I love the continual use of the term “terrorists” to describe the detainees. The improrpiety of that, considering the issue at hand, OUGHT to be obvious. But here in GPLand, it ain’t.

No, it ain’t. I prefer the formulation by the Charles Swift, the US Naval officer who had been assigned to represent Hamdan in his case against the United States, and who took the case to the US SupCt–at considerable risk to his Naval career–and won. From the transcript of an interview on Chris Matthew’s “Hardball” program:

MATTHEWS: What about the charge made recently, just a couple minutes ago by Kate O‘Beirne of the “National Review,” that people who fight us who are not in uniform, who do not represent countries who are party to the Geneva Convention shouldn‘t be free riders? They shouldn‘t get Geneva Convention treatment. They should be treated like thugs.

What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they‘re a thug. You don‘t make the thug determination going in.

‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for June 29

The members of the 101st Keyboard Brigade, such as here, have made the determination that they are thugs going in. Some “patriots” they are. /sarcasm

You should really make this the blog’s motto.

I love the continual use of the term “terrorists” to describe the detainees. The improrpiety of that, considering the issue at hand, OUGHT to be obvious. But here in GPLand, it ain’t.

And to answer your asinine question, NO, I do not need to email anyone in the MSM to find out why they keep going to the demoncRATS to find out why they are always in front of the cameras. It’s called MEDIA BIAS.

In other words, “I’m (meaning you) a conservative, and I have no interest in finding out the facts.”

That is one reason why I stopped being a conservative. Conservatives appear to have pre-conceived notions, and are uninterested in trying to determine whether their pre-conceived notions have anything to do with reality. Sometimes their preconceived notions do have something to do with reality, sometimes they don’t, but I have discovered that one of the touchstones of conservatives is that they aren’t going to let reality divert them from their preconceived notions.

But I’m a Libran. Some of use actually are interested in determining whether our pre-conceived notions have something to do with reality. You apparently are a Taurus. Or maybe a Capricorn. They usually aren’t.

And just because you think you know so much, Really Annoying Jerk, answer this question: Was Bob Michel on television every day talking about Desert Storm and what he thought the USA should do about Desert Storm? No, he wasn’t. And who was Bob Michel? He was the minority (GOP) leader in the House in 1991. It was Tom Foley (D) who supposedly ran the House.

Um, and just why would you expect the media to put Republican Rep. Bob Michel on the air when they had Republican President George HW Bush and his minions to put on the air during Desert Storm? This petty diatribe of yours makes no sense whatsoever. Just how many Republican congresspersons do you believe the media were going to put on the air during Desert Storm, when they could put representatives of the GHWBush administration on?

Think back to the 1994 election (if you can). The GOP sweeps both houses and the voters put them back into power after 40 years. All of a sudden, you have Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, two respected lawmakers who were the “minority” leaders but now the majority leaders in Congress, and the MEDIA HAS NO CLUE WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY STAND FOR.

Oh, so you are suggesting that the media, after having touted Gingrich’s “Contract With America” for some time prior to the 1994 election, had no idea who he was or what he stood for. Interesting. It sounds like a bit of revisionist history to me, but interesting.

BTW, apparently you are unaware that Lott did not become the Senate majority leader following the 1994 election–at least not in the session immediately following the election. Bob Dole did. So much for your research capabilities.

Now, how can the news be “fair and balanced” if it is only dedicated to covering ONE POINT OF VIEW?

Oh, so the news is supposed to be “fair and balanced”–whatever that means–instead of reporting what the reporter believes is some version of reality. If the news is reporting on the shape of the earth, is he obligated to balance a statement that the correct view that the earth is (generally) spherical with a statement from someone of the “flat earth society”? Give me a break. One of my objections to MSM is that, every time they have an article or a radio/TV segment regarding equal rights for gay people, they apparently feel it necessary to have comments from the wacky religious conservatives (you know, part of the Republican coalition) oppositing equal rights for gay people. They don’t feel the need to get similar “balance” when the issue is equal rights for Negroes or other minorities, so why when the issue ie equal rights for gay people?

raj, your name should stand for “Really Annoying Jerk,” which is how I will henceforth address you.

Feel free. I addressed this juvenile diatribe of yours in a comment thread downstream.

You’re just out to use whatever you can against this president, regardless of the facts. But, at least your comments are good for amusement on this hot and humid day.

And to answer your asinine question, NO, I do not need to email anyone in the MSM to find out why they keep going to the demoncRATS to find out why they are always in front of the cameras. It’s called MEDIA BIAS.

Think back to the 1994 election (if you can). The GOP sweeps both houses and the voters put them back into power after 40 years. All of a sudden, you have Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, two respected lawmakers who were the “minority” leaders but now the majority leaders in Congress, and the MEDIA HAS NO CLUE WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY STAND FOR.

Why? Because the Fourth Estate had been buddy-buddy with the powers-that-be (read: DNC) for the past forty-odd years and were close warm personal friends. And who was the GOP? None other than the “minority party.” In other words, UNIMPORTANT to the drive-by media.

And just because you think you know so much, Really Annoying Jerk, answer this question: Was Bob Michel on television every day talking about Desert Storm and what he thought the USA should do about Desert Storm? No, he wasn’t. And who was Bob Michel? He was the minority (GOP) leader in the House in 1991. It was Tom Foley (D) who supposedly ran the House.

Now, how can the news be “fair and balanced” if it is only dedicated to covering ONE POINT OF VIEW? It wasn’t…until the blogosphere and Fox News came into power. That’s why the NYT and other “old” media are showing their biases and very soon, their irrelevance in mainstream society. Just like you and your ilk.

Regards,
Peter H.

Speaking of which, why are Pelosi and Reid flapping their gums off-time on the air so often?

I’m sure that you will soon be emailing the people who control “the air” to find out why they provide “the air” to them so often. And I’m sure that you will thereafter report back to us as to what they have told you.

Once again, Ian S, you’ll use anything you can against this president, even if drawn out of context. Of course, he’d say “just so long as I’m the dictator.” Wouldn’t anyone? That’s part of the joke.

It was about as much of a joke as his quip at the press conference in the Rose Garden to the (legally) blind reporter a couple of weeks ago who was wearing sun glasses to shade his eyes from the sunlight. As far as I’m concerned, both were faux pas in connection with “small talk.” It’s been apparent that Bush doesn’t do “small talk” very well and it’s surprising that his handlers haven’t trained him to just STFU instead of even trying to do “small talk.”

No, Raj, (a) the Admnistration couldn’t have filed bills because they would have tipped the terrorists off. (b) They consulted with Congress — (c) and relied on practices of past Administrations, (d) including Democratic ones (indicia added).

Regarding

(a) Poppycock. Aside from the fact that FISA was already in place, and could easily and with little fanfare have been amended to allow for at least part of both the NSA and inter-bank transfer records surveillance, the facts are that the USA “PATRIOT” act certainly would have given a “heads up” to prospective terrorists, and the Bush malAdministration itself touted at least the inter-bank transfer records surveillance over a period of years, as I showed in a comment thread on a post downstream. They may have even been touting the electronic surveillance over the same time period, but I haven’t sought evidence of that.

(b) Preposterous. The Bush malAdministration consulted with a few members of Congress, who were sworn to secrecy. Those members couldn’t even notify the other members of Congress what the Bush malAdministration was up to. Irrespective of that fact–and, as far as you or I know, the Bush malAdministration’s plan may very well have presented to the members who were notified as a fait accompli–the fact is that there was no legislation passed by Congress authorizing the Bush malAdministration’s actions. If you’ve gone to law school, I’m sure that you are familiar with what legislation is. If you haven’t, I suggest that you read Article I of the US Constitution.

(c) Irrespective of the fact that illegal acts by previous malAdministrations could hardly be used as an excuse for illegal acts by the current malAdministration, I have yet to see a citation supporting the contention that the current malAdministration was relying on past illegal acts to support its current illegal acts. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply a citation or two.

(d) “Including Democratic ones”? That might be of interest to some people, but not to me.

Try again.

Patrick #8, where the heck is the Bush Cult of Personality? It seems to exist only in the minds of Bush-haters?

True, in a sense. I honestly don’t think it would matter whether it were Bush or not, so long as its a life-form that someone has stamped “GOP” on. To his followers, thats all that counts. But in the name of the famous GOP Party Loyalty, they have put into the Presidency someone that is anathema to most of the GOP’s founding principles.

Apparently if you take a seismograph out to Simi Valley, you can always hear a rumbling in the ground day or night. Its the sound of Reagan, perpetually rolling in his grave. With this court decision, maybe he can take a few breaks. I don’t think he will be able ever stop completely until Bush is out of office.

And Dina in #26, if Randi Rhodes uses this to intro her show, she proves herself to be of Michael Moore’s ilk, taking the president’s words out of context. There’s no implied “but I do” in his words.

You seem eager to use whatever material you find, no matter how meager it is, to accuse this man of being a manic megalomaniac. Let me repeat what I said in comment #22, those who he’s acting like a dictator do so based on evidence garnered from Andrew Sullivan and other left-leaning blogs. You just can’t back it up with the facts of his Administration.

Just look at all his controversial programs. He has had lawyers vet them and consulted with the appropriate congressional leaders.

No, Raj, the Admnistration couldn’t have filed bills because they would have tipped the terrorists off. They consulted with Congress — and relied on practices of past Administrations, including Democratic ones.

Once again, Ian S, you’ll use anything you can against this president, even if drawn out of context. Of course, he’d say “just so long as I’m the dictator.” Wouldn’t anyone? That’s part of the joke.

If he were a dictator, he would have long since closed down The New York Times not to mention canceling Randi Rhodes show.

So, lighten up. Despite the burdens of his office, as your (and Kevin’s references show) your arch-nemesis sure does.

I will hold you to this commitment in the event I am right about what Bush will do. I appreciate your answering my question Dan; you’re the only one who has.

#26: “Bush was OBVIOUSLY joking…while being accurate.”

You ignored the second part of his “joke”: “just so long as I’m the dictator.” Who knew that a few years after he said this that he’d be openly flauting laws passed by Congress and ignoring the Bill of Rights?

But in a Karl Rovian twist, I began to realize how bad this is for Democrats as we head into the fall Congressional elections. Remember 2002?

You do realize that, what you are saying, is that the Republican party seeks to appeal to American voters who do not believe in the so-called “rule of law.” The Bush malAdministration could have filed bills to try to amend FISA to conform to its wishes. Why didn’t it? Because they believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted to? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

The Bush malAdministration could have filed bills seeking authorization to wire-tap communications of anyone and everyone–whether the communications are international or national. Why didn’t it? Because they believed believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted? Or because the legislation might have been determined to be unconstitutional? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

The Bush malAdministration could have filed bills seeking authorization to suck up records of the many international (and national) wire transactions for analysis. Why didn’t it? Because they believed believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted? Or because the legislation might have been determined to be unconstitutional? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

And, to the point of the Hamdan case, the Bush malAdministration could have filed bills seeking authorization to use military tribunals for the mandated hearings. Why didn’t it? Because they believed believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted? Or because the legislation might have been determined to be unconstitutional? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

As I said above, what you are saying, is that the Republican party seeks to appeal to American voters who do not believe in the so-called “rule of law.” Hey, whatever. It’s been long evident that there are a significant number of Americans who do not believe in the “rule of law.” And it’s been fairly apparent for some time that to Republicans, the “rule of law” claptrap is just that–clap-trap. But, be careful of what you wish for–it might come back to bite you.

*rolls her eyes*

I’ve heard the quote (Randi Rhodes likes to play it during the intro to her show).

Bush was OBVIOUSLY joking…while being accurate.

Of course it is be easier to be a dictator, rather than leading a free country. A dictator gets to murder the opposition, rather than running against them.

Bush was talking about disagreeing with others (not sure who) and that he and they had to deal with it, following with his assertion that it would be easier if he didn’t have to. With the implied “but I do”.

Something went very wrong with this decision. The Geneva Convention, at least, explicitly applies only to reciprocal signatories of the Geneva Convention.

This is demonstrably untrue. (You really should read the GC.) The GC explicitly states in Article 2, relating to conflicts between nations:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

and in Article 3, which relates to conflicts “that are not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties (a signatory nation)”

each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions (list omitted)

The text of the GC is available here. It should be evident from Article 2 that a Power that is a signatory is bound to apply the convention in relation to another Power that is not a signatory, if that other Power accepts and applies the provisions of the GC. That is pretty much an irrelevant issue in this case, since the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan have all ratified the GC.

On the debatable assumption that the US’s war in Afghanistan was not a conflict between nations, the article of the GC of interest in the Hamdan case is Article 3, and the only issue there is the meaning of the phrase “not of an international character occuring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.” That issue is addressed at pages 65 through 68 of the majority opinion (pages 73 through 76 of the Acrobat (pdf) file–the link to which is available all over the Internet), and they conclude that a conflict that is “not of an international character” is a conflict that occurs, but is not a conflict between nations. In other words, an armed conflict that occurs between a contracting Power and an entity that is–or may be–independent of the government of the nation on which the conflict is fought.

Besides, you all miss the point of yesterday’s ruling. It doesn’t say that he can’t do it. It says he can’t do it without approval of congress. Already, members of Congress are ready to introduce legislation to allow special tribunals. So what’s your problem with simply following the checks and balances of the constitution? It’s not about stopping the capture, trial and imprisonment of terrorists. It’s about 1 man attempting to use the constitution to wipe his ass and thumb his nose at the principles upon which our country is based and making sure he governs within the confines of the constitution.

20: Yes, it is true; here are some references:

You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
– From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”

“I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.
– CNN.com, December 18, 2000

“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.
– Business Week, July 30, 2001

Also, I know I’ve seen him on video make one of these comments, probably the cnn reference. One time is a joke; multiple mentions is something to be concerned about. Interesting how the business week comment was made just days before his infamous month-long vacation after only 6 months on the job and less than 45 days before 9/11/2001

We know had some other presidents been in office, these Club Gitmo oxygen thieves would have been tried and executed long ago. Yet we still have shitheads like Ian bashing Bush for letting them live?

How about we get it over with. Try them, fry them and shut down Club Gitmo.

To look at this president and claim he’s acting like a dictator is to borrow rhetoric from Andrew Sullivan and other left-leaning blogs and use that as facts.

As muddle-headed as this Supreme Court decision is, the president must follow it. I don’t think any serious conservative would suggest otherwise. As far as I understand the decision, it seems that congressional action would remedy the most pressing issue, subjecting terrorists to military tribunals. It seems we need await another decision before the court decides the Geneva Convention issue — and on that one the Chief Justice can participate.

One thing the court’s liberal plurality did give us was an answer the the argument from the left that indeterminate incarceration of these terrorists was cruel and unusual punishment. The court said they could hold them as long as active hostilities existed. Whatever active means.

Right. So why didn’t you capture him during Clinton’s term,

Are you kidding? They couldn’t find subpoenaed documents in the White House. Do you really think they would have been able to find bin Laden in Pakistan?

BTW, I STILL want to know why liberals are so worried about our prisoners, but don’t give a FUCK about theirs.

“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” George W. Bush Dec. 18, 2000.

Is this or is this not a true statement?

Forget for a moment Bush said it. Imagine it was a quote by the maxi-pad lord BJ you worship.

Isn’t it a true statement?