I vote for the dual scary/asinine tag.

TFA: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that "if necessary," he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.

Wow. Literally speechless here.

Fortunately, I'm not speaking, I'm typing. Senator Graham is best described with the technical term, "asshat".

SCOTUS's decision was that you have to apply habeus corpus on US soil, including in US territories (like Gitmo), not that you have to apply it to all POWs. Anywhere the US exercises de facto control is considered to be "US territory" for purposes of this.

Thank FSM it requires 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, then 3/4 of the States to get an amendment passed.

FightDirector: Anywhere the US exercises de facto control is considered to be "US territory" for purposes of this.

Come out tonight and I will find someone to buy you a drink for that

FightDirector: Wow. Literally speechless here.

This kind of thing still surprises you?

Shadow Blasko: FightDirector: Anywhere the US exercises de facto control is considered to be "US territory" for purposes of this.

Come out tonight and I will find someone to buy you a drink for that

Dammit...why do I always get offered free drinks just before film shoots?

Can't come out - production meeting and final explosives handling meetings for the 48 hour Film Festival project I'm slated to do this weekend. No offense, but I'm willing to give up a free beer if it means that some stupid interns don't detonate 20lbs of Pyrodex while I'm laying detcord.

Okay..someone explain this to me. As I understand this, this ruling reach over these detainees who are not Citizens and not on US soil..is that right?

Isn't that just a tad presumptuous externally to the US to extend these protections out that far?

At least now we know which Supreme Court justices are pro-terrorist.

Geez, as a lifelong Republican voter, abortion and prayer in schools looks pretty small to me now.

It seems like we are extending our laws and protections outside our borders..am I reading this right?..that doesn't sound like it should happen.

GaryPDX: Okay..someone explain this to me. As I understand this, this ruling reach over these detainees who are not Citizens and not on US soil..is that right?

Isn't that just a tad presumptuous externally to the US to extend these protections out that far?

FightDirector: Anywhere the US exercises de facto control is considered to be "US territory" for purposes of this.

I'd say it's only intellectually honest to apply the law this way.

FightDirector: I'd say it's only intellectually honest to apply the law this way.

It feels more like Imperialism, even though these guys benefit from our stuff. I'm not sure I agree we should be doing that. I ask..should we do that to say...Kenya?

I must be missing something.

GaryPDX: FightDirector: I'd say it's only intellectually honest to apply the law this way.

It feels more like Imperialism, even though these guys benefit from our stuff. I'm not sure I agree we should be doing that. I ask..should we do that to say...Kenya?

I must be missing something.

The restriction is on what representatives of the U.S. government can and cannot do. Not on other countries.

GaryPDX: Okay..someone explain this to me. As I understand this, this ruling reach over these detainees who are not Citizens and not on US soil..is that right?

Isn't that just a tad presumptuous externally to the US to extend these protections out that far?

I want to answer this, but because of -- what I assume to be -- a few typos, I cannot parse your statement.

Can you try again?

/I'm not trying to be a dick, I just really can't figure out what you are saying.

GaryPDX: FightDirector: I'd say it's only intellectually honest to apply the law this way.

It feels more like Imperialism, even though these guys benefit from our stuff. I'm not sure I agree we should be doing that. I ask..should we do that to say...Kenya?

I must be missing something.

We're only apply our own Constitutional protections to them, not the full extent of our laws. That seems to be erring on the side of morality to me.

Further, it makes it impossible to deny actual American citizens the right to habeus corpus by transporting them somewhere that doesn't have that right (like Gitmo was). Anywhere they're transported becomes "US territory", so the protections will always apply.

That's how I'm reading the intent behind the case, anyway. I haven't had time to read the whole thing.

these are the bullshiat games they are pulling ^{(^)}

I swear these asshats need to be shown the door.

Gecko Gingrich: Can you try again?

/I'm not trying to be a dick, I just really can't figure out what you are saying.


Sure..these guys are foreigners, they are on foreign soil. They are threats. Why should our protections (laws) extend beyond our borders?..What stops it from being extended elsewhere?

If the administration had just gone ahead and classified these guys as POWs, then there would have been no avenue for the Supreme Court to intervene, as the Geneva Convention would cover the process. But they tried to put these guys into a legal limbo, outside of any review process. If there is anything the rule of law abhors, it is a legal vacuum. All this ruling today really said was that the government needs to show why these folks need to be held. The bar for keeping someone is detention in a habeas corpus situation is really, really low. If these guys are as heinous as they have been described, then it should be a slam dunk for the government to make the case to keep them in detention. But at least let the case be made.

GaryPDX: It seems like we are extending our laws and protections outside our borders..am I reading this right?..that doesn't sound like it should happen.

This isn't about some random place outside our borders.

Somebody has jurisdiction over our base at Guantanamo. Either it's under US jurisdiction, or Cuban jurisdiction. If it is under our jurisdiction then Constitutional protections apply. If Cuba has jurisdiction then we have to agree to be bound by the decisions of their courts.

Which do you prefer?

JPJ007: The restriction is on what representatives of the U.S. government can and cannot do. Not on other countries.

Okay..I'm thinking the only connect is "custody"..then why wouldn't this extend to Iraq detainees by us?

I'm not trying to be a dick either, I'm just trying to understand the distinction and where it applies.

ShutterGeek: GaryPDX: It seems like we are extending our laws and protections outside our borders..am I reading this right?..that doesn't sound like it should happen.

This isn't about some random place outside our borders.

Somebody has jurisdiction over our base at Guantanamo. Either it's under US jurisdiction, or Cuban jurisdiction. If it is under our jurisdiction then Constitutional protections apply. If Cuba has jurisdiction then we have to agree to be bound by the decisions of their courts.

Which do you prefer?

Isn't Iraq basically under our jurisdiction?

Like I said..I must be missing something.

GaryPDX:
Okay..I'm thinking the only connect is "custody"..then why wouldn't this extend to Iraq detainees by us?

I'm not trying to be a dick either, I'm just trying to understand the distinction and where it applies.

What do you mean? Iraqi detainees that we are holding? Or Iraqi detainees that we captured and are being held by Iraqis?

GaryPDX:
Isn't Iraq basically under our jurisdiction?

Like I said..I must be missing something.

Oh...I think I get it now.

Iraq in general is under the jurisdiction of the legally-elected (and corrupt as hell, but them's the breaks) Iraqi government.

Certain places in Iraq - US Embassy and military bases, mainly - are under the jurisdiction of the US.

GaryPDX: Sure..these guys are foreigners, they are on foreign soil. They are threats. Why should our protections (laws) extend beyond our borders?..What stops it from being extended elsewhere?

The point the SCOTUS made was that these prisoners are in fact *not* on foreign soil.

Here's the question that keeps me up at night: if the charges against Guantanamo detainees are so self-evident, why the need to handicap legal proceedings in the state's favour?

FightDirector: GaryPDX:
Isn't Iraq basically under our jurisdiction?

Like I said..I must be missing something.

Oh...I think I get it now.

Iraq in general is under the jurisdiction of the legally-elected (and corrupt as hell, but them's the breaks) Iraqi government.

Certain places in Iraq - US Embassy and military bases, mainly - are under the jurisdiction of the US.

D'oh! Forgot the point!

Certain places in Iraq - US Embassy and military bases, mainly - are under the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, anyone held on those bases is entitled to certain rights, including habeus corpus.

GaryPDX: Sure..these guys are foreigners, they are on foreign soil. They are threats. Why should our protections (laws) extend beyond our borders?

Article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention. Go look up Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Gecko Gingrich: GaryPDX: Sure..these guys are foreigners, they are on foreign soil. They are threats. Why should our protections (laws) extend beyond our borders?..What stops it from being extended elsewhere?

The point the SCOTUS made was that these prisoners are in fact *not* on foreign soil.

ahh..okay. I still don't quite get it but that's cool..Gitmo is a military base. There are others.

thx

GaryPDX: It seems like we are extending our laws and protections outside our borders

It seems like we set up an artificially necessary holding area outside our borders in order to confuse people into asking questions about how "our" rights extend to people outside of our borders. I suppose if we had taken in random people brought to us for huge ransoms during the initial confusion and horror of the invasion of Iraq and kept them in Kansas it would be much much different.

Cheney's people's media mediated mind tricks are, as usual, excellent.

GaryPDX: ahh..okay. I still don't quite get it but that's cool..Gitmo is a military base. There are others.

Right. And therefore anyone on them is entitled to certain rights. Habeas Corpus is one of them.

GaryPDX: Isn't Iraq basically under our jurisdiction?

No. At least not in the same way that a US military base that has been in operation for over 100 years is.

Ah, our friendly neighborhood "independent", once again tirelessly defending the Republican tyrants.

Pathetic.

that should provide some interesting campaign commercial material for their re-elections, wouldn't you say?

you don't even have to do it in scary commercial voice, you can just quote them directly.

TheCid: Ah, our friendly neighborhood "independent", once again tirelessly defending the Republican tyrants.

Pathetic.

Chill, man. He's not being abusive or overly dense. Save it for the trolls.

GaryPDX: thx

No problem. :)

The only thing I see this administration changing as a result of this decision is that they will now transfer full custody of enemy combatants to a foreign power for keeping in their prisons.

JPJ007: Chill, man. He's not being abusive or overly dense. Save it for the trolls.

In fact, it would appear that he has (quite amicably) ceded the point.

Gecko Gingrich: GaryPDX: thx

No problem. :)

The only thing I see this administration changing as a result of this decision is that they will now transfer full custody of enemy combatants to a foreign power for keeping in their prisons.

That may be true. Fortunately, it'll probably be harder to do that for actual American citizens.

ok this may be a overly basic way of looking at this, but if they are being tried by our courts and judges, shouldn't they also be granted the same rights? Everyone keeps talking about the location of the prisoners, but isn't more that they are being tried by our judges, not where they are being tried?

Gecko Gingrich: JPJ007: Chill, man. He's not being abusive or overly dense. Save it for the trolls.

In fact, it would appear that he has (quite amicably) ceded the point.

I have him on ignore because I got tired of his bullshiat and he alt'ed it up a while back; so I only saw the ridiculous crap he was spewing at the start of the thread.

Oh yay. Greenlighted. This will go well.

Awesome.

The self-styled bulwarks of Western civilization are willing to overturn habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, a fundamental piece of civil rights & human rights legislation that has been a core value of Western civilization since at least the early 1300s.

Phukking awesome.

shaggenstein: ok this may be a overly basic way of looking at this, but if they are being tried by our courts and judges, shouldn't they also be granted the same rights? Everyone keeps talking about the location of the prisoners, but isn't more that they are being tried by our judges, not where they are being tried?

That's basically always been my take on it, too.

FTFUSC:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The law that Congress authorized, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, does "authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." However, this SCOTUS decision has just found that law to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Rights guaranteed by The Constitution that are reserved solely for citizens of the US are explicitly stated as such (vote, hold office, etc). The Fifth Amendment to the aforementioned Constitution says "person" any quite a few occasions, yet not once says "citizen". To wit:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

FightDirector: Oh yay. Greenlighted. This will go well.

Indeed.

wow. Someone just get these people out of office already. They're complete failures as elected officials and as human beings.

If you think you do not need Habeus Corpus... just remember the next time that you are at a traffic stop, that it is all of the rights built off of Habeus Corpus that keep that cop from tossing you in jail because he doesn't like your face and taking your stuff because its better than his.

SilentStrider: wow. Someone just get these people out of office already. They're complete failures as elected officials and as human beings.

what, you don't feel safer now?

Yeah, that sounds right.

shaggenstein: what, you don't feel safer now?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve to be tried by a jury of their peers, and if found guilty, have barbed wire tied around their wedding vegetables and then be held upside down by it over a pit of ravenous badgers while fire ants are funneled into their rectums.

Gecko Gingrich: shaggenstein: what, you don't feel safer now?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve to be tried by a jury of their peers, and if found guilty, have barbed wire tied around their wedding vegetables and then be held upside down by it over a pit of ravenous badgers while fire ants are funneled into their rectums.

Don't be shy there...tell us how you really feel.

Anyone get a comment out of the Noms yet? I can pretty well guess Obama's, but I'd LOVE to hear what McCain has to say about the SC overturning the legislation that he voted 'aye' on.

Running a-puck: Anyone get a comment out of the Noms yet? I can pretty well guess Obama's, but I'd LOVE to hear what McCain has to say about the SC overturning the legislation that he voted 'aye' on.

I'm wondering about McCain as well, as it seems he has been sending out Sen. Graham to be a mouth piece for his presidential run, wonder if he still stand by him.