-15, Lows Keep Getting LOWER!
Blank check to fight the war on terror?..sheesh theyve been tyin the presidents hands behind is back every step of the way!
nothing ahem..Supreme...bout this decision!
Your gonna make me blush Mike.
I can't write worth a damn but I can sure blockquote like a mothereffer.
=)
I leave it to you guys, Mike, Rob, Wordsmith, Old Soldier, to do the real writing...
I think you underrate your writing ability Curt. Anyone who can cover the volume of material that you do and make sense of it all certainly has a full range of talent.
Wonderful. I was waiting to come here to see what you had come up with in regard to this decision. I always know that I can get my hands on information no matter what the subject of the day is. Thanks Mike. AND Curt.
Monica: You are too kind. And Thank You!
I am one of those who thinks this will be an eventual plus for the President and the Presidency.
This is the first major decision in an area of law that was a complete blank. Some parameters and guidelines needed to be limned and SCOTUS did that. Now the Legislature must come up with acceptable laws to deal with non-soldier, non-civilian evil-doers.
Personally, I think making them all evil-diders is the best policy. It's easier to say 'sorry' than to feed all those bastards in prisons.
IMO, this decision by SCOTUS shows that they sit in an ivory tower. They need to be careful in that tower as the sons of Allah don't like tall buildings.
I cannot muster any sympathy for those fellows locked up in Gitmo. Maybe that's because I live within 10 miles of the Pentagon and cannot get 9/11 out of my mind. Both of my friends in the Pentagon escaped unscathed, but they well might not have.
The SCOTUS has set themselves up as dictators of this country. We should absolutely not be forced to give suspected terrorists civilian trials! This decision is against all reason and is a slap in the face to all good and concerned American citizens. I'm really ticked off about it!
Oh, great post, by the way, and thanks for the links.
once again we are back to the original problem we faced when bush got elected "a court full of moonbats" it would be nice if he gets the oppertunity to put one more on this bench.
Mike & Curt great pieces....
As for me I look at this as a golden opportunity. The question is are the conservatives up for exploiting it? This decision puts us back to where we were right after 9/11 when congress failed to do their job with a war declaration. It has also been long enough from the original events that the loons & the fools like Murtha and Kerry feel comfortable enough to allow their real beliefs to show through and since their reading ginned up polls they believe the country is as stupid as they are. Now is the time for a full push and hardcore debate and votes on the war and war power acts. The congress needs to be forced each and every member to state their position on the conflict, the enemy, and POWs. Those three questions need to be pounded into their faces everyday between now and november.
Ms Pelousy what are your goals in the war on terror?
Ms Pelousy describe for us who you believe are enemy is.
Ms Pelousy what procedure should our soldiers in the field follow after disarming someone who 30 seconds before was trying to kill them? Read them their miranda rights and call them a lawyer, turn them loose and say I'm sorry you don't like us, give them each $100,000 and tell them were your friend, shoot them in the head to avoid all the nonsense, or treat them as non=uniformed combatents and give them military tribunals?
Wow! It's "Troll on a Roll" Saturday!
And it would be nice to hear Nazi Pelosi tell us all how she would handle the war. As long as we don't have to do what she says. And we won't if we all put aside our minor differences and work to elect more conservatives this fall.
And it would be nice to see Bush appoint at least one more Justice to the Supreme Court. But something tells me that the remaining liberals are hanging on for dear life (literally) and hoping that a Democrat gets elected in 2008.
I hear Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in such bad shape she actually fell asleep with her head on the bench sitting next to all the other eight a while back:
http://newsbusters.org/node/4260
how could anyone tell the diffrence between her being awake or asleep, she ejudicates from the twilight zone...
Apparently they wake the old girl up when it's time to vote on a case. I say, let her sleep. She obviously needs her beauty sleep.
While I am in complete agreement with this statement, Mike. I do consider you, Curt, Wordsmith, Troll, Monica, Old Soldier & LMC as my personal inspirations for excellence in the blogosphere. I feel I'm still learning this craft and finding my voice and am thankful to have discovered some truly intelligent and talented bloggers in this process.
I think you underrate your writing ability Curt. Anyone who can cover the volume of material that you do and make sense of it all certainly has a full range of talent
1. Impeach Bush
2. Impeach Bush
3. Impeach Bush
That's All Folks! Two words sum up the DNC plan quite succinctly.
---------------------------------
1. Ms Pelousy what are your goals in the war on terror?
2.Ms Pelousy describe for us who you believe are enemy is.
3.Ms Pelousy what procedure should our soldiers in the field follow after disarming someone who 30 seconds before was trying to kill them? Read them their miranda rights and call them a lawyer, turn them loose and say I'm sorry you don't like us, give them each $100,000 and tell them were your friend, shoot them in the head to avoid all the nonsense, or treat them as non=uniformed combatents and give them military tribunals?
I blush that my name was even mentioned by Curt and skye.
Mike & Curt great pieces....
I must say...following the news was difficult for me, and will be throughout the summer, as I am away from the computer. But it's comprehensive posts like this with links-a-plenty that makes me very appreciative of the legwork done by others. Thanks for your dedication on your blog, Mike.
Skye: Thank you for your kind words. But you do me too great an honor. As I've said repeatedly, you filet a moonbat better than anyone else, and you do it with FACTS.
Wordsmith: Thank you as well sir! However, I'm sure I speak for many others as well with the hope that you find some time to continue making your many valued contributions, even as you are called to other duties.
Wow, was this an intentional humble Old Soldier stream? Well, it's certainly been effective. Gee, I have one post on my blog site that states I'm not ready for prime time and I get these accolades; what would it be like if I did post? (With red face) I humbly thank each and every one of you for your high regard.
Bob Owens over at Confederate Yankee has a really great synopsis on this ruling. I highly recommend reading it:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/a...ives/
184097.php
Personally, I believe SCOTUS overstepped its constitutional bounds and encroached on the President’s powers as the CINC. As flimsy as it was; congress did authorize war in a round about way. Troll may be onto something in trying to force the congress to outright declare war. My only question would be, declare war on who? Declaring war has traditionally been between nation states, not between a nation state and a radical sect of a religion. Declaring war on all Islamic states wouldn't do either. It would be tricky, especially with the liberals fighting every step of the way.
All the liberal mouth foam is only typical. I do not believe there is any danger of requiring these terrorists to be tried in our civil courts. That’s not what the decision requires and it would be ludicrous to proceed in such a manner. First of all, what civil law applies to the battlefield and the acts of terrorists (non-uniformed combatants who commit war atrocities and attack our unarmed citizens)? That route is not open, nor do I believe it is in the equation. If that were the implied decision, I believe Bush would have gone the way of President Jackson (I believe it was) that referred to an overstepping SCOTUS justice, he’s made his ruling, now let him enforce it. Bush is not going to let the SCOTUS or anyone else place our citizens at risk by divulging our tactics and procedures in open court.
Needles to say, I’m extremely displeased with the SCOTUS, but I believe this is manageable and I believe the congress will fix it. It may take a few iterations, but they’ll get it right sooner or later.
Happy Independence Day, everyone. God bless America!
I too think that a "fix" will be found shortly. Though my primary concern is what kind of thin edge of the wedge precedent have we set regarding the Geneva Conventions?
More than anything else, this and the previous Kelo vs. New London debacle both illustrate the absolute necessity of securing the necessary conservative votes in the legislature, along with a conservative President to assure that conservative justices will be appointed to our federal courts.
That job is not finished and this November is another milestone in that long fight.
Isn't Breyer the knucklehead who said something along the lines of, "If you don't agree with U.S.' Law, then you should look to international law for guidance"?
Absolutely right W.F.
Breyer did a kind of "debate" last year with Justice Scalia where Breyer constantly made mention of the need to consult foreign law.
Scalia, of course, disagreed most strongly and to my mind anyway, argued the point beyond any question.
But there is an undeniable movement, curiously enough by Americans, to undercut the unique nature of our Constitution and laws.
If you need a further example, take the new Superman movie where they cut "the American way" from the classic phrase "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
I'll just toss in Kerry's "global test" as another example.
The Hamdan decision exposes those fault lines, but also offers a dangerous precedent: that of the Supreme Court inserting itself into the Constitutional prerogative primarily of the President but also of the Legislature to manage national security issues in a time of war.
surely it exposes how your constitiution works? that the executive cannot dictate. but as the article continues, that is exactly what you advocate. in times of war the executive should be able to dictate. maybe bush wouldnt take powers like that to the ultimate conclusion but one day someone would. you should be glad that you witnessed your powerful constitution in action, even though you dont agree with the result.
What this ruling exposes, Daystripper, is the breath-taking OVERREACH of the Supreme Court's Consititional authority. Quoting international law and not that of the Constitution, the SC voted that Geneva Convention protections must be extended to captured enemy combatants. This ruling forces the President to violate the Conventions, rendering them meaningless. The court overreached and denied the President's right to conveve military tribunals for these animals..er..terrorists.
The reason the Constitution designated the President as Commander-In-Chief is the belief that no war can be successfuly won that was fought through a committee. The exective branch during times of war tasked with 'rolling the hard six'. Our founding fathers understood this clearly, too bad liberals have willfully misunderstood.
What was witnessed was the MISUSE of the Constitution, daystripper.
Ditto to what Skye said!
In response to Skye's post:
PRESACTLY!
Commenting by HaloScan
