Carol Platt Liebau: What To Do

Monday, November 13, 2006

What To Do

Reuters reports the obvious: Al Qaeda is seeking nuclear weapons to use against West.

Luckily, incoming Judicary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has an idea: Let's give Al Qaeda habeas corpus rights! That'll make everything better. . . right?

15 Comments:

Blogger Editor said...

That is what the US Constitution requires. Perhaps you want Bush to seek a constitutional amendment?

4:07 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor said...
"That is what the US Constitution requires. Perhaps you want Bush to seek a constitutional amendment?"

Wrong again Ditto. Our Constitution
is only for those who are willing to pledge allegiance to our flag and country, otherwise the Constitution has no meaning. Right?

11:02 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

These men were taken on the battlefield engaged in combat againt our nation. They are not citizens. They are not resident in the USA.

I'm not a lawyer, but how does that entitle them to constitutional protection?

7:04 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

That is what the U.S. Constitution requires for US CITIZENS!

Are you suggesting, Editor, as apparently Senator Leahy is, that if the US military is engaged in a battle against an enemy force, and the US military defeats that force in battle and captures many enemy prisoners of war, that each of those enemy combatants be brought before a US judge to determine if the US has the right to keep them prisoner?

Think about that, Editor. Is that what you are seriously proposing?

I hope Leahy and the rest of the "Children in Charge" of Congress strongly support that postition. If so, the 2006 election will siimply be a slap-in-the-face reminder to Republicans to get their heads out of their butts and stop acting like Democrats! The adults will be back in charge immediately following the 2008 elections.

7:33 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

"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."

Unless! Alien Enemy Combatants ignore the Geneva convention and desire to cut your head off!

9:04 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

Habeas Corpus applies to all detaines held by the US.

Why do you right -wingers just make up any BS that comes to your little heads.

There is no chance for a reasonable debate when people make up non-sense.

10:54 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

So, Editor, your answer to my previous question is, "Yes!".

Please, please, Editor, convince the majority of the Democratic Party to take that stand. Please!

2:09 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor said...
"Habeas Corpus applies to all detaines held by the US."

Question: Where did you get that misunderstanding?

6:54 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Cliff,

US Constitution, Article 1, sec 9

9:39 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Wow! Just think what a donkey's ass Abe Lincoln was, suspending habeus corpus for everyone during the Civil War! That jerk!

eddy-boy doesn't care for the Constitution or the prisoners, he cares only about slamming Bush. It's the BDS you know.

10:04 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

The time-honored approach for POWs (and by that I mean UNIFORMED combatants of a nation state in the conflict) is to hold them until the war is over.

The time-honored approach for sabateurs and spies on the battlefield--those that do NOT wear the uniform of a nation--is summary execution.

8:14 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

Marshall,

Why don't you grow up and stop making up nonsense!

Lincoln did not violate the US Constitution.... " 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."

5:35 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

And you don't consider an enemy combatant, even one who is a US citizen, caught in an attempt to commit an act of terror, is in rebellion? Or that his actions threaten public safety? And you're gonna tell ME to grow up? Talk about "nonsense".

10:06 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Marshall,

Try arguing facts. Those ten indicted terrorists at GITMO to stand trial are not US citizens. They were picked up in Afghanistan.

A Rebellion is an insurgency or on a larger scale a civil war. Neither is taking place in the US.

As I stated in the very beginning, perhaps you want Bush to seek a Constitutional amendment instead of violating it.

Leahy is obviously correct. The Supreme Court will find the military commission act illegal in a couple of years, as the wheels of justice turn slowly and Bush's big government will have wasted more time and money with not a single terrorist conviction.

Absolute incompetency is what this is.

And no Marshall, you spin it the wrong way. I'd love to see justice served but that just isn't happening is it because Bush attempted to make up his own laws instead of living up to his oath of office to up hold the laws of this country.

So Carol can try to spin the facts to smear Leahy but even Specter (R) Chairman of the Judiciary Committee agrees with his statement who also sited Justice Steven's opinion stating the same.

1:39 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

My point, eddy, was that Lincoln suspended habeus for all citizens, and Bush denies it to foreign enemy combatants. Just what is your problem with that? They don't qualify as legitimate POW's under Geneva, they aren't citizens of the US for legal purposes, and in no war that I'm aware have we ever accomodated any quest for legal representation by prisoners while the war was ongoing. There is no, that is NO, Constitutional violation whatsoever. No liberal pants-wetting will change that. Find a real reason to hate Bush, cuz that one doesn't wash.

I made no reference to 10 prisoners picked up in Afghanistan.

"A Rebellion is an insurgency or on a larger scale a civil war. Neither is taking place in the US."

Oh really? Did you have to look that up? I was making an obvious hypothetical.

Bush isn't trying to convict terrorists, he's trying to kill them. There are no grounds for allowing prisoners taken on the battlefield to be granted any trials. Such things have always taken place after the war is over, if at all. So Bush is NOT trying to make up his own laws (he's not a liberal judge after all), he's following the laws as he understands them. I believe he understands them pretty well. Libs disagree due to the likelyhood of success Bush'll most likely enjoy should libs stay the hell out of the way. Libs have NOT made their case that Bush is breaking laws or subverting the Constitution, they only keep whining that he is. And Spector doesn't have the status for you to laud his agreement with your position. As a Republican he's lame.

4:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google