tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post4464235671714610256..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: Gitmo TrialsMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-4176819190819726952008-02-14T12:45:00.000-05:002008-02-14T12:45:00.000-05:00<sigh>There you go again, Dave, confusing th...<sigh>There you go again, Dave, confusing the issue with a bunch of facts. You liberals just never learn.</sigh><BR/><BR/>Anonymous Wingnuts and Laughing Chickenhawks are always right because Jesus says so, and we know Jesus says so because Dick Cheney says so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-47666382611990281792008-02-14T12:42:00.000-05:002008-02-14T12:42:00.000-05:00Oh "Fair and Balanced," you and your nettlesome li...Oh "Fair and Balanced," you and your nettlesome liberally-biased "facts." Get thee to a CPAC meeting or nearest McCain rally!CB Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14889841458170110920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-18171915306121917222008-02-14T10:58:00.000-05:002008-02-14T10:58:00.000-05:00In the 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eis...<I>In the 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager, the justices rejected the idea that non-citizens detained by U.S. military authorities outside the United States could use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention.</I><BR/><BR/>First some background: Johnson v Eisentrager was a 1950 ruling involving a number of Nazi war criminals who were captured by US forces in China, then tried and convicted by military tribunal in Nanking. <BR/><BR/>Johnson v Eisentrager doesn't apply for a number of reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. The defendants in Eisentrager were nationals of a country that had been in an officially declared war with the United States. The Gitmo detainees are not citizens of any country currently or recently at war with the US.<BR/><BR/>2. The Eisentrager defendants never denied that they had been involved in acts of aggression against the US (and they admitted it without being waterboarded!). The Gitmo detainees deny involvement in any acts of aggression against the US.<BR/><BR/>3. The Eisentrager defendants had already been tried and convicted for offenses against the laws of war committed outside the US.<BR/><BR/>4. The tribunals were held in Nanking which was, at the time of the tribunals, under the control of the government of Chiang Kai-Shek (though by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Chiang's Nationalists had fled to Taiwan and Nanking was under the control of Mao's Communist forces). Gitmo is a US Naval base and therefore falls under US jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-5519088827250302752008-02-14T10:27:00.000-05:002008-02-14T10:27:00.000-05:00I, for one, love C.H.'s approach to things. I beli...I, for one, love C.H.'s approach to things. I believe that, as a country, we should begin to apply his logic to a far broader spectrum of issues. Huzzah!<BR/><BR/>On the economy, for instance, don't look at all of the housing foreclosures as a problem, but a great opportunity for those with some extra cash laying around to make some incredible investments in real estate.<BR/><BR/>On health care, we all know that 47 million people (and counting) don't have insurance and that millions more have insurance but still struggle to pay their health care bills, but just yesterday I read that the same hospitals that complain vigorously about their financial struggles are buying up lots of these surgical robots, at $1.4 million a pop. So we clearly have the best health care system in the world.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, as today's PG reports, untreated sewage is flowing into the Yough river like IC light on tap at Primanti's, but the technology for home water filtration systems is improving every day, so no worries, mate.<BR/><BR/>Just approach life like it's an episode of "Barney & Friends" and all will be well.CB Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14889841458170110920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-62293380422884131882008-02-14T07:47:00.000-05:002008-02-14T07:47:00.000-05:00C'mon back when you have some game, guys. I'll be ...C'mon back when you have some game, guys. I'll be happy to make you look silly when you actually have something to say, but you're taking care of that yourself in this case.<BR/><BR/>What do you not understand about, "nor deny to <B>any person</B> within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?"<BR/><BR/>Dayvoe, that guy the other day was right. You need to get us some classier trolls. These guys are just so predictable and easy to dismiss. OTOH, maybe not. It is fun watching them flounder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-13984533661654601202008-02-14T07:02:00.000-05:002008-02-14T07:02:00.000-05:00John K. says: Shitrock tends to dismiss anything ...John K. says: Shitrock tends to dismiss anything that does not fit the agenda. As for fair and balanced, well those rights apply to citizens. You took from an article of the document. The preamble establishes who those rights apply to. Besides, to ahve rights under the constitution, you first have to swear allegiance to the same. I win again! Too bad left wing losers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-63804353744034182272008-02-13T22:30:00.000-05:002008-02-13T22:30:00.000-05:00Nice try Shitrock.You dismiss anon 4:49 even thoug...Nice try Shitrock.<BR/><BR/>You dismiss anon 4:49 even though it is a very valid point in this thread. I do see why you would want to ignore the point as it would render your whining as baseless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-55219040728047882342008-02-13T18:07:00.000-05:002008-02-13T18:07:00.000-05:00Nice try, Anon, but you are answering a question t...Nice try, Anon, but you are answering a question that wasn't asked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-67176279313522304922008-02-13T16:49:00.000-05:002008-02-13T16:49:00.000-05:00In the 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eis...In the 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager, the justices rejected the idea that non-citizens detained by U.S. military authorities outside the United States could use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. <BR/><BR/>“Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes,” said the court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-79855770404292144102008-02-13T15:37:00.000-05:002008-02-13T15:37:00.000-05:00Come on guys, let's stay positive...how 'bout we t...Come on guys, let's stay positive...how 'bout we talk about some of the good news happening in the war on terror, like the fact the Imad Mughniyeh, one of Hezbollah's top leaders (and murderer of hundreds of Americans) is dead now.C.H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02870558780736700523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-28734444024408697532008-02-13T14:52:00.000-05:002008-02-13T14:52:00.000-05:00From the plushest padded cell in Outer Wingnuttia:...From the plushest padded cell in Outer Wingnuttia:<BR/><BR/><I>John K. says: So it says in our Constitution that non citizens have the same rights as me. Where? Mine says"...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Not for the members of al queda who want to kill us.</I><BR/><BR/>From the aforementioned US Constitution: <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/" REL="nofollow">Article Six</A>:<BR/>In <B>all criminal prosecutions</B>, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.<BR/><BR/>(My emphasis). Note that nowhere is there any stipulation that this applies only to US citizens.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/" REL="nofollow">Article Fourteen, Section 1</A>:<BR/><BR/>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <B>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</B><BR/><BR/>(My emphasis)<BR/><BR/>Note that the first portion of the sentence I highlighted clearly specifies the limitations of the State with regard to <B>citizens</B> while the remaining portions clearly requires due process for <B>all persons</B> (not all <I>citizens</I>, all <I>persons</I> within a State's jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-64317740969819732242008-02-13T13:28:00.000-05:002008-02-13T13:28:00.000-05:00John K. says: So it says in our Constitution that...John K. says: So it says in our Constitution that non citizens have the same rights as me. Where? Mine says"...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Not for the members of al queda who want to kill us. Hey, Sen. McCain voted to sustain the FISA rules. Yah buddy. McCain is your man for President. He was in the military, cannot disagree with him. He has medals. Or are you left wing kooks being hypocrites again. LMAO at shitrock and how stupid he is. LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-42084065803710758762008-02-13T12:13:00.000-05:002008-02-13T12:13:00.000-05:00At least we can surmise that Bush is planning to l...At least we can surmise that Bush is planning to leave office next year. Otherwise he would keep his personal gulag open and filled indefinitely.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-76724234661109707592008-02-13T11:14:00.000-05:002008-02-13T11:14:00.000-05:00Didn't he just end that sentence with a dangling p...<I>Didn't he just end that sentence with a dangling preposition?</I><BR/>Churchill said something like, "This is the sort of trivial nonsense up with which I shall not put."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-30299023540873383782008-02-13T11:08:00.000-05:002008-02-13T11:08:00.000-05:00the brits should worry about sharia law in England...the brits should worry about sharia law in England and let us handle our own affairsSmittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07139334681820382879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-30917266951595401932008-02-13T10:43:00.000-05:002008-02-13T10:43:00.000-05:00John, I don't know what's more entertaining, your ...John, I don't know what's more entertaining, your ignorance of pertinent facts or your zany way of expressing your fallacies.<BR/><BR/>-- It's the US Constitution that requires due process for both citizens and non-citizens. You have a problem with the Constitution, do you?<BR/><BR/>-- Only <B>naturalized</B> citizens take an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution, so the vast majority do not, unless they are sworn in to certain offices or join the Armed Forces. Hmmm, so I have taken that oath and you probably have not. You have a problem with the Constitution, do you?<BR/><BR/>-- It's the US Constitution that does not make distinctions between types of criminals. You have a problem with the Constitution, do you?<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work of "being of service." No one else could do it the way you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-281774553989402972008-02-13T10:19:00.000-05:002008-02-13T10:19:00.000-05:00John K. says: Oh yah, you made the usual assumpti...John K. says: Oh yah, you made the usual assumptions people on left make. You think these folks are US citizens. Remember, US citizens first have to take an oath to defend the Consitution not attack it. Then you also assume these guys are just garden variety criminals. That's okay with the mistakes. That is why I am here to keep you on track. Glad to be of service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com