One of the more astounding post-9/11 liberal media affectations has been the extraordinary concern press members have for how terrorists looking to kill innocent Americans are treated at detention centers.
A fine example of this occurred on Thursday's "Hannity & Colmes" when the left-leaning part of Fox News's successful duo debated former White House adviser Karl Rove about the recent Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Readers are advised to get a big bag of popcorn for this barnburner (video embedded right):
ALAN COLMES, HOST: Hey, Karl, this is a great decision that dates back to the Magna Carta which is habeas corpus and refers back to Yick Wo versus Hopkins which ruled on the 14th amendment...
KARL ROVE: Alan...
COLMES: ... a couple of hundred years ago...
ROVE: Alan, Alan...
COLMES: ... which mean that the constitution -- let me get this out and I'll give you a chance to reply. The constitution applies to persons, not just citizens, and that is in keeping with what the constitution says.
ROVE: Alan, never in the history of the United States in any conflict have we granted enemy combatants habeas corpus rights.
We are now setting up so that if we're involved -- can you imagine fighting World War II where we'd have to have an attorney present for every Nazi whom we had in an Arizona, in Nevada or Utah prison camp.
COLMES: You can't just hold people without telling them a right to an attorney and...
(CROSSTALK)
ROVE: With all due respect...
COLMES: (INAUDIBLE) criminal justice.
ROVE: This is not criminal justice. This is a war. With all due respect, Alan...
COLMES: When was war declared?
ROVE: ... these people are people picked up on a battlefield.
COLMES: Did Congress declare war?
ROVE: Yes, the United States Congress authorized the use of force...
COLMES: When?
ROVE: ... in October of -- excuse me, 2002.
COLMES: No, it said the president -- once he used up all other options would have the...
ROVE: They authorized the use of force...
COLMES: There was no declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.
ROVE: With all due respect, Alan, read it, it authorized the use of force.
COLMES: Was there a declaration...
ROVE: And we're using that force.
COLMES: ... of war by the U.S. Congress?
ROVE: It is the authorization of the president to use military force. We're involved in a military conflict.
COLMES: That's not a war declaration.
ROVE: We're involved in a military conflict.
COLMES: But the U.S. Congress, which by the -- if you want to go by the constitution, don't they get to declare war and they haven't done that.
ROVE: I go by the constitution, Alan. If you feel strongly about this go get yourself an ACLU attorney and file a...
COLMES: I fell very strong about it.
ROVE: File a declaration in a court saying that this is an unconstitutional war, spend the money, fight it through the courts, and you will go nowhere with it.
COLMES: Well, t may well be the case except that if you're going to go by the constitution, you're going to go by the constitution. Leftist conservatives...
ROVE: It is the constitution, Alan.
COLMES: Strict constructionist...
ROVE: Alan, it is the constitution.
COLMES: But so habeas corpus is key to our constitution.
ROVE: Alan, the -- this is the first time in the history of America in which enemy combatants have been grated the right to habeas corpus.
COLMES: Do you think the president...
ROVE: Now you can...
COLMES: Can the president by himself declare an individual enemy combatant? Is that -- isn't that the first time that one individual can determine...
ROVE: No.
COLMES: ... anybody's an enemy combatant?
ROVE: No. No, no, it isn't, in World War II and World War I, presidents of the United States held people to be enemy combatants.
COLMES: We had declarations of war.
ROVE: We have -- we have had -- Alan, this is an authorization of the use of force. You may not think that the Congress by passing a resolution authorizing the use of force really did authorize the use of force, but it did.
And when you authorize the use of force as we did in this instance, we're confronting enemies of the United States, combatants, and we ought to treat them as we have treated combatants...
COLMES: Did Congress declare war?
ROVE: ... and POWs in every other conflict.
COLMES: Amazingly, Karl and I disagree. But I hope you have a very happy Fourth of July, Karl.
ROVE: But you're still an associate.
LOWERY: Have a great Fourth.
COLMES: No, I don't know if he'll still associate with me.
All right, Karl, thanks very much.
ROVE: Alan, I love you. I hate -- even when you're as wrong as you are tonight.
COLMES: Thanks for your kind words.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The liberal media machine: Warm hearted celebrity's
July 4, 2008 - 17:34 ET by SevenSSevens
We
will find the gears of the media machine well oiled, with the slick
trickery of hate and propaganda. We will find the rich elitist
Hollywood movie stars sipping champagne, while professing their
humanity and their affinity for animal free organic granola. Yes, the
compassion and empathy oozes from these multi-million dollar
liberalites. They are out of touch with the family's struggling so
much to make their next car payment that they sacrifice food for
their thirsty auto's. Yet, they feel so comfortably obliged to speak
for the average unenlightened poor slob. We've become their
Frankenstein-like social experiment.
They
tell us we must accept eccentric men is lipstick and short shorts as
a legitimate part of our society. Teachers with gender reassignment
should be able to teach and mentor our children, as if teachers need
anymore controversy. John Cusack, from such blockbusters as,( well
let me get back to you on that. ) has rode his quick witted horse
into town, with his sharp wit and his shameless diatribe, he mocks
and chastises millions of church going hard working Americans. This
is from his blog ( he likes this stuff )
"We
have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world -- a nation
of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully.
We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate
and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history
will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our
way, or we'll kill you. "Well,
shit on that dumbness, George W. Bush does not
speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I
respect in this world. We didn't vote for these cheap, greedy little
killers who speak for America today -- and we will not vote for them
again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever. "Who does vote for these
dishonest shitheads?
Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood
on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who
get fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush? "They
are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for
refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid
and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate
mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the
throats of these Nazis. "And I am too old to worry about
whether they like it or not. Fuck
them."
Hooray
for John Cusack, hooray!! This is your prototypical rich liberal
shining star, so out of touch with reality he subscribes to this
garbage. ( Not quite the granola crunching humanitarian that I though
he was) Is this hater the very same John Cusack who lit up the silver
screens in One crazy summer?
Oh
Johnny Q-sac, the 70% of family oriented religious American's who
don't subscribe to your Marxist, anti-America skepticism, are hurt
that you can't wrap your super brain around the real atrocities like
failing family's, a-moral children, terrorism, Jack Bull. It is the
hard working Americans dollar that affords whacko's like you the
freedom and the stage to denounce values and traditions. You know,
virtue, that is something that has been paid for in blood by Patriots
who love this country. The blue collar idiot who mattered long before
you Obamafied social geniuses ran rampant. I should suggest
boycotting your movies, but good taste beat me to it.
COLMES: That's not a war
July 4, 2008 - 17:59 ET by BDCOLMES: That's not a war declaration.
Poor Colmes
July 5, 2008 - 09:14 ET by ChuckM from PAI actually pity Colmes. He doesn't stand a chance when paired against most of the conservative guests they have on the program. He doesn't do liberals any favor when he speaks. I don't know if it because he hasn't thought through the issue well or is just plain stupid. All he seems to do is attack the other person and not debate the actual issues. Hey, liberals, get someone better to represent you on the show.
Pity the Fool
July 5, 2008 - 10:54 ET by tbbaxterAlan Colmes doesn't have a mind of his own or, if he does, he doesn't use it. He is a robot who regurgitates liberal talking points dictated by the leaders of the hard left. It's sad because his incompetence cheats the conservative guests out of an opportunity for honest debate. He truly is a weak link.
As Dan Quayle so appropriately said: "A mind is a terrible thing to lose."
→ Alan Colmes
July 5, 2008 - 11:04 ET by Cool ArrowI notice Colmes is getting better at treating women and men equally.
He used to butt in incessantly only when debating women.
Nowadays he's equally annoying regardless of gender.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Poster boy
July 5, 2008 - 11:36 ET by BacchusDoes Colmes think that congress approved "use of peaceful force," perhaps through superior force of rhetoric? What else could he possibly mean? Honestly, it boggles the mind how these 'citizens' can manage to confuse themselves.
→ LOL Bacchus
July 5, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Cool ArrowI can see Nancy Pelosi and Harriet Reid authorizing overwhelming rhetoric to defeat our enemies.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Happy Independance Day to
July 4, 2008 - 18:00 ET by RukusHappy Independance Day to everyone, (even the trolls), everyone! We are a great country and deserve this holiday! God Bless America!!! Home of the Brave and Land of the FREE!! God Bless my sons in the service and God Blass all men and women who serve out GREAT Nation!! I Love this country!! God Bless us all!!
OK, I'm done. God Bless America!!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
It is insane to help your enemy out
July 4, 2008 - 18:08 ET by wdhorningIn any war, you do not put on trial regular soldiers or their militia who are captured and detained by you, because fighting in a war for a country is not a crime. In any war, prisoners are held until hostitlities have ended and via instrument of surrender or a truce aggreement, soldiers/militia are repatriated.
Since hostitilities by Taliban and their militia (al Qaida) have not ceased and they have neither signed a surrender or a truce, most all the prisoners at Gitmo, captured by American or UN soldiers, per the ordinary rules of war, shall be detained until such a surrender or truce is signed. Therefore, using the ordinary rules of war, they simply have no right to challenge their imprisonment, and I believe the judge that said they do should be tried in military court for treason.
I concur. THe libs
July 5, 2008 - 08:27 ET by BDI concur.
THe libs alternatingly wish us to follow the Geneva Conventions, and US Criminal law. But they cannot do both.
IF we close GITMO and transfer the Detainees to a US prison, we will be in violation of the Geneva COnventions which Disallow the inprisonment of POWs with common criminals.
IF we put the detainees on trial for crimes by a civil court, we will ALSO be in violation of the Geneva COnventions (Can you imagine the howling if John McCain had been tried by a Hanoi Criminal Court? Okay, maybe not by the libs in the US who saw US troops as criminals ANYWAY!)
If we bring the detainees back tot heUS, according to the conventions we will have to keep them seperate from the US prison system, and must not try them outside of military channels.
But libs like Colmes have never studied the Law of Land Warfare.
Does the nature of the War
July 5, 2008 - 09:37 ET by JasonCDoes the nature of the War on Terror not make this sound absurd, though? The Taliban could surrender all claims to Afghanistan and OBL himself could come out of the mountains and lay down his AK-47, there's not a single, remote chance that the prisoners and "persons of interest" would repatriated to wherever they were captured.
Rove might be more of an expert on wartime procedure than Colmes, but this was no "barnburner" nor was Colmes "schooled." Rove's very first point was the whole "Imagine if back in WWII we did this..." which is not only the single most tired talking point regarding judicial procedure in the WoT, but is wholly irrelevant given the asymetric nature of this war. In WWII, we didn't have the additional problem of worrying that a released German foot soldier, once we gave him back his personal belongings and fuhrer-issued copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra and shipped him back to Berlin to be repatriated and find his family, might turn out to be an integral part of some splinter-group bombing or hijacking somewhere.
As a known liberal on this site, I freely and openly acknowledge that problem. I do not, as has been suggested ad nauseum, wish for captured individuals, whether known combatants or suspected conspirists, to be transplanted to my community or for them to be turned loose because of some bleeding-hear mentality. These are rank misconstrusions of a very commonsensical position. We all know that Guantanamo will not be emptied out if an end to the WoT is somehow negotiated (which, because of how it has been defined, pretty much can't happen anyhow). We must devise a way of winnowing down the number of captured people - and since we all know torture is not the way to do it, a judicial system is the most logical answer. And no, I have zero interest in cagey replies about how if I was captured by Arab extremists they'd probably just cut my head off, and boy would I sing a different tune then - this is the whole point - we are not them, and there was time when the distinction was something most of us were proud of.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Does the nature of the War
July 5, 2008 - 11:46 ET by BDDoes the nature of the War on Terror not make this sound absurd, though? The Taliban could surrender all claims to Afghanistan and OBL himself could come out of the mountains and lay down his AK-47, there's not a single, remote chance that the prisoners and "persons of interest" would repatriated to wherever they were captured.
"Imagine if back in WWII we did this..." which is not only the single most tired talking point regarding judicial procedure in the WoT,
In WWII, we didn't have the additional problem of worrying that a released German foot soldier,
I do not, as has been suggested ad nauseum, wish for captured individuals, whether known combatants or suspected conspirists, to be transplanted to my community or for them to be turned loose because of some bleeding-hear mentality.
We all know that Guantanamo will not be emptied out if an end to the WoT is somehow negotiated (which, because of how it has been defined, pretty much can't happen anyhow).
We must devise a way of winnowing down the number of captured people - and since we all know torture is not the way to do it, a judicial system is the most logical answer.
And no, I have zero interest in cagey replies about how if I was captured by Arab extremists they'd probably just cut my head off, and boy would I sing a different tune then - this is the whole point - we are not them, and there was time when the distinction was something most of us were proud of.
If it were only true
July 6, 2008 - 08:54 ET by blogonatorStarting a war with Iraq and not finding any WMDs seems pretty wrong. The whole Abu Gharaib fiasco seems pretty wrong. Having our President play fly boy in order to deliver a speech on an air craft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was wrong in a few different ways.
Starting a war with Iraq
July 6, 2008 - 09:25 ET by BDStarting a war with Iraq and not finding any WMDs seems pretty wrong.
The whole Abu Gharaib fiasco seems pretty wrong.
Having our President play fly boy in order to deliver a speech on an air craft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was wrong in a few different ways.
God, that was FUN. Please set me up for another round, I dare you.
and how this is read by a BDS moonbat...
July 6, 2008 - 10:07 ET by TruthMongerStarting a war with Iraq and not finding any WMDs seems pretty wrong.
The whole Abu Gharaib fiasco seems pretty wrong.
Having our President play fly boy in order to deliver a speech on an air craft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was wrong in a few different ways.
blah-blah-blah-blahblah-BLAH-blah-blahblah-blah-blah-blahblah-blah-blah-blahblah-blah-blah.
Ha! (Sadly WAY TOOO
July 6, 2008 - 12:39 ET by BDHa!
(Sadly WAY TOOO accurate.)
Thank you TM, for the Sunday morning chuckle
I love how some self-described conservatives...
July 6, 2008 - 11:52 ET by blogonatorLike to refer to UN resolutions as a justification for the US going into Iraq then in the same breath rail against world government and the danger the UN represents in that regard. Can you have it both ways?
But go ahead, break it down. We had sixteen reasons for going into Iraq you say. Now with the benefit of what we know now and what many of us believed even then, how many of those reasons were justified by actual evidence now that we've literally turned that country upside down? Let's go down that list, shall we? Have you got anything that can stand the smell test?
I dunno blogo, after
July 6, 2008 - 12:13 ET by JasonCI dunno blogo, after Truthmonger's masterpiece of clarity and nuance just above, I wouldn't even try to argue with such a gifted rhetorician.
I could not care less about any of the bulleted reasons. We (the royal we) invaded a sovereign nation that posed us no harm and exploited 9/11 emotionalism in order to sell it. It was and is wrong. I've never been so disappointed in my country as I was watching Shock and Awe live on cable news.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
One of the ironies of history
July 6, 2008 - 12:34 ET by blogonatorIs that Saddam would have been more justified in attacking the US than we were in attacking Iraq by Bush's own pre-emptive war reasoning. Clearly Iraq posed no threat to us, but for Saddam the US definitely posed a "grave and gathering threat" that definitely could have resulted in a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. We've got the bomb. No denying that. Iraq on the other hand was isolated by its neighbors, broke, starving and laughably lacking in defenses. Iran, Al Qaeda and the internal Shia and Kurd populations all hated Saddam's secular Baathist regime. Sure he could have held on like Mugabe is doing now, but time was against him. But he was looking at us funny. Don't look at us funny. We'll take your butt out. And he tried to kill W's daddy. Don't mess with W's daddy.
No threat? He had agreed
July 6, 2008 - 13:49 ET by BDNo threat? He had agreed to the armistice which disallowed him to do what he was doing. JUSTIFICATION????????
By the by, would we have been justified if Saddam had taken a shot at Bill, Hillary CLinton or Barack Obama? Then QUIT BITCHIN About him taking on our former president.
No threat? Really? We
July 6, 2008 - 13:45 ET by BDNo threat? Really?
We are living in an interconnected world where a thug half the world away was attacking innocent victims and sponsoring a culture of terrorism using bullets, bombs, and money to weaken western civilization, but you do not see this as a threat?
WHat would be a threat in your eyes?
Boy, I bet if it was in Rwanda or Darfur, the Libs would see it as a HUGE threat.
wrong blogonator the hypocricy is from the liberals
July 6, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Dee Bunkwho see the U.N. as having authority over us. Conservatives don't. Pointing to the resolutions proves that even the liberal U.N. agreed with many of Iraqs crimes.
All of those resolutions were based on lack of evidence from Saddam. The onus was never on us to provide evidence, it was on him. He didn't meet his obligations pure and simple.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
So when the UN tells us to do something
July 6, 2008 - 12:39 ET by blogonatorThe onus is on the US to do it? Not on my watch.
You can't have it both ways. Either we went to war because the UN allowed us, indeed mandated we do something (at least by inferrence since the only actual authorization to use force dated back to 1990), or we didn't and we didn't need them allowing us to do anything. Get off the fence please.
You can't have it both ways blogonator
July 6, 2008 - 12:57 ET by Dee BunkYou are the one (along with other liberals) who thinks they have authority over us. Conservatives don't think that.
It's only because YOU point to their authority that we use the resolutions against you. You need to get off the fence.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Thank you, Dee.
July 6, 2008 - 13:01 ET by BlondeI started to respond to blog's blather, but decied it was too nice of a day to school another liberal talking pointer.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Yeah Blonde - their arguments are usually strawman ones
July 6, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Dee BunkIt gets old. That's why we need lots and lots of us to respond to their nonsense. We all get tired of addressing their same weak points and sometimes they think silence means agreement. I didn't respond when I first saw it either because I figured someone else would.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
We're all conservatives here, right?
July 6, 2008 - 13:06 ET by blogonatorSo putting aside anything the UN said or did, please justify invading Iraq. Remember, no referring to the UN!
It is a nice day.
Our intelligence confirmed by all of our allies
July 6, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Dee Bunkintelligence as well as Russia's and China's all indicated that they had WMD's (chemical and biological) and were seeking nuclear capabilities.
We signed a cease fire agreement with them only because they agreed to conditions that they did not meet, thus making the cease fire agreement invalid.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
So if possessing WMDs is a good enough reason to go to war
July 6, 2008 - 13:31 ET by blogonatorHow come we haven't attacked China? Russia? Israel? Pakistan? India?
Our intelligence was flawed and conflicted. No denying that. It was presented to the public as something other than flawed and conflicted. Google Downing Street Memo.
Nope. We're not justified attacking a country that posed no threat to us.
there's your answer - Iraq
July 6, 2008 - 13:39 ET by TruthMongerthere's your answer - Iraq posed a major threat - those other countries not as much
if you refuse to see it - that's your right
it's my right to see it and demand action
there are more people like me around:)
Why would we attack China or Russia blogonator
July 6, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Dee Bunkor any of those others? That's crazy talk. Which country that you listed violated a cease fire agreement with us?
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Do not forget them engaging
July 6, 2008 - 13:59 ET by BDDo not forget them engaging US aircraft, sponsoring terrorism, and not releasing nor accounting for captured Kuwaiti's at wars end.
Good enough? ANy one of those is grounds for resuming hostilities.
→ Busted Blogo
July 6, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Cool ArrowSuppose you're an Iraqi RADAR operator inside the No Fly Zone during the Clinton Administration. You're given orders from Saddm's HQ to activate your RADAR. You know what happens to sites that "power up", don't you? They get wiped out by Ameican fire.
Here's a Press Briefing from Bill Clinton 12/18/98, stating he authorized Cruise Missile strikes 12/16/98 to "degrade Iraq's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction" (WMD).
So let me get this straight. You're accusing Bill Clinton of murder to justify your own Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Ah, the classic "buh buh but Clinton!!!" defense
July 6, 2008 - 13:33 ET by blogonatorWe're talking about the current adminstration and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Try to keep up.
→ No, blogo
July 6, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Cool ArrowI'm just proving to you the war NEVER ended.
You heard "ceasefire" and translated it "truce". It's possible someday you will realize words are often chosen for their specific meanings.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Yep, the war ended in an
July 6, 2008 - 14:00 ET by BDYep, the war ended in an Armistice which is a temporary halt to hostilities. No Peace Treaty was ever signed such as the libs seem to think happened.
The onus is on the US to do
July 6, 2008 - 13:52 ET by BDThe onus is on the US to do it? Not on my watch.
Gimme a break
July 6, 2008 - 14:50 ET by blogonatorIf the US was really interested respecting the role of the UN in the process, then we would have listened to Hans Blix and avoided this current mess. I don't like the logic of involving an intermediary party in the cecession of hostilities and then pushing them out of the way when we want more war. Again, are we following the UN or not? Did we go to war because the UN let us or not?
As an independant nation we
July 6, 2008 - 15:46 ET by BDAs an independant nation we do not give up our rights.
Iraq's WMDs?
July 6, 2008 - 12:43 ET by BacchusAP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq (Yes, that AP)
July 5, 2008
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program _ a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium _ reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" _ the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment _ was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
read it all...
Wow Bacchus - first I heard of this Newsbusters devote a thread
July 6, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Dee Bunkto this. Thanks for sharing. I'm sure blogonator and other liberals will ignore this with all of the other evidence.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Let me instead embrace it
July 6, 2008 - 13:14 ET by blogonatorIf that's the best you got, I think you're the one better off ignoring it.
What a joke. I'm reminded of a popular comedy routine.
Except for one thing, the
July 6, 2008 - 13:55 ET by BDExcept for one thing, the Joint address to congress only claimed that the Brits had indications that Saddam was persuing GAINING yellowcake from Niger.
No inaccuracy present. (Ooops, except for Valerie Plame and her Hubby Wilson who claim the brits DID NOT HAVE SUCH A WORD, BUT ONY AFTER THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY DID.)
Still not any kind of resonable rationale for going to war
July 6, 2008 - 14:54 ET by blogonatorInvading Iraq for posessing yellowcake, for "persuing gaining" more yellowcake, is like shooting a man for posession of saltpeter.
blogonator
July 6, 2008 - 15:14 ET by Free StinkerInvading Iraq for posessing yellowcake, for "persuing gaining" more yellowcake, is like shooting a man for posession of saltpeter.
Is invading Iraq for having having Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, VX gas, and (tons of) Uranium good enough?
was not sole reason.
July 6, 2008 - 15:47 ET by BDwas not sole reason.
Like to refer to UN
July 6, 2008 - 13:41 ET by BDLike to refer to UN resolutions as a justification for the US going into Iraq then in the same breath rail against world government and the danger the UN represents in that regard. Can you have it both ways?
But go ahead, break it down. We had sixteen reasons for going into Iraq you say.
All of these pass the "smell test."
Beautiful
July 6, 2008 - 15:15 ET by blogonatorSixteen reasons becomes twelve. Many of them dubious, none of them remotely good enough to justify all that's been already wasted in this, Bush's most lasting blunder. Again, clearly Saddam was no threat to you or me. Israel maybe sorta but not enough for them to do anything about it.
But you know BD, I learn things from you... after I start looking things up for accuracy. According to some sources Saddam had Abu Nidal killed. Doesn't sound like sheltering to me. Nidal himself had been attempting to take out Yassir Arafat who many, probably many right here, considered a terrorist himself. Tough call there.
I love your last point though: The Iraqi people deserve freedom and democracy. Delivered at the barrel of a gun, ruled by our lackeys, and don't you dare not give us our 58 military bases. And those Blackwater mercenaries, they can shoot you dead, but you can't prosecute them. That ain't my idea of freedom and democracy. That's not even sovereignty.
Here is paragraph 2 from
July 6, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Free StinkerHere is paragraph 2 from your link Saddam had Abu Nidal killed.
The Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam said Nidal was suffering from a serious illness and apparently committed suicide in his Baghdad
apartment.
Doesn't sound like Saddam killed him. If Saddam wanted Nidal dead, why was he even living in Bagdad in the first place?
It's called reading comprehension.
Sixteen reasons becomes
July 6, 2008 - 17:04 ET by BDSixteen reasons becomes twelve.
Many of them dubious
none of them remotely good enough to justify all that's been already wasted in this,
Again, clearly Saddam was no threat to you or me.
Israel maybe sorta but not enough for them to do anything about it.
But you know BD, I learn things from you... after I start looking things up for accuracy. According to some sources Saddam had Abu Nidal killed.
Doesn't sound like sheltering to me.
Nidal himself had been attempting to take out Yassir Arafat who many, probably many right here, considered a terrorist himself. Tough call there.
I love your last point though: The Iraqi people deserve freedom and democracy.
Delivered at the barrel of a gun, ruled by our lackeys,
and don't you dare not give us our 58 military bases.
And those Blackwater mercenaries, they can shoot you dead, but you can't prosecute them.
That ain't my idea of freedom and democracy.
That's not even sovereignty.
Thanks for bringing it up
July 6, 2008 - 19:18 ET by blogonatorYes. Saddam better be marching down 5th avenue. It's called national defense, as in defense of this nation. If he's not threatening us, I see no need to attack him. Israel can take care of itself. Those nations with "western targets" can take care of themselves too. When did we become the world's policeman?
What does Israel do to protect itself from Saddam? They did bomb the Iraqi nuke facility in the '80s. Let them do that and whatever else they see fit. I pledge allegiance to my country's flag and I have no doubt Israel can take care of itself. Israel does not need the Americans to play big brother.
Do I have similar complaints about other military bases in countries that long ago became our allies? Yes, yes I do. What are we doing in Korea? What are we doing in Japan? What, what for the love of all that is holy, are we doing in Germany? What are we defending? NOTHING. Nothing that isn't already being capably defended by an indigenous military force. We, the US, don't belong there. Not one bit.
Or maybe, maybe we are the world's policeman and we need to accept that role. India, Pakistan, settle down. You're disturbing the peace. Sorry, that's a bad idea.
And, excuse me, honorable gentlemen and ladies have nothing to fear from living under the rule of law. The soldiers of fortune of Blackwater were accountable to no one. As in they can shed as much blood as they want and their worst punishment will be a ticket back to the US. Rule of law? Not in Iraq. It's disgraceful.
Maybe I haven't, but I've read US history. Show me the country that played our role in Iraq when our colonies were leaving England. What's that? There was no such thing? That's right. We fought for our independence and we won it. There was no third party trying to impose their idea of what independence looked like on us. Predictably most Iraqis don't seem to appreciate our trying to do that to them.
There's that world policeman idea again. Sorry, I will forever disagree with the role you want for our country.
Yes. Saddam better be
July 7, 2008 - 08:27 ET by BDYes. Saddam better be marching down 5th avenue. It's called national defense, as in defense of this nation.
When did we become the world's policeman?
Do I have similar complaints about other military bases in countries that long ago became our allies? Yes, yes I do.
And, excuse me, honorable gentlemen and ladies have nothing to fear from living under the rule of law. The soldiers of fortune of Blackwater were accountable to no one.
Maybe I haven't, but I've read US history. Show me the country that played our role in Iraq when our colonies were leaving England.
Predictably most Iraqis don't seem to appreciate our trying to do that to them.
we in the US are a force for good in the world. There's that world policeman idea again. Sorry, I will forever disagree with the role you want for our country.
Is one world gov't ok if it's the US gov't ruling the world?
July 7, 2008 - 08:51 ET by blogonatorIt is called defense of US interests.
That's such a loose term so as to be defined into anything. I don't agree with just any use of our military to "protect US interests." Better to focus on protecting what's between our borders and not sending our military into unnecessary wars. Or do you disagree with that?
My point stands: Iraq was no threat to us. We had more to fear from swarms of locusts and the Mississippi river.
That's such a loose term so
July 7, 2008 - 09:45 ET by BDThat's such a loose term so as to be defined into anything. I don't agree with just any use of our military to "protect US interests." Better to focus on protecting what's between our borders and not sending our military into unnecessary wars. Or do you disagree with that?
Don't be absurd
July 7, 2008 - 13:50 ET by blogonatorWhile imagining war games scenarios with you can be fun for a time, it's still a distraction. Which US embassy did Iraq attack again? Oh, that's right, they did no such thing.
Iraq, not a threat in 2003. Iraq War, not justified now or then.
blogonator still never answered what others violated cease fire
July 7, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Dee Bunkagreements. Iraq did -that's for sure now who else?
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Aparently Blogonator does
July 7, 2008 - 15:14 ET by BDAparently Blogonator does not see the violation of Cease Fire agreements as casus Belli. Which is funny because the rest of the world DOES.
BD - blogo
July 7, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Dee Bunkuses no logic or intellectual consistency. He's all over the place.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
No distraction. We are
July 7, 2008 - 15:13 ET by BDNo distraction. We are seeing where your values lie.
IF Iraq killed 100,000 US persons, would you attack them?
If Iraq killed 1 person would you attack them?
If Iraq stole every single Potato in the US would you attack them?
Obviously you are not willing to defend ANYTHING over any reason.
Read my lips
July 7, 2008 - 15:43 ET by blogonatorIraq, not a threat in 2003. Iraq war, not justified in 2003 or now.
Maybe it's my time to put some silly scenarios to you to illustrate a point.
If someone looks at you funny in a bar or throws an egg at your car, do you apply deadly force to deal with the situation?
If you were Canadian Prime Minster and the US bombed your soldiers in Afghanistan, would you initiate an invasion of the US in response? Would you at least have the good sense to publicly denounce the American collusion with the Taliban?
Iraq, not a threat in 2003. Iraq war, not justified in 2003 or now.
Maybe it's my time to put
July 7, 2008 - 16:35 ET by BDMaybe it's my time to put some silly scenarios to you to illustrate a point
If someone looks at you funny in a bar
or throws an egg at your car, do you apply deadly force to deal with the situation?
If you were Canadian Prime Minster and the US bombed your soldiers in Afghanistan, would you initiate an invasion of the US in response?
Would you at least have the good sense to publicly denounce the American collusion with the Taliban
Iraq, not a threat in 2003.
Iraq war, not justified in 2003 or now
Now it is your turn. Fair is only fair.
If a foreign country were to kidnap 100,000 US Persons and threaten to kill them. Is that justificiation to invade and destroy the enemy?
If a foreign country wwere to kidnap 5,000 US persons and threaten to kill them, is that justificiation to invade and destroy the enemy??
If a foreign country were to kidnap 100 US persons, and threatens to kill them, is that justification to invade and destroy the enemy?
IF a foreign country were to steal every single potato in the US and ruins our ability to raise potatos in the future is that justification to invade and destroy the enemy?
If a foreign country were to kidnap a single US person and threatens to kill them, is THAT justification to invade and destroy the enemy?
Or maybe, maybe we are the
July 7, 2008 - 09:25 ET by dvdaughtryOr maybe, maybe we are the world's policeman and we need to accept that role. India, Pakistan, settle down. You're disturbing the peace. Sorry, that's a bad idea.
There's that world policeman idea again. Sorry, I will forever disagree with the role you want for our country.
Sounds like you disagree with Thomas Jefferson too:"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
I'm sorry.
July 6, 2008 - 22:50 ET by ChesterBogusTrying to stay out of this one, but you crossed a line there. I must reply because you walked onto thin ice with Okinawa. You're talking about sovereignty and appreciating America's presence.
But Okinawans hate us. They have been demanding for years that we get our base off their island because the soldiers there regularly commit criminal acts, primarily rape, but I know that murders have been traced to American soldiers there.
Anyway, Okinawa's relationship with Japan is at times very tense, so you really shouldn't use it as an example to support your 58 bases in Iraq. In fact, Okinawa is a prime example of why we SHOULDn't have bases in Iraq. They want freedom and we won't give it to them. We won't leave.
Sorry. I know that doesn't really burst your argument's bubble or win the day for bloginator, but I think it's an important point. Conservatives see America as this great big damn hero, but we're not always wanted.
And, don't get me wrong; my best friend was stationed on Okinawa. He loved it, the Okinawans loved him - but they hate, hate, HATE having a US base on their island. Why? Because it's THEIR f-ing island and they're tired of having people invade it.
Incidentally, those soldiers are being moved to Guam, which also has a strong love/hate relationship with the military bases on Guam. Did you know we literally stole land from the natives there? And we refuse to give it back. The land we did give back? Was poisoned. A lot of Chamorros, even the ones in the military, would like the American military the f**k off their island, too.
Oh, and the Marshallese. They would sure the hell like us off their islands. Hell, they'd like their islands back, because America's military literally destroyed a few of them. Without asking. But we can't rebuild what we have destroyed. And neither will we give back what we've stolen, despite protests.
So, I'm just saying. Don't generalize. US bases have a long and illustrious history of being unwelcome, unwanted and unjust.
So, you know. Be more careful with your examples. It's a very subtle thing. We're not welcome everywhere, nor are we everywhere a force of good like you said.
Dont' forget Chester that when we close a base
July 6, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Dee BunkThey don't like that either.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Oh CB is infuriating, it
July 6, 2008 - 23:14 ET by bigtimerOh CB is infuriating, it was all I could do not to post...
All he ever does is post and run...a lot like AD.
Precious little trolls.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Yes they can be aggravating BT
July 6, 2008 - 23:31 ET by Dee BunkI was just telling Blonde earlier today in this thread that it's one of the reasons we need a lot of us. We get tired of responding to them but someone has to do it! ; )
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Now I am lol..it isn't that
July 6, 2008 - 23:44 ET by bigtimerNow I am lol..it isn't that I don't agree...sometimes if they're just hit and runners...what is the use?
Believe me, I do about half the time...just didn't feel like it tonight.
You're younger Dee...thank goodness for youth.
...and determination!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
cBOGUS We left the Marshall Islands in the 90's, to the people
July 6, 2008 - 23:58 ET by upcountrywaterThey are their own country now, we pay them big bucks to rent
Kwajalein ,aways did.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Original posting. Do
July 7, 2008 - 08:33 ET by BDOriginal posting.
Your reply:
Trying to stay out of this one, but you crossed a line there. I must reply because you walked onto thin ice with Okinawa. You're talking about sovereignty and appreciating America's presence.
My position in regards to your reply:
Your essential question, I
July 5, 2008 - 21:17 ET by contraryYour essential question, I take it, is what to do with the "POWs" we nab in the WoT. Because there is some doubt to the guilt of these people ( unlike in WWII where every german was guilty evidently) There must be a system here in the US in which to "process" them
Your solution is to....
Well, that would depend on the rules of war you ascribe to. The questions you raise highlight the fundamental difference between those that want to fight the WoT aggressively, and those who want to relegate the WoT to a police/criminal action.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
I agree with you ...liberal JasonC
July 6, 2008 - 00:21 ET by jefflebowskiYou said, "We must devise a way of winnowing down the number of captured people -
and since we all know torture is not the way to do it, a judicial
system is the most logical answer."
We must now devise a way to take less prisoners due to the ridiculously stupid ruling by the Supreme Court. The method I suggest and I believe will be adopted by our men in uniform is to take no more prisoners. Anyone who raises arms against our soldiers must be exterminated immediately and without remorse! No more prisoners!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
jeff, I agree. No-capture should be the policy from now on.
July 6, 2008 - 01:27 ET by R D HelmShould have been since the beginning. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Yes, I agree with
July 6, 2008 - 08:41 ET by JasonCYes, I agree with that.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
So you desrie to
July 6, 2008 - 09:27 ET by BDSo you desrie to immediately execute ALL prisoners upon their surrendering?
Interesting point for you JasonC
My understanding of this
July 6, 2008 - 10:50 ET by JasonCMy understanding of this point was that we (the soldiers) should have no compunction about fighting back, with intent to kill, against "those who raise arms." That they should not have to take them alive. If, however, they do take them alive and have the combatants under their control, I would not be OK with shooting them execution style, no. That is a tactic for the mafia and fascists, and I am staunchly of the belief that we should not let America be like that, for our own morality as well as (yes, I'm going to say it) the way we are perceived in the world.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
So instead of sending in a
July 6, 2008 - 14:04 ET by BDSo instead of sending in a raiding party to capture our enemies and take risks to our forces, we should just JDAM - 2000 LB bomb the location in order to NOT take prisoners?
Colmes Is a Train Wreck
July 4, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Del Dolemonte"let me get this out and I'll give you a chance to reply."
That's Colmes' modus operandi, followed by his shouting down his guests.
I always laugh when I see Leftists accusing O'Reilly of the same thing. I guess Colmes comes on after their bedtime?
Alan uses very poor debating
July 4, 2008 - 18:28 ET by FairlightAlan uses very poor debating techniques:
1. He comes prepared with a list of argument points to ask his quest.
2. As soon as Alan loses the point he quickly interrupts with the next point.
3. Go to #1 and repeat for 2 minutes.
This is Alan's entire M.O. and he has never deviated from it.
COLMES IS TYPICAL
July 4, 2008 - 18:33 ET by timzankThe funny thing is, if Alan Colmes were on assignment in the Middle East and was captured by one of these "enemy combatants" I suspect he would change his tune. Imagine how his mind might change while standing next to a colleague having his throat slit on camera.
He reminds me of the snarky salesman in Die Hard (the original) that "knows how to make a deal" with Hans, the terrorist and is promptly shot after "making the deal".
A "War Resolution" is a declaration of war
July 4, 2008 - 18:37 ET by wdhorningThe wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq were both authorized by Joint Congressional War Resolutions. These were both bonafide declarations of war because:
Noel, You have a far
July 4, 2008 - 19:07 ET by scamoramaNoel,
You have a far stronger stomach than I.
I can't stand looking at Alan Colmes, much less listening to him.
Colmes is a typical leftie
July 4, 2008 - 19:28 ET by robert108Colmes is a typical leftie moron; in another discussion about Philadelphia requiring licensing for anyone who gives out historical information, Colmes led with the question: "Doesn't a city have the right...?" He apparently doesn't know that cities don't have "rights"; individuals do. What a fool!
Allen is part of the
July 5, 2008 - 05:53 ET by Andrew H.Allen is part of the leftist cabal that decides what rights we are to have, too. So entrenched these leftists are in collectivism that they forget what we are--and by what we govern--that would be a Constituional Republic.
Enemy combatants--the Supremes blew it big time.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
ROVE: Alan, the -- this is
July 4, 2008 - 19:44 ET by bigtimerROVE: Alan, the -- this is the first time in the history of America in which enemy combatants have been grated the right to habeas corpus.
Alan never, ever, shuts up long enough to listen to what the response was to his BS leftist talking point questions by the guest, let alone comphrehend the answer if he did...I don't care who it is....
I heard this last night...I cannot stand Colmes...I always try to listen to the show while I an either cooking dinner or on here at the same time...so I don't put a shot-gun plug through the tv screen...
LOL!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Constitution not for foreigners on foreign soil. Period.
July 4, 2008 - 20:26 ET by wizardjrBecause of Colmes constant badgering, Rove missed the most salient point: the Constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign soil. End of discussion.
These scumbags were captured in battle or in the act of trying to kill Americans in an overseas combat area. Just because they've been moved to American soil or jurisdiction does not change their status. The mantle of habeus corpus does not fall upon them just because they're at Guantanamo. For more and better data look up Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. For goodness sakes, he shipped a sitting Congressman to the CSA for things the NYT has done.
Here is my solution
July 4, 2008 - 21:46 ET by DelsaFirst - Take NO prisoners.
The Japanese in WWII after they sunk ships, launched boats and shot to death men floating in the water.
Second - put all prisoners from Gitmo on a plane.
The plane developes engine trouble, the crew bails out.
What, and waste a perfectly
July 4, 2008 - 22:19 ET by HermanoWhat, and waste a perfectly good plane? Give them all parachutes instead (yeah, parachutes...hee hee) and let them bail instead. In case you missed it , I do not really want to give them parachutes. Maybe something like the spare tire in the Bugs Bunny cartoons - Eh, ya got a spare?
The old "anvil in a
July 6, 2008 - 14:13 ET by JerryThe old "anvil in a parachute" routine was always funny.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
It is NOT Criminal to commit acts of war.
July 5, 2008 - 05:46 ET by Ole_SargeBesides - they (Islamic terrorists and their Fundementalist, i.e. Wahabist, backers) HAVE DECLARED WAR on us.
It only takes one side to declare a war exists.
The Geneva Conventions were written for NATION-STATES, not pan-national movements with no government, (abet, they do receive some support from several governments, including those of our allies).
This is not a "Mafia" war by "families" from Jersey over territory in Ohio. Those were criminal activities.
The sooner the Liberals, the Leftists and the "hide in the sand" types see that appeasement only strengtens them (they attack more often and with greater force) than out right battle, (as in Iraq, the forces the "cockroaches" to scurry, hide and die) the sooner this war will be over.
Make no mistake. An atheist Liberal has more to fear from them than they do of any Conservative Christian. We'll scold and boycott, they will cut your head off.
Not even soldiers
July 5, 2008 - 07:26 ET by ThisnThatThese aren't soldiers; nor are they prisioners of war. They don't wear uniforms. They don't belong to a nation. They don't abide by the rules of war. They don't openly carry arms. They don't have "signs that can be recognized at a distance". The Geneva convention doesn't extend to them -- explictly, it doesn't extend to them. The Geneva convention is all about protecting non-combatants whose nation is at war, or prisoners of war; the goal of a terrorist is to involve those same non-combatants, and act in ways outside the rules and laws of warfare.
What doesn't Colmes understand about this? He pulls this stunt on every show. He latches onto an irrevelant item and hounds the guest to death over it, thinking all along about how smart he looks to the left-wing kooks. Colmes and his ilk would like nothing more than to have complete anarchy or complete control over this country. Colmes is either very dumb or completely disengenious -- either way, Fox News would increase viewership by getting rid of him.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Crafty Congress
July 5, 2008 - 07:07 ET by richb313Oh those crafty congress people. They have learned it is not necessary to declare war. Instead they pass resolutions for the use of force and then deny that is what they meant. It gives them the perfect cover. If things go well then they can take credit. If it takes a little too long or the left wing complains too much they can deny that is what they meant and blame the President instead.
It is because of congress that we are in the mess we are in now. It is because they don't have an ounce of moral fiber or courage and won't take a stand. They want to have political cover for everything they have done.
Agree with President Bush or not he has shown more political courage than the lot of them. If anyone thinks he does not have real courage let them strap on a F-105 (the plane he flew in the Air Naitional Gaurd) one of the hardest fighters to fly around. It killed dozens of brave Fighter Pilots in Peace Time.
I am so upset with the bunch of two faced hypocrites that currently serve in congress I can hardly stand it.
Just to comment on some posts above, when war is declared on us we are in a state of war, a formal declaration is not needed. That is why certain acts are universally recognized as an act of war, such as restricting the sea lanes. If Iran makes that mistake or they attack a US Flag Vessel we are in fact in a state of war, congress need not apply.
F-105
July 5, 2008 - 09:33 ET by AppyAmericanI believe that you will find that it was a F-102 that the future President flew during his National Guard days.
Colmes is as dumb as a stump.
July 5, 2008 - 08:08 ET by ThalpyColmes is as dumb as a stump. There should be a bounty on him.
Is It is now Lawful for our Enemies to Behead Americans
July 5, 2008 - 08:28 ET by allanfA side effect of Justice Kennedy's ill advised attempt to garner praise from the New York Times in Boumedine vs Bush is a reciprocity argument. If enemy combatants are subject to a judicial process apart from a "war crimes" tribunal, then any captured American's are subject to an Al Qaeda judicial process. In a warped sense, Kaleid Sheik Mohammed can now argue that his beheading of Daniel Perl was a legal execution.
→ Give Rove his own show.
July 5, 2008 - 11:10 ET by Cool ArrowI notice Larry Elder (one of my favorite columnists) will debut on FOX this evening at 7:00 PM CT. Set your DVR
Now they need to give Rove his own show. No disrespect, but how about a kids show for conservatives.
He does kinda look like Captain Kangaroo.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Actually, "Dora", "Diego",
July 5, 2008 - 11:49 ET by BDActually, "Dora", "Diego", and Sesame Street need Conservative competititon. Though I doubt Rove could pull it off.
→ BD
July 5, 2008 - 11:58 ET by Cool ArrowYe of little faith.
We could start with "The Ant and the Grasshopper" to show the evils of laziness and the cost of welfare.
Then a favorite "Stone Soup" showing that you really should do sopme home work before investing.
Rove could pull it off
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
→ More kid shows
July 5, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Cool ArrowThree little pigs. Three Democrat pigs use government money earmarked for levees for their own personal use.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
a few points
July 5, 2008 - 18:00 ET by i was just thinking1. Hitler declared war on the U.S. Therefore, we were at war.
2. "combatant" - a person engaged in fighting during a war; a person engaged in conflict or competition with another.
(at least that's what MY dictionary says)
Finally... the Preamble to the Constitution, Alan... "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." We did not establish our Constitution for other countries, nor for enemy combatants in a time of war.
Alan Colmes
July 6, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Redrowan2000Karl should grow a set and tell Alan to shut the f up so he can finish his point. Rove came off as wishy washy.
As to the point, the previous World wars carried with them not only prisoner of war status but the " Alien and Sedition" acts which were enforced and not even the traitorous scum confined under it received habeus corpus immediately. Yeah maybe a year down the road or after the war. And FDR neve gave the American Nissei habeus corpus after interring them in camps throughout the country. The bottom line is that Colmes and his ilk will defend the Muslim scum who want to kill us rather than a marine in a fire fight that incurs collateral damage. They hate America 1st and always. They are the ENEMY, if you don't believe it then God help you. They would serve the nation up on a platter to Bin Laden apologizing all the way. McLame may not be the answer but the Muslim nations are rooting for Hussein.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
Declaration?????
July 6, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Liberally IneptAll you hear from the left, aka Hillary, Barack, Chucky, Ted, Biden, and the entire slew of them is how we were mislead and lied to in order to get into this "War" in Iraq. But when it comes to Habeus, there was no "War" declaration. Unbelievable!! It's kind of like what the meaning of is is.