The broadcast network evening newscasts gave as much emphasis Thursday night to the biting dissent as the majority opinion in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees, but told the story through the prism of the Bush administration getting rebuked by the decision characterized as “historic” and “landmark” -- with ABC's Martha Raddatz ominously warning “it could be very embarrassing for the administration.” CBS avoided any label for the majority while tagging the dissenters as “conservative” and only NBC noted how some of those already released have committed atrocities.
“The Supreme Court, for the third time, has slammed the Bush administration for its handling of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay,” CBS anchor Katie Couric announced. Wyatt Andrews asserted “the ruling essentially tells the Bush administration no more halfway justice at Guantanamo” as he segued to a soundbite from a representative of a left-wing group by relaying how “lawyers for the detainees called it a victory for America's reputation around the world.” Andrews, who applied no liberal labels, said the “ruling was bitterly rebuked by the court's conservatives.”
From Kabul, NBC's Brian Williams teased “a big defeat for the Bush administration,” though he later uniquely portrayed the “landmark ruling” as “victory” for the detainees, before Pete Williams tagged both sides, citing “the court's five more liberal members” and “the four conservative dissenters.” ABC anchor Charles Gibson reported that the court “today handed the Bush administration a stinging defeat.” Jan Crawford Greenburg applied the most accurate labeling, referring to how “moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision with the four liberal justices” while “conservative Justice Antonin Scalia read a sharp, almost personal dissent.”
Asked by Gibson how the Bush administration will proceed, Raddatz raised the possibility secrets will be revealed that “could be very embarrassing” for the administration:
It really removes the vail of secrecy. And it could be very embarrassing for the administration. We don't know what these people did. We don't know what they're charged with. We don't know how serious the charges are against many of them.
Transcripts of the Thursday, June 12 CBS, NBC and ABC evening newscast stories on the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling:
CBS Evening News:
KATIE COURIC: Now to Washington where the Supreme Court, for the third time, has slammed the Bush administration for its handling of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Wyatt Andrews reports federal courts could see a flood of detainee cases as a result of the latest high court decision.WYATT ANDREWS: The ruling essentially tells the Bush administration no more halfway justice at Guantanamo, that the detainees there, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.” That simple statement gives the 270 detainees the right to challenge their detentions, not at a military tribunal, but in front of a U.S. judge.
GITANJALI GUTIERREZ, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: This is an excellent day for the rule of law.
ANDREWS: Lawyers for the detainees called it a victory for America's reputation around the world.
GUTIERREZ: And it's the beginning of restoring what this country has been known for throughout the world as upholding: values of fairness-
ANDREWS: But the 5 to 4 ruling was bitterly rebuked by the court's conservatives, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying that for the first time “the court confers a constitutional right on alien enemies detained abroad in the course of an ongoing war.” Scalia pointedly said the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: It is a dangerous decision.
ANDREWS: Dangerous, says Senator Lindsey Graham, because in the middle of a war, military officers could be dragged into federal court.
GRAHAM: Never in the history of warfare have we allowed enemy prisoners to go to a federal court and sue our own troops to be released.
ANDREWS: So what happens now? At least 200 detainees will likely apply for release here in U.S. District Court in Washington, but it won't happen quickly, and no immediate releases are expected.
One big wild card here is what happens to the 80 trials that the military still wants to hold down in Guantanamo? The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: that probably will not be impacted, but others, Katie, will almost certainly be reviewed.
NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS, IN KABUL, WITH “HISTORIC RULING” ON SCREEN: Now to a big decision out of Washington today at the U.S. Supreme Court that has a direct connection to the Bush administration's fight against terrorism going on right here. The vast majority of people locked up by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay without trials have been picked up here in Afghanistan or across the border in Pakistan. Today, a landmark ruling from the court that's a victory for them. Our justice correspondent, Pete Williams, is standing by at the Supreme Court tonight with that. Pete, good evening.
PETE WILLIAMS: Brian, this ruling means that 270 or so detainees now get the constitutional right to have their lawyers come before federal judges here in Washington and argue this: You've got the wrong guy. For the first time in history, the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional rights apply even outside the U.S. to foreign citizens held by the American military. Writing for the court's five more liberal members, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, the “Constitution designed to remain in force in extraordinary times,” including the “right to be free from arbitrary and unlawful restraint,” something many of the detainees have been without for as long as six years. And because the ruling is based on the Constitution, Congress cannot take detainee rights away simply by passing a law as it did two years ago.
MICHAEL RATNER, LAWYER FOR DETAINEES: Incredible ruling, can't be overridden by Congress, can't be overridden by the President. So we're really excited that our clients can finally get a day in court.
PETE WILLIAMS: Their lawyers can now put on evidence of why many detainees insist they're wrongly held, turned in, for example, by greedy bounty hunters. But writing for the four conservative dissenters. Justice Antonin Scalia said the rulings “almost certainly will cause more Americans to be killed.” Federal judges, he said, are not qualified to decide who should be held as an enemy combatant and who should be released. Even some detainees set free by the military, he said, have succeeded in carrying out atrocities against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Traveling overseas, President Bush said today's decision ignores national security concerns.
PRESIDENT BUSH: We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
PETE WILLIAMS: By itself, this decision doesn't free anyone. The detainee lawyers will start their work here in the federal courts in the next few weeks. As for the high-value detainees, Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and the others, this decision could eventually delay their military trials scheduled to start in the fall. Brian?
BRIAN WILLIAMS: All right, Pete Williams at the court for us tonight in Washington.
ABC's World News:
CHARLES GIBSON: Next, we turn to the Supreme Court, which today handed the Bush administration a stinging defeat. The justices ruled 5 to 4 that foreign terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison do have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the President and the Congress can't switch the Constitution on and off at will. Jan Crawford Greenburg is our legal correspondent, covers the court, is at the court tonight. Jan?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Charlie, this is one of the most significant wartime rulings in the nation's history and it literally undercuts the entire system the Bush administration and Congress created to imprison and eventually bring to trial these terror suspects. It was a cornerstone in the Bush administration's war on terror, sending hundreds of terror suspects to a U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba under U.S. military control, but outside U.S. courts. Today's ruling throws open the courthouse doors, giving terror suspects a basic constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal courts. They can ask to see classified evidence, call witnesses, and ask a federal judge to set them free. President Bush's reaction was terse.
PRESIDENT BUSH: We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. That's a deeply divided court. And I strongly agree with those who dissented.
GREENBURG: Moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision with the four liberal justices. He emphasized that some detainees have been held more than six years without hearings and said that today's war on terror could last forever. Kennedy said: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled.” He said access to U.S. courts would not endanger national security. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia read a sharp, almost personal dissent. He warned of “disastrous consequences” if federal judges, rather than military officials, have the power to release terror suspects: “It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he said. “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” Lawyers for detainees disagree, saying the ruling merely gives them basic rights they should have had a long time ago.
VINCENT WARREN, DETAINEE ATTORNEY: What this decision means is that it's not a get out of jail free card, but simply an opportunity for these men to go before courts and judges to determine whether they are being held illegally or not.
GREENBURG: There are 270 men still in prison at Guantanamo Bay, including the alleged mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Enormous practical questions remain: What impact will today's ruling have on upcoming trials? When will other suspects make their cases in federal court? And will they be permitted to see classified evidence and bring witnesses?
Now lawyers for some of the detainees, this afternoon, already have started filing papers in federal court, arguing they should not be held at Guantanamo. But that process could take months and months, leaving it to the next President and the next administration to resolve. Charlie?
GIBSON: Jan Crawford Greenburg, reporting from the Supreme Court tonight. And reaction to the decision has been swift and passionate. Supporters of the ruling hailing it as an important step in upholding constitutional rights. Opponents denouncing it, as a threat to national security, and perhaps to American lives. Our White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz, is here. Martha, it was a 5 to 4 decision, but sweeping in its scope. Did how sweeping it was catch the administration by surprise?
MARTHA RADDATZ: It certainly did, Charlie. This is a real mess for the Bush administration. They expected, they say, a reversal, but certainly not the scope of this. And they are trying to figure out what happens next. But I can almost guarantee there will not be a completed trial by the end of the Bush administration.
GIBSON: And, Martha, one of the reasons that the Bush administration has been so reluctant -- and the Congress, reluctant about this is because they don't want these trials going on in court and they have to present evidence that they say they don't want to present because it compromises national security. So how do they go forward in this case?
RADDATZ: It really removes the vail of secrecy. And it could be very embarrassing for the administration. We don't know what these people did. We don't know what they're charged with. We don't know how serious the charges are against many of them. As Jan mentioned, there are about 270 detainees. We know only about a fraction of those men. And what they did, we'll soon be finding out.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





GUTIERREZ: And it's the beginning of restoring what this country has been known for throughout the world as upholding: values of fairness-
ANDREWS: So what happens now? At least 200 detainees will likely apply for release here in U.S. District Court in Washington, but it won't happen quickly, and no immediate releases are expected.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, IN KABUL, WITH “HISTORIC RULING” ON SCREEN: Now to a big decision out of Washington today at the U.S. Supreme Court that has a direct connection to the Bush administration's fight against terrorism going on right here. The vast majority of people locked up by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay without trials have been picked up here in Afghanistan or across the border in Pakistan. Today, a landmark ruling from the court that's a victory for them. Our justice correspondent, Pete Williams, is standing by at the Supreme Court tonight with that. Pete, good evening.
PETE WILLIAMS: Their lawyers can now put on evidence of why many detainees insist they're wrongly held, turned in, for example, by greedy bounty hunters. But writing for the four conservative dissenters. Justice Antonin Scalia said the rulings “almost certainly will cause more Americans to be killed.” Federal judges, he said, are not qualified to decide who should be held as an enemy combatant and who should be released. Even some detainees set free by the military, he said, have succeeded in carrying out atrocities against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Traveling overseas, President Bush said today's decision ignores national security concerns.
CHARLES GIBSON: Next, we turn to the Supreme Court, which today handed the Bush administration a stinging defeat. The justices ruled 5 to 4 that foreign terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison do have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the President and the Congress can't switch the Constitution on and off at will. Jan Crawford Greenburg is our legal correspondent, covers the court, is at the court tonight. Jan?
GREENBURG: Moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision with the four liberal justices. He emphasized that some detainees have been held more than six years without hearings and said that today's war on terror could last forever. Kennedy said: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled.” He said access to U.S. courts would not endanger national security. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia read a sharp, almost personal dissent. He warned of “disastrous consequences” if federal judges, rather than military officials, have the power to release terror suspects: “It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he said. “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” Lawyers for detainees disagree, saying the ruling merely gives them basic rights they should have had a long time ago.
GREENBURG: There are 270 men still in prison at Guantanamo Bay, including the alleged mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Enormous practical questions remain: What impact will today's ruling have on upcoming trials? When will other suspects make their cases in federal court? And will they be permitted to see classified evidence and bring witnesses? 















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
SC
June 12, 2008 - 22:07 ET by d1carterThis is the worst decision by the court in my lifetime.
“a big defeat for the Bush
June 12, 2008 - 22:11 ET by USA4freedom“a big defeat for the Bush administration,”
That was a big defeat for America. You jerk.
To these people, it does not matter to what happens to our great country as long as it hurts Bush.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
These are the same people
June 12, 2008 - 22:18 ET by USA4freedomThese are the same people that agonize (or so they say) over every soldier’s death..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
USA... You nailed it.
June 12, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Clear thinkerUSA...
You nailed it. This ruling is a 'Big' & 'Stinging' Defeat for our country.
Liberalism will destroy this country if we continue to let it spin out of control.
The struggle between good and evil continues and we cannot afford to lose!
"Abstain from McCain"
Spot on...
June 13, 2008 - 09:59 ET by ontheright...BSD run amok.
The liberal movement and the dimocrats who support them will be the downfall of this great country if the general masses don't wake up soon.
Democrats are evil.
June 13, 2008 - 07:43 ET by dronetekYou know when these people go on to kill Americans, the democrats will simply blame Republicans and Bush. Thats why they dont care. Its a win, win sittuation for them.
God Help Us All... I have
June 12, 2008 - 22:22 ET by bigtimerGod Help Us All...
I have posted about this all on OT and elsewhere now...we really do not expect the bias in the msm to report any different than they are now do we...after-all, this President, has protected their rights.
We can't have that now...can we?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
And if the ruling had been...
June 12, 2008 - 22:38 ET by Intellectual HonestyI immediately noticed the standard double-standard of the LMSM. If the ruling had been 5-4 the other way we would have read/heard about "a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that...".
The immediate effect this ruling will have is two-fold: On the battlefield there will less POW's, more dead. Those taken as POW's will not leave the country of their arrest but will hang around.
Justice Scalia was correct,
June 12, 2008 - 22:56 ET by motherbeltJustice Scalia was correct, saying in his dissent: We will live to regret this.
motherbelt,
June 12, 2008 - 23:06 ET by R D HelmI just hope we actually do live long enough to regret this.
This country is rapidly becoming unhinged.
My First post...
June 12, 2008 - 22:37 ET by 3strikesI've been reading this site for a little over a year now, and have finally decided to post something. For this subject I think it fitting to post something I said over at breitbart.com
“It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented,” Bush said. “And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”
This is the problem with Bush’s thinking. The four dissenting judges were not dissenting because of National Security concerns. They were dissenting because the Constitution gives exclusive wartime powers to the President. Congress approves the war and the President is free to carry out the war as he sees fit. NO WHERE in the Constitution does it give authority to the Supreme Court to oversee conduct in the war. The Supreme Court in the past has been very careful about not treading on the wartime powers given to the President by the Constitution.
Once again we see the President come out and attempt to appease the far left in this country (the same people that have been actively working to destroy him since before he assumed the office). What President Bush SHOULD have done is either ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling since they themselves have just violated the Constitution, or said that we will now begin giving the Gitmo detainees and others the very rights that they are afforded as enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions… a bullet in the back of their skull.
I think it is interesting that not a single media talking head is discussing how the Supreme Court just granted itself powers that the Constitution specifically gives to the President.
Well 3strikes...
June 12, 2008 - 22:58 ET by Clear thinkerYour first post was a winner. Be sure to post more often, and welcome aboard.
"Abstain from McCain"
3strikes, welcome to NewsBusters.
June 12, 2008 - 23:03 ET by R D HelmAnd if you think Bush's repeated appeasement of the left is bad, just wait until you see McCain's.
If he beats Obama, that is.
3strikes.... EXACTLY!
June 12, 2008 - 23:04 ET by bigtimer3strikes....
EXACTLY! EXACLTY! EXACTLY!
I have been steaming about all of this today..plus what this all means...Congress voted in agreement with the President.
We are in such trouble now with the Supreme Court ruling against the President and Congress at times like this...
I am furious...doesn't anybody see what powers they gave themselves today?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
A Judicial Power Grab
June 13, 2008 - 08:16 ET by allanfBoumediene v. Bush will go down in history as a mistake. In his (to use a New York Times term) "well reasoned" dissent Justice Roberts seemed to agree with your point 3Strikes.
Justice Roberts wrote:
In that sense it is a power grab.
The Court has also created a mess - largely because one Justice Anthony Kennedy is weak and has reversed himself and his prior vote in Hamdi. Instead of hearings under the Military Commissions Act, detainees will now go into District Court - where rules and regulations and legal standards have yet to be worked out. Years of chaos will ensue. Roberts is correct to point out tht detainees would receive quicker hearings and justice under the Military Commissions Act.
The decision is strikingly unusual and will come to be regarded as a political statement. That's because in the ordinary course of events, habeus corpus petitions should apply only after the petitioner has exhausted other remedies (ie. the Military Commission hearing). It is as if the Court were to say, those charged with a State crime can appeal to District Court before their State trial.
It is bad law and an unworkable precedent. It can only be implemented effectively be being ignored.
Time to get distressed
June 12, 2008 - 22:52 ET by pbthinkerI'm more distressed about the potential aftermath, than I am the ruling. This ruling shows we're at least one justice short, on the court and this election is getting to be really important.
The distressing part of all this is that McCain probably agrees with the ruling. If that's the case, how can we be sure that McCain will pick justices like Roberts and Alito? It comes down to a matter of trust and McCain has placed himself on the wrong side of the issues this campaign should be about.
The only positive thing we have is we know where Barack Obama is on these issues but, even if he loses and the Democrats go down the tubes because of their energy stance, we're not assured that McCain will be that much better.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
He does agree with the ruling...
June 12, 2008 - 23:28 ET by 3strikesMcCain has been an advocate of shutting down Gitmo and bringing them to prisons inside the US.
If John McCain were already President he would have saved the Supreme Court from making this ruling, because he would have brought these people inside the US which would have placed them under the Supreme Court's Constitutional jurisdiction. McCain would have handed over his Constitutional authority as CIC without them actually having to violate the US Constitution to get it.
Sad thing is... that President Bush did something almost as bad by saying that he would abide by the ruling.
Yep...Saved the Supreme
June 12, 2008 - 23:36 ET by bigtimerYep...Saved the Supreme Court indeed.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
You nailed this one, Brent!
June 12, 2008 - 22:52 ET by Cape ConservativeI got up and left the room when Charlie Gibson began with Martha R. Those two have no other motive in the world than to diss the president every opportunity that comes along.
I appreciate you sharing all the "good news" offerings of the day. The saddest part of having this president in office is that each and every day that goes by is just one more chance for the Hate Bush crowd to try to put another nail in his historical "coffin" - only time will tell what his legacy will be.
The msm and liberal politicians are determined to paint as dreary a picture as they possibly can at EVERY opportunity. I am SO TIRED of their bias - they don't even attempt to hide it.
This was NOT a hit on the Bush Administration - this ruling was AGAINST AMERICA and I am hopping mad!
Conservative Supreme Court my _____!
June 12, 2008 - 23:00 ET by R D HelmNot only is this going to cost billions, it will pretty much ensure that we are going to ultimately lose the GWOT.
Screwed, we are. :-O
weren't we discussing the conservative SCOTUS
June 12, 2008 - 23:03 ET byjust last week?
i remember commenting that the SCOTUS is NOT conservative.
case closed.
Support our Troops
People, don't get too worked up over this
June 12, 2008 - 23:14 ET by jefflebowskiThe simple solution is for the military to take no enemy combatants as prisoners! Anyone firing at our military is the enemy and should be destroyed.
The government gets stronger and stronger and our freedoms dwindle. See why I'm angry all the time??
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
What's wrong with trying
June 12, 2008 - 23:16 ET by balboaWhat's wrong with trying them and moving on?
Bullets are
June 12, 2008 - 23:19 ET by Clear thinkerBullets are cheaper!
"Abstain from McCain"
It's about the US Constitution...
June 13, 2008 - 00:05 ET by 3strikesFirst, the US Constitution grants NO authority for civilian Courts to rule in matters pertaining to POWs or enemy combatants. That authority is given to the President by Congress as written in the Constitution.
Second, a detainment status is not punishment. It is meant to keep individuals caught on the battlefield from returning there.
Third, What wartime intelligence would you want released in order to prosecute or defend the individual?
Fourth, Are we now going to force our soldiers to stop and gather evidence while detaining these individuals? Are we going to force the soldier who detained each combatant to testify against the combatant?
Finally, prior to this ruling we have afforded near POW status to people who according to the Geneva Conventions have only ONE right. That right is to have a bullet lodged in their brain. The Supreme Court just granted these non uniformed combatants more rights than any POW in any war has ever been granted, the right to have their case heard in a Civilian Court. Simply put, no country has EVER recognized that to be a right.
Two final questions... If these detainees are found guilty, what sentencing standards would you follow? If they are found not guilty, where would you have us release them?
Very well thought out
June 13, 2008 - 00:09 ET by contraryVery well thought out questions. I doubt anyone could adequately answer them at this time.
I agree with your constitutional assessment of the ruling.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Well said! My two sons
June 13, 2008 - 01:01 ET by jdhawkWell said!
My two sons are in our Army. I hope this crap doesn't get them killed.
Moreover, what does it take for American's to get it. Was the loss of over 3,000 civilians and billions of dollars of property in New York not enough? Does the entire city have to go up in a mushroom cloud?
If given the power, I would hand over these five "justices" to the very enemies that they have granted the rigths that all Americans enjoy as citizens and see if those murdering thugs would treat them as well. I suspect that we would get them back with their heads on pikes.
Please thank your sons for me...
June 13, 2008 - 01:59 ET by 3strikesI am former Navy myself and was stationed on a ship that hauled Marines over to Iraq, so I have a special appreciation for those who serve on the front lines.
I wish your sons a safe return home to their family.
Well done
June 13, 2008 - 03:12 ET by KC MulvilleCannot agree more, 3strikes. Once again, we see the military trumped by the liberal, trial-lawyer mentality. The decision betrays the liberals' fatal misunderstanding about war. It rewards terrorists for not observing the rules of war.
If you put a soldier in a position where he can't justify detainment, he's only got two choices. He can either avoid the engagement (which is militarily unacceptable), or he'll feel compelled to kill rather than detain. This decision not only puts soldiers' lives at risk, it also increases the chances that the detainees will be killed (whose rights are supposedly being improved). What's infuriating is the self-propelling cycle of violence provoked by this mentality. The same short-sighted lawyers who've put everyone in jeopardy will then scream "atrocities!" when soldiers behave exactly as the lawyers forced them to. If detainment is not an option, then soldiers will kill instead of detain.
If you treat war as a crime, you don't understand war, and you create more of it.
jeff, I agree. A no-capture policy shold be implemented today.
June 12, 2008 - 23:56 ET by R D HelmAnd made retro-active back to the beginning of the war. :-)
That should save the taxpayers billions.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Hmmm,
June 13, 2008 - 00:09 ET by RESTLESS 1The "no capture" policy seems vaguely familiar.
Damn Sarc and his "cloaking device" anyway.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Well if one of the old fart leftists
June 12, 2008 - 23:12 ET by Delsaon the supreme ct checks out, our only hope is the sixty votes to confirm will never be there leaving the decision to a 4-3 majority or at the worst a 4-4
But if two old farts check out there will always be at least 4-3
I'll hope for the best
Jeff
June 12, 2008 - 23:19 ET by DelsaHow right you are.
Actually, these cases will be in the courts for years to come. Hopefully, they will all remain in Gitmo while the lawyers go before federal judges to plede all there cases one by one.
Meanwhile I have asked my sons best friend, who heads for Iraq next month, to do us a favor and take NO prisoners. Period!
Shoot to kill first and ask questions later.....
Delsa, I've said
June 12, 2008 - 23:24 ET by jefflebowskithat the two biggest thing done wrong in the Iraq war was to let the media go out with the military and video what happens and the second is take any of those diaperheads prisoner. Get the information out of them and then let them suffer from a .45 caliber headache!
Look what they do to our guys when they capture them! If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
I haven't read the majority
June 12, 2008 - 23:28 ET by contraryI haven't read the majority opinion yet on the case, and I am wondering about a couple of things.
Is this ruling for all "enemy combatants" currently at Gitmo, or a precedent for all persons taken in times of War?
What exact Constitutional rights will be given to these "combatants" and who grants them these rights?
What burden of proof will the Military be required to bring to the court?
IMHO, this decision by 5 justices of the supreme court ignores the history of past decisions and is against contrary to our previous dealings with "combatants".
I wonder if german and italian citizens could sue the American Government for lack of due process from detention during WWII?
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
"IMHO, this decision by 5
June 13, 2008 - 08:56 ET by 3strikes"IMHO, this decision by 5 justices of the supreme court ignores the history of past decisions and is against contrary to our previous dealings with "combatants". "
Trust me, You are not the only person to have this opinion... AND, your opinion happen to be entirely based in truth.
Well, I guess that I would have to say "truth" in the strictest sense (based in fact) since Liberals have the belief that truth is only relative.
Way to go, Swingboy Kennedy
June 13, 2008 - 10:36 ET by SickofLibsPrecedent trumps everything.
So this insane ruling will absolutely apply to any and all future conflicts, wherever, whenever.
What a great time to be an ACLU lawyer - enjoy, you scumbags!
Any more proof that the
June 12, 2008 - 23:44 ET by RMRAny more proof that the libs consider George Bush and Republicans more of a threat than the terrorists? I don't think so.
SCOTUS SCORES ONE FOR THE SCUM OF THE EARTH.
June 13, 2008 - 00:07 ET by CTAny doubt about who has politicized the War on Terror and is willing to sellout America for power has been dashed by the Democraps and the MSM that cannot control their glee. Not surprised in the least, tell us again how you support the troops? Let the Democrats and their surrogates on DNCTV make a campaign out of this and see where it gets them.
As the buildings burn.
June 13, 2008 - 01:03 ET by ScrapironAs the media buildings burn with everyone in them (remember 9-11-01) the stinging defeat will not be for Bush, but for the traitors who have supported the enemy from day one. It's not a matter of if they will burn, it's a matter of when, and how many die. I fail to see how I can have any feeling for them when it happens and I will not help them in any way.
Off subject: By the way, is there a way the Americn people who contributed hard earned dollars to the Corrupt New Orleans relief organization run by liberal democrats (mostly slick Willie's bunch) can demand their money back, Or will they have to file a class action lawsuit? Using the money for a drunken party in Denver is not IAW their stated use in the 501c tas exempt application and they are in violation of the law, besides their calious use of money meant to help the poor being used by the crazy lefties to party.
This is a story the Lame Stream Media should be all over.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
I guess if I were in Bush's
June 13, 2008 - 01:22 ET by amberI guess if I were in Bush's shoes I would tell them they are wrong and they can do whatever they need to do to try and enforce it. The detainees are under military supervision and the military does not work for the court, so they will have to wrangle up their own military to try and get access to the detainees and that would be unconstitutional too. There is no way we could allow them to take their case to court. If we did, they would always be let out because in order for the government to defend their position we would have to share secrets and we can not afford that.
"Always remeber that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Agreed...
June 13, 2008 - 02:05 ET by 3strikesUnfortunately, Bush is still attempting to play nice with Liberals in the hope that maybe they will like him. So he'll go along with the Court's ruling.
It's too bad that he doesn't follow the Geneva Conventions and just give these guys a swift execution.
A great and insightful take on one of the most...
June 13, 2008 - 10:06 ET by ThalpyA great and insightful take on one of the most pressing issues in our history. We must decide if we will continue to allow George Soros and his hacks to destroy the United States of America. The damage he and his ilk have done to our civilization is beyond measure. Gutierrez, the "expert" presented be the MSM, represents the Center for Constitutional Rights, an organization established to provide protection for terrorists, funded by the Ford Foundation, Tides, and George Soros.
There is, in fact, no precedent for this decision. George Bush was not slammed by this decision. We were slammed by this idiocy.
The President should just say no.
excellent point 3strikes
June 13, 2008 - 08:28 ET by theduck6So are "checks and balances" a mythical beast ?
Our liberties are being eroded but not by the only branch with term limits.
We need to track the carnage
June 13, 2008 - 08:44 ET by OldSailor88I say microchip the detainees. Once the ACLU gets it's hands on the prisoners, and they are eventually freed by the 9th Circuit Court of California, we need to track these killers. Every time an Iraqi civilian or a Soldier from any nation involved is killed, and one of these tracking devices is detected near the scene, the number should be posted on a large sign outside the SCOTUS building. The number should also be shoved in the face of every liberal Congressman and Liberal Media Hack that thinks for one nanosecond that this is a victory. This decision by the Supreme Court sickens and disgusts me. In the land of wishes and dreams my brain says everyone in the USA should feel that way. If only.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
Public speaking is "embarrassing" for Bush.
June 13, 2008 - 09:01 ET by CrashGetting caught with a smoking love gun & an intern in the oval office is "embarrassing." Getting caught passing messages on to people who want to kill us, a' la Lynn Stewart, is "embarrassing." Plagiarizing the news like Dan Rather did is "embarrassing." Allowing enemy combatants (aka terrorists) habeas corpus is STUPID ... and those who reign supreme think Bush is an idiot?
Bush administration is actually "The United States of America"
June 13, 2008 - 10:32 ET by szampBush administration is actually "The United States of America" and the MSM is the enemy of everyhting America stands for. When they say The Bush administration they say it like they don't live here and are not part of this country.
The MSM is celebrating now and will be celebrating when one of the released terrorists blows something else in this country. The terrorists do what the MSM wants to do but don't have the guts to. The MSM is the enemy within feeding the ones outside.
Just got an idea
June 13, 2008 - 10:34 ET by szampHow about moving Guantanamo to Berkeley now?
Hip Hip Hooray for the
June 13, 2008 - 10:36 ET by sembyHip Hip Hooray for the terrorists and the liberal media elites, they have embarrassed the Bush Administration.
I for one, prefer to be an American and side with the Bush Administration.