Story Comments
Posted by: Beau7890 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure how expressing his opinion is impeachable. But I'm AMAZED that he believes that giving a few people the right of judicial review will result in more American deaths. Too bad he couldn't spell out the logical process behind that--it almost reminds me of the way some folks on Propeller argue.
Though I haven't read the opinions yet, it seems to me the ruling must apply to any other prisons holding enemy combatants whose cases are reviewed in the same way as those at Guantanamo.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply
loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scalia's comment is also worrisome because it suggest he is making judicial rulings, not on the merits of the case, but on his own sense of foreign and military policy. That is the epitome of an 'activist judge.' He is attempting to impose his political and policy will on America through rulings that subset the rule of law to his own perception of what the law may result in.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not likely. I suspect you're reading more into this. The problem, how do you charge them under civil law. It's difficult to read someone their rights when they're shooting at you or blowing up your convoy. Most of these guys were captured in civilian cloths conducting military actions. That's the definition of a spy. I think the lefties, didn't think this through and what the ramifications will mean. They were too busy playing politics.
I'm happy I have a retreat far away from populated areas. I see another 9-11 in our future and it's going to be much worse this time.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive84 Replies
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you really think that 5 people who have agreed to a life time term to protect a 200 year old document that defines their country don't want america to win? you really think that?
if you do, than your arguements are to be dismissed, because you have zero reasoning skills, and zero ability to see the other sides points.
its simply nonsense, and a little mean, to say that 5 supreme court justices WANT america to lose.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive22 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WHAT are you talking about?
The supreme court ruling is about the basic rights of the "accused", in this case the detainees at Gitmo.
This has NOTHING to do with what troops do in combat.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive13 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's funny ... you do NOT even know where MOST of those detainees even CAME from.
MOST were not "pulled from the battlefield". They were 'turned in' by there fellow countrymen who "claimed" they were suspected "terrorists" so that those fellow countrymen could collect the reward offered by the U.S. for turning in "suspected terrorists".
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/gitmo3.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200602u/nj_taylo...
So, your whole premise about any sort of limitations on what troops can do on the battlefield is baseless and inane and NOT even related to this supreme court ruling.
Do YOU now see how that works? I doubt it .... I think this is where I can use the term "stupid" to apply to you ....
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
thats a legitimate fear. however their use of civil courts does not mean that they are protected under civil law in the same way you and I are. It just means they can't get a fair trial (or aren't getting a fiar trial) via the military.
so a soldier still has thte right to stop, question, force, etc, anyone they see as a threat. because of the applicable standards of war. now, as far as troops testifying, i doubt that. with the exception of specific cases of abuse (which let us hope there very few) a troop acting as a courier for the US Armed Forces will be respresented by those armed forces and his word will be taken as the truth without his presense in the court.
I know you are hung up on precendents here (which legally is unfoudned), but i think one reason this may seem different is because in the past we haven't had prisoners for this length of time without trials or the end of war in sight. its a different war. different precedent.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky, by your logic (and I use the term loosely), we should simply never take prisoners. Killing everyone would leave no problems, right? And if there are witnesses, kill them, too. Of course, journalists might hear about it, so they should be shot as well.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Zippy
If the courts are going to give civil rights to enemy combatants we may as well just kill them. In a firefight anything can happen.
;-)
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's the bad part( is there a good part?)to this kind of fighting. In Vietnam they would work for us during the day, and try to kill us at night. My Lai was one of the results. This isn't war, it's a police action.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
KicBoxStallion1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
or better yet, why not just round up that would-be fuehrer and his nazi- fascist regime (key GOP & crony corp officials) and detain them all at gitmo (facing the possibility of execution) with a little "extraordinary rendition" (that they approved of) until they all confess that it all (each of them too) represents all the crimes perpetrated, US laws and international laws denied and violated going back at least a millennium.
GOP = Gestapo Oligarch Perpetrators
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sure thing pal. That's why Barack will demand that you change your lifestyle. Why he wont allow you to live your life the way yo always have!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
KicBoxStallion1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
think so? i sure as hell hope so! but, err.. you are also WAY OFF TOPIC here (your mind is in SMEAR OBAMA forum), AND, you also sure sound like those damned hate-mongers who said similar fear and smear about Barack's most esteemed forerunner Dr Martin Luther King Jr., remember him?
so, err,.. to bring you BACK to my point: after we do away with that mass-murdering nazi- fascist (your most esteemed Luv Prez) regime and his ILLEGAL gitmo, and then send his cowardly war-waging narrow ass to Iraq, like he's sent 1000's to their deaths, and HANG HIS EVIL BLOOD-GLIUTY hide from the highest pole, THEN we'll have an end to HIS FAILED WAR, and as you say, "Barack will demand that you change your lifestyle.. AND BARAK wont allow you to live your life the way you have!" esp. the last 7 years..
GOP = Groping Obsessive Propagandists
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but it's true.>>>
No it isn't. They're doing the job they were given, and protecting the tenets of our Constitution REGARDLESS of their personal opinions. The rights of those in our custody are protected by our Constitution. SC justices don't get to negate that in favor of their politics or their opinions.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those rights are for citizens not prisoners of war. The looney lib judges have done it again.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, 'prisoner of war' is not at issue here. Such prisoners are afforded protections through the Geneva Convention. We're talking about the designation of 'unlawful enemy combatant' which can be conferred on ANYONE at ANY TIME, without redress, citizen or no. These people can be detained for the duration of the conflict, which could mean forever in the light of the 'war on terror'.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky - "..they shouldn't be restrained by rules of escalating use of force,.."
That is absolutely a horrific and frightening statement. Our troops should have the freedom TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.
You truly have a primitive and barbaric mind. Thousands of Korean civilians were mass-executed rather than allowed to escape because our military could not tell if there were combatants and were afraid to let enemy infiltrate behind our lines. Another atrocity by American troops was My Lai.
In the course of the Vietnam War, there were some 300 soldiers charged w/ murder of Vietnamese civilians. The longest imprisonment any soldier suffered was 8 months. None were executed.
Can you see any legal jurisdiction in the USA where 300 charged murderers got away basically scot-free? You Cons would be howling about liberal judges and being soft on crime.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
then you have no ability to reason. with any number of reasons why someone might agree with you, to automatically jump to 'they want american to lose' makes you incapable of empathetic thought or rationale. And i think that that makes you a socio-path.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
loading ...
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user20 Replies
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Justice Department was wrong. The Justice Department does not have the final say.
But the Supreme Court does.
By the way, though the naval base at Guantanamo Bay opened before 9/11, the detention facility for enemy combatants opened in 2002.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not unless the Congress gets some jewels. The court only enforces the law, Congress does the writing.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe the Court also determines the Constitutionality of the law. But then again the right doesnt seem to like the Constitution anyway with YOUR boy declaring it nothing but a goddam* piece of paper.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? I thought it was velum. The Constitution is just a piece of parchment. Contrary to some of our less learned scholars commenting, it is not a living document. Taken as written, it's rather black and white with very little wiggle room, other than clearly defining Executive Privilege, but that isn't the topic here.
The courts passed rights on terrorist. We're to treat enemy combatants with the same rights accorded them but the Constitution never mentioned them. In colonial days, especially after 1812, spies, traitors and combatants were often executed after a military hearing. This was done under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and I think one other but I really can't remember. All had trials quietly conducted and sentences carried out.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Congress can pass laws, but if the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, there's no more they can do.
The Supreme Court has declared that the detainees have a constitutional right to appeal in a regular civilian court, so it would take a constitutional amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures to change this ruling.
That's not going to happen, and it's not because of a lack of "jewels." It's because denying detinees appeals is WRONG.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When is the last time you read the U.S. Constitution? There are a variety of areas where our founding fathers left wiggle room. 1)Article I, Section 8: To make all laws which will be necessary for carrying into execution the forgoing powers...
2) Article II, The executive power shall be vested in the POTUS. Both of these sections leave huge amounts of area for interpretation. The executive power is not specifically defined and the part of I, 8 that I quoted is known as the elastic clause because Congress has been able to do so much that isn't specifically in the constitution, because of it (e.g. establish committees to carry on a large part of their business).
One needs also take note of amendments 9 and 10 which again, leave a great deal open for interpretation.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm. A brand-new member with a VERY familiar tone. Interesting.
The Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have final say over matters of law.
The Legislative Branch has other powers. It can check the Judicial Branch by impeachment, and it can get around rulings that nullify laws by writing new laws that are not covered in the Court's opinions.
The president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, and has the power of veto over the Legislative Branch.
It's as simple as that.
Check Article III of the Constitution to see where it says the Supreme Court has final say:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
wpe043131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, you're dead wrong. You might try reading Article III again because it mentions nothing about "final say." So why does the Court have the final say? I'll tell you why. Because the Court said so in Marbury v. Madison, an 1801 case that is routinely discussed in law schools and still the subject of controversy today. In Marbury, the Court gave ITSELF the power of judicial review, i.e. to strike down statutes as unconstitutional. That power, however, is not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Over time, Justice Marshall's opinion just became accepted by the legal community. It is still cited today when the Court wants to make sure everyone knows it is the Court's job to "say what the law is" (even as recently as 2006 in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, where the Court held, correctly, that decisions by the ICJ are not binding on U.S. courts).
If you're going to speak as if you know what you're talking about, do your homework first.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Say what you want but the fact is that once the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionally of a law or whether someone got a fair trial, there is no higher power except for congress and the president to pass another law which could again be declared unconstitutional. Here's a web site from Utah that explains it very nicely. Notice the role of the judicial.
http://www.voteutah.org/learning/government/thr...
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dude, it was 1789. They didn't speak that way.
From Art. III, Section 1:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
What do you think "The judicial Power of the United States" means?
And if you believe Marbury v. Madison means the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power of judicial review (as if that weren't covered in "the judicial Power of the United States), then who are you going to argue it to?
Do you think the president should declare by executive action, or Congress should make a law stripping the Supreme Court of that power? The Supreme Court would strike it down.
How would you go about reversing Marbury v. Madison?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
wpe043131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well you clearly missed my point. Article III merely establishes the judiciary. And that's it, period. It does not give the judiciary the "final say" (as you said) to strike down statutes and laws passed by the United States Congress. That did not come about until Marbury v. Madison. And that's my point: the Court declared that it has a power not even granted by the Constitution. There's a reason it's one of the first cases discussed in every first year con law class.
And I never said it would be reversed, or that it should be. But when the judiciary has the "final say" over what are essentially military affairs, it has overstepped its bounds. The thought of nine unelected judges having this much power scares the living hell out of me. And this occurred after the Court, in the Hamdas case, encouraged the President and Congress to pass a detainee law, which it now strikes down before it has even been implemented. Obviously, the Court was joking.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Section 2 clarifies "the judicial Power of the United States," a bit:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party...."
The thought of one Commander-in-Chief having the power you're afraid to give 9 unelected judges (selected and confirmed by elected officials) scares the living hell out of me.
Do you think it's possible that the Court in Hamdas may have been encouraging the president and Congress to pass a *constitutionally valid* detainee law?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beau7890: "Hmmm. A brand-new member with a VERY familiar tone."
I think his last name was "avoth," a.k.a. J. Galt, but I may be mistaken.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The final say in this matter does NOT belong to the Justice Dept. It belongs to the Supreme Court....PERIOD. If you don't like it, push for a constitutional amendment that must be passed by 2/3 of Congress, and ratified by 3/4 of the States. That's how it works in this country. OR...you could push for Congress to impeach the five justices. In either case, gooood luck.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is it horrible to give someone their day in court. Regardless of what you and the other right wing Bush appeasers think, this is not a declared war in Iraq since only congress can declare war which they didn't do. Since it isn't a declared war the U.S. has to treat the prisoners as anyone else that has committed a crime by breaking the law whether you and Bush like it or not. Just as McVey and Nichols were tried for the Oklahoma bombing. Finally the Supreme Court made a decision that is the right one.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You really have no idea the types of people being held in Gitmo right now. You are correct this isn't a declared war, it's a series of police actions against a religious sect whose goal is to convert and kill everyone.
As to treating prisoners as POW's or criminals, I think this is going to be very difficult for the troops in combat conditions. In the end, I suspect if this stands and prisoners are released, you will see more strikes with the Predator and less living prisoners being brought in, reducing our intel.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cape - "..opened the detention facility at Guantanamo..to hold enemy combatants."
That is the whole crux of the issue.
A detainee being labelled by Bush or our troops as a terrorist does not automatically mean he IS a terrorist.
We do not know if they WERE combatants or were simply swept up by our troops, misidentified by our troops, or turned in by other civilians just to get the cash reward our military was offering.
A real terrorist must be identified and properly punished or execcuted. An inocent person should be set free. Just detaining them in Gitmo w/o a trial does neither.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How would this ruling "change our troops"?? WHAT are you talking about?
The ruling is to allow anyone that is 'detained', in prison, whatever, by the U.S. to have some BASIC rights to KNOW what they are charged with and to defend themselves via a trial by jury. That has NOTHING to do with what our troops are doing!
If there is so much "evidence" of the guilt of EVERY detainee in Gitmo, then why has it taken SIX years for the government to even start taking any of them to 'trial'?
Justice should be fairly and thoroughly served, REGARDLESS of who the accused is. If we, as a nation, cannot uphold our OWN principles, we are no longer a democracy.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user8 Replies
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since the terrorist come speak about a dozen different languages, how do you think you pull that off. I suspect we're going to see the rate of surrenders drop off completely. Way to go Courts, wild west justice. Just what you were created to stop.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cap and BB, I think that is a very foolish interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling. It strikes me that the two of you and locky are very alarmist.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Magna Carta? That had nothing to do with terrorists. In fact it didn't remove torture from the list of dos and don'ts when it came to the guilty.
Terrorist should not be covered as POW's. If congress really wanted to do something this year, besides the non-binding resolutions, tax increases and cutting the military, how about drawing up laws concerning terrorists. Carter gave non-uniformed combatants, at that time the PLO more protection than regular military troops have. Dump the UN bylaws and create something we all can live with.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They can read them their Miranda rights just before they begin the torture so that it would be legal (according to Bush).
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
LightofReason1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court in Miranda which was the lead case for two or three similar appeals. Miranda only applies when one is in police custody, police do not need to read someone his rights until they arrest them. Statements made prior to arrest are admissible at all times.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Daylight1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bubba2
Justice should be fairly and thoroughly served, REGARDLESS of who the accused is. If we, as a nation, cannot uphold our OWN principles, we are no longer a democracy.
Whether you acccept it or not, America is not a Democracy as everybody believes it, it is a Pol Pot regime that invades, occupies and kills innocent people and argues that it is killing only the guilty and capturing and detaining only the guilty and also torturing only the guilty.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky...
God...what a rant...and guess what, Locky...there's a precedence now, isn't there?
So...let me get this straight...when we're in a war, we should abandon our civility and system of justice, just to go after people we think may be involved in overturning our government and way of life. Is that it?
Aren't people held for years without being charged entitled to the right of counsel?
If not, what exactly does this country stand for?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you advocate that we dismiss our Constitution in bad times, you most certainly aren't putting "America First." You dismantle who we are, and we're nothing.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
questionseverything1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
actually the justices of the supreme court said the constitution was not being followed for ovr 6 yrs now by current admin...this alone should be grounds for impeachment
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not the entire Constitution, but certain protections given by it have been dismissed by our policy regarding the detainees at Guantanamo. Until today.
And that does diminish who we are.
There are other parts of the Constitution that have been dismissed by the Bush administration, but we won't get into those--it'd start another 8 pages of comments.
Remember how Bush used to tell us that if we change the way we live, the terrorists win? He has accomplished what the terrorists couldn't on their own.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This was argued by lawyers here over a year ago. The Supreme Court has decided in line with us "surrender monkeys" that The Constitution applies to all Americans no matter where they are in the world. This decision is all about us, not the prisoners.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
UnusualSuspect
You want to give enemy combatants rights of citizens of this country. You must be a member in good standing with the looney left. This same group of judges changed eminent domain laws as well. Way to go lib judges.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You do NOT even know those people, and there is NO evidence that they are "enemy" ANYTHING. NONE has ever been presented in the last SIX years that they have been 'detained'.
Yet YOU have tried them and convicted them in YOUR opinion.
Sick ....
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Daylight1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy
UnusualSuspect
You want to give enemy combatants rights of citizens of this country. You must be a member in good standing with the looney left. This same group of judges changed eminent domain laws as well. Way to go lib judges.
Even combatants have rights in Islam but your so called pagan Democracy has no rights, what a pity.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo...
Did I say I want to give enemy combatants ALL rights of the citizen of this country? I didn't. I only mentioned giving them the right to be judged by a jury of one's peers. I'll even let just a military court handle it, but they should have their day in court.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You sure do sound familiar.
Who decided the detainees were unlawful enemy combatants? How and when did they decide this?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Usual nonsense from a new member. First, remember Kennedy has long been considered a conservative justice. Second, we don't know the people being held are enemy combatants if their cases can't be reviewed or challenged. Third, this is what makes us different from terrorist -- rule of law.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hale? He was a traitor in the eyes of the English. He was tried and convicted under English law.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
LightofReason1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scalia is the most activist justice in SC history. He is narcissistic, dogmatic and prejudiced, a psychopath in judicial robes.
Actually there is precidence, it's called the U.S. Constitution. A state of war in and of itself is NOT sufficient grounds to suspend habeas corpus. Only two conditions allow suspension:INVASION and REBELLION and then only in the area affected. Lincoln's Civil War abuse of martial law power was UNCONSTITUTIONAL per the SCOTUS ruling in 1866 when the case finally got to it.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
mark-stevens1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I heard via news that some of those people are there from the military clearing whole streets and picking up everyone because a shot rang out!
What ever happen to that U.S.citizen that was caught shooting at marines in Afghanistan?? His illegal parents were in the U.S. for a week, had the kid and left a week later.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky - In WWII, thousands of Japanese were locked in concentration camps and denied all rights of redress, property ownership, voting, etc. They too were detainees in legal limbo.
Through the entire war and its aftermath, NOT A SINGLE JAPANESE-AMERICAN IN THE CAMPS WAS EVER CHARGED, LET ALONE CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE OR TREASON. Not a single one!
You presume that ALL the detainees are combatants. Then their convictions should have been fairly easy and straightforward. 6 yrs of detainment and reviews by military boards is plenty of time to find evidence of guilt for any of the detainees. Why aren't they being charged? The evidence should be brought up in trial to prove to the world that Bush and the military captured the right culprits. Conversely if the wrong ones were caught, they should be given the opportunity to prove their innocence. Just holding them in legal limbo is immoral and illegal
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I see another 9-11 in our future "
I guess Bush hasnt been doing anyting to make us safer then. Altho it took Bush doing nothing for 9 months to allow 9/11 to happen, it never would have happened had Gore been elected. What is truly scary is the Republicans believed the nonsense they kept spouting when CLinton tried to fight terrorism and they would block his every move with screms of terrorism isnt as big a problem as CLinton says it is. How short your memory is.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive63 Replies
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton is responsible for 9/11... how far does Bush's ability to retroactively blame his predecessor go? does he get to blame clinton for lying about Iraq's WMD too? or how about the No Child Left Behind Act? is that Clinton's fault as well?
Or is clinton just responsible for Condi Rice reading 'Bin Laden determined to attack with in US' and deciding it wasnt important enough to distrub bush's longest-vacation-ever? is that the only thing clinton is responsible for, or is he respinsible for all of the bush failings?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton DID "tackle" the building threat of terrorism (Islamofacism is a fictional term invented by the Bush administration).
There was no "cowardice" by Clinton. You are SO delusional.
Almost ALL of the perpetrators of 'attacks' during the Clinton administration were captured. The only unsolved attack is the USS Cole and that happened just a few months before Bush took over.
Maybe if the REPUBLICANS had NOT spent all of THEIR time trying to "Get" Clinton on something, THEY would have noticed the growing terrorist threat just a bit more.
You condemn Clinton for "not doing enough". The Republicans in the 1990's condemned him for doing "too much".
Bush IGNORED all of the intelligence handed over to him by the Clinton administration and he IGNORED the August 2001 PDB which was practically an open invitation to the 9/11 event.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have been in reality a LONG time before you will EVER get there.
The mere fact that you say Bush "called it what it is" shows who is NOT living in reality.
It is sad to see the effect on so many people of propaganda and brainwashing by the white house and the media.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
Daylight1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky12
(Islamofacism is a fictional term invented by the Bush administration).
Bush was the first president to call it what it is.
You can respond only when you come back to reality, Bubba
Locky it is not Isloamofascism that brought misery to America and to the world, it is the support of the United States of America to Israel's Zionofascism and the Christian evangelical fascism which is promoted by the Zionist Bush administration.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Name-call all you want. That is your only 'defense' when you have NOTHING to counter the truth.
No one is ganging up on anyone. Whoever posts a comment may get a reply.
If you can't handle it, don't do it.
There is NO defense for the truth. You just can't accept it, so you demean and diss the people who present the truth.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, No 9/11 is the legacy of the Republican concern over taking power and focuising on a bj. Seems worldwide terrorism declined under CLinton, under Bush its up over 600% (that figure is from his administration so expect it to be low). When someting goes from a favorable trend ( declinging) to an unacceptable trend (skyrocketing) you change what yor doing and stop the BS of "stay the course".
BTW if you LOOK at what Clionton did you'll notice most of the initiatives he proposed to fight terrorism were voted down by a REPUBLICAN congress to concerned with getting an impeachment vs safeguarding the nation. 9/11 occured under Bush because Bush did NOTHING for 9 months prior to 9/11 and ignored almost everything he was told by CLinton. If you remember fighting terrorism wasn't iudentified by Bush as one of hte top 15 things his administration was converned with when he took office. BUT on that list was ronnie raygun missile shield.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive30 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton and his administration did a LOT. But the Republicans were too busy trying to impeach him for a BJ to pay any attention to the REAL problems.
Bush was handed MOUNDS and MOUNDS of intelligence data on Bin Laden and AL Qaeda.
Bush IGNORED it all and Bush IGNORED the August 2001 PDB.
BUSH is the one that did NOTHING before 9/11 and then did everything WRONG after that.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah all that peace and prosperity sure did suck, huh lokky?
Like you, I much prefer stagflation, war, dead soldiers and an oil crisis.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive22 Replies
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
why are you so stuck on him? i dont know that he can be attributed with every success that intelligence and enforcement had under him, but an actual investigation of the record under clinton is impressive. seperate him from the administration and look at the time, money and focus on Al queda and mideast terrorism. look at the thwarted attacks at the millenium. Look at the dispersion of al queda networks in eastern africa. look at the government in roads with country's like egypt, pakistan, and saudi arabia. look at the distruction of chemical factories known now to be operated under bin laden. What if 9/11 had scattered toxin all over lower manhattan and DC?
terrorism had successfully been isolated to a network operating out of taliban afghanistan.
again... clinton may not be responsible for all of this, but during his 8 years his people were far more successful than the last 8 years. this is confirmable fact.
the world will always go wrong until you except the truth of it.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive12 Replies
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stop pushing this 'haven't been hit since 9/11' catch phrase. terrorists have killed people with anthrax, in virginia tech, with rifles in DC... bin laden isnt the world's only terrorist.
and if you mean that 'we haven't been hit on US soil on a grand scale since 9/11', well than that is just silly, since we weren't hit on US soil on a grande scale under clinton as well. or carter. or reagen. or bush I. or nixon. anyone back to FDR. Bush's policies, therefor, are not the only way to keep people from attacking the US on our soil on a grand scale.
And we HAVE been hit outside of the US. IN Iraq, In afghanistan, and globally, in London, Madrid, Bali. we have, in fact, verifiably, by the numbers, been hit much MORE under bush than we ever were under clinton even if you EXCLUDE 9/11. Terrorists are far more active under bush. we have lost far more americans to terrorism under bush. terrorist recruitment continues to grow under bush.
your just being blind. and it hurts america.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
great. when i have reasoned you into so tight a corner that all you can do is spout adhiminem attacks because even YOU can't believe your own words anymore, then i feel like i've gotten through to you.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 16) (recursion depth : 14) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
tdash1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right...we haven't been hit since 9/11. There also hasn't been a tidal wave in Nebraska since Bush has been president. Do you want to give him credit for that, too??
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
nightschase1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's why we need to put a republican in the White House! Too long have tidal wave threats from the middle east towards Nebraska gone by unnoticed! I suggest we declare a war on water!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 15) (recursion depth : 13) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
your right we shouldnt forget abougt september 11 2001. let us also not forget that clinton had left office 9 months earlier. are you that ridiculous that you think the readers on this site dont have a calander? or is bush so inept that it takes him more than 9 months te accaint himself with the duties of his job? and if that is your excuse than surely somalia was the fault of Bush 41, right?
and i didn't say everything was good under clinton. i didnt even give him credit for the good things... i just said that there were a lot of good things. signiciant things. and that if i compiled a list of the bad things that happened under bush the list would be longer and more disasterous. bali, london, madrid, 9/11, 4000 dead in Iraq, anthrax, VTech, Iran's advancement, secrets lost to the chinese with the plane crash...
try and put your personal politics aside and just look at the facts as they exist. youre tired.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and when did north korea gain nuclear material. the only reports i have seen of possible tests of nuclear weapons were in Bush's second term. or is this the retro-active fault of clinton again.
and since you included somalia and north korea i guess we are just listing collosal failures and not simply terrorist attacks. in that case we should remember katrina, the economy, gas, enron, abu gahraib, and everything else bush has royally messed up. you can not stay on topic can you? once someone starts tearing away your argument you just reach for a non-sequiter as a distraction.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But the technology came to them after a visit from Carter during Clinton's time in the WH.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
thats not true at all. the technology existed long before that. they didnt have the weapons grade plutonium. the capability was in the country in the form of fuel rods and monitored by weapons inspectors. North Korea tried to expel the weapons inspectors. Clinton prepared to invade them. they backed down in exchange for Carter's promised water plants and a non-proliferation treaty. then when bush had the military tied up in afghanistan and Iraq, kim jong il sent out the weapons inspectors again, only this time, bush let him. and they broke the treaty.
it was bush who did nothing. of all the 'blame clinton' lies, this is one of the weirdest.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 15) (recursion depth : 13) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is some info to help dispel the myths that you are so keen on.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_milita...
Apparently "success" in the minds of "neocons" is for Republicans to IGNORE mountains of intelligence on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that was HANDED OVER to Bush by the Clinton administration, and to IGNORE the August 2001 PDB which was practically a gold-plated invitation to the 9/11 event.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
LightofReason1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton was and is a conservative in the Eisenhower sense.
All credible evidence points to the WhiteHouse with Mossad help as being behind 9/11. The official conspiracy theory is nothing more than a hoax and cover story to the PNAC to get its "Pearl Harbor type event" to push its corrupt Nazi agenda. As FBI Director Mueller stated on 4/19/02, "the FBI has no evidence to link any Arabs to 9/11!"
The only people caught dancing on 9/11 were 5 Israelis seen on the Jersey shore celebrating the collapse and later arrested in NYC.
THe videos of OBL were PROVEN fakes.
THe technology (picocell) to make cell phones calls from planes in flight didn't go into service until 2005.
No Arab name appeared on any of the four passenger manifests. The WH REQUESTED AA and UAL remove the official manifests from their websites.
The jet engine found in the nearby street was a GE CFM-56, too small to be from a 757 or 767.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, and guess what. He captured all the ones responsible and htey are in proson. The only exception is the USS COle which happened in October of 2000 a few months before, you guessed it, BDumya took office. He turned it over to him and as usualoy YOUR boy did his usual, went on vacation. BTW do you know they are still on the loose? Yep that IS success. The undis[putable fact under CLinton terror decreasd, under BUSH terror INCREASES. That spells success to the righties???
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton told him what? Don't step on that wet spot? Don't use young interns for your cigars it ruins the taste? The Clinton~Bush transition was one of the worst in recent memory.
You are correct that Clinton really did nothing.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're absolutely right. the transition was probably THE worst in history. because the Bush team refused to accept help. On an open invitation to sit in on national security meetings Condo Rice came NEVER. Not once was she interested enough in the security of this nation to find out what ws happening. They dismantled Richard Clark's terrorist task force apon coming in.
Bush allowed his hubris about political differences with clinton to stop him from an intelligent transition. and no we'll never know if it might have saved a few thousand lives.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Santa, how can you talk so foolishly. The GOA reported over $2 million dollars in dirty tricks that needed to be repaired, replaced or cleaned out. Take for instance every computer key board had the W removed. It's one thing to be "creative" when it comes to a joke, but the Clinton folks did a lot of damage.
As to Richard Clark, you're taking him at his word? He was a Clinton operative. There is no way you want him anywhere near you if you're not a part of the Clinton machine. As to his task force, considering the 9-11 guys came to the USA under his watch, it would seem he wouldn't be a good resource.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teagen - Don't tell me you believe that urban myth about all the W's being removed from all the keyboards? Can't you tell when a hoax is being pulled on you? That is so ridiculous, I actually snickered out loud when I read your post. Thanks for the little humor you gave me today.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Sparky if thats the case I'd expect you to be posting reams of links defending Bush who supposedly got no information. Especially since the REPUBLICANS who controlled congress were yelling Clinton was making a lot about nothing. Seems to me SPinner that what happened is Bush was too busy packing for vacation to wrry about something like safeguarding the nation.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the Islamic terrorist movements has it's origins much further back then Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. It started in about 1977-78 and really grew from there. With the murder of our ambassador in Afghanistan and then 6 months later the taking of our embassy, that gave them the credibility they needed. Add to that President Carter's bumbling and it grew faster. Had Carter hit Iran in 79, that would have ended or at least slowed the growth of radical Islam.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, what would have slowed the growth of radical Islam is Republicans being accountable for the mistakes they continue to make. How interesting that it is NOW Carters fault since he didnt hit Iran back in 79 (Kinda odd tho we had a REPUBLICAN dealing with them to HOLD the hostages till after the election). AND since then we've ha d a slew of REPUBLICAN presidents that have just been unable to stem the tide. Unbelievable isn't it that Raygun, Bush I and Bush II encompassing 20 years have so totally been unable to stop terrorism. Brings to mind a word, inept.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thats correct, until Bush 43 (go figure) we would take the hit from them and move on. This time we had a president that hit back in Afghanistan.
Another problem many folks here forget, because of their youth, Carter cut the military back. Had we had a strike force well armed and trained, we might have been able to take back our people. After Eagle Talon, failed he did create Delta Farce, I mean Force. Like anything Carter did, it was under powered, understaffed, under armed and under Carter. When Reagan took over that groups was upgraded. But again, had Carter really hit Tehran, I think radical Islam wouldn't have expanded like it did.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In my opinion Carter's mistake was to allow a committee of the different branches of the armed forces to organize and execute his rescue plan. If you'll look at it carefully you'll see there weren't clear lines for decision making and responsibility. The rivalry and jealousy between the different branches of the armed services led to errors.
A larger force would have just resulted in a larger disaster under these circumstances. Carter should have had one branch of the armed services directly responsible and one person at the top for whom the buck stopped there.
Another thing. Radical Islam expands as a result of our military involvement in the Middle East. From their point of view (at least most of those fighting against us), they are fighting a defensive war against our attempts to invade and occupy over there. I seriously doubt that 9/11 would have happened if we hadn't stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (yes, I know Clinton was keeping them there too).
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, Carter made many more than that. First he slashed a lot of the special operations type groups. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines were reduced. No single branch actually had a unit that could do such an operation. Another problem with Carter is his ability to under staff and under budget. As a former carrier pilot, he amazed me that he wanted to cut the Nimitz class and go with much smaller oil fueled carriers. Smaller air wings, more cramped, higher service requirements. Just what you want in a combat situation.
The other problem was perception. His showing restraint while appealing the peace freaks in his party was interpreted as a sign of weakness in Iran. As to troops in Saudi, had we taken Saddam out in the first place, there wouldn't have been a reason to have troops there. But know OBL, he was a threat to the USA. His people were responsible for many attacks on US interests.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As a former carrier pilot, he amazed me that he wanted to cut the Nimitz class and go with much smaller oil fueled carriers"
Seems Carter was a submariner. But then again most of your rants arent based in fact.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
radical islam dates back only to 1977? thats interesting. i wonder why they've been fighting for 1300 years then? you seem to know a lot about islamic history. can you fill us in on that?
and why didn't reagen 'hit back' in beihrut? and we weren't on great terms with iran under him either... why didn't he 'hit back' then?
and isn't iraq the front line in the war on terror? wasn't reagen selling them weapons?
again... 'because of my youth' i look to an older and wiser man to explain to me the history i was too young to understand at the time. lets start from the origins of the islamic terror movement in 1977-78 and start from there.
youre so smart.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1300 years, I think it's actually around 1000. On your other typical liberal comments, Iran has been at war with us since 1979. When we lost the Marines in Beirut our CIA wasn't fully up to speed on who to hit at that time. We knew Abu Nidal was supported heavily by Iran but it might have been the PLO, we simply didn't know.
As to supporting Iran or Iraq, we're guilty of supplying both sides off and on. Was it right, no but we were playing with the USSR and who knows what the ultimate thought was.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Islam started in the 600's.
We didn't hit Iran because we didn't know who to hit? ok. let's say you're right. why is that an acceptable excuse for Reagan but not for any Democratic president? the argument wasn't that reagen messed up. the argument was that reagen has just as much culpability as Carter and Clinton, and with regards to Iran Contra, much more so.
The thread is in reference to Clinton being blamed for everyone else's failures (along with his own.)
and you dismiss the propagation of the Iran, Iraq war with 'who knows what the ultimate thought was.' now i assume, since you dispute my posts as they pertain to the topic, that you also believe that clinton is to blame for the massive failings here... so why does reagan get the benefit of the doubt about what his intentions might have been, but democratic presidents are severely at fault?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry should have been a pos. teagen tends to post occasional rants on here as the right resident "military" expert. She seems to believe that Carter was a carrier pilot also altho it could be some of those super secret planes they use to shoot out of torpedo tubes on the subs he served on.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 15) (recursion depth : 13) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With Jimmy, what did I miss?
http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/20...
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Ciera-Marie1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once BB64 mentioned Carter I disagree with him.
And Teagen, (you missed everything about Carter.) you can't even get it right what Carter did during his military career. Carter was not an fighter pilot on an aircraft carrier. Get your facts straight. He was a submariner. There is a big difference between the two.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Daylight1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64
Actually the Islamic terrorist movements has it's origins much further back then Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. It started in about 1977-78 and really grew from there. With the murder of our ambassador in Afghanistan and then 6 months later the taking of our embassy, that gave them the credibility they needed. Add to that President Carter's bumbling and it grew faster. Had Carter hit Iran in 79, that would have ended or at least slowed the growth of radical Islam.
So you mean to say these movements started against America for no other reasons? So the Muslims hate America for no reasons? America has been kind to Muslims but Muslims are ungrateful people they just want to attack America? You don't know the America had been supporting Shas Pallavi in Iran and also supporting Israeli atrocities in Palestine and other interference in the affairs of Muslims brought this dangerous situation.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB - "Had Carter hit Iran in 79.."
Why is it you Reps know only how to "hit" other countries? Iran was already "hit" by Republican Eisenhower who had the popular and progressive prime minister Mossadegh ousted and the Shah installed as the monarch. The Shah and his secret police, the SAVAK, proved so despotic and unpopular that it rise to Ayatollah Khomeini.
Because the US supported the Shah w/ billions in aid and military weapons, it spawned a deep hatred and distrust of the US.
Now you and Bush want to repeat the same mistake. When will you ever learn?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
9/11 is BUSH'S legacy.
Clinton did everything he and his administration could regarding the building threat of terrorism. He and his administration DID take the 1993 attack seriously, and all but one of the perpetrators were caught and tried and sentenced.
He also did take the bombing of the USS Cole seriously. It was the REPUBLICANS in Congress that did NOT. They were so busy trying to impeach Clinton for lying about a ****** that they paid NO attention to the real problems. In fact, they accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he DID order the airstrikes.
You condemn Clinton for "not doing enough". The Republicans in the 1990's condemned him for doing "too much".
Bush IGNORED all of the intelligence handed over to him by the Clinton administration and he IGNORED the August 2001 PDB which was practically an open invitation to the 9/11 event.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bubba - Clinton also wanted to impound the bank accounts of bin Laden, but the Republican congress voted it down. I think it was Strom Thurmond who criticized Clinton of over-reacting.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
RussianThreats1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
*Sigh*...it only took half of the first page (of commentary to an article that has NOTHING to do with him) for someone to mention Clinton's BJ.
Is that a new Netscape/Propeller record?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
santa01 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fall of 1996. you'll remember also that that is when Osama Bin Laden became America's Most Wanted man. Though a 'formal' declaration of war? i'm not sure that declarations made from non-government entities are considered 'formal.' maybe i'm wrong. it just sounds funny.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then you better start blaming Bush #1 for Iraq. Well, you could actually go back to Reagan for making Saddam our guy guy in the area. Maybe you can blame Reagan for 9/11 because he pulled out of Lebanon.
The real problem is the inability to accept the blame. If it happens on your watch, you have some, if not all the blame. One thing is for sure, it is infinitely more complex than the simple view you have of it.
One thing that is funny is that when Clinton does something, it is an aspirin factory. When Bush does something, it becomes a WMD chemical factory.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The people who planned 9/11 are running our government. The terrorist could have had no better partners, these lame idiots let it happen so the could have their war. I lost good friends there. They must be made to pay and i hope there is someone with the balls to pull it off!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, I think the 25% supporting the administration are the liberals. They certainly are not conservatives.
There are plenty here that are branded liberal and are much more conservative than the supporters of the admin here.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do they support endless spending by our government, the whittling away of the constitution, etc...?
Please remember that I am using their definition of what is a liberal. They certainly are not conservative.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Codi69341 year, 6 months ago
loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
wpe043131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It wouldn't have happened had Gore been elected? Speaking of s short memory, the 9-11 hijackers were in the United States long before Bush took office, while Gore was in office, need you be reminded. What's frightening is the revisionist history on this site.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow this is shocking...maybe the tides are turning. I think maybe it is the time to Impeach bush seems like he has lost his grip on the courts too. It's refreshing to have justice back into our justice system!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
fsev411 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And just how do YOU know that it is a fact that "Most of these guys were captured in civilian clothes conducting military actions"? Were you there or do just believe it because W said so. How many were "renditioned" off a street somewhere because some CIA operative said they were a terrorist.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
wpe043131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your post is quite ironic. Speaking of not supplying evidence, the majority struck down Congress's detainee law without complaint from a single detainee that the law actually failed to afford him due process rights in a military tribunal. Kennedy simply speculated that it wouldn't. It's rather astonishing to find a legal procedure unconstitutional before it has even been implemented, particularly in light of the fact that four of the justices in the majority stated in the Hamdas case that they encouraged the President and Congress to pass a detainee law. Yes, they were kidding.
As for Scalia not providing evidence? Excuse me, he did. Several released detainees have already resorted to form and killed again. And, mind you, the opinion was released today; the ACLU hasn't had enough time to collect intelligence info. and allow their "clients" to pass it along to Al Qaeda brethren. What Scalia does not want, nor do I, is another 9-11 to prove he's right.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...the majority struck down Congress's detainee law without complaint from a single detainee that the law actually failed to afford him due process rights in a military tribunal."
They didn't do this without a case being brought before them. The Court may rule whether or not the case was brought by a detainee.
Scalia is saying detainees will be released if they're able to appeal to civilian courts. The flaw in that logic is that if the detainees are truly guilty of charges brought against them, they won't be released.
We're talking about according detainees the same right to fair trial that we wish extended to U.S. citizens in foreign lands. And before you give the usual response ("But they don't do that for us!), bear in mind that's not the point. We're supposed to be showing terrorists and potential terrorists that our system is better than theirs. Right?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB - "Most of these guys were captured in civilian cloths conducting military actions." PROVE IT.
If that is true, then conviction should be easy and proceed posthaste. The mere fact that the "investigation" has dragged on for 6 yrs indicates that the military itself feels it is on shaky ground and afraid to bring the detainees to trial.
In point of fact, many of the detainees were simply caught in sweeps by soldiers after firefights. Our military had also offered cash rewards for revealing insurgents. Who wouldn't want to get rid of a pesky neighbor and earn some cash?
That is why the military and Bush are balking at a real trial for the detainees. Obviously some of the detainees are terrorists. But many are not and the flaws in Bush's detainee policy will be exposed to the world.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sin,
That's a part of the problem. There is a lot of evidence available however much of it is classified. Remember the big stink you guys made over the "outing" of a file clerk, can you imagine active agents having to testify? We need a real policy concerning terrorists. Habeas Corpus doesn't work on the battlefield or fighting terror. The reason for the secret trials, it's easier to maintain a lid on the information. I suspect if this is pushed, you will find many of the prisoners returned to their native lands. As mentioned by BB64, most have been convicted and sentenced.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teagen - The McClatchy newspaper group just released a series of 4 articles about the prisoners in Gitmo and Afghanistan. I hope you get a chance to read it. It chronicles the torture done, the mistakes done in identifying Afghanis by our troops when they did not know the language, the betrayal by others because of clan feuds or to get the cash rewards. Even the legal counsel for the army in Afghanistan admitted that of over 500 prisoners, 10 or less had any intelligence value. All the real al Qaida leaders escaped much earlier. That organization knew how to protect its high value resources.
Those left to fight were the grunts and conscripts, the drivers, porters. Yet all were imprisoned for months to years for no reason.
The articles reveal the depth of horror and depravity our troops perpetrated on the innocent victims, because the administration gave them open license to do so.
Lastly the majority of prisoners were simply innocent.
Please read it if you can
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SCALIA not only wants to hold them, he supports torturing them. Advocating illegal behavior is greatly sufficient cause to remove any justice, state or federal.
Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" --we really must get past this "war on..." rhetoric; it clearly confuses even people who are supposed to understand the law. War on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, war on cancer, etc: please try to understand that we cannot have a war on an idea, only on an entity. This is A FREAKIN' FIGURE OF SPEECH!!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive13 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are definitely confused.
The troops killed in Iraq are dead because of an UNJUSTIFIED war.
One huge reason the troops killed in Afghanistan are dead because there are NOT ENOUGH of them to deal with where the terrorists REALLY are, because there were NO terrorists in Iraq.
The term "war on terror" was invented by the Bush administration. You need to think about THAT, because it is a really nice phrase for them to use whenever they do anything that fits THERE agenda, which has NOTHING to do with fighting terrorists or 'spreading democracy'.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive11 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am informed. Sad that you are not ...
There are MOUNDS of documentation - from YOUR own Republican-controlled administration, including the Senate and the Pentagon - that PROVE that the Bush administration LIED about all of the reasons to invade Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting...
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/repor...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/39963.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/...
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseact...
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/nationalsec...
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They PROVE that Bush and his cronies LIED. Perhaps if you used some of your free time to look at the facts, you might 'get it' someday.
Why the Dems won't impeach is beyond me and I am very FED UP with them - especially Pelosi - for being a bunch of weenies about it.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SOME of the Dems 'banged the drum' in 2002 because they were fed WRONG intelligence data - the data that Bush and Cheney and Rove manipulated to fit their agenda for justification to invade Iraq.
In other words, their 'drum banging' was based on LIES.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PROVE it. Go "dig" for the links that prove that any DEMS were promoting WAR against Iraq.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Supreme court rules in favor of detainee rights, and Congress shelves any impeachment try.
Tit for tat, I believe it's called...
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
berkeley1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i imagined that any federal judge agrees to uphold the rule of law. changing that agreement would allow or require congress to retract the contract, which is called impeachment.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that Scalia's wrong, but it is his job to interpret the law.
Of course, his judicial activism is way beyond his job description, and the other justices should recognize that and keep that activism in check. Unfortunately, Scalia has Clarence Thomas under some kind of mind control, and Alito and Roberts will go along with anything the Bush administration wants.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scalia is a member of the Federalist Society. This group of right wing nuts wish to rewrite the Constitution to their 'interpretations.' The group formed nearly three decades ago, with one goal; and that is to take over the judiciary. They're tied to Regents University, the third rate college which the bush administration culled to put in positions, some very powerful, within the Justice Department. (150 of them, to be exact.) Harriet Meirs is one of them. Ashcroft is also one of them, and is now teaching at the far right University. All I can say is, Americans had better wake up to what is going on.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?o...
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
wpe043131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People have already died. Several detainess that the military was forced to release overseas for lack of evidence have already resorted to form and killed again, or did you miss that part of Scalia's opinion? Granting habeas corpus, for the very first time, to unlawful enemy combatants means allowing them access to evidence pursuant to less stringent federal evidentiary rules: military intelligence, witnesses who have supplied information, and anything else that can, eventually, be passed on to Al Qaeda. Heaven forbid that Justice Scalia might see this as not being a particularly good thing. And now that a civilian judge can determine the fate of a detainee, that gives the judicial system oversight into military affairs, something that has not happened in 230 years. It is truly frightening that people such as you see this as some run-of-the-mill civil rights issue and not for what this represents: the judiciary having final say over national security.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
People Who Liked This Comment (25)
TimALoftis
Wil
Ciera-Marie
Ratskii
DeLeMa
joey-evans
loverman
Charlson
jordan11
Poulenc
cleare
LumFan
miklkit
fsev41
Dionys
Candida
canadianrancher57
dunkirk
scott4261
RussianThreats
dissent
TheRealizerPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Dropping This Article
No one has dropped this story.
AOL News Links
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your groups?
Categories
Also Submitted By
No one else has submitted this story.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.