A Not At All Surprising Decision

Even though I am not a lawyer and I frequently screw up interpretations of rulings, this comes as no surprise:

– Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush’s anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring prisoners from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

***

A spokesman for the Justice Department, which was expected to seek dismissal of hundreds of prisoner cases pending in federal court, praised the decision.

“The decision reaffirms the validity of the framework that Congress established in the MCA permitting Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention” through military hearings coordinated by the Defense Department,” said spokesman Erik Ablin.

Under the commissions act, the government may indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as “enemy combatants” and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined interrogation tactics.

There is really no point joining in on any collective freakout over this, as the time for freaking out has long since passed. The time for that was when they passed this hideous piece of crap. Now, I am afraid, it is merely working as designed.

And that is an important point. This disgusting piece of un-American legislation is no accident- it was plotted and planned, step by step, by a bunch of simpering fools who think nothing of throwing aside what makes this country great in the pursuit of some abstract notion of ‘security.’ Any attempts to stop the legislation were met with accusations that ranged from hating America to outright treason. And again, this outcome was the plan from the beginning, as Marty Lederman notes:

Indeed, according to John Yoo’s new book (and other sources), they were taken to GTMO precisely for the purpose of keeping them out of the reach of U.S. courts. Whatever the constitutional rule ought to be for aliens detained near a battlefield half a world away, it seems perverse, to say the least, that so many important constitutional protections should turn on which direction we choose to direct our ships (or planes) carrying detainees a few miles off the Florida coast.

While we can hope the Supreme Court overturns this nonsense, our best bet is to use the mechanism that created this mess- Congress and the President. Support legislation to reign in this authority, and refuse to vote for any candidate who will not work to overturn this garbage. To do anything else is to shirk your real duty as a patriot and a citizen, despite what the know-nothing scaremongers yell otherwise.






96 replies
  1. 1
    Keith says:

    Even though our best bet is through a new President and Congress, our system *should* be designed such that some things – like core values in our Constituion – should be out of their reach to begin with.

  2. 2
    Face says:

    Confused; why cant they do this with any criminal? If simply housing them off-shore keeps them out of US courts, shouldn’t all jails be off-shore? Wouldn’t that save a lot of time and money if there were no requirements for trials for the accused?

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    Fine post, John. Good work.

  4. 4

    […] Andrew Sullivan, John (not Juan) Cole, and Phillybits (yeah, I know it’s a strange combination, but there it is).   […]

  5. 5
    les says:

    Hear, hear; well spake, young sir. Fucking anti-American jagoff repubs. I want my country back.

  6. 6
    Jake says:

    To do anything else is to shirk your real duty as a patriot and a citizen, despite what the know-nothing scaremongers yell otherwise.

    Speaking of know-nothing scaremongers…oh, I see you’ve got a post about the Victory Carcasse.

    Never mind.

    However, I read this decision as a classic “punt” to the Supreme Court.

  7. 7
    AnneJ says:

    It’s actually Marty Lederman, John. Still, you’re right. This is just what they planned all along.

  8. 8
    Vladi G says:

    Confused; why cant they do this with any criminal?

    I think it’s the combination of not being in the U.S., and not being a U.S. citizen. If you have one of those two, your protected.

    Of course, they could just ship criminals off to a black site and not tell anyone, I guess, but then we wouldn’t be discussing the legal issues.

  9. 9
    Dug Jay says:

    Notwithstanding all the Sullivan-like hysterics embodied in Mr. Cole’s post, it’s worth noting that the ruling upholds a 2006 piece of legislation that grants far, far more rights to detainees than any detainee has ever received in the history of the United States. Not one of the several hundred thousand German and other POW detainees held in the US during WWII, for example, had any of the rights granted the detainees at Gitmo, including an appeal process up through military courts and potentially going all the way to the Supreme Court.

  10. 10
    MattM says:

    A-fucking-men, Cole.

  11. 11
    Dave says:

    Does anyone else find it even mildly ironic that suspected terrorists get thrown in Gitmo no trial, no rights, never to be heard from again; yet when a supporter (alleged) of terrorism, gives to the NRCC we are told not to rush to judgement and he should get due process.

    I guess what the people in Gitmo need to do is donate to the GOP, then they can get their trial.

  12. 12
    tBone says:

    it’s worth noting that the ruling upholds a 2006 piece of legislation that grants far, far more rights to detainees than any detainee has ever received in the history of the United States.

    I thought the provision mandating a mint placed on every pillow was overkill, personally. And do detainees really need a fresh bouqet of roses every day? I think not.

  13. 13
    Tsulagi says:

    …refuse to vote for any candidate who will not work to overturn this garbage. To do anything else is to shirk your real duty as a patriot and a citizen, despite what the know-nothing and gutless scaremongers yell otherwise.

    Exactly.

  14. 14
    jg says:

    Under the commissions act, the government may indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as “enemy combatants”

    ‘designed as enemy cobatants’? IS this some strange way of slipping God into our laws?

  15. 15
    eric says:

    Not one of the several hundred thousand German and other POW detainees held in the US during WWII, for example, had any of the rights granted the detainees at Gitmo, including an appeal process up through military courts and potentially going all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Because they were covered under the Geneva Convention, so they got mail, red cross saw them every so often ect. As for Gitmo people, for all intents now if the Decider calls them “enemy combatant” then they disappear. Now this may be legal, but is that what we want as a county, to follow the Argentinean model?

    If the next claim is that we don’t do that because of our moral superiority, bah humbug. We are superior only in that we can verify that our Leader is not doing bad things, how that is done is that? Well, either the international community via the GC or our courts. Just saying that your moral don’t prove shit.

  16. 16
  17. 17
    Pb says:

    Yeah, it would have been nice if the courts had overturned this on Consitutional grounds, but given the law Congress just passed (the MCA), it isn’t really surprising for the courts not do do so. We’ll see what the Supremes do, but I’m not hopeful…

    Now I’d appreciate it if the Democrats tried to at the least amend the most egregious parts of this, if not outright repeal the whole thing–it’d be worth the effort, IMO–however, (a) it’d surely get vetoed, and (b) where the hell were they the first time? Yeah, Reid said they didn’t even have the votes for cloture–why the hell not? Hell, I don’t think half the Democrats who voted for it really understood WTF was going on in the first place. What’s worse, the other half might have, and still voted for it–screw them, along with all their Republican comrades in torture.

  18. 18
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    by a bunch of simpering fools who think nothing of throwing aside what makes this country great in the pursuit of some abstract notion of ‘security.’

    Hey, lay off FDR. Remember, he and his “simpering fools” were heroes — hell, not only heroes, but Our Greatest Generation! Because those Japanese-Americans were a menace. And inscrutable!

  19. 19
    Daulnay says:

    Right on target.

    This is the one issue that overrides all other political issues: are we going to remain a democracy with the protections from tyranny that we have enjoyed in the past, or are we going to continue the slide into an authoritarian regime.

    It’s a pretty clear-cut issue too. Not a lot of nuance is required to stand up to torture and tyrannical methods of imprisonment, just courage.

  20. 20
    Richard 23 says:

    This is good news. A victory for the rule of law. The Congress writes and passes legislation, the President signs it and the Judicial system follows it. That the vote was 2-1 rather than 3-0 just demonstrates that there is more work to be done.

    We can pray that President Bush rightfully gets one more Supreme Court Justice so the activist wing of the Supreme Court is no longer able to challenge the rule of law. With the Scalia wing in full control we won’t have to worry about good rulings like this being overturned in the future.

    Confused; why cant they do this with any criminal? If simply housing them off-shore keeps them out of US courts, shouldn’t all jails be off-shore? Wouldn’t that save a lot of time and money if there were no requirements for trials for the accused?

    Sounds like a great idea, Face! Write your representatives. I think offshore prisons would be a good cost savings, considering the high incarceration rate in this country. And it would end up saving the legal system a lot of money too if it had no legal jurisdiction. Good job!

    EEEL is obviously a Makintent.

  21. 21
    lard lad says:

    by a bunch of simpering fools who think nothing of throwing aside what makes this country great in the pursuit of some abstract notion of ‘security.’

    Hey, lay off FDR. Remember, he and his “simpering fools” were heroes—hell, not only heroes, but Our Greatest Generation! Because those Japanese-Americans were a menace. And inscrutable!

    More proof, should proof be needed, of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of bottom feeders like EEEL… assuming that he’s not a sadly unfunny spoof.

  22. 22
    Lee says:

    Richard 23, except for the fact that all laws must be in accordence to the Constitution.

    So Congress and the President can pass all the laws the want. If any of them are contrary to the Constitution, they get tossed.

    It will be interesting to see how this one plays out in the SCOTUS. If the sycophants to the executive branch are going to play their part.

  23. 23
    grandpa john says:

    Off shoring prisoners, Great idea,British thought so also anyone know where there is another Australia available

  24. 24
    Randolph Fritz says:

    “Support legislation to reign in this authority…” Senator Chris Dodd has introduced legislation to this end. I have serious doubts, though, that it will become law, since it very likely faces a filibuster in the Senate, and a presidential veto.

  25. 25
    Cyrus says:

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop Says:
    Hey, lay off FDR. Remember, he and his “simpering fools” were heroes—hell, not only heroes, but Our Greatest Generation! Because those Japanese-Americans were a menace. And inscrutable!

    So… you agree that it’s wrong, you just don’t care? It’s wrong, but it’s FDR’s fault so it’s unfair to blame Bush for it? Or FDR was right, even though his internment policy has been thoroughly repudiated? Or it’s wrong in both cases, but The Left is a bunch of hypocrites for not decrying the historical instance whenever someone mentions the current, ongoing one? Or the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism demands even more desperate measures than freaking World War II? Help me out here.

    Vladi G Says:

    Confused; why cant they do this with any criminal?

    I think it’s the combination of not being in the U.S., and not being a U.S. citizen. If you have one of those two, your protected.

    You know, this is something else I’ve been curious about, but never got around to wading into the fever swamps to check out; the “citizenship” thing. The Darrells of the right* say that it’s okay, legal, and constitutional to treat citizens and non-citizens differently. In some respects — voting, for example — that’s self-evident, but why does that apply in the judicial system? I’ve read the Constitution, and I don’t remember seeing any place where it says “these rights are given to American citizens (and them alone),” just a whole bunch of places where it says what the government can’t do. If the constitution says that the government can’t suspend the right of habeas corpus except for in specific cases X and Y, and those specific cases have not come up, then the default assumption would be that it means anywhere the government is working, in anything that it is doing, regardless of whose legal case is being debated. Why not?

    * Phrase chosen because I’m certain he has advanced this argument, but I don’t have a link handy, so I could be wrong.

  26. 26
    Darrell says:

    but The Left is a bunch of hypocrites for not decrying the historical instance whenever someone mentions the current, ongoing one?

    Hypocritical as hell. FDR is revered among most Americans, but most especially among Dems, yet he trampled over constitutional rights far worse against far more than anything George Bush is alleged to have done by interning Japanese Americans, yet Dems give him a free pass, because we were fighting the ‘great war’ or whatever their convoluted justifications.

    Double standards without a doubt. Remember Hillary Clinton claiming to have had psychic conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt?

  27. 27
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Darrell, the only serious opposition to bigotry in FDR’s time came from the Communists and some radical churches–conservatives in his day were the people who defended lynching. We give FDR a “pass”, if you can call it that, because he worked to keep Americans from starvation and won World War II.

    Every indication is that W. Bush would, if he could see his way to it, create an authoritarian theocracy in the USA. He has fought a war to no purpose, killing hundreds of thousands, and made the USA enemies worldwide. He claims the right to arrest and torture without limit. Do you give him a pass? And if so–why do you think you are immune? What makes you think that one day you will not waken to the knock on your door and be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, or one of the more even more shadowy prisons the CIA has established throughout the world?

  28. 28
    Rome Again says:

    To folks like Darrell, al Qaeda and Japan have equal amounts of force.

    Classic! Truly hilarious.

  29. 29
    ThymeZone says:

    Remember Hillary Clinton claiming to have had psychic conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt?

    Possibly the most bizarre non sequitur ever posted here.

    Darrell appears to be posting drunk, which as we all know, is forbidden by rule.

  30. 30
    ThymeZone says:

    To folks like Darrell, al Qaeda and Japan have equal amounts of force.

    Heh! He was just fooled by the fact that they both have a big navy with lots of aircraft carriers.

  31. 31
    Rome Again says:

    Heh! He was just fooled by the fact that they both have a big navy with lots of aircraft carriers.

    What exactly are the names of the ships in their fleet? I can’t recall the n

  32. 32
    Rome Again says:

    I can’t recall the names, sorry.

  33. 33
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, there was the SS Jihad, the SS Virgins, the SS Bin Laden ….

    I have the list here somewhere ….

  34. 34
    Rome Again says:

    No Mohammed? Gotta be a Mohammed in there somewhere.

  35. 35
    ThymeZone says:

    Oh yes, the SS Mohametan, and the SS Allah Akhbar.

    The latter is a destroyer class vessel, I think.

  36. 36
    Rome Again says:

    Wow, I had no idea, I’d like to hear a little more history on this naval force, but I know you have to be somewhere soon, TZ, so I’d like to hear it from Darrell.

  37. 37
    ThymeZone says:

    Darrell only knows about the boats at the Houston Housing Projects Kiddieland.

    The Mickey, the Donald, the Goofy, the Pluto, etc.

  38. 38
    Cyrus says:

    because we were fighting the ‘great war’ or whatever their convoluted justifications.

    Well, Darrell, I can’t speak for everyone on The Left, but I, personally, give FDR a pass on this because it happened before my parents were fucking born. They’re 56 and 60, to be clear. Now, maybe even that is too generous of me. I understand David Neiwert has written books about how communities were ruined by the internment and those communities are still ruined, so it’s not like the decision had no repercussions. But anyone who spends more breath on FDR’s internment 60 years ago than on Bush’s unconstitutional policies today (and lots of other stuff too, let’s not forget, unlike FDR) is either a partisan hack or not very bright. Maybe you would have got the message if I had written the “historic” and “current, ongoing” in bold and all caps in my original post?

    Also, since you ignored the rest of my comment, can I assume you actually do agree that the constitution gives the government no more power over non-citizens than over the rest of us? If you disagree, can you show why?

  39. 39
    Darrell says:

    Every indication is that W. Bush would, if he could see his way to it, create an authoritarian theocracy in the USA.

    Demonstrating once more why the left is full of kooks. Please scream these “opinions” louder so that other Americans can see the kind of people you are. You would be speaking truth to power. Thanks in advance.

  40. 40
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Or it’s wrong in both cases, but The Left is a bunch of hypocrites for not decrying the historical instance whenever someone mentions the current, ongoing one? Or the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism demands even more desperate measures than freaking World War II? Help me out here.

    I prefer subtlety, but since you asked so nicely, I’ll spell it out…

    Since I felt that John was hysterically fingerwagging about “simpering fools who think nothing of throwing aside what makes this country great,” I thought I’d mention a time when, in a time of war, a President took drastic, controversial, and blatantly unconstitutional actions against American citizens “in the pursuit of some abstract notion of ‘security.’”

    So are FDR, his administration, and their supporters vilified by The Scribbling Classes as “simpering fools” and fascist authoritarians (and we could add racists to the list) today? Did they ruin the country and “what makes it great” by herding Americans into concentration camps strictly because of the color of their skin? Of course not — they are regarded unquestionably as “The Greatest Generation,” just as FDR is unquestionably the greatest Democrat of the 20th century, if not in Party history.

    The point: It seems that the dispassionate eye of history might not be so harsh on drastic efforts to protect the country from harm in times of war as some modern pundits would be. And assuming that political partisanship doesn’t get in the way of history (which could never happen, what with the unbiased professionalism of journalists and history professors, right?), I’m suggesting that the same will be the case with the current Administration.

  41. 41
    Darrell says:

    But anyone who spends more breath on FDR’s internment 60 years ago than on Bush’s unconstitutional policies today

    FDR interned Americans, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during wartime. Tell us Cyrus, what exactly are Bush’s “unconstitutional” policies you refer to?
    Truth is, had he wanted to, Bush probably could have had a constitutional showdown with the SCOTUS over trials for non-American terrorists and Bush probably would have won.. and justifiably so. But he didn’t push it. He’s not the “authoritarian” boogeyman so many on the left allege him to be.

    Also, since you ignored the rest of my comment, can I assume you actually do agree that the constitution gives the government no more power over non-citizens than over the rest of us? If you disagree, can you show why?

    The government obviously has LESS power over non-citizens than they have over Americans, so your “constitution gives government no more power over non-citizens” question seems nonsensical to me.

    Non-citizens certainly have fewer rights and protections under the constitution if that’s what you meant to say.

  42. 42
    LITBMueller says:

    Well, I AM a lawyer, and I can tell you, this is complete horseshit:

    In a 2-1 decision, the judges said the Constitution did not extend the right of habeas corpus to noncitizens held outside the sovereign territory of this country. “Cuba — not the United States — has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.

    Sooooo…does that mean that if Castro said tomorrow, “All detainees, you are now FREEEEE!!!!”, our troops would just unlock the cells, give each detainee a pat on the ass, and wish them luck????

    Hell no. The U.S. claims territorial control over the Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty. We have complete control over the area and, even though we say Cuba has sovreignty there, its a hollow promise.

  43. 43
    jh says:

    IIRC,

    The Japanese Americans who were interned during WWII received reparations and an apology from the United States government.

    Are we planning on extending the same courtesy to the people we are currently screwing over in the name of “security”?

    FDR gets a pass because his policies contributed to the end of a crippling economic paralysis and because we actually won WWII.

    Had neither of those things come to pass, he’d be villified to no end.

    Likewise, Lincoln gets a pass because again, we his policies brought about the end to an extistensial social, moral and economic crisis that had been staring the nation down for a century – slavery. Had he lost the Civil War, he’d also have a seat in the villains gallery.

    Bush does not get a pass precisely because his policies are morally questionable (at best) and they are failing in the most hideous ways possible. Because of him, we are losing two wars, while bleeding money and international standing all while imperiling our own civil liberties.

    For that he is, and shall remain a villain to most of humanity.

    If you don’t like it (this means you Darrell and EEL), perhaps you should pick up a rifle, pass the bar or do something to make sure his policies succeed.

    Otherwise, feel free to shut the fuck up.

  44. 44
    grumpy realist says:

    Well, it looks like we’re heading steadily backwards to the Star Chamber and Divine Right of Kings again.

    (“Princips legibus solutus est” only refers to a certain sub-clause dealing with wills of the Emperor’s family, you silly medieval jurists. Too bad it took until the mid-15th century for someone to actually track down where it came from.)

  45. 45
    Darrell says:

    FDR gets a pass because his policies contributed to the end of a crippling economic paralysis and because we actually won WWII.

    Ah yes, ends justify the means. Nice set of “principles” you have there jh.

    So if Bush’s efforts help defeat islamic terrorism, then you’ll give him a free pass too, right?

  46. 46
    Cyrus says:

    Non-citizens certainly have fewer rights and protections under the constitution if that’s what you meant to say.

    Does the federal government have to respect their right to habeas corpus? No, you seem to think. Can you cite the part of the constitution that says so?

  47. 47
    Cyrus says:

    Also, I can’t speak for the 30-percent dead-enders, but for most people, the World War II era was called the greatest generation despite the internment, not because of it. Again, not very complicated.

  48. 48
    Darrell says:

    Does the federal government have to respect their right to habeas corpus? No, you seem to think.

    Try and imagine if, during WWII, the Korean War, or Vietnam War, we had to extend habeas corpus to all captured non-citizen POWs.. Think about that for a moment, and then tell me what possible justification could there be for bestowing habeas corpus rights to these enemy combatents.

  49. 49
    ThymeZone says:

    Just looking at how Darrell poisons a thread, the mind boggles at the idea that he is allowed to post here.

    I would be like letting someone ride their Harley into an opera house and sound out the pipes during the actual opera.

    “Celeste Aida!”

    { roar of loud Harley pipes }

    Yes, just like that. A raucous unpleasant noise that belongs somewhere else. Like, a biker bar, maybe.

  50. 50
    jh says:

    Ah yes, ends justify the means. Nice set of “principles” you have there jh.

    Nice strawman. Does he come in grey?

    Notice readers, for insight into the mind of the truly logically challenged, how Darrell completly ignores the part of my post which references the reparations paid to the WWII internees.

    Darrell,

    My personal principles would have been to not intern the Japanese in the first place.

    Paying reparations after the fact while not coming close to compensating someone for their loss of freedom and property, at least represents our collectivec acknowledgement as a nation that we were wrong.

    So if Bush’s efforts help defeat islamic terrorism, then you’ll give him a free pass too, right?

    No.

    Because his actions reflect a complete ignorance of history with regards to making the innocent pay the price in the name of national security.

    The lessons of WWII internment of Japanese Americans – screwing the innocent, even during times of war, is wrong. Thus we felt compelled to make amends – is lost on Bush and his sycophants like you.

    It’s not surprising considering that all the lessons of history seem to escape super patriots like yourself.

    Now what was that saying about Land Wars and Asia again?

  51. 51
    Darrell says:

    Because his actions reflect a complete ignorance of history with regards to making the innocent pay the price in the name of national security.

    What do you think FDR did by interning Japanese americans? Making the “innocent pay the price” for national security is precisely what he did.

    In contrast, those terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay are not “innocent” like those FDR interned during WWII.

  52. 52
    jenniebee says:

    I can’t believe you guys are going along with Darrell’s “Dems give FDR a pass on the internment camps” assertion. I thought the only person who gave FDR a “pass” on that one these days was Malkin. That internment, along with the attempt to pack SCOTUS with extra justices, were sizable blots on Roosevelt’s presidency. Luckily for him and for us, that presidency also included a practically miraculous economic recovery, public works projects that are still, sixty years later, remarkable in their scope and artistry, prescience about the threat Hitler posed, and the political will and savvy to prepare the nation for a war that, up until Pearl Harbor, it decidedly did not want. That’s a lot of good. I don’t get why anybody should need it whitewashed to perfect, or would insist that liking someone means excusing their imperfections.

    Besides, there’s so much else to attack in the whole “Japanese Internment = GITMO and Dems should apologize for everything ever all the time” bullshit. For one thing, it’s the norm in a time of declared war to inter the nationals of the country with which one is at war who are living within your borders. To do anything else (deport them, presumably to join their home country’s armed services, or else allow them to remain at large as potential fifth columnists) is patently, on its face, absurd. The criminal element of the Japanese internment was that the people being interred were American citizens, not foreign nationals – strike one in forming a parallel to GITMO. Strikes two through infinity plus one are that the Japanese Americans weren’t in solitary confinement, weren’t put in stress positions, didn’t have menstrual blood smeared on them, weren’t waterboarded, and their imprisonment was always intended to be temporary.

    Finally, the idea that anybody should have to apologize for anything in history when they make a comment on contemporary issue is fundamentally ludicrous. Imagine if we insisted that every time a person of German descent said anything against totalitarianism, that they should stop to apologize for Hitler. Or that every time a Catholic recited the Nicene creed, she should open it with an apology for the Inquisition. Or if every time a Member stood up in the House of Lords to denounce an act of unprovoked aggression, he had to begin his speech with an apology for the Battle of Hastings.

    But if you accept that Darrell’s formulation is true, that failure to apologize for one’s philosophical or political ancestors with whom one no longer agrees is to commit a rank hypocrisy, then Darrell I’m ready, willing and waiting to read your apology for slavery, Jim Crow, opposition to women’s suffrage, the Sedition Act, the Bee Gees (admit it!), and the Directorate period (although not for the Reign of Terror). Ok, just for slavery. If you don’t apologize, then either you’re still for it, or you’re a hypocrite!

  53. 53
    ThymeZone says:

    Because his actions reflect a complete ignorance of history with regards to making the innocent pay the price in the name of national security.

    Good answer, among several available good answers. The complete failure of intel and in particular of civilian oversight of intel is another reason. These guys fucked up and deserve to be fired, from Bush on down.

    But the worst, to me, is the Ends Justify Means approach to policy and government. That’s the Bush Denominator, Ends Justify Means.

    EJM is not compatible with democracy. Period. Bush has been far more destructive to this country than the 911 terrorists ever could be. They knocked down buildings. Bush has knocked down the Constitition of the United States.

  54. 54
    Darrell says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Just looking at how Darrell poisons a thread, the mind boggles at the idea that he is allowed to post here.

    I would be like letting someone ride their Harley into an opera house

    The unhinged rantings of the leftists on this site can hardly be compared with an opera.

  55. 55
    Darrell says:

    But the worst, to me, is the Ends Justify Means approach to policy and government.

    But you see precisely that behavior with regards to justifying FDR’s actions:

    FDR gets a pass because his policies contributed to the end of a crippling economic paralysis and because we actually won WWII.

    Textbook example of ends justifying the means.

  56. 56
    jenniebee says:

    In contrast, those terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay are not “innocent” like those FDR interned during WWII.

    Based on what are they not innocent? They haven’t been convicted of anything, have they?

  57. 57
    ThymeZone says:

    Textbook example of ends justifying the means.

    Note to self: Think twice about voting for Roosevelt if he runs again.

    Meanwhile a lying alcoholic sociopath is president of this country now. That’s the problem I’m focussing on.

    What you are doing, I have no fucking idea, other than being a fucking asshole and ruining this blog for everybody.

  58. 58
    Darrell says:

    Meanwhile a lying alcoholic sociopath is president of this country now. That’s the problem I’m focussing on.

    What you are doing, I have no fucking idea, other than being a fucking asshole and ruining this blog for everybody.

    Ruining this blog for “everybody” = well informed banter in the midst of a mostly leftwingnut echo chamber

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    Ruining this blog for “everybody”

    That is correct. And you know it, or else you wouldn’t be here. That is your goal, right?

  60. 60
    Darrell says:

    Based on what are they not innocent? They haven’t been convicted of anything, have they?

    Neither was ANY prisoner of war during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam been “convicted” in a trial.. with the exception of the Nuremberg trials.

    Was the US “shredding” the constitution by not bestowing such rights on all those POWs in those wars?

  61. 61
    Darrell says:

    For one thing, it’s the norm in a time of declared war to inter the nationals of the country with which one is at war who are living within your borders.

    Tell us jenniebee of all the German americans who were interned in the US during WWII. Since it was the “norm” and all

    Finally, the idea that anybody should have to apologize for anything in history when they make a comment on contemporary issue is fundamentally ludicrous

    The difference is, FDR is a lionized figure in the Democratic Party, with never a word of criticism over his ‘shredding’ of the constitution, which was far more egregious than anything Bush is alleged to have done.

  62. 62
    jh says:

    Textbook example of ends justifying the means.

    Had it ended at the interment and us never bothering to say “our bad” to our wronged fellow Americans, you might have a point.

    As it stands, we admitted we were wrong, an act which indicates our government and society finally came to the conclusion end did NOT justify the means.

    FDR got a pass from everybody, liberals, conservatives and our allies, almost without exception.

    But that didn’t sit well with the more conscientious amongst us, so in the end it was decided to make attemps to redress the wrong that had been committed.

    You know this and are yet again, derailing the thread with your nonsense.

    But I guess that’s what makes Darrell Darrell. Nonsense.

    As some one stated earlier, when FDR is up for re-election, I’ll try and remember not to vote for him.

  63. 63
    jh says:

    Tell us jenniebee of all the German americans who were interned in the US during WWII.

    Fresh from Darrell’s ass to you, the consumer.

    No middle man, no markup.

    You do know, Darrell, that German and Italian Americans were also interned and deported for specious reasons during WWII?

    It wasn’t nearly on the same scale as what happened to Japanese Americans, but it did happen.

    It’s called google man. Jeez.

  64. 64
    Darrell says:

    But that didn’t sit well with the more conscientious amongst us, so in the end it was decided to make attemps to redress the wrong that had been committed.

    Who is this “us” scumbag? Did you help lead the charge for restitution for the Japanese americans who were interned? And please note that restitution did not take place until 46 years after it occurred.

  65. 65
    Darrell says:

    You do know, Darrell, that German and Italian Americans were also interned and deported for specious reasons during WWII?

    It wasn’t nearly on the same scale as what happened to Japanese Americans, but it did happen.

    You’ve really got a “solid” point there jh.

  66. 66
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Wow, Darrell is really kicking some (admittedly B-team) ass on this thread. If it weren’t so funny, it’d be painful to watch. My fave so far:

    Somebody:

    FDR gets a pass because his policies contributed to the end of a crippling economic paralysis and because we actually won WWII.

    Darrell:

    So if Bush’s efforts help defeat islamic terrorism, then you’ll give him a free pass too, right?

    No.

    Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  67. 67
    Cyrus says:

    Try and imagine if, during WWII, the Korean War, or Vietnam War, we had to extend habeas corpus to all captured non-citizen POWs..

    You mean, people who were protected under prisoner of war status? People who actually were captured on a battlefield?

    Think about that for a moment, and then tell me what possible justification could there be for bestowing habeas corpus rights to these enemy combatents.

    Bestowing? Bestowing? Were I the self-righteous speechifying type (if I had a yard man named Jesus, for example), I could go on for a looong time about this extremely (typically) stupid thing for you to say. To be relatively brief, though, I think the view that basic rights should or even can be bestowed by governments is inherently authoritarian, and I’m not the only person who thinks so.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

    I think that people have rights, which governments merely protect. You think governments give people rights, apparently.

  68. 68
    Darrell says:

    You mean, people who were protected under prisoner of war status? People who actually were captured on a battlefield?

    I’m sorry, I missed all the trials given those POWs who were “protected” by their status as POWs.

    And no, like with our war in Iraq and Afghanistan, some combatents in those wars were captured on the battlefield, but others were captured by surprise while relaxing, and others yet, captured and put in prison through military intel, even though they may not have pointed a gun at our soldiers when captured.

  69. 69
    Rome Again says:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

    Interesting Cyrus, that “self-righteous speechifying type” with the yard man named Jesus firmly believes the above quote to be some of the most important words ever uttered and has told me so.

  70. 70
    jh says:

    Who is this “us” scumbag?

    You mean other than “we the people” and their elected representatives in the 100th congress?

    And please note that restitution did not take place until 46 years after it occurred.

    Please. That it occurred at all indicates the recongnition that a wrong had been committed.

    But I leave you to your fantasies.

    FDR is long dead, those who were harmed by his policies have been acknowledged while some attempt at redress has been made and his legacy, for the most part is established as a positive one – mainly due to the overall successes of his Presidency.

    Bush on the other hand is still in office, his bad policies WRT to innocents in times of war are harming people right now (in SPITE of the very lessons we evetually took away from FDR’s bad policies), and the abject failure of his Presidency is not only cementing his legacy in shit, it is posing a grave and serious threat to the future of our democracy.

    In short, if you want to compare Bush’s failures to FDRs be my guest. I can only hazard a guess what it must be like in your world where Bush is in any way a better leader.

    Is the sky blue in there?

  71. 71
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    I think that people have rights,

    I think the part that’s hanging you up is that all men are created equal. However, some become decidedly less equal by the choices they make in life. So what rights does a person give up when they try to kill you and your countrymen?

  72. 72
    jh says:

    Was there a sale a Strawmen “R” Us?

    So what rights does a person give up when they try to kill you and your countrymen?

    Before you get to ask that question, a person has the right to face his acccusers and see the evidence against him.

    It’s funny how so many so-called patriots are so Soviet in their thinking.

  73. 73
    Rome Again says:

    If you righties believe that the Constitution doesn’t allow for prisoners of this country to have any rights, then bring them HERE, don’t hide them in Cuba or other countries, dammit. Push for your lawmakers to take a brave stand. Let’s see some balls, shall we?

  74. 74
    Randolph Fritz says:

    EEEL, “what rights does a person give up when they try to kill you and your countrymen?”

    If proven, of course, they are subject to the appropriate law. The rubs lie in “if proven” and “appropriate law”. Returning to the subject at hand, not only has the government not proven that the detainees at Guantanamo have done anything at all, it claims the right to keep without ever having proven anything at all. Why do you trust the government?

  75. 75
    ThymeZone says:

    If I had a yard man named Jesus

    Jesus, MYM, wants to save you.

    From doing your yard, I mean.

    Where do you live?

    If you are not in Arizona, but anywhere near a border state, you can find Jesus, a yard man, outside almost any Home Depot store.

  76. 76
    jg says:

    To be relatively brief, though, I think the view that basic rights should or even can be bestowed by governments is inherently authoritarian, and I’m not the only person who thinks so.

    There is a large chunk of the population that believes the constitution grants rights to citizens. You hear it when they say ‘show where in the constitution the right to privacy is spelled out’.

  77. 77
    jg says:

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop Says:

    I think that people have rights,

    I think the part that’s hanging you up is that all men are created equal. However, some become decidedly less equal by the choices they make in life. So what rights does a person give up when they try to kill you and your countrymen?

    Hey Mac, the whole ‘all men are created equal’ thing is simply stating that no one is born better than anyone else. Previous rulers who have declared a divine right to lead are full of shit. We’re all the same and entitled to the same basic human rights. I guess you’re home schooling didn’t cover that in any detail. Probably because you were educated by neo-conservatives who are descended from the folks who didn’t want to revolt against King George and after the war tried to institute an aristocracy in the US, ‘government by the people? how gauche’

  78. 78
    ThymeZone says:

    So what rights does a person give up when they try to kill you and your countrymen?

    Good point, George Bush and his henchmen have no rights as far as I am concerned. They should be fired, and jailed.

  79. 79
    Rome Again says:

    Good point, George Bush and his henchmen have no rights as far as I am concerned. They should be fired, and jailed.

    Absolutely, if some believe that certain individuals are more equal than others, then those who are supposedly more equal should hang first, I say.

  80. 80
    Zifnab says:

    Good point, George Bush and his henchmen have no rights as far as I am concerned. They should be fired, and jailed.

    Or jailed then shot. Bush lived by capital punishment in Texas. It would be ironically amusing to see him die by it.

  81. 81
    eric says:

    I return to an earlier post, the people in Gitmo are not POW’s, they are some sort of ” enemy combatant”, so comparing the lack of trials that the a German POW has is not even close to what is happening in GITMO. While the Geneva Conventions are imperfect, a combatant knew that someone in the world was watching out for them, Red Cross for example. But in GITMO no one is looking out for them, because the GC does not apply. Now I am perfectly willing to accept that this may be legal, but legal does not always map/correspond to moral. And that is where the conversation ought to be….

    One thing that I have never quite understood from the Darrell’s of the world is why do you think that our legal system is incapable of handling such problems, is our political system that weak that we have to resort to unaccountable powers from the Prez?

  82. 82
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Or jailed then shot. Bush lived by capital punishment in Texas. It would be ironically amusing to see him die by it.

    Please, never stop posting. We can’t show the looniness of the hatemongers without the hatemongering loons!

  83. 83
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    But in GITMO no one is looking out for them, because the GC does not apply. Now I am perfectly willing to accept that this may be legal, but legal does not always map/correspond to moral.

    Bush said in 2005 that GC was being applied to Gitmo, and the Administration reiterated that in June after the USSC ruling.

    And speaking of what’s moral, if the jihadis would just wear uniforms, stop blowing up civilians in markets, and stop hacking the heads off their prisoners, we they wouldn’t have this problem. We’d know who the assholes were by their shirts. Until then, no sympathy accrues.

    why do you think that our legal system is incapable of handling such problems

    Off top of the head: Lawyers, judges, OJ, and Zacharias Moussawi, to name a few. I think you have the question in reverse.

  84. 84
    eric says:

    So I guess that you don’t think the American system of justice is up to the task, which other country’s system would you prefer?

    And this administration has said that they will act as if GC applied but the prisoners are not POW’s but enemy combatants. So they have only the rights granted by the administration, which is not accountable to anyone outside the political process.

    Finally I really don’t care about the jihadist morality, it is not their morality that is of concern here, they are evil. The only question we have to answer is our morality, do we become evil to fight evil?

  85. 85
    Richard 23 says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Just looking at how Darrell poisons a thread, the mind boggles at the idea that he is allowed to post here.

    I would be like letting someone ride their Harley into an opera house and sound out the pipes during the actual opera.

    The unhinged rantings of the leftists on this site can hardly be compared with an opera.

    Tag team PotD. But everyone realizes that Darrell is a spoof, don’t they? I don’t understand why leftist kooks enjoy arguing with caricatures of conservatives so much. I guess it makes them feel smugly superior.

  86. 86
    Richard 23 says:

    Rome Again said: “Let’s see some balls, shall we?”

    You wish, you naughty person! There’s other websites for that sort of thing. Try teh Googal.

    jg said: “You hear it when they say ‘show where in the constitution the right to privacy is spelled out’.”

    So, where is it, jg? I double dog dare you to point to it. So much for your leftist point of view.

  87. 87
    Rome Again says:

    You wish, you naughty person! There’s other websites for that sort of thing. Try teh Googal.

    It is YOU who has the dirty mind, Richard 23.

  88. 88
    Richard 23 says:

    You’re the one wanting to “see some balls.” Were you talking about juggling circus clowns?

    Oh damn, now I did it. Now I’m going to have clown nightmares. While it’s better than dreaming about “balls,” it’s still clowns. Clowns are the freakiest, scariest, wrongest, anythingest things ever created by man.

  89. 89
    Perry Como says:

    Clowns are the freakiest, scariest, wrongest, anythingest

    Next to Liberals. How “honest” of you, moonbat.

  90. 90
    Perry Como says:

    Bush said in 2005 that GC was being applied to Gitmo, and the Administration reiterated that in June after the USSC ruling.

    Yes Mac, the administration also said it doesn’t torture. They also said Iraq had WMDs located north, south, east and west of Tikrit. The administration says a lot of things.

  91. 91
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Darrell, you haven’t addressed the question: “why do you think you are immune?” Guantanamo is no-one’s fantasy, nor is the nightmare network of CIA prisons. They exist, and the Bush administration claims the right to make anyone disappear into them. Bush’s christian radicalism is well documented. His Christianity and his authoritaritariansm seem to be among the few things he truly believes; he returns to them over and over. So, if given the free reign he has never had and–let us hope–will never have, why would he not act on his beliefs? Explain your reasoning.

  92. 92
    Richard 23 says:

    Next to Liberals. How “honest” of you, moonbat.

    Damn, Perry. You’re “right” as usual. Now I’m going to be having nightmares about liberal clowns (like Burtha and sKerry and Piglosi and Swimmer and various other freaks of the Democrat-ick party). I just hope I don’t dream about liberal clown balls. ** barfs **

    And Randy, Darrell won’t answer your question. He’s a dirty liberal hippie masquerading as a conservative. And he only posts while he’s masturbating. He must have already shot his wad.

  93. 93
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Richard23, I hope all your vowels fall out.

  94. 94
    Richard 23 says:

    whtvr dd.

  95. 95
    jenniebee says:

    A few points, in summation:

    1. Darrell has pretty close to zero knowledge about the domestic policies of any of the players in WWII regarding foreign nationals outside of the talking point about Japanese Americans. I guess now that claiming that Social Security = teh Comminist Tyrrany doesn’t have the same oomph it used to, conservatives have moved to criticizing FDR’s political descendants for an action that their own political ascendants applauded at the time. Whatever. LERN2GOOGLE, at the very least, before you start making historical arguments.

    2. Darrell is, at this point, reduced to defending Bush by combing through history for gross human rights violations and claiming, without making an argument for his case, that his guy isn’t so bad in comparison.

    3. Richard 23 is a first-rate spoof.

  96. 96
    jg says:

    Richard 23 Says:

    jg said: “You hear it when they say ‘show where in the constitution the right to privacy is spelled out’.”

    So, where is it, jg? I double dog dare you to point to it. So much for your leftist point of view.

    Shut up spoof. :)

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Andrew Sullivan, John (not Juan) Cole, and Phillybits (yeah, I know it’s a strange combination, but there it is).   […]

Comments are closed.