Surprise! Surprise! Constitutional protections prevail even on the Roberts Court!


The U.S. Supreme Court RULED this  morning that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have rights under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts.

The scary thing about the ruling, which is a defeat for the Bush administration, is that four of the nine justices (including Chief Justice John Roberts) voted against it.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, has one line that’s likely to become memorable: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

POSTSCRIPT: Speaking of conservative Republican judicial appointees, how about THIS GUY?



  1. Mike Carroll

    I will have to read the decision (anyone who relies on a press synopsis of a Supreme Court decision is a fool) but I don’t recall Constitutional language extending rights to enemy combatants in the document. Silly me, I forgot that it is a living document which doesn’t say what it says. It says whatever 4 liberal justices and the swinger thinks it should say.
    If that type of judicial activism doesn’t scare you, you don’t understand the consequences.

  2. Mike: Enemy combatants? Oh, yeah, I forgot. According to truly patriotic Americans, the Bush administration’s jackboots get to decide whether you’re an enemy combatant and get to detain you indefinitely without charges and without fundamental constitutional protections. They get to torture you, too. Yeah, that kind of stuff makes me so proud to be an American. Due process? That weasely concept is sacred only to your lilly-livered, bleeding-heart liberals. They don’t understand that we can’t let the Constitution stand in the way of efforts by George Bush and Dick Cheney to validate their manhood. Y’know, both of them still feel a little guilty about having been chickenhawks during the Vietnam War. They just want to kick a little foreign fanny to show how tough they are. What’s wrong with that?

  3. redrover

    Before Chief Justice Rehnquist died, we had just 3 crypto-fascist stooges on the Supreme Court:

    William “Moe” Rehnquist,
    Clarence “Larry” Thomas, and
    Antonin “Curly” Scalia

    Even though the original Moe, Judge Rehnquist has gone to the big stoogeworld in the sky, the neo-con far-freakin’ right has replaced him with a man perfect for the part:

    Chief Justice John “Moe” Roberts

    and managed to increase the number of crypto-fascist Supreme Court stooges to 4 with the addition of:

    Samuel “Shemp” Alito

    P-A-pay, P-E-pee, P-I-picky-pi, P-O po, picky-pi po, P-U PYU, picky pi po PYU!

  4. Mike Carroll

    Pat-As I’ve mentioned before, I became a firm Conservative when I witnessed the lynching of Robert Bork. It was then that I concluded that Liberals had a disdain for our Constitution and the Democratic government that they pretend to love.
    If you think enemy combatants should be allowed the Constitutional protections granted to citizens, fine. Convince your fellow citizens and amend the Constitution. If you think abortions should be guaranteed by the Constitution, fine. Again, convince your fellow citizens.
    Don’t pretend to honor that document , or the protections it established, when you support its perversion to advance your personal political agenda.
    As far as redrover is concerned, well, he is on your side and If I were him I would post under an alias as well.

  5. Craig Knauss


    Where did you get that “4 liberal justices and the swinger” crap from? 7 out of the 9 justices are die-hard Republicans. They were appointed by “liberals” like Ronald Reagan (2), George Bush I (2), and George Bush II (2), and that communist Gerald Ford (1). The remaining two were appointed by Bill Clinton. Perhaps you are upset because the majority actually upheld the Constitution, something that Dubya tries to keep to an absolute minimum. And contrary to the opinion of some, the Constitution expressly states that the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not just enforce it.

  6. Mike Carroll

    Craig-its interpret the law, not create it. Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter are the liberal members of the court with Kennedy as the so-called moderate who swings from side to side. He seems to feel that incoherence is a judicial philosophy.
    Breyer and Ginsberg were Clinton appointees,Souter was Bush 1 and Stevens was Ford. Kennedy was the Reagan appointee who was nominated once the Bork nomination fell through. If you think Souter, Stevens and Kennedy are “die hard Republicans” rendering Conservative opinions I would like to talk to you about a bridge in Brooklyn.

  7. Optimistic1

    Redrover- is the best you can do name calling? Did you happen to watch the grilling that John Roberts took when confirmed and how he made the grillers (Our Senators) look. They didn’t have a prayer at verbally sparring with Roberts and they are for the most part very accomplished minds (As well as attorneys themselves). Name call all you would like, free country, but he has earned more respect than that as well as all who made it to that court in my opinion. Name calling, so clever, especially on the Dead Justice.

    Most detainees at this point have had tribunals and many were found innocent and freed by the “Jackboots” that you are so mistrusting of (Pat) as they are obviously under the trance of the Evil “W”. Many have been found innocent and are still in detention because we can’t find a country that will take them. I have a feeling they may not be the Choir Boys the ACLU would have you believe.

    What would make you “Proud to be an American” Pat? Look at your picture up top and the rancor in some of your posts, you seem so angry and I keep getting that vibe from your side of the aisle. I would think with a Democratic House and Senate you would feel some sort of cheer. Seriously, if you feel 6 months after Bush is out of office that you need some therapy to deal with the last 8 years, I will be the first to set up a fund so we can get you the help you need to be happy, it could be a bi-partisan effort.

  8. Hey, Optimo, I’m a very happy guy. The Cubs, Sox and Obama are all in first place. I’m enjoying retirement. The Republicans seem headed for doom in November. Bush is widely rated the worst president in history. Liberalism is on the march. And I get to make fun of guys like you who make up nitwit lies like the one about the ACLU claiming that all the detainees in Gitmo are choir boys. There’s no truth to that at all, but I enjoy hearing it because it’s so typical of uninformed right-wingers. Guys like you give me good reason to get up every morning. So, yeah, I’m doing just fine. Thanks anyway.

  9. Mike Carroll

    “Liberalism is on the march”. Why do I have this vision of Lemmings?

  10. Craig Knauss


    So if one isn’t a brain damaged ultra-conservative, one cannot be a Republican. And even though these liberal (by your lopsided standard) justices have voted Republican and supported Republican causes all their lives, but take exception to George W. Bush’s interpretation of the law, they are no longer Republicans? I don’t buy that, and I hope you don’t either. It’s small wonder why some true conservative Republicans, such as Barry Goldwater, threw up his hands and quit politics. He had gotten sick and tired of what was happening in the party he had supported his entire life. However, I am truly glad that you and the rest of the neo-cons feel the way you do. Because that means that Republicans who truly care about this country and vote their conscience instead of the party line, are going to defect in large numbers this November.

    Good luck unloading that bridge. Maybe you shouldn’t have bought it in the first place.

  11. Hey, Mike. I thought I bid you a fond adieu earlier today. How can we miss you if you don’t go away? But seriously, yes, liberalism IS on the march, as it has been through most of American history. On almost every front, especially with regard to social and cultural issues, America is much more liberal today than it was even as recently as my young adulthood. Frankly, there are times when I think our society is perhaps a little too libertine for my tastes, but that’s the price we pay for freedom. Over the years, lots of conservatives have had problems understanding that the free marketplace they’ve always championed inexorably leads to a more liberal culture. The more free the cultural marketplace, the more liberal the culture.

  12. Optimistic1

    Glad to hear you are well Pat.

    You’re right the ACLU never made the insinuation that the detainees were “Choir Boys”, but I think you get my point of exageration (not lie). If you would like I will be happy to give you some really egregious examples of the ACLU jumping to the rescue of pedophiles and looking out for the pedophiles rights over and above the children they terrorized. Is that freedom? How about Larry Craig from my side? Can he not afford his own defense and do I not have a right to “Shelter” if you will my 6 year old son from men having sex in a bathroom stall next to him? Freedom for them, screw the 99% of people considerate enough to not have sex in public places. You get my point, there is due process and there is just plain too far. What the ACLU pushes for much of the time is flat out agenda driven, freedom is a beautiful thing, but we don’t live in a utopia and there are times we are going to have to kick some ass and take some names, and ask questions later, hopefully as little as possible, but war is one of them. Can freedom be had for good and evil simultaneously? I’m not smart enough to know I guess, seems like a pretty tough deal to me.

    Pat Says:

    “Frankly, there are times when I think our society is perhaps a little too libertine for my tastes, but that’s the price we pay for freedom. Over the years, lots of conservatives have had problems understanding that the free marketplace they’ve always championed inexorably leads to a more liberal culture.”

    Now I understand why every person I know who is older and wiser than myself wishes for the old days! When it was less liberal according to your logic. I bet with a little research one could also make an argument that in past civilizations, right before they came to an end were at their most liberal point on the spectrum, but I have taken up enough space on your blog, besides, I have more right wing reading to do to un-inform myself some more about the doom of the Republicans this fall as well as how the house/senate approval numbers could be so low with the “March of liberalism” at the wheel.

    Go Cubs!

  13. Mike Carroll

    Pat-A debate for another time. I’m going to have a drink and relax. And I am departing, but with a bang not a whimper.BTW Craig-just how would you know that those justices have voted Republican and supported Republican causes all of their lives? Omniscient isn’t a trait I would connect with you.

  14. redrover

    Optimistic1 writes:

    “Redrover- is the best you can do name calling?”

    Well, gee whiz, O, when I try to do better, I get called a Marxist, or worse, so why bother with intelligent dissent?

    Seriously, I worry about these guys I call stooges because I fear they do not respect the rights protected by the First Amendment.

    Back in October, John McCain said, “I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

    Christian fascists like McCain and those who support him have long tried to shove their Jesus and his BS Bible down the throats of everyone who lives in this country.

    In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), and in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the majority of the Supremes voted to protect public school students from being subjected to and harassed by Christian prayers as part of their school activities.

    The Three Original Stooges voted each time in dissent with those decisions, and in Lee v. Weisman, Roberts argued against that decision and for officially-sanctioned prayers at public school activities.

    From what I have read, Alito seems to be cut from the same cloth as these other 4 stooges when it comes to permitting Christian fanatics to use the public schools to promote their religious views in violation of the separation of church and state.

    Shemp Howard was a part-time Stooge. Shemp Alito could be the same.

  15. Hey Red….Karl Marx was intensely critical of organized religion. Hmmm.

  16. Optimistic1

    Rover, you will never be called a name by me.

    Are all Christians “Fanatics” or are you just really touchy on the subject of Religion because I am sure if the subject was not religion you would be for “All” freedom that can be given to said subject. I don’t see a public blessing at a graduation as “Coercion” as the Non-Stooges put it in that brief. You can join the military, vote, smoke and have an abortion at 18, but I guess you have no power whatsoever over a prayer (To a God you don’t believe in) in which a believer is asking for good things for you. Congress and Senate open with prayer and the coercion doesn’t seem to be having much effect on the non-believers in those sacred halls. If someone is smoking next to me in public is that also coercion for me to become a smoker or am I able to just ignore it and go on with life without crying that my rights have been violated? Are they smoking fanatics using public places to promote their “Habit” in violation of my civil right of “Life, Liberty and Property”. I could certainly make an argument for that because I breath their smoke and it stinks up my clothes, but that is too far isn’t it? What is the difference between the two arguments? Not much in my opinion, but in the end after every violation has been taken to the supreme court and rectified, we will be left with a heck of a lot less freedom won’t we? I though Pat’s “March of Liberalism” meant more freedoms over time?

  17. redrover

    You just don’t get it, Optimistic1.

    The two Supreme Court rulings were exactly about coercion and therefore the Court correctly ruled that these practices were unconstitutional.

    Specifically, in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0505_0577_ZS.html ),
    in concluding that a prayer delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so …

    The very existence of an officially-sanctioned prayer, no matter how “non-sectarian” it may be, is an endorsement of the religious belief that there is some value in prayer to a higher being, no matter who that being might be.

    That ceremony, be it graduation or a football pep rally, belongs to all the students in those public schools, irregardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    If those ceremonies include a prayer, then all those who participate are coerced to witness an official school endorsement of that religious belief, i.e., that prayer has some value.

    Thereby, their 1st Amendment rights are violated.

    But also consider this. In each of these cases, the religious acts were of a distinctly Judeo-Christian nature.

    Supposing that, instead of inviting a priest, minister, or rabbi to deliver the invocation at a public school graduation ceremony, the public school principal invited a Muslim imam, a Hindu priest, or the High Priest of the Church of Satan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan ).

    Would there be objections from some of the participants in such a ceremony?

    You can bet on it. Just look what happened last July 12 in our illustrious US Senate when a Hindu clergyman offered the morning prayer:

    Protesters Disrupt Hindu Prayer In Senate
    Police Remove Three From Visitors Gallery Who Shouted During Invocation By Hindu Clergyman
    CBS News, WASHINGTON, July 12, 2007(AP)

    A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the U.S. Senate’s morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors’ gallery.

    Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, gave the brief prayer that opens each day’s Senate session. As he stood at the chamber’s podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting “this is an abomination” and other complaints from the gallery.

    Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them with disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an Associated Press reporter, “we are Christians and patriots” before police handcuffed them and led them away.


    In my opinion, such objections would be absolutely justified. I would welcome a Supreme Court decision banning prayers at public school activities by Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, pagans, Satanists and other religiously-addicted individuals, just as I support the ban on prayers by Christians and Jews.

    And if that were to happen, we all would have NOT less freedom, but more freedom, including the freedom to attend ceremonies at public schools that are funded by everyone’s taxes and not to have our noses rubbed in the excrement that is religion while doing so.

  18. Craig Knauss

    Mike says, “Craig-just how would you know that those justices have voted Republican and supported Republican causes all of their lives?”

    Okay, I don’t have proof that they did this, any more than you have proof that they haven’t. (Are YOU omniscient?) And what proof do YOU have that they are all liberals, other than they had a ruling you didn’t like? That’s called life. The Constitution set up the Supreme Court to be isolated from politics. Obviously, that didn’t happen. But once appointed, they are independent of the Executive and Legislative Branches, just as our founding fathers intended, and much to the chagrin of many of our politicians. In case you haven’t noticed, the Court has made a lot of decisions that liberals don’t like either. I seem to remember one that allowed municipalities the right to use eminent domain to condemn property and then sell it to private developers. That one still has my head spinning, since the use of eminent domain was solely for the overall public good, not a few “connected” developers. But, as I said, that’s life.

  19. Mike Carroll

    Craig-you reference the Kelo vs. City of New London decision which was brought to you by the same 5 Airheads that rendered yesterdays misbegotten decision. Do you feel better now.

  20. Optimistic1

    Rover – I do get it, I already posted I am for separation, I was trying to make a point of “where does it end” with civil liberties that you did not bother to answer.

    Rover says – “noses rubbed in the excrement that is religion”

    Look back over your post and see that the main point you are making is you are really bothered by the religious. Since the majority of Americans are Christian, and of those most probably wouldn’t object over a prayer at a graduation, it lays claim to the fact that your MORE freedom scenario is only applicable to the minority of the nation when prayer is removed from said graduation.
    Once again I am not arguing against separation, just making the point that many freedoms you talk about will come at the expense of others. The majority of the nation (Christians) now have less freedom to practice their “Addiction” as you put it in a very memorable moment in their lives with their friends and family. You have now effectively pulled a freedom from the majority to appease the minority who do not partake in said prayer, result equals less freedom.Take God out of everything public, and you will still not be happy. You have issues with the religious and all they stand for apparently judging by your language. If you have not been victimized in any way by religion (If you have been much more understandable), can you explain your anger? Now, I may not enjoy being around very liberal people who are Atheist as we have very little in common, but I do not feel the need to rag on their belief system (whatever it be) for being a Liberal Atheist. Why do you feel the need to rag on religion? Don’t quote world problems here, I am asking you in your life how have you been victimized by religion?

  21. Craig Knauss

    “Craig-you reference the Kelo vs. City of New London decision which was brought to you by the same 5 Airheads that rendered yesterdays misbegotten decision. Do you feel better now.”

    Well, gee. Based on your guidelines, since I don’t like the decision, it means the Court was a bunch of conservatives, right? Just like every decision YOU don’t agree with was obviously made by liberals. In reality, I strongly suspect the big-pockets developers that will benefit from the Kelo vs. City of New London decision probably vote Republican more often than they vote Democratic. Or do you doubt that too? And by the way, which 5 “liberals” decided that George W. Bush won the 2000 election?

  22. Mike Carroll

    Craig-The decision was 7-2, not 5-4. Quit while you are behind.

  23. redrover

    Like I’ve said before, Optimistic1, you just do not get it!

    There’s nothing in either SC decision to keep all you holy Christians from praying among yourselves before, during or after a public school graduation ceremony or football game.

    What you can’t do is force the rest of us to subsidize those prayers.

    What you can’t do is make those prayers a part of the activities, just as I can’t make cursing Jesus Christ a part of the activities, although I am still free to do so independently.

    It’s not about me and my feelings about and against religion. It’s about the First Amendment and the Establishment clause.

    It’s the rule of law, Optimistic1, and not God’s law, but man’s law.

    If you don’t like it, stop bitching and start a revolution, or a movement to amend the Constitution.

    As far smoking in public goes, the other so-called liberty you mentioned: That is a public health issue.

    Just as I cannot legally urinate or defecate or expectorate in public places because doing so spreads disease, so it is with smoking.

    Having to put up with smoking in public places is coercion, and thankfully the law is finally beginning to protect us from it.

    The problem with you and all your fellow fundamentalist Christians is this: you want your freedoms protected but do not care for the freedoms of those of us who are not as “saved” as you all are.

    That’s exactly the philosophy that led you Christians to enslave Africans and exterminate and dispossess Native Americans.

    Well, I won’t take that stuff from you hypocrites, and I’m glad to see that the majority of the US Supreme Court agrees that I do not have to.

  24. redrover

    The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not the only part of the US Constitution that Supreme Court Stooge “Curly” Scalia has no respect for.

    He also has no use for the 8th Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

    According to Curly Scalia, torture of detainees does not violate Amendment 8 because it isn’t punishment !!!

    Here’s a transcript of his interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes on 27 April 2008

    STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?

    SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.

    STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–

    SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?


    “Oh, a wise guy, eh? nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.”

  25. Optimistic1

    Thanks for cutting and pasting from your side Rover, here is the paragraph before what you pasted from the CBS News Site:

    “I don’t like torture,” Scalia says. “Although defining it is going to be a nice trick. But who’s in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the – everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision of the Constitution,” he says.


    His argument was with her wording of the question, she used the word “punishment” and should have used the word torture. I would have been very interested to see what he said about that.
    If you care to do some research, here is a transcript of him talking more about his view on the 8th amendment since you appear to have come to judgement on about 3 sentences in a coversation with Leslie Stahl. It is comforting to me that Justice Scalia is able to stay awake while cases are being heard unlike Justice Ginsburg.


    Rover- On the earlier posts, if you take a look back you will see that I have been nothing but respectful to you in anything I have said. In what way have I personally made you feel like I am “Saved” and you are not? You have felt the need to call Justices names and go as far as to classify Christianity as “Excrement”. I could certainly rush to judgement on you and compare you to your ancestral mistakes in life, but what would that prove? I have some German in my blood also, am I also a Nazi? Truth is my wife and I are currently adopting from Africa, and I just got back from helping to sandbag a friends house who is a non-believer, imagine that. And I do look out for the freedoms of all, you are dead wrong on that also. If having respect for the highest court in the land on both sides of the aisle as well as for the Congreess, Senate and the President makes me a Christian Fascist, I guess I am guilty as charged along with millions before me that made this country what it is so you could be as disrespectful to my side as you would like, though it detracts from your “Intelligent Dissent” in my opinion.

  26. redrover

    Curly Scalia clearly says, in the interview with Stahl, that torture of detainees does not violate Amendment 8.

    There is no semantic confusion about this.

    Here is the quote from the source that you cited:

    “I don’t like torture,” Scalia says. “Although defining it is going to be a nice trick. But who’s in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the – everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision of the Constitution,” he says.

    “If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ doesn’t that apply?” Stahl asks.

    “No, No,” Scalia replies.

    The United States government has sworn that this is not true, specifically in its initial report to the U.N. Committee Against Torture in October of 1999 concerning its compliance with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

    The United States had ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

    As a party to the Convention, the United States is required to submit periodic reports describing its compliance with the Convention to the Committee against Torture.

    The initial report says this about the Eighth Amendment and torture:

    49. Torture has always been proscribed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments”. This Amendment is directly applicable to actions of the Federal Government and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to those of the constituent states. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, reh’g den. 371 U.S. 905 (1962); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). While the constitutional and statutory law of the individual states in some cases offers more extensive or more specific protections, the protections of the right to life and liberty, personal freedom and physical integrity found in the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide a nationwide standard of treatment beneath which no governmental entity may fall. The constitutional nature of this protection means that it applies to the actions of officials throughout the United States at all levels of government; all individuals enjoy protection under the Constitution, regardless of nationality or citizenship.


    Clearly, Curly is not in agreement with this sworn statement, and that means to me that the Eighth Amendment, as well as the First Amendment, are in grave danger from him and his fellow stooges.

    As for my statements about Christianity and Christians in general and your objections to them:

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    When a majority of this nation’s pious Christians start acting like they really care about doing unto the least of these His brothers what they would do unto Him, instead of looking for ways they can gain for themselves by cheating, exploiting or exterminating their brothers in His Name, then I will be inclined to revisit and perhaps revise my opinion of them and their religion and their alleged devotion to their deity.

  27. Craig Knauss


    7-2 in favor of Bush? And you call this a “liberal” court? Are you kidding? Maybe YOU should quit. You keep digging yourself in deeper and proving just what I’ve been saying all along: IT’S A CONSERVATIVE COURT. Even a blind person can see that. Why can’t you?

    Maybe we can have them wear brown shirts and jackboots and finish each sentence with “Sieg heil!” Would that sooth your fragile mind?

    No wonder you bought that bridge.

  28. Optimistic1

    Rover – How about I just give you that Justice Scalia wants to terrroize the guys at Gitmo, and you give me that the Non-Stooge Justices have no problem turning a blind eye to torture known as partial birth abortion on American Soil when it suits their own agenda? It always confuses me that a fetus is child in one case, but not another. Go ahead and rattle off all the case law you would like, but rwhen boiled down ealistically partial birth is torture and murder of a baby when all is said and done, and your guys fight for it with all they are worth. Why does that not make them hypocritical?

    Now let’s move on to realistically discuss how to go about a trial for a detainee in our sometimes “Circus” like system. Detainne 1 who we will refer to as “X” enters said court system. In my remedial understanding of the system, the defense will want proof of guilt I imagine. If the proof in many cases was found using classified military means, I imagine the defense will then ask to see said classified means to make sure their client is not being falsely accused. If the military says with good reason that they cannot disclose said information, defense lawyer for “X” asks for the case to be pitched for this reason? If the military did in fact show cause by naming the classified process and showing the proof, now the media or ACLU will inevtiably be leaked the information on the process to be shown to all in the world strengthening all who are against us? Tell me which it is and why either scenario is better for our country, or the world. Military Tribunals make sense for this reason among many others, if this Administration botched it with this group of guys at Gitmo, I will admit that is a problem, but as I said earlier most of the people held at Gitmo have been given their day in court and have been found innocent so the argument can’t be for the tribunals being completely unjust can it? 270 individuals at Gitmo will now change the course of how war is conducted even though there enemys are plain dressed, non code of any sort as far as war convention goes, and the Johnny Cochrane’s out there looking for the spotlight/profit will be all over the case, for the rights of the individuals I am sure. And for the same reason OJ (Or others) shouldn’t be teeing off this morning at Pebble Beach while looking for the real killer, this move in hindsight will be regretted I fear.

  29. redrover

    Okay, okay, when all else fails, let’s compare torturing detainees at Gitmo with partial-birth abortion.

    Abortion is such a fraudulent issue, Optimistic1, and here’s why.

    Our illustrious, allegedly pro-life Congressman Don Manzullo is happy to oppose elective abortion in this country while also quite happy to fraternize with tyrants in Red China who, he well knows, force Chinese parents to surgically terminate the lives of their beloved unborn children.

    And most if not all of Manzullo’s holy Christian co-religionists, when faced with that information, simply ignore it and vote to re-elect him every two years as their way of promoting the Gospel of Jesus.

    You gotta a beef about abortion, Optimistic1? Take it up with Manzullo, not with me.

    You also gotta beef, apparently, with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” but only for those who are not as innocent-looking as you would like them to be.

    If that’s what you call justice, Optimistic1, you can have it.

    I think that what will come out in the end is this: Many, if not most of these men in Gitmo are being held without good cause because the lifers who detained them are liars and bigots.

    It will do me personally, and the country generally, a whole lot of good to see them exposed as such and these innocent men released, as they should have been years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *