Shame on them indeed!

Amen Mark Levin...I have been steaming all day..and don't know that I'll ever stop.

...this has all been a disgrace.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Wasn't Kennedy one of Reagan's appointments?

I always love, whenever any kind of judge makes any kind of controversial ruling. There are *always* two respones:

1. "Typical activist judges! Legistlating from the bench!!" -- usually said by the people who lose

2. "The rule of law has won the day and our country is great again" -- usually said by the people who win.

I'm not pointing fingers, because everybody does it...Liberals, republicans. They think the Supreme Court is evil incarnate when they lose. But they think the Supreme Court is the cat's pajamas when they win.

"...I don't want your 'us or them'..."  --  The Cure

The Supreme Court has zero rights over what the military does, because it lacks jurisdiction over combat and prisoners captured in combat. And this is because the military answers to the Commander-in-Chief, not to the courts, in times of war or general combat. So if the military holds prisoners for any reason it wants related to ordered combat activity, too bad. The courts can take a hike.

Now if Congress disapproves of the Commander-in-Chief's orders to hold prisoners, especially indefinitely, then let them impeach that president. However, before they impeach this president, they had better impeach themselves, since they themselves approved of "any and all means" to stop al Qaida and they approved of retaining prisoners without trial for as long as it takes.

I mean if the courts had power over the military, what does the military do, get a search warrant when in combat before it invades a home on the battlefront to see if the enemy is within? Well you know they do not have to do that and this is just how stupid the courts have acted in this case too.

The prisoners are enemy combatants, taken from the battlefield. If the military has the right to detain enemy combatants in the first place, without arraignment or indictment, they have the right to detain them indefinitely. Why? Because there is no law on the books that says the military has to ever have a prisoner of combat ever indicted for as long as they are prisoners of the military.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has acted in a manner in which, if I were president, I would order the military police to arrest those on the Supreme Court who voted for giving these prisoners rights and charge them with treasonous acts against our military. And I would give them a military trial, and if found guilty, imprison them for life. And if Congress did not like that, "Impeach me," I would tell them.

Finally, al Qaida and the Taliban have not come to any agreement with the USA with respect to terms of peace. There is no truce or other treaty whereby we would then be required to return POWs. So we keep them indefinitely. I think those who are asking for these prisoners to have legal rights of some kind in some court of law have totally and completely forgotten where these prisoners came from, namely they are illegal combatants, who came from Taliban or al Qaida forces.

The only right these prisoners might have in court is to hear a federal judge tell these prisoners the military has jurisdiction, not the courts.

There will be blow-back from this decision.

---
Communist vs. Statist '08

Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"

As Michael Savage would say...

THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH IS MAKING ME CLENCH!

ONCE AGAIN THE COMMIE FASCISTS, ESPECIALLY GINSBURG, KENNEDY, ET AL DO NOT INTERPET THE LAW. THESE TERRORISTS ARE NOT AMERICANS!

And also, it's Laura Ingraham who cited in her book Power To The People, it's the Supremes giving the court to the World Court just to see America's so-called Global Standing.

And anyone who agrees with this decision...GO TO BLAZES AMERICA HATERS!

The USA is in a downward spiral at the hands of the Libs. We are becoming the Land of the Chained, Home of the Wimps.

I used to recommend to all who would care that citizens should serve their country by defending her in the armed forces. I no longer make that recommendation.

If we thought that our soldiers, sailors, and Marines were being used as international police before, now they are by rule of law. Vote Obama and let the libs do what they will. If the US survives maybe we can act like an adult country again.

I have a lot to say about this. Sorry if this gets long.

First of all, the fact that we have done something in the past does not make it a good thing to continue doing. I like to think that we are a more enlightened nation than we were 50 years ago or 230 years ago. In the same vein, courts do not always have to follow precedent. They like to, because it makes everything much less complicated, but they don't have to. If they did, our society would be much slower to change as the world changes around us.

Most importantly, I can't believe that the situation at Guantanamo doesn't make at least some of you sick to your stomach. I understand why "unlawful alien enemy combatants," that being about the worst designation you can receive, were treated the way they were in the past. But consider that the war on terror is very different than most conflicts we've persecuted. There is no defined battlefield-- anywhere we find you on earth we can claim you were engaged in the war on terror. Guantanamo has contained taliban soldiers picked up in Afghanistan and US citizens detained on US soil. Even more chilling, it is a war without any visible end.

There are no nations that can surrender to end the war on terror. There is no definable defeat for organizations like Al Queada. So while in the past prisoners could reasonably wait for the end of hostilities, we have created an indeterminate war that allows us to keep people indefinitely.

So now we have a situation where we can detain anyone we want, anywhere in the world, and keep them for as long as we want, and prior to these court rulings you think are so terrible, they had no way to challenge their incarceration. I challenge anyone to show historical precedent for that level of executive power.

Given this situation, I don't think it is unreasonable for the courts to decide that it is necessary to apply one part of the Constitution to our country's enemies in order to uphold the kind of democratic values that the Constitution was intended to enshrine. This is about the kind of country we want to be.

Finally, I find the idea that critics are echoing "enemy talking points" to be rhetorical cowardice of the worst kind. This constant repression of criticism as aiding our enemies is ridiculous on the one hand-- for the government to say that our enemies "hate our freedoms" and then suggest that anyone disagreeing with the government should keep their mouths shut makes no sense whatsoever. If they really hate our freedoms then they should be happy to see people silenced by fear.

It is every citizen's duty to speak out against things that they think do harm to their country. Guantanamo bay held children for years. Why were they released? Because people spoke out about it. I know there are a lot of libertarians among conservative ranks, and I can't understand how you tolerate the kind of Big Brother behavior that supporters of this administration promote-- don't question, don't object, don't even look.

I get called a fool here all the time for suggesting that I trust the government to administer public programs fairly and effectively. I say anyone is a bigger fool who trusts the government to administer secret programs fairly and effectively in the absence of public criticism.

when you claimed that I treated children like strawmen and brushed off their lives even though I clearly stated that it was your illogical argument that was the strawmen and demonstrated how Bush and Republicans actions (even with the mistakes made) were doing much much more to help these children than the people you would return them too.

Try again. Don't think you can have some high road with me just because I exposed your nonsensical logic. The truth hurts when you cling to an indefensible argument that you have no way out of. Your proposed actions hurt many more children. That is all there is too it.