← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

Neocons love John G. Roberts, Jr

Thread ID: 19227 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2005-07-20

Wayback Archive

Faust [OP]

2005-07-20 08:37 | User Profile

Neocons love John G. Roberts, Jr

Ready to do the Bushie work and destroy what is left of our constitutional rights.

[QUOTE]Bush's Justice and the War on Terror By Henry Mark Holzer FrontPageMagazine.com | July 20, 2005

Preview Image

The media coverage of President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the O’Connor seat on the Supreme Court of the United States has understandably focused on his legal background and conservative credentials. Because the court on which he now sits—the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—has twelve justices who sit in random panels of three, and because Judge Roberts has been a member of that court for only two years, critics of his nomination such as Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Schumer will have a limited number of cases on the basis of which to attack him.

In an odd quirk, the case upon which they may rely most was decided only last Friday. Two other circuit judges (one of whom wrote the opinion) and Judge Roberts unanimously rendered a decision that strikes a blow for our country in our War on Terror.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was admittedly Osama bin Laden’s driver in Afghanistan from 1996 to two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in Washington, DC, and New York City.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush, with Congressional approval, promulgated an Order relating to the “Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. That Order, among other provisions, created Military Tribunals.

Hamdan was captured by Afghani troops in Afghanistan in late November 2001, turned over to the American military, and then interned at Guantanamo.

In July 2003, the President determined that there was reason to believe Hamdan was either a member of al Qaeda or otherwise engaged in terrorism against the United States.

In accordance with President Bush’s Order of November 13, 2001, and his July 2003 determination that good cause existed to believe Hamdan was a terrorist, he was marked to be tried before a Military Commission.

In December 2003, Hamdan was appointed counsel.

In April 2004, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—even though at that time there was no federal statute or Supreme Court decision that allowed Hamdan, an “enemy combatant,” to do so.

But Hamdan, and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees didn’t have long to wait.

Just two months later, the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush ruled that “enemy combatants” were entitled not only to file petitions for habeas corpus (anywhere in the United States), but were also entitled to due process of law. Sandra Day O’Connor was the fifth, swing vote that allowed the Court’s four liberals—Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer—to so handcuff our country’s defense against terrorists.

While Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition was pending, he was formally charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, murder, destruction of property and terrorism. In addition to charging that Hamdan was bin Laden’s driver, it was alleged that the defendant served as bin Laden’s bodyguard, delivered weapons to al Qaeda members, and trained at an al Qaeda camp.

As a result of the Hamdi decision, Hamdi went before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which found that he was indeed an enemy combatant “either a member of or affiliated with Al Qaeda.” Consequently, his continued detention was required.

Enter judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Here is his biography:

Judge Robertson was appointed United States District Judge in December 1994 [by William Jefferson Clinton]. He graduated from Princeton University in 1959 and received an LL.B. from George Washington University Law School in 1965 after serving in the U.S. Navy. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering [Lloyd Cutler was, for a while, White House counsel to President Clinton]. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee’s litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc.

On November 8, 2004—perhaps driven by his own politics, but certainly by the license given him by O’Connor’s Hamdi and Rasul decisions—Robertson granted a part of Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition.

Essentially, Robertson ruled that bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist driver might be covered by the 1949 Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, and until a competent tribunal found otherwise Hamdan (and, by implication, anyone like Hamdan) could not be tried by a military commission. To enforce his ruling, Robertson enjoined the Defense Department from conducting any further proceedings against Hamdan.

The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Only two “friend of the court” briefs were filed supporting the government: the “Washington Legal Foundation” and “The American Center for Law and Justice.”

“Friends of the court” supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, “305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians,” “Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui,” “Military Law Practitioners and Academicians,” “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” “Human Rights First,” “General Merrill A. McPeak,” “People for the American Way,” “The World Organization for Human Rights USA,” “Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights”—and, worst of all, the prestigious “Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”

Despite this array of “friends,” the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!

Hamdan had made two other arguments. One was that a particular Army Regulation provided relief for him. It requires that prisoners receive Geneva Convention protection “until some other legal status is determined by competent authority.” (Emphasis added) The Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush was such a competent authority. To the extent that the Army Regulation requires a “competent tribunal” to determine his status, the Court of Appeals ruled that a military commission is one. So if the Army Regulation even applies, Hamdan can tell the commission that he should be considered a prisoner of war.

Last, and since the Geneva Convention issue appears to be settled, most important both for the War on Terror and the War for the Supreme Court, is Hamdan’s argument that President Bush had no power to constitute military commissions because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” only to Congress.

As to this argument, the Court of Appeals ruled, and reminded Judge Robertson, that when President Bush promulgated his order of November 13, 2001, he had relied on various sources of authority: Commander in Chief, the post-9/11 Congressional authorization to use force in the War on Terror, the Articles of War, the World War II cases of Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita. Said the Court of Appeals—said nominee Roberts, by joining the majority opinion—given the foregoing, “It is impossible to see any basis for Hamdan’s claim that Congress has not authorized military commissions”.

Although Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has struck an important blow against the War on Terror (and in the process rebuked an obviously Left-wing federal judge), we have not heard the last of the case or the crucially important issues it has raised. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is only one of thirteen circuit courts, in any of which these same issues can be litigated. One way or another, they will reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

When they do, the cases will be heard by a newly appointed justice who is not merely the conservative that the President promised, but one who understands the Constitution, the appropriate manner of its interpretation, and, of utmost importance today, the seriousness of our War on Terror.

Henry Mark Holzer is a Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, specializing in constitutional and appellate law. Author of five books and co-author of two, including Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, he regularly contributes to Frontpagemag.com. [/QUOTE]

Angler

2005-07-20 10:09 | User Profile

Based on what you're posted here, Faust, I think you're right. It doesn't look good.

One of the founding principles of this country was that ALL people have certain inalienable rights. Thus, if Americans have a right to due process of law, then so do captured foreign terrorism suspects. Yet we have supposed "experts" on US law that deny these things.

What bothers me about this situation isn't so much that this or that Muslim extremist is being held without charge somewhere -- though I do think that such practices are pointless, immoral, and, in the end, counterproductive. (Maybe the next guy, not wanting to end up imprisoned indefinitely, won't surrender quietly, thus presenting much more of a danger than he would otherwise.) No, what bothers me most of all is the sheer hypocrisy that Americans -- neocons in particular -- have embraced. Either we as Americans believe in inalienable rights for all people or we don't, damn it! If Americans want to reject that belief and other American founding principles, then they should be man enough to admit it. But instead, we hear all this crap from our "leaders" -- which is then echoed by the media and general public -- about how America "fights for freedom and human rights" and other such crap. America has become a nation built on LIES. And serious lies disgust me probably as much as even murder.

Part of the point of my little rant here is that the Supreme Court should be the final bulwark against those who seek to dilute traditional American principles. Instead, it has become their enabler and a source of false legitimacy.

xmetalhead

2005-07-20 13:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Neocons love John G. Roberts, Jr[/QUOTE]

You really can't get anywhere in the US Fedgov otherwise.

random

2005-07-21 00:22 | User Profile

Holzer is an idiot. The Hamdi ruling was not a "liberal" vs. "conservative" split. The plurality (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Breyer, and Kennedy), 2 moderates, 1 conservative, and 1 liberal essentially held that Hamdi was entitled to a form of quasi-due process. He got some rights but not all of them. An opinion concurring in the judgment (Souter, Ginsberg), 2 liberals, argued that Hamdi should be given full due process. A dissent (Scalia, Stevens), written by Scalia, 1 conservative and 1 liberal, argued that Hamdi must either be tried for treason or the writ of habeas corpus must be suspended. (This was the most sound constitutional opinion of all 4, in my opinion). Another dissent, by Thomas, a conservative, argued that Hamdi had no rights; it's wartime and the government can do anything it wants.

The "War on Terror" legal questions do not fall on conservative/liberal lines. They are difficult questions that involve issues of due process, non-citizen rights, wartime, and divisions of power within the government. I wouldn't take anything this Holzer clown takes seriously.

Quantrill

2005-07-21 01:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler] One of the founding principles of this country was that ALL people have certain inalienable rights. Thus, if Americans have a right to due process of law, then so do captured foreign terrorism suspects. Yet we have supposed "experts" on US law that deny these things.[/QUOTE] I have no problem with denying foreigners some of the rights that we recognize for citizens. In that case, however, they should then be covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. What the Bush administration is trying to do is to create a class of 'enemy combatants' that are legally non-persons, having neither the rights of citizens, nor the rights of prisoners, and that is a great injustice.

Faust

2005-07-21 01:55 | User Profile

Quantrill,

I agree Aliens do not have constitutional rights or a right to vote, get welfare, or not be deported form the US. But if an alien is arrested and imprisoned by the US government should be treated as a Criminal or a POW, in the manner laid out by either the US Criminal Law or the Geneva Convention.

The big problem is the US government has already said US citizens can declared 'enemy combatants' something they had said at first would not be done. This declaring people “legally non-persons” has no basis in law and is basically Neo-Soviet Gulag building.

Angler

2005-07-21 06:00 | User Profile

Quantrill and Faust,

I didn't mean to imply that aliens and citizens should have all the same legal rights and should be treated alike in all ways. For example, I certainly don't think anyone has a "right" to live in the US, and illegals should not be allowed to vote or do anything else here (besides leave). Another example: foreigners shouldn't have the "right" not to be spied on by our intelligence agents.

What I was thinking of are "inalienable rights" that that Americans have traditionally affirmed: the right not to be held indefinitely without trial, the right not to be tortured -- that sort of thing. If the US government doesn't believe that these rights apply to ALL people in ALL nations...well, then it doesn't believe in its own Declaration of Independence. We already knew that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Judeofascist administration feel this way, and now it looks like Judge Roberts might be of the same ilk. But what I really find offensive is that these people continuously talk about "defending freedom" and "spreading democracy." What they're really spreading is bullsh!t and hypocrisy.

Yggdrasil

2005-07-21 07:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=random]The "War on Terror" legal questions do not fall on conservative/liberal lines. They are difficult questions that involve issues of due process, non-citizen rights, wartime, and divisions of power within the government. I wouldn't take anything this Holzer clown takes seriously.[/QUOTE]What most people without legal training fail to realize is that "due process" includes such basic things as ensuring that a decision is rationally supported by proven facts. If a suspected alien combatant does not have a right to due process, that means the government can imprison or kill him based on mere suspicion and that the secret military tribunal can decide his fate without any factual evidence whatever. Neither the "reasonable doubt" standard nor the "fair preponderance" standard need apply. The rules of evidence need not apply. The judge or jury need not be impartial. Verdicts and judgments can be irrational or motivated by prejudice. Verdicts and judgments can be supported with confessions extracted by torture.

Due Process has nothing to do with the alien having rights. Due Process is about the kind of people we Americans are and the standards that apply to our legal decisions, no matter who those decisions apply to. By saying that people we arrest in our imperial invasions are not entitled to due process, our courts are approving preventive detention based on suspicion alone.

It is all so incredibly talmudic!!

random

2005-07-21 11:57 | User Profile

Our Constitution specifically gives the government the power to do away with due process; Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This is precisely the point Scalia made in his dissent. Either the government must try Hamdi for treason or suspend the writ.

Congress has not chosen that route because it would cause a political firestorm, although it's unclear whether or not Congress could qualify the suspension (i.e. suspend the writ only with respect to aliens).

Better to simply let the Executive do whatever it wants and let the other 2 branches acquiesce.

Angeleyes

2005-07-21 13:36 | User Profile

Angler.

The inalienable rights are not in the Constitution.

You are perhaps missing a small point in scope, the limiting factors between philosophy (and for that matter rhetoric, see Declaration of Independence) and the explicit agreements codified in the Constitution.

A key limitation of the Constitution is that it covers law within the United States, and as I understand it its territories, and it is aimed at codifying the general body of the rights of the citizens and the several states.

Your irritation on the inability to achieve a perfection in practice of a lofty principle, a rhetorical device, is wasted energy. Any and every case has to be addressed on its merits, not by some cookie cutter generalization.

As I see it, the Geneva issue is critical: as it deals with defined and limited legal status as combatant or otherwise. It is only binding on signatories. Geneva 1949 was not a treaty designed for an extranational actor, as it presumed states of declared war for its provisions to be operative. This makes the "War on Terror" rhetoric even more disingenouos. Declaration of war is made versus a nation state, and by Congress. For all of the rhetoric, War on Terror is not a declared war. (It's foundational fallacy is for another time.)

Other international treaties, which the Senate has approved, may apply to cases other than "combatant" and are therefore of interest. A loophole is being exploited.

The core legal questions of holding these detainees, captured during a military action but who are not combatants of a signatory agency to Geneva, is to me exacerbated by the legal limbo of Guantanamo: a military reservation on foreign soil.

To me, the core error is the lack of charges versus these non combatants. Since the status of Geneva prisoner is being withheld, I tend to agree with those who insist that charges be preferred.

Yggdrasil's post captures the essence of why the failure to prefer charges is counterproductive to the long term political health of the US: it presents America as something other than a nation respecting the rule of law.

[QUOTE=Angler]Quantrill and Faust,

I didn't mean to imply that aliens and citizens should have all the same legal rights and should be treated alike in all ways. For example, I certainly don't think anyone has a "right" to live in the US, and illegals should not be allowed to vote or do anything else here (besides leave). Another example: foreigners shouldn't have the "right" not to be spied on by our intelligence agents.

What I was thinking of are "inalienable rights" that that Americans have traditionally affirmed: the right not to be held indefinitely without trial, the right not to be tortured -- that sort of thing. If the US government doesn't believe that these rights apply to ALL people in ALL nations...well, then it doesn't believe in its own Declaration of Independence. We already knew that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Judeofascist administration feel this way, and now it looks like Judge Roberts might be of the same ilk. But what I really find offensive is that these people continuously talk about "defending freedom" and "spreading democracy." What they're really spreading is bullsh!t and hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

Okiereddust

2005-07-21 15:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Angler.

The inalienable rights are not in the Constitution.

You are perhaps missing a small point in scope, the limiting factors between philosophy (and for that matter rhetoric, see Declaration of Independence) and the explicit agreements codified in the Constitution.

A key limitation of the Constitution is that it covers law within the United States, and as I understand it its territories, and it is aimed at codifying the general body of the rights of the citizens and the several states.

Your irritation on the inability to achieve a perfection in practice of a lofty principle, a rhetorical device, is wasted energy. Any and every case has to be addressed on its merits, not by some cookie cutter generalization.

Good point Angel Eyes. In fact, insistance on the universality of the Declaration's Principles is a classic neocon mistake, which Angler, typical him, seems to sound like he's imitating fairly closely.

However there is a more subtle point. We are actually fighting in the middle east for sort of this universality of our democratic principles. When we throw it out that makes it hypocritical, and another strike against the war on terror. This is the conservative position, that however so many people on this forum, who as they miss all sorts of conservative points, miss this also, sounding little different in their criticisms of the neocons than the hard-core commies.

Yggdrasil

2005-07-21 16:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]However there is a more subtle point. We are actually fighting in the middle east for sort of this universality of our democratic principles. When we throw it out that makes it hypocritical, and another strike against the war on terror. This is the conservative position, that however so many people on this forum, who as they miss all sorts of conservative points, miss this also, sounding little different in their criticisms of the neocons than the hard-core commies.[/QUOTE]Bingo!

All the press discussion and judicial decisions deal with conceptual abstractions which involve institutional power and avoid the real issue.

The real issue is how we are going to treat these people we picked up in Afganistan because they were toting a gun.

As anyone who has actually served knows, military justice (we used to call that an oxymoron when I was in) can be a very scary thing at times.

What are the exact standards for determining who is a terrorist and who is just a gun toting tribal follower? What are the forms of proof which are acceptable? Is there a presumption of innocence?

Will the detainees be fed properly? (Eisenhower cut rations for German POWs to 1500 calories per day and made them sleep outdoors in the German winter. Nearly a million died. See Baque's "Other Losses") Will they be tortured?

How exactly do we reassure the international community that the innocent are protected, so that the international community will continue to respect our role as policeman for the world?

As usual we are debating conceptual abstractions and slogans which leave the commissars who actually run the camps with absolute unfettered discretion and zero accountability.

Indeed, as I read these reports of judical decisions, I am reminded of the thousands upon thousands of reported federal opinions on jurisdiction and venue (forum shopping), none of which deal with the real issue which is the probability of a different decision being rendered if one forum is selected over another.

If federal judges were forced to confront the real issue, then they would be forced to acknowledge and deal with the massive degree of unpredictability and arbitrariness implied by the massive volume of litigation over where a case gets tried.

Detainees, as plaintiffs in these cases, want to know that the government will be forced to produce evidence, and that evidence will be weighed rationally in accordance with logic and reason, and that they will be properly fed and maintained in the mean time.

They want some assurance that the camps will not be staffed by neo-cons who hate arabs and moslems, and who get their rocks off by torturing them. Until the judiciary deals with the real issue, it is lawn bowling in Laguna Beach as usual, and giving the neo-con commissars free rein to indulge their vengeful and murderous impulses, just as their Cheka, NKVD, OGPU and KGB bretheren did 80 years ago in Russia.

xmetalhead

2005-07-21 16:52 | User Profile

Is it OK for the US government to torture alleged suspects before charging them with a crime? Who are the those prisoners in Gitmo?

Angeleyes

2005-07-21 17:30 | User Profile

Okie and Ygg: Well said, a tip of the cap to you both.

If the irritation is with the professed "spread democracy at the point of a bayonet" encapsulated in the name of the Operation -- Enduring Freedom -- I get it.

It has been said that democracy grows best from the ground up, though any form of representative government needs a catalyst to get it moving forward.

As to this point:

As anyone who has actually served knows, military justice (we used to call that an oxymoron when I was in) can be a very scary thing at times.

*What are the exact standards for determining who is a terrorist and who is "just" a gun toting tribal follower? What are the forms of proof which are acceptable? Is there a presumption of innocence? *

Presumption of innocence for an armed man fighting in a war? You realize that falls back into the Geneva definitions problem, don't you? If a regular, as most of the Taliban should be classified, Geneva protection is pretty clearly required, as Taliban were pretty much the heirs of signatory status, whether anyone likes them or not.

This leaves the extranationals. Remember how mercs were treated in Africa in the 60's and 70's? Not quite as Geneva protected combatants, eh?

I am not a fan of extranational agents accruing rights of the bona fide agents of sovereign nations when their core problem is the execution of criminal activity. Or should Cripps and Bloods be offered Geneva protections when arrested for their various crimes?

That said, the establishment of better criteria than have been shown is [u]not[/u] too much to ask.

I noted, based on articles in the press, that a number of the appeals and challenges have been made by lawyers in uniform, on active duty, who are challenging the propriety of how due process is being implemented.

Okie:

However there is a more subtle point. We are actually fighting in the middle east for sort of this universality of our democratic principles. When we throw it out that makes it hypocritical, and another strike against the war on terror.

The so-called war on terror is, based at the very least on the rhetoric coming from Washington, being horrendously lost on the political level. The credibility gap between the DC wonks and what the men in the field are reporting is a screaming sign of either self delusion, or wilfully self destructive behavior.

The arena for fighting Terror and terrorists is far more about image, message, theme, and principles than bullets and bombs.

Yggdrasil

2005-07-21 22:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Presumption of innocence for an armed man fighting in a war? You realize that falls back into the Geneva definitions problem, don't you? If a regular, as most of the Taliban should be classified, Geneva protection is pretty clearly required, as Taliban were pretty much the heirs of signatory status, whether anyone likes them or not.

This leaves the extranationals. Remember how mercs were treated in Africa in the 60's and 70's? Not quite as Geneva protected combatants, eh?[/QUOTE]In Afganistan, people live in tribes and engage in constant low intensity warfare with neighboring tribes (the natural state of all mankind according to Napoleon Chagnon). Thus, virtually all men in rural areas of Afganistan carry guns. Ninety percent will be completely illiterate and will not have ventured more than a couple hundred miles from the place they were born. The Taliban "government" was a loose coalition of these tribes. Most will fight whoever the tribal leader tells them to fight, and will instinctively fight anyone who encroaches on their territory - which just happens to be U.S. troops when we invade.

And once captured, and moved to central camps, the U.S. will ask some sort of Afgan equivalent of a "chu hoi" with a smattering of english to finger those who were from Al Qaeda camps or otherwise terrorists, and the Afgan chu hoi will be only too happy to finger all the captives from the neighboring tribe which he hates.

Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine a set of circumstances more prone to simple factual error.

It is also hard for me to understand what information a typical Afgan Taliban soldier might have that would justify the expense of interning him, much less justify extracting info by torture.

Throw in the "civilian interrogators" which have managed to inveigle their way into these positions with their "language skills" - apparently all Isrealis - and you also have a situation ripe for biased fact gathering which is beyond the capacity of military officers to detect, and ripe for confessions extracted by torture.

But judges and lawyers are so infected by the secular relgion of equality that they imagine Afgan tribesmen are indistinguishable from the West Asian classmates at Harvard or Berkeley, and that all this navel gazing over conceptual abstractions in our constitution is actually meaningful.

What message is Judge Roberts sending a Gitmo interrogator when he rules that Afgan war captives have no due process rights at all? The meaning seems pretty clear to me. The practical meaning is that the military has no obligation to follow the norms of civilized behavior, and has a complete license to engage in vindictive, irrational and sadistic behavior.

It is the kind of ruling which, when modeled by our enemies, powerfully encourages suicide bombings and fights to the death.

But ultimately all this legal lawn bowling in Laguna Beach is part of an elaborate charade to deflect attention from the obvious fact that the terrorist threat comes from within our own borders and is a product of multi-cultural and multi-racial immigration.

Call me a self-hating lawyer. :yes:

Okiereddust

2005-07-21 23:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]As to this point:

As anyone who has actually served knows, military justice (we used to call that an oxymoron when I was in) can be a very scary thing at times.

*What are the exact standards for determining who is a terrorist and who is "just" a gun toting tribal follower? What are the forms of proof which are acceptable? Is there a presumption of innocence? *

Presumption of innocence for an armed man fighting in a war? You realize that falls back into the Geneva definitions problem, don't you? If a regular, as most of the Taliban should be classified, Geneva protection is pretty clearly required, as Taliban were pretty much the heirs of signatory status, whether anyone likes them or not. I think that is undoubtedly true. I would definitely characterize all the Afghan inhabitants at Gitmo as Geneva P.O.W.'s. I think the reason we don't call them that is that for political reasons we are reluctant to admit precisely what we did in Afghanistan (fight a war an officially recognized Muslim nation, defeat it, and occupy it indefinitely, as it can never really make peace with us)

[QUOTE]This leaves the extranationals. Remember how mercs were treated in Africa in the 60's and 70's? Not quite as Geneva protected combatants, eh?

I am not a fan of extranational agents accruing rights of the bona fide agents of sovereign nations when their core problem is the execution of criminal activity. Or should Cripps and Bloods be offered Geneva protections when arrested for their various crimes?[/QUOTE]Personally, I don't see that much of a difference between extranationals and Afghans. When we fought Germany and they captured German citizens (immigrants to America) figting in our Army, they still treated them per the Geneva convention as American P.O.W.'s.

Now if it's a critical matter you can try to narrow the categories. Geneva covers only uniformed combatants, for instance. One way to separate out genuinely criminal elements perhaps.

However there is a more subtle point. We are actually fighting in the middle east for sort of this universality of our democratic principles. When we throw it out that makes it hypocritical, and another strike against the war on terror. Which I think we all agree is a lost cause of course anyway.

The so-called war on terror is, based at the very least on the rhetoric coming from Washington, being horrendously lost on the political level. The credibility gap between the DC wonks and what the men in the field are reporting is a screaming sign of either self delusion, or wilfully self destructive behavior.

The arena for fighting Terror and terrorists is far more about image, message, theme, and principles than bullets and bombs.[/QUOTE]Well actually I don't think the neocons really care that much about the middle easterners. The target of their "image, message, theme, and principles" is the American people, and specifically American conservatives, who their trying to keep supporting the war.

I don't think the neocons actually care if we win the war or not, in fact I think they want us to keep fighting. I mean for them its a win/win situation - two groups they hate red-blooded American boys from the heartland and the soul of the heartland America that supports them, along with the Arabs, are both being killed off. Goys vs. goy, killing each other and exhausting each other's resouces. Who wins is actually inconsequential, the important thing is that the glorious killing and destruction continue.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2005-07-22 09:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I have no problem with denying foreigners some of the rights that we recognize for citizens. In that case, however, they should then be covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. What the Bush administration is trying to do is to create a class of 'enemy combatants' that are legally non-persons, having neither the rights of citizens, nor the rights of prisoners, and that is a great injustice.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. It all well and good to declare someone an enemy combatant, but I need a civilian judicial hearing of some sort or another, with the prospect of the court nullifying said "enemy combatant status" in the event the Feds have insufficient basis for it, before I can consign that person to being executed by order of a military tribunal. And if they're [B]NOT[/B] going to face a military tribunal with the power to order their execution, then I again need some sort of hearing before simply consigning such people to de facto life in a military prison. I don't think *ANYONE[/I][/B] should be treated like that, but I'm a bit less bothered by it in the case of Middle Eastern immigrants who allegedly came to this country for the explicit purpose of attacking it. But when we start declaring Taliban footsolidiers to be "enemy combatants," when they were, despite their nation's inability to provide them with standardized uniforms (they no doubt did carry some sort of insignia, in many cases), the bona fide armed forces of the U.S. tacitly recognized government (they were a U.S. foreign aid recipient, due to their zeal in eradicating opium poppy production) which had been ruling in Afghanistan since 1996. Firing an AK-47 at a helicopter that is strafing the civilian non-combatants (whether knowingly or not) in a village you have been ordered to protect (from whomever attacks it; not just Americans) does not make one a terrorist. Nor does ambushing one of our armored columns. That is legitimate warfare, and calling it "terrorism" makes us look like liars, hypocrites, cowards, and fools, all rolled into one.

I'm particularly bothered by the Jose Padilla case. The man (even if he should be in Mexico or Puerto Rico) was born and raised in Chicago. Spending a few weeks in rural Pakistan, chatting it up with Al-Qaeda operatives, might well constitute partial evidence of felonious intent, but it doesn't nullify the last 1,000 years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence & common law, habeas corpus, and the Constitution of the United States. The fact it would probably not have been very difficult to have kept a close eye on Mr. Padilla, and then nab him red-handed when he'd actually committed one or more felonies (yet not had a chance to harm anyone just yet), tends to suggest to me that they didn't really think Padilla was a serious threat (he's probably too stupid, ignorant and undisciplined, being an ex-con street gang member, after all) but wanted to pretend he was one, so as to set him up as an example to anyone else who thought it might be nifty to consult with some of Dr. Zawahiri's demolition technicians in the Northwest Frontier Province....

Angler

2005-07-22 11:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Good point Angel Eyes. In fact, insistance on the universality of the Declaration's Principles is a classic neocon mistake, which Angler, typical him, seems to sound like he's imitating fairly closely. What on earth are you talking about, Okie?!

I typically sound like a neocon?! LOL, that's news to me. Can you give some other examples of similarities between me and neocons?

There is a very big difference between

(1) believing that the Declaration's principles apply to ALL people -- something that the Founders of this country said in that same document that they considered self-evident -- and

(2) believing that it's your country's duty to enforce those principles around the world!

I believe (1), but NOT (2). I also believe in a largely isolationist foreign policy, in stark contrast to the neocons. And I must say that I find it hard to believe that you didn't know this. Can you find one post of mine that supports the neocons in any way, shape, or form?

The neocons say they believe (2) -- and many of the Freeper-type, Joe Sixpack neocons probably do -- but of course the true reason for the neocon quest to "democratize" the Middle East through force or heavy-handed diplomacy is because of the pro-Israel bent of the neocon leadership. "Spreading democracy and freedom" is just the neocon excuse for starting wars for Israel. In truth, the neocons in the Bush Administration really don't believe either (1) or (2). If they did, then they wouldn't approve of the use of torture or imprisonment without due process in their quest to "democratize" the Middle East.

Angler

2005-07-22 11:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Angler.

The inalienable rights are not in the Constitution.

You are perhaps missing a small point in scope, the limiting factors between philosophy (and for that matter rhetoric, see Declaration of Independence) and the explicit agreements codified in the Constitution.

A key limitation of the Constitution is that it covers law within the United States, and as I understand it its territories, and it is aimed at codifying the general body of the rights of the citizens and the several states....[/QUOTE] The inalienable rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence and are key founding principles of this country. If Americans don't abide by those as much as possible in both peace and war, yet talk about "spreading freedom" as Bush and his ilk constantly do, then Americans are hypocrites.

The Constitution also lists rights that are considered inalienable (in the Bill of Rights). But you're right, of course, that as law it only applies to US citizens. As I just said in my post to Okie above, I certainly don't believe that it's the job of the US to "spread democracy" around the world. That's the neocon pretext for starting foreign wars for Israel's benefit.

So when it comes to US abuse of prisoners or failure to account for their imprisonment in the first place, it's not that the US is necessarily breaking its own laws; it's just that the US is being hypocritical. And that's even worse.

The American government and public need to get their story straight. Either they believe that all people have certain rights as indicated in the Declaration of Independence, or they don't believe this. If they don't, then they've abandoned their founding principles, and the claim that we're "spreading freedom" to other peoples and lands is revealed to be hollow. If they DO believe that all people have those rights, however, then they have no business holding people without trial, even in other lands. It's a matter of avoiding hypocrisy.

Now, I realize that this is all idealism. Jews and their followers have never shied away from hypocrisy before, so why should Judeo-America be afraid of it now?

Okiereddust

2005-07-22 11:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Indeed. It all well and good to declare someone an enemy combatant, but I need a civilian judicial hearing of some sort or another, with the prospect of the court nullifying said "enemy combatant status" in the event the Feds have insufficient basis for it, before I can consign that person to being executed by order of a military tribunal. And if they're [B]NOT[/B] going to face a military tribunal with the power to order their execution, then I again need some sort of hearing before simply consigning such people to de facto life in a military prison. I don't think *ANYONE[/I][/B] should be treated like that, but I'm a bit less bothered by it in the case of Middle Eastern immigrants who allegedly came to this country for the explicit purpose of attacking it. But when we start declaring Taliban footsolidiers to be "enemy combatants," when they were, despite their nation's inability to provide them with standardized uniforms (they no doubt did carry some sort of insignia, in many cases), the bona fide armed forces of the U.S. tacitly recognized government (they were a U.S. foreign aid recipient, due to their zeal in eradicating opium poppy production) which had been ruling in Afghanistan since 1996. Firing an AK-47 at a helicopter that is strafing the civilian non-combatants (whether knowingly or not) in a village you have been ordered to protect (from whomever attacks it; not just Americans) does not make one a terrorist. Nor does ambushing one of our armored columns. That is legitimate warfare, and calling it "terrorism" makes us look like liars, hypocrites, cowards, and fools, all rolled into one. Looking at the history of the Geneva convention, I'm not that bothered by our refusal to follow its conventions, which are hardly sacrosanct. After all, since WWI practically none of our enemies has followed the Geneva convention, and when they have, we haven't (i.e. Germany)

The Geneva convention is hardly exalted status, its just the basic minimum standards you'd expect someone to follow when although at war, the expect to have to continue to deal with this entity in the future. Refusal to follow these conventions is tantamont to saying you are decertifying the right of this people to form a nation - you are derecognizing a people. They aren't a real country, just a criminal organization. Not a profitable strategy for bulding up long term diplomatic relations with peoples in the area.

And not something we really care about principle wise either. If any nation deserves this treatment, (as a de facto criminal organization devoid of legitimate national status) its Mexico IMO.

I'm particularly bothered by the Jose Padilla case. The man (even if he should be in Mexico or Puerto Rico) was born and raised in Chicago. Spending a few weeks in rural Pakistan, chatting it up with Al-Qaeda operatives, might well constitute partial evidence of felonious intent, but it doesn't nullify the last 1,000 years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence & common law, habeas corpus, and the Constitution of the United States. The fact it would probably not have been very difficult to have kept a close eye on Mr. Padilla, and then nab him red-handed when he'd actually committed one or more felonies (yet not had a chance to harm anyone just yet), tends to suggest to me that they didn't really think Padilla was a serious threat (he's probably too stupid, ignorant and undisciplined, being an ex-con street gang member, after all) but wanted to pretend he was one, so as to set him up as an example to anyone else who thought it might be nifty to consult with some of Dr. Zawahiri's demolition technicians in the Northwest Frontier Province....[/QUOTE]Yup, it certainly shows another place the governments drive against rights extends to its citizens.

Angeleyes

2005-07-22 14:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Yggdrasil]In Afganistan, people live in tribes and engage in constant low intensity warfare with neighboring tribes (the natural state of all mankind according to Napoleon Chagnon). Thus, virtually all men in rural areas of Afganistan carry guns. Ninety percent will be completely illiterate and will not have ventured more than a couple hundred miles from the place they were born. The Taliban "government" was a loose coalition of these tribes. Most will fight whoever the tribal leader tells them to fight, and will instinctively fight anyone who encroaches on their territory - which just happens to be U.S. troops when we invade.

And once captured, and moved to central camps, the U.S. will ask some sort of Afgan equivalent of a "chu hoi" with a smattering of english to finger those who were from Al Qaeda camps or otherwise terrorists, and the Afgan chu hoi will be only too happy to finger all the captives from the neighboring tribe which he hates.

Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine a set of circumstances more prone to simple factual error.

It is also hard for me to understand what information a typical Afgan Taliban soldier might have that would justify the expense of interning him, much less justify extracting info by torture.

Throw in the "civilian interrogators" which have managed to inveigle their way into these positions with their "language skills" - apparently all Isrealis - and you also have a situation ripe for biased fact gathering which is beyond the capacity of military officers to detect, and ripe for confessions extracted by torture.

But judges and lawyers are so infected by the secular relgion of equality that they imagine Afgan tribesmen are indistinguishable from the West Asian classmates at Harvard or Berkeley, and that all this navel gazing over conceptual abstractions in our constitution is actually meaningful.

What message is Judge Roberts sending a Gitmo interrogator when he rules that Afgan war captives have no due process rights at all? The meaning seems pretty clear to me. The practical meaning is that the military has no obligation to follow the norms of civilized behavior, and has a complete license to engage in vindictive, irrational and sadistic behavior.

It is the kind of ruling which, when modeled by our enemies, powerfully encourages suicide bombings and fights to the death.

But ultimately all this legal lawn bowling in Laguna Beach is part of an elaborate charade to deflect attention from the obvious fact that the terrorist threat comes from within our own borders and is a product of multi-cultural and multi-racial immigration.

Call me a self-hating lawyer. :yes:[/QUOTE] Good point, the difficulty in applying the rules of tennis to golf. Also the "hmm, how to use these foreigners to our local advantage" is still going on.

What was it Kypling said about "here lies a fool who tried to hustle the East?" :lol:

weisbrot

2005-07-22 15:16 | User Profile

Speaking of Talmudic, here we have the WP's "style editor" analyze the true meaning of Robert's presentation to the media.

For me, the jury is still out on Roberts. But it is interesting to see how offensive the blue eyes and blond hair of his kids seem to be to the Post. Sure, the event was managed, staged, produced. But the overall effect also represents everything the culture wreckers love to hate- family, tradition, respect, being white.

I can think of worse ends for my family than becoming some writer's vision of a 195's style tableau. Apparently the elites of Washington find it hard to imagine. Givhan pretends she's protesting the apparent Camelot imitation, but her motives are clear. When being blond and blue-eyed goes from being merely frowned upon to illegal, the Geneva Convention won't even be a speedbump on the road to extinction.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102347.html[/url]

[I]An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated

By Robin Givhan

Friday, July 22, 2005; Page C02

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

Even the clothes are conservative: Judge John G. Roberts, left, and his wife Jane, right, with their children Jack and Josie listen to President Bush's announcement. (Pool Photo By Shawn Thew)

(Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern -- Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?)

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. "John-John" Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.

The clothes also reflect a bit of the aesthetic havoc that often occurs when people visit the White House. (What should I wear? How do I look? Take my picture!) The usual advice is to dress appropriately. In this case, an addendum would have been helpful: Please select all attire from the commonly accepted styles of this century. (And someone should have given notice to the flip-flop-wearing women of Northwestern University's lacrosse team, who visited the White House on July 12 for a meet-and-greet with the president: proper footwear required. Flip-flops, modeled after shoes meant to be worn into a public shower or on the beach, have no business anywhere in the vicinity of the president and his place of residence.)

Dressing appropriately is a somewhat selfless act. It's not about catering to personal comfort. One can't give in fully to private aesthetic preferences. Instead, one asks what would make other people feel respected? What would mark the occasion as noteworthy? What signifies that the moment is bigger than the individual?

But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.[/I]

Brian Hassett

2005-07-22 18:11 | User Profile

How much of this is just tribal thinking -- i.e., Neocons support Bush, therefore, they instinctively follow his nominee? I'm still looking to see the reaction from real conservatives like Buchanan before deciding on whether this man is good for us or not. Ultimately, however, something like 7 of the 9 Justices came from Republican presidents and yet the Court hasn't done much to advance our concerns.

datavirtue

2005-07-23 18:43 | User Profile

So you say you want a constitution? Well You know, you gotta free your mind yourself..

As has been pointed out by some patriots of our time: change will not come from a document or goverment, it will come from the people.

Forget the constitution, if you were to study it you would find out it is a pivot point for our most common problems we face in america. The bill of rights, (hardly a constitution) is what most people think of when they say "constitution" because this is the only part that serves you and I. The rest of the document has sent us on a nose dive. The main purpose is to protect property rights which menas that; no matter what happens poltically or physically if the government is still standing the main mission of which is to protect the assets of the rich past insurection.

It used to be that if a (nobility) rich person got out of hand and mistreated people the "subjects" could march on that person and take care of them as well as siezing their wealth which was in tangible goods located mainly on the owners property. This is what the powers that formed the constituitiuon were afraid of. They wanted banks, and trade to take place with money instead of goods. This is how things were setup and what you see is what you get.

Demand change in finance, banking, and commerece. The playing field is not level; it is made this way through the tax laws. There has been a strong fast push towards centralization in recent decades. They try to make us feel unsafe because of terroists; what about centralized food and energy production. Energy dist is going to be put on computer so it can be remotly administered; very dangerous from a national security standpoint. Food is grown on super farms; easy targets. What about security at fuel refinaries? Easy target! Take out our fuel and we got problems.

Point is it's all an illusion, There is no real terrorist threat to us. If all of our security "officials" just did their job like they were supposed to and there would be no problems.

Believe you me, the constitution has served those who wish to sell our country very well. It is our (bill of) rights they wish to do away with.

Who is "they", really?

Sean

311inAZ

2005-07-24 10:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]How much of this is just tribal thinking -- i.e., Neocons support Bush, therefore, they instinctively follow his nominee? I'm still looking to see the reaction from real conservatives like Buchanan before deciding on whether this man is good for us or not. Ultimately, however, something like 7 of the 9 Justices came from Republican presidents and yet the Court hasn't done much to advance our concerns.[/QUOTE]

Good point regarding this love at first sight possibly being a tribal matter. The verdict is still out on Roberts and may be until he decides a number of cases while seated on the court at which time we may be pleased or disappointed (a understatement most likely).

K

Quantrill

2005-07-24 12:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=311inAZ]Good point regarding this love at first sight possibly being a tribal matter. The verdict is still out on Roberts and may be until he decides a number of cases while seated on the court at which time we may be pleased or disappointed (a understatement most likely).[/QUOTE] That is certainly the case. There seems to be such an extreme dearth of information about Roberts' ideological leanings, that I believe it must have been a conscious decision by the Bush administration. After all, if nobody knows what he believes, then there can't very well be a bruising confirmation battle.

Faust

2005-07-24 19:34 | User Profile

Angler,

Yes agree with you. I understood and I agree with all of what you said on this thread.

[QUOTE=Angler]I didn't mean to imply that aliens and citizens should have all the same legal rights and should be treated alike in all ways. For example, I certainly don't think anyone has a "right" to live in the US, and illegals should not be allowed to vote or do anything else here (besides leave). Another example: foreigners shouldn't have the "right" not to be spied on by our intelligence agents.

What I was thinking of are "inalienable rights" that that Americans have traditionally affirmed: the right not to be held indefinitely without trial, the right not to be tortured -- that sort of thing. If the US government doesn't believe that these rights apply to ALL people in ALL nations...well, then it doesn't believe in its own Declaration of Independence. We already knew that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Judeofascist administration feel this way, and now it looks like Judge Roberts might be of the same ilk. But what I really find offensive is that these people continuously talk about "defending freedom" and "spreading democracy." What they're really spreading is bullsh!t and hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2005-07-24 19:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]I'm still looking to see the reaction from real conservatives like Buchanan before deciding on whether this man is good for us or not.[/QUOTE]

For what its worth (not much, in my view, as Buchanan just doesn't strike me as reliable anymore where Bush's domestic policy is concerned, although apparently Buchanan does know Roberts personally to some extent) Buchanan was very enthusiastic about the Roberts nomination on "The McLaughlin Group."

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2005-07-24 20:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]There seems to be such an extreme dearth of information about Roberts' ideological leanings, that I believe it must have been a conscious decision by the Bush administration. After all, if nobody knows what he believes, then there can't very well be a bruising confirmation battle.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and that tactic served our interests so very well in the instance of David Souter. Same family, same strategy, same result most likely....

Texas Dissident

2005-07-25 08:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]So when it comes to US abuse of prisoners or failure to account for their imprisonment in the first place, it's not that the US is necessarily breaking its own laws; it's just that the US is being hypocritical. And that's even worse.

The American government and public need to get their story straight. Either they believe that all people have certain rights as indicated in the Declaration of Independence, or they don't believe this. If they don't, then they've abandoned their founding principles, and the claim that we're "spreading freedom" to other peoples and lands is revealed to be hollow. If they DO believe that all people have those rights, however, then they have no business holding people without trial, even in other lands. It's a matter of avoiding hypocrisy.

Now, I realize that this is all idealism. Jews and their followers have never shied away from hypocrisy before, so why should Judeo-America be afraid of it now?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. After all, convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies. Evidently it's all about one's will to power.

The bottom line is the jews are gettin' it done and obviously don't share or care about your notions of avoiding hypocrisy and other such sentimental niceties. In your case Angler, any attempt you make to counter said jewish methods by holding forth some silly notion of 'ideals' makes you just as hypocritical. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Scott Paine

2005-07-25 13:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Is it OK for the US government to torture alleged suspects before charging them with a crime? Who are the those prisoners in Gitmo?[/QUOTE]You know the Outback Steakhouse motto? "No rules, just right". It's morbidly fascinating, in the same way it's fascinating to watch a surgery being performed on your self. Everything I've been learning about the NWOUS indicates that "persons of interest" are treated as a resource (goy), and need not be charged with anything before 'operators' start in on them with the hypodermics.

Who gets this attention is subject to change. Not wishing to dwell in the negative, but the bird has already flown. In time, it will be people like you and I.

Angler

2005-07-25 23:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][quote=Angler]So when it comes to US abuse of prisoners or failure to account for their imprisonment in the first place, it's not that the US is necessarily breaking its own laws; it's just that the US is being hypocritical. And that's even worse.

The American government and public need to get their story straight. Either they believe that all people have certain rights as indicated in the Declaration of Independence, or they don't believe this. If they don't, then they've abandoned their founding principles, and the claim that we're "spreading freedom" to other peoples and lands is revealed to be hollow. If they DO believe that all people have those rights, however, then they have no business holding people without trial, even in other lands. It's a matter of avoiding hypocrisy.

Now, I realize that this is all idealism. Jews and their followers have never shied away from hypocrisy before, so why should Judeo-America be afraid of it now? Exactly. After all, convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies. They certainly are. And please note that I don't consider "convictions" to be same as "ideals" or "principles." I don't think Nietzsche would either, since he had principles of his own.

To me at least, a conviction is a belief that's held so strongly that no amount of evidence or argument can change it. Convictions can be either factually true or false, but they reflect an uncritical manner of thinking that has no regard for the facts.

In short, my sig line is essentially a condemnation of closed-mindedness. It's not a condemnation of having beliefs or views, but only of refusing to consider alternatives. Maybe Nietzsche meant something different by his statement. If I find that out to be the case, then I'll change it.

Evidently it's all about one's will to power. For the record, there are many things Nietzsche said that I completely disagree with. It is possible to agree with someone about one point and disagree with him about another, you know.

The bottom line is the jews are gettin' it done and obviously don't share or care about your notions of avoiding hypocrisy and other such sentimental niceties. This is true and can be applied to anything any of us on this discussion board say about them. We all bitch about Jews here. Why single me out?

In your case Angler, any attempt you make to counter said jewish methods by holding forth some silly notion of 'ideals' makes you just as hypocritical. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on here.[/QUOTE]What's so silly about ideals? Don't you believe in any?

When Jews or their goyish helpers act in a manner offensive to my principles (not convictions), it bothers me. Then I speak out about it. Would you mind telling me what is "hypocritical" about that? What exactly is it that I'm doing that I preach against? Or what am I not doing that I preach others should do?

I don't want to erect a strawman, but maybe you think that I can't adopt any ideals because I'm not religious. I sincerely hope you don't subscribe to such a ludicrous point of view.

By the way, I'm not attempting to "counter" the Jews by merely expressing my opinion. In fact, I'm inclined to think the Jews cannot be countered at this point except through guerrilla-style force, and I'm not quite prepared to go that far myself yet.

arjurg

2005-07-28 19:16 | User Profile

When JFK nominated Byron "Whizzer" White to the SC everyone thought he'd be a liberal...he voted with conservatives for probably most of the time.

When GHW Bush nominated David Souter for the SC it was assumed that he would be conservative...he's not...he votes with Bryer and Ginsberg et all most of the time.

When Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor we figured she'd vote straight conservative. She hasn't.

We simply don't know.

grep14w

2005-07-28 23:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=random]Our Constitution specifically gives the government the power to do away with due process; Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This is precisely the point Scalia made in his dissent. Either the government must try Hamdi for treason or suspend the writ.

Right; the point being that even when it cites the Constitution, the neocon Bush administration doesn't even pretend to be obeying the letter of the Constitution, ie, saying "we are at war" when war has not been declared by Congress; saying "we can suspend habea corpus" without actually doing so, etc.> Congress has not chosen that route because it would cause a political firestorm, although it's unclear whether or not Congress could qualify the suspension (i.e. suspend the writ only with respect to aliens).

They don't do it for the same reason they don't declare war anymore: they are more comfortable living in the ambiguity of non-legal, extra-Constitutional procedures because it gives them the freedom to "make things up as they go along".> Better to simply let the Executive do whatever it wants and let the other 2 branches acquiesce.[/QUOTE] Hmmm....> Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Since the only actual invasion going on is the illegal alien invasion, which Bush approves of, and since there is no actual rebellion, there cannot therefore be a suspension of habeas corpus on the grounds that the Bush administration is advocating.

weisbrot

2005-08-08 04:48 | User Profile

[I]This puts the Post's attack on Robert's "Easter egg"-appearing kids (see earlier comments in this thread) in a somewhat different light.

I've known several friends and family members who, despairing of ever finding a compatible white child to adopt in this country, have turned to adopting children from China, Uzbekistan, Korea, and the like. I have to wonder how Judge Roberts might have found two beautiful blond and blue kids for his own adoption. I also wonder what kind of contortions the NYTimes editorial department is still going throught to avoid asking the same questions publicly: How did this man manage to find "suitable" kids to adopt i.e. non-minorities? To ask the question is to acknowledge that such an adoption is preferable, even though the Times would no doubt blast any source who put such a thought into words. Or will blast, if this story ever develops legs.[/I] NY TIMES QUESTIONED LEGALITY OF JUDGE ROBERTS ADOPTIONS; SUPREME COURT NOMINEE 'DISAPPOINTED'

Exclusive

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts expressed great disappointment after learning the NEW YORK TIMES was poking around for details on his adopted children, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The DRUDGE REPORT first revealed how TIMES investigative reporter Glen Justice questioned if the adoption records for the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4, would be made available for examination.

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

FOXNEWS's Brit Hume reported late last week how the TIMES has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records:

"Sources familiar with the matter tell FOXNEWS that at least one lawyer turned the TIMES down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

A senior editor at the TIMES lashed out at this space over the revealtion:

"The DRUDGE REPORT is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened," blasted the paper's senior editor in a press release.

But the editor did confess: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The National Council For Adoption issued the following statement:

“NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.

"The adoption histories of four- and five-year old children have no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of Justice Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court – or in any other position, for that matter."

Developing...

weisbrot

2005-08-08 04:49 | User Profile

[I]This puts the Post's attack on Robert's "Easter egg"-appearing kids (see earlier comments in this thread) in a somewhat different light.

I've known several friends and family members who, despairing of ever finding a compatible white child to adopt in this country, have turned to adopting children from China, Uzbekistan, Korea, and the like. I have to wonder how Judge Roberts might have found two beautiful blond and blue kids for his own adoption. I also wonder what kind of contortions the NYTimes editorial department is still going throught to avoid asking the same questions publicly: How did this man manage to find "suitable" kids to adopt i.e. non-minorities? To ask the question is to acknowledge that such an adoption is preferable, even though the Times would no doubt blast any source who put such a thought into words. Or will blast, if this story ever develops legs.[/I]

NY TIMES QUESTIONED LEGALITY OF JUDGE ROBERTS ADOPTIONS; SUPREME COURT NOMINEE 'DISAPPOINTED'

Exclusive

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts expressed great disappointment after learning the NEW YORK TIMES was poking around for details on his adopted children, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The DRUDGE REPORT first revealed how TIMES investigative reporter Glen Justice questioned if the adoption records for the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4, would be made available for examination.

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

FOXNEWS's Brit Hume reported late last week how the TIMES has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records:

"Sources familiar with the matter tell FOXNEWS that at least one lawyer turned the TIMES down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

A senior editor at the TIMES lashed out at this space over the revealtion:

"The DRUDGE REPORT is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened," blasted the paper's senior editor in a press release.

But the editor did confess: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The National Council For Adoption issued the following statement:

“NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.

"The adoption histories of four- and five-year old children have no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of Justice Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court – or in any other position, for that matter."

Developing...

MarkFarrell

2005-08-09 14:42 | User Profile

I think that the media poking into the adoption process of Robert's kids demonstrates the utter-depravity of the media, and how these sycophants will go to any length for a news story. Really, what do they possibly hope to do here--cause his children to be taken from him? He and his wife have raised them since they were babies. He certainly seems to be competent, and I have no doubt that he's doing his best to raise them properly.

I think what really bothers the media is the fact that Robert's children are adorable blonde-haired kids, and not the Hondurans or Ethiopians that Hollywood-freaks like Angelina Jolie adopt.

Take a few minutes out of your schedule to understand who are these Media Barons that would promote such an outrage:

[url="http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm"]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm[/url]