Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President
New York Times ^ | June 15, 2008 | Jonathan Mahler

Posted on 06/15/2008 9:42:48 AM PDT by CreativePerspective

So it is extraordinary that during the Bush administration's seven years, nearly all of them a time of war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, the court has been prompted to push back four times. Last week's decision in Boumediene v. Bush, in which the court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their detentions in the federal courts, marks only the most recent rebuke.

It is not hard to see why the court has traditionally been so quick to side with presidents during armed conflicts. The justices presumably lack the expertise of White House military advisers, and they don't want to be accused of interfering with efforts to keep America safe. "War opens dangers that do not exist at other times," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote. He had earlier been the author of the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in a 1919 case upholding the conviction of radicals who had published an antidraft pamphlet during World War I. "When a nation is at war," the opinion said, "many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

In response, the administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize the military commissions and stripping the Guantanamo detainees of the right to habeas corpus. Which brings us to last week's ruling in Boumediene - and the 5-4 decision to restore that ancient right.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: boumediene; enemycombatant; gitmo; guantanamo; habeascorpus; judges; judiciary; scotus; terrorism; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
This is worth reading, because while not the intent, the NYT article demonstrates the huge differences betweeen rulings of previous SCOTUS' about presidential powers in wartime and ruling of this SCOTUS that has been working on undemining the President's powers in his efforts to keep us safe from terrorists.

Note that this is the 4th (!) ruling to favor the terrorists, progressively broader. Also note that the Court disregarded the law passed by Congress (see last paragraph of my exceprt) stripping the terrorist enemy combattants detained at Guanatanamo of the right to habeas corpus.

1 posted on 06/15/2008 9:42:48 AM PDT by CreativePerspective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

What this court is saying is that anybody in the world has access to our courts. Bunch of fools.


2 posted on 06/15/2008 9:47:25 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President

six letter answer: S-O-U-T-E-R


3 posted on 06/15/2008 9:48:29 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

Elect B. Hussein Obama and the next conservative president will face even more intense rebuking that is a certainty.

Elect Juan McCainez and maybe (emphasis on maybe) we might turn that vote around the other way in the future.


4 posted on 06/15/2008 9:52:47 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Soon, if it keeps going this way, the only Court that will matter will be the World Court.


5 posted on 06/15/2008 9:53:39 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Having custody of a loaded weapon does not arm you. The skill to use the weapon is what arms a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

How about because they are a completely lawless court, blind freaking drunk with power and arrogance? Because they are imbecilic fools? Because they are crazed, weak-minded lunatics, ignorant of history and constitutional structure? Because they have advanced Bush Derangement Syndrome? Because they think they can make the jihadis like us?

Who knows what reasons lurk behind the prating nonsense of their opinions!


6 posted on 06/15/2008 9:54:55 AM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

It was a rebuke against all Americans, not just President Bush.


7 posted on 06/15/2008 9:55:29 AM PDT by Tai_Chung
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Elect Juan McCainez and maybe (emphasis on maybe) we might turn that vote around the other way in the future.

McCain is a a thin reed...

8 posted on 06/15/2008 9:57:16 AM PDT by GOPJ ("I'm afraid after I die, I'll be voting Democrat" - Freeper potlatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
How about because they are a completely lawless court,...

There are four completely lawless lawyers on the court and one useful idiot.

Who knows what reasons lurk behind the prating nonsense of their opinions!

Consolidation of power in the judiciary.

9 posted on 06/15/2008 9:59:10 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
It was, in fact, a threat on our lives. The 5 in the majority weighed the threat posed to the public of known terrorists and killers being on the loose to their own ideological comfort.

They decided it was better to have the killers on the loose amongst us than to do anything about it.

Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and old what's his name, want to kill us.

10 posted on 06/15/2008 10:03:30 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Vote for any candidate but McCain and you elect Barack Hussein Obama.

I'm going to hold my nose and pull the lever. I suggest that many of you do so as well, if you know what's good for your children.

11 posted on 06/15/2008 10:05:36 AM PDT by TennTuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
Traitors boasting.

12 posted on 06/15/2008 10:05:48 AM PDT by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

“How about because they are a completely lawless court, blind freaking drunk with power and arrogance? “

I think you summed it up well.

Charles Krauthammer made some excellent remarks on FoxNews:

“This is not just perverse. The arrogance of this decision is astonishing. It overturns - it proudly says that for the first time ever it is granting the rights of habeas corpus to enemy aliens who are not on American soil.

It overturns a 1950 decision, which, in and of itself, had said that in all of American history this right had never been accepted or recognized, and before that, in all of the British common laws. So this is an invention.

The worst part of it is that it is in previous decisions when the court had chastised the administration over its detention policy, it had said that the Congress and the president ought to work together and find a remedy, which is what the Congress and the president have done in the Military Tribunal Act.

But what the court has now done is to overturn everything in that act before it even went into effect or practice. As Scalia wrote in commenting on this, he said it looks as if in urging the president and the Congress to actually solve this, the court was kidding in its previous decisions.

And according to one scholar I read, this is the first time in American history that in the middle of the war the court has overturned decision that the two political branches together, the president and Congress, had agreed upon in the conduct of the war. It has never happened. You could overturn a president’s decision, but never a joint decision of the political branches.

What the court has said is that that it stands above all the other branches in granting a right that never existed and does not exist in this constitution.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366346,00.html


13 posted on 06/15/2008 10:06:36 AM PDT by CreativePerspective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
Note that this is the 4th (!) ruling to favor the terrorists


14 posted on 06/15/2008 10:07:37 AM PDT by Harrius Magnus (I am the town square.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
The hate Bush contingent at the New York Times strikes again. The Boumediene v. Bush decision was a power grab by five justices or more specifically by Kennedy. The Constitution created three branches and it did not make the courts supreme to the other two branches. Article III Section 2 second paragraph; establishes that the supreme Court shall have Jurisdiction “with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as Congress shall make.” The Military Commissions act explicitly stated that the military tribunals were constitutional and the courts to which enemy combatants had access. The Supreme Court has declared that they believe the courts are supreme to congress and entitled to makeup the rules for how to judge enemy combatants, then carry out the rules that they wrote, and order the other branches of government and the citizens to obey the judicial tyrants. If Congress were interested in anything other than playing politics, like asserting their constitutional authority to write the rules that the courts apply, then Congress would attempt to maintain the balance of power necessary for our Republic to continue.
15 posted on 06/15/2008 10:21:47 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harrius Magnus

16 posted on 06/15/2008 10:30:06 AM PDT by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
I must argue against the false perception that it is Bush who lost something as a result of this decision, when in fact, it is the American people who have lost.
17 posted on 06/15/2008 10:32:56 AM PDT by Cold Heat (NO! (you can infer any meaning you choose))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

Truthfully, whether McCain or Obama, I am hoping that the SCOTUS reverses the vast majority of the Patriot Act and every other bit of domestic security legislation and executive orders made by George W. Bush since the beginning of the WoT.

In fact, I hope they strip the federal government of a vast majority of its security and police authority.

Why? Because George W. Bush and his administration have been very honorable in how these laws were executed, and probably accomplished much with them.

But under McCain *or* Obama, I truly doubt that these laws will be used against terrorists. Instead, they will almost exclusively be *abused* and used against non-terrorist Americans.

That is, under either McCain or Obama, while terrorists are allowed to run roughshod, the anti-terrorist gun will be turned around so that it is pointing as us, not them.

Can you imagine the horror if Bill Clinton had the Patriot Act laws when *he* was president? Lord help us. Here was a man, and his wife, who had no problem using hundreds of FBI files against his political enemies, having honest people who were in the way of *patronage jobs* charged with crimes and arrested, and taking money from communist Chinese in exchange for defense technology?

I wouldn’t be shocked by him using Patriot Act provisions to bar Republican voters from election polls, or even calling organizations like the Boy Scouts and the NRA “right wing terrorist organizations”, and having them banned and their assets seized. There would have been literally *nothing* to stop him, and the Republicans were too spineless to even stand in his way, in any serious manner.

Would McCain or Obama have any problem using the Patriot Act provisions to advance their desire for socialized medicine?

How about restoring the “Fairness Doctrine”, to block conservatives from the airwaves?

Would Obama, if not McCain, use such laws to outlaw guns?

THE BOTTOM LINE is that, when we have a bad president, we don’t want to give them the tools to abuse us with.

If the SCOTUS wants to make rulings like this, in the long run, while the terrorists will certainly take advantage of it, their potential for harm against the people of the United States is *less* than the potential for harm by the president.

If we have a bad president, it is better that he be a weak president.


18 posted on 06/15/2008 10:36:19 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TennTuxedo
Sorry, but I can't vote for someone that I have been throwing rocks at for twenty years.

The RNC and Congress critters who came up with the brilliant notion that I and others like me who have been hip deep in politics for the last twenty years would once again hold the nose as we did with Dole were tragically mistaken in their judgment.

If all goes as I believe it will, the party will benefit in the long term. However, short term it will be hell.

19 posted on 06/15/2008 10:38:39 AM PDT by Cold Heat (NO! (you can infer any meaning you choose))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP

They should pass the law again, and use the authority under Article 3 Section 2 to exempt the law from judicial review and the possibility of being overturned.


20 posted on 06/15/2008 10:38:44 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“THE BOTTOM LINE is that, when we have a bad president, we don’t want to give them the tools to abuse us with.”

What you are forgetting is that a “bad president” doesn’t need the laws “to abuse us with” — just think of the Clintons and those FBI files and who knows what else, that we will never find out.

But we do need the laws to allow good presidents, like President Bush to be able to protect us. The threat of terrorism against us is severe and until the Patriot Act, we had no laws to help us deal with this threat.


21 posted on 06/15/2008 10:42:07 AM PDT by CreativePerspective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
"If Congress were interested in anything other than playing politics, like asserting their constitutional authority to write the rules that the courts apply, then Congress would attempt to maintain the balance of power necessary for our Republic to continue."

If this were a Democrat president and it was his war (I know, I know) and we had this same court making this same decision then the Congress would indeed "maintain the balance" by in effect telling the Court to take a hike.

22 posted on 06/15/2008 10:45:13 AM PDT by lexusppd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
The language Congress used declaring the Military Commissions Act Constitutional should be sufficient, now they should do like President Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia and ignore the courts. The Courts don't have any power to enforce their orders other the public pressure that would be asserted by the New York Times, et al.
23 posted on 06/15/2008 10:46:04 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lexusppd

Exactly!


24 posted on 06/15/2008 10:48:00 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Point me to one single instance were any American patriot has been hurt by anything proposed by the Bush Admin since 9/11, and I will give some thought to your post.

As it is, I think you have taken Ayn Randite notions as fact and it has all gone to your head.

Liberties for us, must be protected when a group or a organization has been created for the specific and intentional purpose of undermining our liberty by way of using our liberty and our system of justice to defeat us.

Lines must be drawn to expose and purge those who try.

By exposing our weakness and our soft underbelly to the enemy, we ensure our defeat or at least our serious and possibly fatal injury.

We must cover that and protect it for as long as it is required to do so.

25 posted on 06/15/2008 10:48:05 AM PDT by Cold Heat (NO! (you can infer any meaning you choose))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
Nice of the NY Time to confirm that the Court simply ignored the Law in order to gratify their partisan political opinions.

This is why the Left cannot be trusted with any measure of political power. They are the grand masters at simply rationalizing what ever they feel should be done with a complete willingness to disregard law, principals or facts.

26 posted on 06/15/2008 10:49:10 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (http://www.iraqvetsforcongress.com ---- Get involved, make a difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Soon, if it keeps going this way, the only Court that will matter will be the World Court.

That, my FRiend, is a very astute and scary observation.

FMCDH(BITS)

27 posted on 06/15/2008 11:07:11 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

If so then we can fire these dumbasses and abolish the surpreme court since they will be redundant.


28 posted on 06/15/2008 11:16:02 AM PDT by Americanexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President

Ummmmmmmmmmmm......they are Godless Marxists who ignore the Constitution?






29 posted on 06/15/2008 11:21:20 AM PDT by SkyPilot ("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
the 5-4 decision to restore that ancient right.

Amazing comment. I had no idea Magna Carta applied to prisoners of war. Would have come as quite a shock to Good King John's baronial opposition.

30 posted on 06/15/2008 11:22:12 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
So what's the alternative, a scorched-earth battle plan that leaves no prisoners on the battlefield to ask for habeas corpus?

-PJ

31 posted on 06/15/2008 11:30:01 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

>A military order, however unconstitutional, is not likely to outlive a military emergency, but a Supreme Court decision will stand for generations to come.<

Oh I don’t know. This court has reversed a bunch of rulings that haven’t stood for “generations”.

Why is the court doing this? Because it’s packed with unreasonable, untouchable, unnaccountable libs. Like the aristocracy of old they don’t think they owe anyone an explanation or anything else. Since they don’t know people who are personally being put in harm’s way by these people they’re ruling in favor it it’s all considered well and good.

The Constitution will die at the hands of some judge in a courtroom.


32 posted on 06/15/2008 11:40:59 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Obama for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

think reciprocity. if they (foreigners) can be entitled to our laws, why shouldn’t we be obligated under theirs?
thats where this is going.


33 posted on 06/15/2008 11:45:04 AM PDT by pipecorp ( Al Lahsucks (boat steersman ) hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I don't even see how this case got to the Supreme Court. Cases are routinely thrown out because the plaintiff lacked "standing." How in the world did stateless terrorists held as prisoners of war get "standing" in American courts?

I am now extremely worried about the 2nd Amendment case which is brewing. If there were not a strong faction on the Court desiring to overturn the pro-gun-rights decision against DC, the Court could have just announced that they would not hear the case. Even if we win this time, a Court with Obaminoid Marxist appointees could undo the victory in a few years.

34 posted on 06/15/2008 11:46:50 AM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Souter is a wimp with no understanding of our military. Ginsburg is a classic liberal with an inherent dislike our military. Kennedy drifted onto the reefs of liberalism’s siren song.

It is reasonable to expect the next president will have a chance of nominating two, maybe all three, of the worthless anti-american idiots. Unfortunately the new POTUS will probably just give us carbon copies of the gang who doesn’t know how to shoot, much less do it straight.


35 posted on 06/15/2008 11:51:58 AM PDT by hdstmf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

habeas corpus?

Make that habeas corpse. Problem solved.


36 posted on 06/15/2008 11:59:30 AM PDT by hdstmf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

“Among the large questions left open is whether habeas corpus rights are available to detainees held outside American jurisdiction.”

Somebody help me here. Is he implying that foreign prisoners detained ON American soil have habeas corpus rights? Weren’t German and Italian WWII prisoners held on American soil? Did they have habeas corpus rights?


37 posted on 06/15/2008 12:11:41 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman

“Is he implying that foreign prisoners detained ON American soil have habeas corpus rights?”

In previous rulings our “glorious SCOTUS” gave them those rights, now they just broadened and expanded them.

They had three previous pro-terrorist rulings, this 4th one is the crown jewel.

1. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in 2004, pertained only to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants on American soil; the court held that they must get a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge the factual basis for their detention.

2. The second ruling, in Rasul v. Bush, came soon after the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Though momentous, it was still limited. The court found, 6-3, that Guantanamo Bay was within United States jurisdiction and subject to its laws, meaning detainees there were entitled to some sort of due process in American courts. It didn’t specify the process, nor suggest that Congress couldn’t amend a law through which detainees could access the courts.

3. The 2006 Hamdan case concerned the military commissions that President Bush established at Guantanamo Bay to try some detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. Here the court’s majority went further. It found that by creating the commissions without asking Congress to agree, the president had overstepped his authority under the Constitution’s separation of powers. Moreover, it held that the president was obligated to honor America’s commitments under the Geneva Conventions.

-

“In response, the administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize the military commissions and stripping the Guantanamo detainees of the right to habeas corpus.”

Note:

The SCOTUS in their current ruling rebuked the other TWO branches of the US government, and ignored the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.


38 posted on 06/15/2008 12:25:12 PM PDT by CreativePerspective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

Thank you! So in a time of war, and of extreme danger to our civilian population from foreign terrorists, the Supreme Court has made up a new “right” where current law and historical precedent had always held that no such right existed.

Well, you know, it’s an election year.


39 posted on 06/15/2008 1:04:02 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
There are no courts that matter in communism. The party decides what it shall do and publishes the required conclusion in the party newspaper, and everyone falls into line or is shot.

Welcome, comrade.

40 posted on 06/15/2008 1:06:58 PM PDT by JasonC (There will be hell to pay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman
They have ignored their own precedent in the matter. Under the present made up fantasy, yes they would have had habeas corpus rights.

Personally, I think the conclusion is we shouldn't listen to these windbags at all, anymore. They only have jurisdiction where congress gives it, and congress explicitly withheld it in this area, as recently as 2 years ago. When they exceed their legal jurisdiction they are mere private individual pontificating, not judges.

I also suggest releasing all captives with full return of their personal property - their weapons in other words - in downtown Washington. Tomorrow. Across the street from the court would be a nice spot.

41 posted on 06/15/2008 1:10:40 PM PDT by JasonC (There will be hell to pay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
six letter answer: S-O-U-T-E-R

LOL!!! And true! What I find so absolutely hysterical is that this is primarily the same group of people who "selected" Dubya back in 2000. Roberts and Alito are new, but that's it.

So, where the Supremes were stupid back in 2000, they are now brilliant.

Or am I missing something?

Thanks to Souter, I'm having difficulties that McCain will hold to his promise to nominate justices like Alito and Roberts. His comments regarding Alito haven't been consistent.

42 posted on 06/15/2008 1:33:20 PM PDT by Night Hides Not (John McCain is Lucy, McCainiacs are Charlie Brown, and the football is a secure border.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

“They only have jurisdiction where congress gives it”

Interesting! I’ve been wondering whether, in our system of checks and balances, any “checks” existed on the Supreme Court. Not that a Democrat Congress is going to do anything to help a Republican President.

“I also suggest releasing all captives with full return of their personal property - their weapons in other words....Across the street from the court would be a nice spot.”

Hey! There’s a useful check!


43 posted on 06/15/2008 1:38:12 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman
The Supreme Court has no way of enforcing their decisions.

They rely on the other branches to 'accept' their ruling, which is one of the reasons they usually cherry pick their case (at least they used to).

As of late, their Liberal zeal has caused them to take cases they never would have touched in the past (Hamdan v Rumsfeld and et al, for example) and with each of these cases they've made contortionist rulings that only have the effect of increasingly making them, the SCOTUS, irrelevant.

All a president or congress has to do is ignore their ruling - they (SCOTUS) can whine, but other than that there's nothing they can do.

IOW, it's all a big bluff on their part.

44 posted on 06/15/2008 1:51:31 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (Write in: Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal
"Personally, I think the conclusion is we shouldn't listen to these windbags at all, anymore."

This is essentially my conclusion in 44 - thank you for putting it so succinctly.

45 posted on 06/15/2008 1:57:03 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (Write in: Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
"Personally, I think the conclusion is we shouldn't listen to these windbags at all, anymore."

This is essentially my conclusion in 44 - thank you for putting it so succinctly.

46 posted on 06/15/2008 1:57:10 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (Write in: Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

It’s good to trust the police when the police are honest.

However, hoping a bad cop will protect you when he has a gun, when he won’t protect you when he doesn’t, is foolish.

If you ask Obama what he finds more threatening, Islamic terrorists or the KKK, what do you think his answer will be?

If you ask Obama what is more important in defending the United States, “being liked” or having a military to defend us, what do you think he believes?

If you ask Obama what is more dangerous, paramilitary training camps for Islamists in the US, or Republicans, do you have any doubt that he sees Republicans as “the enemy”?

Yes, I’ll be the first to say that the Patriot Act laws were a very good thing and prevented terrorist attacks in the US. But that doesn’t mean that I will trust either Obama or McCain with even a pointed stick.

At least McCain might take the fight to the enemy, as well as the US people. But Obama? Hell, he thinks the Free Republic is the threat. I just sure as heck hope that he never gets control of nuclear weapons, or we can say bye-bye to Israel.


47 posted on 06/15/2008 2:03:09 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective
Jonathan Mahler, a contributing writer for the magazine, is working on a book about the Hamdan case, to be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.


Jonathan Mahler

Katyal, who served as Vice President Gore's co-counsel in the suit over the 2000 election, draws a sharp distinction between waging war, an act over which the president should have broad authority, and meting out justice. And so, working at his own expense with research support from a loose network of law students from Georgetown, Yale and the University of Michigan along with attorneys from the law firm Perkins Coie, Katyal has written more than a thousand pages of briefs arguing that the president has neither the authority to create the tribunals without explicit Congressional approval nor the right to deny Hamdan status as a prisoner of war, and in so doing strip him of protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. ''The Geneva Conventions were written precisely to make it difficult for political leaders facing political pressure to suspend basic rights and P.O.W. protections,'' Katyal says. ''The moment we let a president say he can determine whether someone is

48 posted on 06/15/2008 2:15:05 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreativePerspective

2007 Soros Justice Fellows
Project Descriptions and Biographies

Jonathan Mahler, journalist and author
Brooklyn, NY

Jonathan Mahler will complete a book about Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his defense lawyers, a Navy JAG and Georgetown University law professor, who sued the Bush Administration on Hamdan’s behalf. The book is a narrative account of the lawsuit—which reached the Supreme Court in the spring of 2006—set against the backdrop of the Bush Administration’s broader legal strategy in the “war on terror.”

Mahler is a contributing writer for the New York TimesMagazine and author of the book Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning, which was reviewed on the cover of the New York TimesBook Review, and was selected as a 2005 New York Times Notable Book. He has reported extensively from the United States and abroad, covering a diverse range of subjects including politics, sports, religion, and, most recently, the war on terror. Prior to joining the Times in 2003, he was a senior editor and writer for Talk Magazine. Before Talk, he held several different posts at the Forward newspaper, including Washington correspondent and managing editor. He has published articles and essays in a variety of other publications, such as The New Republic, Slate, New Yorkmagazine and LinguaFranca. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Northwestern University.

Over $1 Million Awarded to Visionary Leaders in Criminal Justice

2008 Open Society Institute.

http://tinyurl.com/576ume


49 posted on 06/15/2008 2:28:27 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

This so-called ‘journalist’ is a George Soros fellow.

2007 Soros Justice Fellows
Project Descriptions and Biographies

Over $1 Million Awarded to Visionary Leaders in Criminal Justice

2008 Open Society Institute.

http://tinyurl.com/576ume

Jonathan Mahler, journalist and author
Brooklyn, NY


50 posted on 06/15/2008 2:32:17 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson