context.

Maybe he doesn't know about "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."

Maybe he doesn't care how many innocent men, women and children have been murdered in the Iraqi slaughterhouse unleashed by GWB.

But if only liberals were murdered by jihadists, Jay "might be pleased."

A straightjacket might not be such a bad idea for old Jay.

Posted by: obscure on July 12, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for some temporary security deserve neither liberty or security." -ben franklin
Why do conservatives feel they have the lock down on what it is to be "American" when they are SOOOO wrong?

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

cboas, please cite specific examples of the sacrificed liberties.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

are you serious?
WTF was this whole conversation about?
-domestic spying (illegal search & seizure)
-suspension of habeus corpus
-illegal felony purge lists
-suspension of the Geneva Conventions

shall I continue?

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton got a BJ from a fat girl and gets impeached.
W gives international & domestic federal law "the finger" for 5 years and conservative morons are lining up to build a library for him?
hipocrites

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

domestic spying is a complete misnomer and has been debunked.

due process is alive and well and still going through the proper court channels

Illegal felony purge lists are neither lists nor illegal.

And Geneva Convention protections are still being debated in the court despite the fact that Gitmo detainees are the most well cared for POW's in history.

Secondly those are hardly specific examples of the liberties lost by innocent Americans. Those are liberties the left are desperatly trying to bestow upon the murderers.

I know liberals are easily distracted but I will try again.

Please cite specific examples of any liberties afforded to innocent Americans that were sacrificed.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

That wasn't a very nice comment directed towards over weight people. I thought liberals were more sensitive.

Secondly, Clinton was impeached because he LIED to a grand jury. You know, that law thing that all of you so adamantly stand by, support and hold dear to your heart. Except in the case that it might be inconvenient.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of libraries, do you realize that the Clinton library was paid for, in large part, by Marc Rich (talk about tax breaks for the rich) and Chinese contributors.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

And Geneva Convention protections are still being debated in the court despite the fact that Gitmo detainees are the most well cared for POW's in history.

Actually Jay, this one just got ironed out the other day by the Supreme Court -don't know if FOX news covered that for you. I assume not.

Let's say, for a larf, your right on all the others.
Bill Clinton gets BJ and lies about it: Wrong and Impeached
George W Bush breaks International & Federal Law by refusing to follow the Geneva Conventions: Wrong and Library.

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Jay...why in the world would anyone bother doing your research for you when all you are going to do is twist it around or ignore it and go off on a different tangent, all the while insulting the people who counter your so-called arguments or suggest that you might be pleased if terrorists killed them?
You and your ilk don't have a lock on love of country & patriotism. Further your ends-justifies-the-means rhetoric & your intolerance to even consider opposing viewpoints in a civil manner proves you have little understanding of the principles & ideals that form the backbone of our national spirit and what defines us as Americans.
If most of the people on this board are so unworthy of your respect and you hold people in such contempt that you think most of us should be killed, why do you even bother posting here? Seems to me that most who frequent this board are more than open to debate with informed & factual opposing views and that through your insults and smug/superior attitude you are treated with more respect than you deserve.
That's it. I'm done feeding the trolls be they Jay, Al or American Hawk. Talk to everyone here with the respect they deserve and speak to us for what almost all of us are, Americans.

Posted by: Nathan64 on July 12, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Allowing the jihadists to be protected under Geneva Convention accords is certainly a debatable issue. They do not wear a uniform, nor do they protect any borders or follow any rules of engagement. Yet, Article 5 would seem to cover them, hence the debate.

I do find your zeal to allow them those rights interesting though.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

On the subject of "innocent Americans":

I do believe that is what the law, including Habeus Corpus, the Geneva Conventions, and all our other liberties were setup up to determine.
Who is innocent?
If you lock em up to forget about it, assuming they were guility by being in the wrong place and the wrong religion. There are no liberties for any one.
Prove them wrong in court and none one gets hurt. Prove your case, but you got to give em a chance. But if their guility, we'll get them the RIGHT way.

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan64, you must have missed the many vitriolic posts here aimed at myself and other conservatives. Hardly examples of being open to debate and tolerant.

I think this is your attempt of taking the high road now all of a sudden. Thanks for that though I needed a laugh.

You are 100% correct though that I harbor zero respect for many of the posters here. What's that fear that liberals have? That people won't respect them? Well guess what............

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, Geneva Conventions to Jihadists ARE NOT debatable anymore.
Moron, were you listening? Supreme Court determined that this week.
Conversation on that subject is OVER, done.
Selective Attention Disorder is certainly a conservative malady.

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

And that is exactly what is being done cboas. Hundreds of Taliban jihadists were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained at Gitmo. Some have been released and all others will be tried either in tribunals or courtrooms.

It's going to happen, but it will happen on military time, not yours or anyone elses. Even the SC agreed that those detainees could legally be held.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan64, cboas called me a moron. I thought you just got done telling me how tolerant you all are. Why I must say I am shocked.

cboas, why do you hate over weight people and morons?

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

You are serious, oh my.
Even the Pentagon has determined that only ~15% of those in Gitmo were "actual combatants" and the rest were neighbors, taxi drivers, personal vendettas turned in for a reward.
They spent 3-5 YEARS in solitary confinement for their dog taking a dump on their neighbors lawn. And George and Dick wouldn't even let them plead their case.
That is not legal, that is not "American", that is not human.
DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Posted by: cboas on July 12, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

You confuse me with someone who cares about them.

I don't.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Secondly, how exactly did the people in Waco get to plead their case?

What was done in Waco was not legal, American or human.

Lying to a Grand Jury is not legal or American.

So, tell me again how much you care for the rule of law.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防

Posted by: dd on July 12, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Allowing the jihadists to be protected under Geneva Convention accords is certainly a debatable issue.

No, it's not.

They do not wear a uniform, nor do they protect any borders or follow any rules of engagement.

As I've patiently explained many times before, with frequent cites to the text of Geneva itself, there is no requirement that a protected person must wear a uniform or follow accepted rules of engagement. Those conditions apply to the particular whether a person is a POW, with a POW's specific legal status, yet all other persons in an armed conflict, up to and including un-uniformed resistance fighters, spies, and saboteurs, are protected by Geneva.

Yet, Article 5 would seem to cover them, hence the debate.

It doesn't "seem" to cover them, it quite clearly and explicity covers them. There is no debate, unless by "debate" you mean reasoned citations to the law on one side and hysterical lies and misrepresentations on the other. Remember the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."


Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, why are you so quick to find the legal argument for people who blow up innocent men, women and children for the purpose of intimidation, power and pleasure, yet are unable to find the argument to protect unborn children?

Why are you so quick to find the US in violation of human rights in this case yet brush off the Waco incident? Or the Elian incident?

Why are you so quick to excuse Ronnie Earles appearance in front of SEVEN grand juries to indictment Tom Delay and at the same time convicting Delay yourself and yet will painstakingly parse the legal argument to afford jihadists with due process?

Why are you so quick to condemn Cheney, Rove and Libby with no evidence yet able to determine the innocence of the Gitmo detainees at a glance?

No wonder that a minority of Americans self identify themselves as liberal. It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Since you are such a stickler for the law, please tell me why you are not demanding that the UN vociferously condemn, and take action against the treatment of our prisoners. Why are you not concerned that they are not afforded Geneva Convention accords?

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Since you are such a stickler for the law, please tell me why you are not demanding that the UN vociferously condemn, and take action against the treatment of our prisoners. Why are you not concerned that they are not afforded Geneva Convention accords?

I wasn't aware that the UN held any American prisoners....

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

My point EXACTLY

Posted by: Jay on July 12, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Secondly, how exactly did the people in Waco get to plead their case?
What was done in Waco was not legal, American or human.
Lying to a Grand Jury is not legal or American.
So, tell me again how much you care for the rule of law"
Jay, please get a grip.
If I am to understand your wacky reasoning the "victims" at Waco didn't get to plead their case before they burned their own house down.
And therefore the W Adminstration has an excuse for continuing to break the law.
Is that right? Is that what you're saying?

My point was: Clinton broke a law in which no one was killed, and got caught & impeached.
W has broken the law, and the GOP congress is signing his paises.
That is the definition of hypocrisy, check Websters. Who has respect for the law?

Posted by: cboas on July 13, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

All I can say is 'worry not about the mote in your neighbors eye...; this quote from the Bible says what we have been trying to say to you for the better part of two days. Tend to your own affairs first. If you do not act in a legal and moral way no one will pay any attention to you when you complain about someone else that does the same. Another way to put this is you can talk about what you have no control over (some one else's action) but you had better do something about what you control (your own actions).

Posted by: bushburner on July 13, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

bushburner, not exactly clear on what your point is here?
So... since Clinton got caught breaking the law, then the Dems have no ground for calling Bush out on breaking the law? Is that your point?

My understanding of the Biblical quote is that makes sense in a individual/personal way. Not necessarily in a political/public/social way.
When is Congress and the executive going to stop this "ends justify the means" BS?

Posted by: cboas on July 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, that was directed at Jay. My point is that you can bitch about others until the cows come home but you can change what you do. This in response to his constantly insisting that we should complain about Attila's action or whomever he has picked in his latest post to try to get our attention off of what the current administration is doing. As I stated above we need to be responsible for our own actions.

Posted by: bushburner on July 13, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

BTW cboas,
You are right I can't directly change what the government is doing but I do have some culpability for its actions. As I believe Stefan is pointing out (et al.).

Posted by: bushburner on July 13, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

So then we're in agreement then.
Jay is trying to burn the messenger as a means to combat the messege.

Which is interesting as GWB and other GOP boobs are trying to burn the NYTimes for a messege that others' leaked (including the Cheney office) on various illegal surveillance operations they conduct.
Is that not similar to arresting the witness when a cop commits a crime? The NYT is just reporting the facts.
Of course we all know the facts & reality have a well known liberal bias. (colbert)

Posted by: cboas on July 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is saying, "I can't hear you, I have carrots in my ears."

Full-fledged constitutional crisis, IMO.

Posted by: Nancy Irving on July 14, 2006 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly