Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: George Will on last week's SCOTUS decision

  1. #1

    George Will on last week's SCOTUS decision

    A good, mostly right, I think, take from a prominent conservative, which ought to throw cold water on the rather silly hysteria kicked up by some around these parts.



    From Washingtonpost.com ...


    [QUOTE]Contempt Of Courts
    McCain's Posturing On Guantanamo
    By George F. Will
    Tuesday, June 17, 2008; Page A17

    The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.

    Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

    Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

    The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

    The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. [B]None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests. [/B]

    [B]As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are. [/B]

    Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court's decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the "complete and total" U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas right from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? Are habeas rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trials by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?

    Roberts's impatience is understandable: "The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date." Ideally, however, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by courts.

    McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, "quote 'First Amendment rights.' " Now he dismissively speaks of "so-called, quote 'habeas corpus suits.' " He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as "the great writ of liberty."

    [B]No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims? [/B]

    [B]As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment. [/B]

    In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution. [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    It's funny Nuu. I read this article and thought very much about posting it as I thought it was really and excellent analyses by a Conservative. Then I said, well we've really gone over this again and again.

    I think though that you are right. It does deserve it's own thread.

    I found most interesting that the Libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute filed a brief in support of the detainees.

    It seems like most posters here of Libertarian instincts are strongly against the decision. I wonder how they feel after reading about Cato's brief and how Libertarians approach this matter.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2587980]It's funny Nuu. I read this article and thought very much about posting it as I thought it was really and excellent analyses by a Conservative. Then I said, well we've really gone over this again and again.

    I think though that you are right. It does deserve it's own thread.

    I found most interesting that the Libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute filed a brief in support of the detainees.

    It seems like most posters here of Libertarian instincts are strongly against the decision. I wonder how they feel after reading about Cato's brief and how Libertarians approach this matter.[/QUOTE]

    Come on, QJF: We all know the Cato Institute is just a bunch of PC surrender monkey libtards who swayed five unelected rogues in robes.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2587855]

    A good, mostly right, I think, take from a prominent conservative, which ought to throw cold water on the rather silly hysteria kicked up by some around these parts.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, nuu, I don't take my marching orders from George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or anyone else .. I don't wait for any of them to tell me what I'm supposed to think [COLOR="Red"]{well, except maybe Peggy Noonan whom I've had a crush on for 30 Years :O}[/COLOR], but least of all every liberals favorite lapdog conservative, George Will

    He's entitaled to his opinion from his ivory tower and I'm entitled to mine
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-17-2008 at 09:11 PM.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2588251]With all due respect, nuu, I don't take my marching orders from George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or anyone else .. I don't wait for any of them to tell me what I'm supposed to think [COLOR="Red"]{well, except maybe Peggy Noonan whom I've had a crush on for 30 Years :O}[/COLOR], but least of all every liberals favorite lapdog conservative, George Will

    He's entitaled to his opinion from his ivory tower and I'm entitled to mine[/QUOTE]

    Excuse me Ham but I don't think Will gives out marching orders unlike the other 2, Hannity and Rush that you mentioned. Is very unfair to group Will with them. Will has a brilliant mind, is articiculate, Conservative, and adheres to principles rather than talking points. That makes him a lapdog of liberals?

    I guess though to you my post propably proves your point because I like Will although I usually don't agree with him.

    Now Noonan... Are you sure?:huh:

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2588310]

    Now Noonan... Are you sure?:huh:[/QUOTE]Don't go there, QJF .. you can slam George Bush or any other conservative and I won't take it personal, even Ronald Reagan, you can take on the Gipper and we can still be friends, but I have sworn to defend Peggy's honor for 30 Years and even the mildest of slights can cause a rift in our friendship that will never be repaired

    When other kids were hanging Farrah Fawcett posters on their walls, I had a picture of Peggy Noonan :D
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-17-2008 at 11:27 PM.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2588345]
    When other kids were hanging Farrah Fawcett posters on their walls, I had a picture of Peggy Noonan :D
    [/QUOTE]
    I always knew there was something strange about you Ham.:hmm:

    Jet fans - what a weird lot!

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2588251][B]With all due respect, nuu, I don't take my marching orders from George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or anyone else [/B].. I don't wait for any of them to tell me what I'm supposed to think [COLOR="Red"]{well, except maybe Peggy Noonan whom I've had a crush on for 30 Years :O}[/COLOR], but least of all every liberals favorite lapdog conservative, George Will

    He's entitaled to his opinion from his ivory tower and I'm entitled to mine[/QUOTE]

    George Will is a brilliant authentic conservative... unlike Sean or Rush.


    .... and liberals lapdog is far from accurate... he stands against them on almost every issue.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2588251]With all due respect, nuu, I don't take my marching orders from George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or anyone else .. I don't wait for any of them to tell me what I'm supposed to think [COLOR="Red"]{well, except maybe Peggy Noonan whom I've had a crush on for 30 Years :O}[/COLOR], but least of all every liberals favorite lapdog conservative, George Will

    He's entitaled to his opinion from his ivory tower and I'm entitled to mine[/QUOTE]

    You're entitled to your opinion, Ham, but not your own facts. You've attempted the latter in this thread.

    This, from Will's column, is fact:

    [QUOTE]None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests. [/QUOTE]

    That's all the courts approved, yet you acted like every inmate was a full day in court and treated it like some sort of coup.

    What's more, we get the following report from McClatchy this week that shows clear evidence that there are, in fact, innocent people locked up in the gulag you favor keeping a legal black hole.

    So we have yet another fact: There are innocent people among the thugs at Gitmo. Perhaps many of them. And you don't think they should have the right to so much as write a letter to a court to shed light on their detention.

    Here's that one:

    [QUOTE]America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men
    Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers
    last updated: June 14, 2008 10:50:09 PM

    GARDEZ, Afghanistan The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

    They shouted "Allahu Akbar" God is great as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

    Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

    But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

    "He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

    A[B]n eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

    McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials primarily in Afghanistan and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

    This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.[/B]
    The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

    Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.

    While he was held at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base, Akhtiar said, "When I had a dispute with the interrogator, when I asked, 'What is my crime?' the soldiers who took me back to my cell would throw me down the stairs."

    The McClatchy reporting also documented how U.S. detention policies fueled support for extremist Islamist groups. For some detainees who went home far more militant than when they arrived, Guantanamo became a school for jihad, or Islamic holy war.

    Of course, Guantanamo also houses Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, who along with four other high-profile detainees faces military commission charges. Cases also have been opened against 15 other detainees for assorted offenses, such as attending al Qaida training camps.

    But because the Bush administration set up Guantanamo under special rules that allowed indefinite detention without charges or federal court challenge, it's impossible to know how many of the 770 men who've been held there were terrorists.

    A series of White House directives placed "suspected enemy combatants" beyond the reach of U.S. law or the 1949 Geneva Conventions' protections for prisoners of war. President Bush and Congress then passed legislation that protected those detention rules.

    However, the administration's attempts to keep the detainees beyond the law came crashing down last week.

    The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that detainees have the right to contest their cases in federal courts, and that a 2006 act of Congress forbidding them from doing so was unconstitutional. "Some of these petitioners have been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention," the court said in its 5-4 decision, overturning Bush administration policy and two acts of Congress that codified it.

    One former administration official said the White House's initial policy and legal decisions "probably made instances of abuse more likely. ... My sense is that decisions taken at the top probably sent a signal that the old rules don't apply ... certainly some people read what was coming out of Washington: The gloves are off, this isn't a Geneva world anymore."

    Like many others who previously worked in the White House or Defense Department, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal and political sensitivities of the issue.

    McClatchy's interviews are the most ever conducted with former Guantanamo detainees by a U.S. news organization. The issue of detainee backgrounds has previously been reported on by other media outlets, but not as comprehensively.

    McClatchy also in many cases did more research than either the U.S. military at Guantanamo, which often relied on secondhand accounts, or the detainees' lawyers, who relied mainly on the detainees' accounts.

    The Pentagon declined to discuss the findings. It issued a statement Friday saying that military policy always has been to treat detainees humanely, to investigate credible complaints of abuse and to hold people accountable. The statement says that an al Qaida manual urges detainees to lie about prison conditions once they're released. "We typically do not respond to each and every allegation of abuse made by past and present detainees," the statement said.

    LITTLE INTELLIGENCE VALUE

    The McClatchy investigation found that top Bush administration officials knew within months of opening the Guantanamo detention center that many of the prisoners there weren't "the worst of the worst." From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there.

    Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.

    Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any terrorists of consequence.

    If the former detainees whom McClatchy interviewed are any indication and several former high-ranking U.S. administration and defense officials said in interviews that they are most of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't terrorist masterminds but men who were of no intelligence value in the war on terrorism.

    Far from being an ally of the Taliban, Mohammed Akhtiar had fled to Pakistan shortly after the puritanical Islamist group took power in 1996, the senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. The Taliban burned down Akhtiar's house after he refused to ally his tribe with their government.

    The Americans detained Akhtiar, the intelligence officer said, because they were given bad information by another Afghan who'd harbored a personal vendetta against Akhtiar going back to his time as a commander against the Soviet military during the 1980s.

    "In some of these cases, tribal feuds and political feuds have played a big role" in people getting sent to Guantanamo, the intelligence officer said.

    He didn't want his name used, partly because he didn't want to offend the Western officials he works with and partly because Afghan intelligence officers are assassinated regularly.

    "There were Afghans being sent to Guantanamo because of bad intelligence," said Helaluddin Helal, Afghanistan's deputy interior minister for security from 2002 to early 2004. "In the beginning, everyone was trying to give intelligence to the Americans ... the Americans were taking action without checking this information."

    Nusrat Khan was in his 70s when American troops shoved him into an isolation cell at Bagram in the spring of 2003. They blindfolded him, put earphones on his head and tied his hands behind his back for almost four weeks straight, Khan said.

    By the time he was taken out of the cell, Khan who'd had at least two strokes years before he was arrested and was barely able to walk was half-mad and couldn't stand without help. Khan said that he was taken to Guantanamo on a stretcher.

    Several Afghan officials, including the country's attorney general, later said that Khan, who spent more than three years at Guantanamo, wasn't a threat to anyone; he'd been turned in as an insurgent leader because of decades-old rivalries with competing Afghan militias.

    Ghalib Hassan was an Interior Ministry-appointed district commander in Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, a man who'd risked his life to help the U.S.-backed government. Din Mohammed, the former governor of that province and now the governor of Kabul, said there was no question that local tribal leaders, offended by Hassan's brusque style, fed false information about him to local informants used by American troops.

    The Pentagon declined requests to make top officials, including the secretary of defense, available to respond to McClatchy's findings. The defense official in charge of detainee affairs, Sandra Hodgkinson, refused to speak with McClatchy.

    The Pentagon's only response to a series of written questions from McClatchy, and to a list of 63 of the 66 former detainees interviewed for this story, was a three-paragraph statement.

    "These unlawful combatants have provided valuable information in the struggle to protect the U.S. public from an enemy bent on murder of innocent civilians," Col. Gary Keck said in the statement. He provided no examples.

    Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, until recently the commanding officer at Guantanamo, said that detainees had supplied crucial information about al Qaida, the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

    "Included with the folks that were brought here in 2002 were, by and large, the main leadership of al Qaida and the Taliban," he said in a phone interview.

    Buzby agreed, however, that some detainees were from the bottom rung.

    "It's all about developing the mosaic ... there's value to both ends of the spectrum," he said.

    Former senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials, however, said McClatchy's conclusions squared with their own observations.

    "As far as intelligence value from those in Gitmo, I got tired of telling the people writing reports based on their interrogations that their material was essentially worthless," a U.S. intelligence officer said in an e-mail, using the military's slang for Guantanamo.

    Guantanamo authorities periodically sent analysts at the U.S. Central Command "rap sheets on various prisoners and asked our assessment whether they merited continued confinement," said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "Over about three years, I assessed around 40 of these individuals, mostly Afghans. ... I only can remember recommending that ONE should be kept at GITMO."

    'WAR COUNCIL' REWRITES DETAINEE LAW

    At a Pentagon briefing in the spring of 2002, a senior Army intelligence officer expressed doubt about the entire intelligence-gathering process.

    "He said that we're not getting anything, and his thought was that we're not getting anything because there might not be anything to get," said Donald J. Guter, a retired rear admiral who was the head of the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps at the time.

    Many detainees were "swept up in the pot" by large operations conducted by Afghan troops allied with the Americans, said former Army Secretary White, who's now a partner at DKRW Energy, an energy company in Houston.

    One of the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo, White recalled, was more than 80 years old.

    Army Spc. Eric Barclais, who was a military intelligence interrogator at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from September 2002 through January 2003, told military investigators in sworn testimony that "We recommended lots of folks be released from (Bagram), but they were not. I believe some people ended up at (Guantanamo) that had no business being sent there."

    "You have to understand some folks were detained because they got turned in by neighbors or family members who were feuding with them," Barclais said. "Yes, they had weapons. Everyone had weapons. Some were Soviet-era and could not even be fired."

    A former Pentagon official told McClatchy that he was shocked at times by the backgrounds of men held at Guantanamo.

    " 'Captured with weapon near the Pakistan border?' " the official said. "Are you kidding me?"

    "The screening, the understanding of who we had was horrible," he said. "That's why we had so many useless people at Gitmo."

    In 2002, a CIA analyst interviewed several dozen detainees at Guantanamo and reported to senior National Security Council officials that many of them didn't belong there, a former White House official said.

    Despite the analyst's findings, the administration made no further review of the Guantanamo detainees. The White House had determined that all of them were enemy combatants, the former official said.

    Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers who called themselves the "War Council" devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected "enemy combatants" indefinitely with few legal rights.

    The threat of new terrorist attacks, the War Council argued, allowed President Bush to disregard or rewrite American law, international treaties and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit unlimited detentions and harsh interrogations.

    The group further argued that detainees had no legal right to defend themselves, and that American soldiers along with the War Council members, their bosses and Bush should be shielded from prosecution for actions that many experts argue are war crimes.

    With the support of Bush, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the group shunted aside the military justice system, and in February 2002, Bush suspended the legal protection for detainees spelled out in Common Article Three of the 1949 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which outlaws degrading treatment and torture.

    The Bush administration didn't launch a formal review of the detentions until a 2004 Supreme Court decision forced it to begin holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. The Supreme Court ruling last week said that the tribunals were deeply flawed, but it didn't close them down.

    In late 2004, Pentagon officials decided to restrict further interrogations at Guantanamo to detainees who were considered "high value" for their suspected knowledge of terrorist groups or their potential of returning to the battlefield, according to Matthew Waxman, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, the Defense Department's head official for detainee matters, from August 2004 to December 2005.

    "Maybe three-quarters of the detainees by 2005 were no longer regularly interrogated," said Waxman, who's now a law professor at Columbia University.

    At that time, about 500 men were still being held at Guantanamo.

    So far, the military commissions have publicly charged only six detainees less than 1 percent of the more than 770 who've been at Guantanamo with direct involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks; they dropped the charges in one case. Those few cases are now in question after the high court's ruling Thursday.

    About 500 detainees nearly two out of three have been released.

    During a military review board hearing at Guantanamo, Mohammed Akhtiar had some advice for the U.S. officers seated before him.

    "I wish," he said, "that the United States would realize who the bad guys are and who the good guys are."

    HOW FOOT SOLDIERS, FARMERS GOT SWEPT UP

    How did the United States come to hold so many farmers and goat herders among the real terrorists at Guantanamo? Among the reasons:

    After conceding control of the country to U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, top Taliban and al Qaida leaders escaped to Pakistan, leaving the battlefield filled with ragtag groups of volunteers and conscripts who knew nothing about global terrorism.

    The majority of the detainees taken to Guantanamo came into U.S. custody indirectly, from Afghan troops, warlords, mercenaries and Pakistani police who often were paid cash by the number and alleged importance of the men they handed over. Foot soldiers brought in hundreds of dollars, but commanders were worth thousands. Because of the bounties advertised in fliers that U.S. planes dropped all over Afghanistan in late 2001 there was financial incentive for locals to lie about the detainees' backgrounds. Only 33 percent of the former detainees 22 out of 66 whom McClatchy interviewed were detained initially by U.S. forces. Of those 22, 17 were Afghans who'd been captured around mid-2002 or later as part of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, a fight that had more to do with counter-insurgency than terrorism.

    American soldiers and interrogators were susceptible to false reports passed along by informants and officials looking to settle old grudges in Afghanistan, a nation that had experienced more than two decades of occupation and civil war before U.S. troops arrived. This meant that Americans were likely to arrest Afghans who had no significant connections to militant groups. For example, of those 17 Afghans whom the U.S. captured in mid-2002 or later, at least 12 of them were innocent of the allegations against them, according to interviews with Afghan intelligence and security officials.

    Detainees at Guantanamo had no legal venue in which to challenge their detentions. The only mechanism set up to evaluate their status, an internal tribunal in the late summer of 2004, rested on the decisions of rotating panels of three U.S. military officers. The tribunals made little effort to find witnesses who weren't present at Guantanamo, and detainees were in no position to challenge the allegations against them.

    McClatchy Newspapers 2008[/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2588444]

    I always knew there was something strange about you Ham.:hmm:

    Jet fans - what a weird lot![/QUOTE]:D

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2589150]

    You're entitled to your opinion, Ham, but not your own facts. You've attempted the latter in this thread.

    This, from Will's column, is fact:

    [QUOTE]None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]This is an opinion, nuu, not a fact, this is George Will's opinion

    Read it closely, he says it doesn't "Guarantee" the right to a hearing, rather it "Guarantees" only the right to request a hearing .. but it leaves open the possibility of a hearing upon the courts "discretion" and that is the operative word here, George Will seems to believe {in his opinion} that federal Judges will all act responsibly here, while I fear leftist federal Judges will prove to be irresponsible as usual, maybe not all of the time, but they'll cut a few of these homicidal maniacs loose and people will die as a result

    That's where George Will and I differ, he has a much higher "opinion" of federal Judges than yours truly

    [B]I don't believe ...

    A. They are Qualified to make these decisions

    B. They should be trusted to make these decisions[/B]

    Apparently George Will feels differently on both counts
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-18-2008 at 11:39 AM.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2589335]That is an opinion, nuu, that is not a fact, that is George Will's opinion

    Read if closely, he says it doesn't "Guarantee" the right to a hearing, rather it "Guarantees" only the right to request a hearing .. but it leaves open the possibility of a hearing upon the courts "discretion" and that is the operative word here, George Will seems to believe {in his opinion} that federal Judges will all act responsibly here, while I fear leftist federal Judges will prove to be irresponsible as usual, maybe not all of the time, but they'll cut a few of these homicidal maniacs loose and people will die as a result

    That's where George Will and I differ, he has a much higher "opinion" of federal Judges than yours truly[/QUOTE]

    It's not an opinion: A Habeas appeal is, quite simply, the right to write a letter to a court challenging your detention. It is not a right to have the appeal heard, unless the court finds that the detention is a joke. (Like, in the case of the McClatchy story, you were actually fighting with the U.S. in Afghanistan and got doublecrossed by local officials.) And the appeals can and will be challenged by the government, in most cases successfully.

    The idea that Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri is going to be able to successfully challenge their detention is a joke.

    Do you have any concern about innocent people being held indefinitely by our government without charges? Because that is what is currently happening.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2589335]

    That's where George Will and I differ, he has a much higher "opinion" of federal Judges than yours truly

    [B]I don't believe ...

    A. They are Qualified to make these decisions

    B. They should be trusted to make these decisions[/B]

    Apparently George Will feels differently on both counts[/QUOTE]

    Clearly you feel that the executive branch is infallible and should not be subject to any checks or balances no matter how overwhelming the evidence that it is locking up innocents indefinitely without charges.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2589364]

    Clearly you feel that the executive branch is infallible and should not be subject to any checks or balances no matter how overwhelming the evidence that it is locking up innocents indefinitely without charges.[/QUOTE]I don't believe they are infallible

    I believe they are as prone to human error as the next guy, including federal Judges

    I simply believe the executive branch has been given the constitutional authority to set war policy and they should be allowed to do so without being micro-managed by federal Judges who are not as qualified and not in the same position of direct accountability to the people

    Input from the legislature, absolutely, but IMO these decisions should be left to the elected branches as the constitution intended, not federal Judges who are simply not qualified to micro-manage this war from the bench
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-18-2008 at 04:06 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us