The terrorists have won. Thanks, AMK.

Will Al Qaeda and the Taliban be providing Habeus to the people they kidnap? Maybe at least a preliminary hearing before the beheading?

Yes, 11.24am lets use the Taliban as the standard by which we should operate. Great idea.

I'm sure AMK's opinion uses lots of pretty, flowery language without actually providing any guidance whatsoever for how to go about doing this...like with the other Gitmo opinions.

Of course, write what you will, the military has been trying to implement procedures that comply with the SCOTUS rulings while at the same time protecting national security interests. SCOTUS disagrees it's enough, but consistently fails to say anything useful. But, that's okay, as long as AMK gets to say something pretty, that must be enough.

Scalia's dissent uses the line "It will almost certainly cause more American's to be killed".

That's a ridiculous line, even by Tony's standards.

Guantanamo Detainees to District Court!

terrorists win again. they finally forced us to accept the ancient process of habeas corpus.

we're scarily close to implementing the rest of the magna carta. if they force us to admit that our king can be bound by the law, watch out. it will only be a matter of time before sharia law sweeps the u.s.a.

sad day for our country.

Appellate judges are not fact finders, so a remand is necessary.

On the policy question, looks like the US will just have to interrogate enemy combatants captured abroad insitu, and then ‘terminate with prejudice’. Can’t very well turn-um lose.

Appellate judges are not fact finders, so a remand is necessary.

On the policy question, looks like the US will just have to interrogate enemy combatants captured abroad insitu, and then ‘terminate with prejudice’. Can’t very well turn-um loose.

Appellate judges are not fact finders, so a remand is necessary.

On the policy question, looks like the US will just have to interrogate enemy combatants captured abroad insitu, and then ‘terminate with prejudice’. Can’t very well turn-um loose.

Heard you the first time.

Heard you the first time.

Heard you the first time.

"ancient process of habeas corpus" was the idea of producing the body of particular evidece. Is that all that the US needs to do? In that case, it shouldn't matter what the tribunal or the meaning. However, something tells me that by "habeas corpus," people actually are referring to the idea contained in the UNITED STATES constitution, which governs only U.S. citizens and involves the laws passed by the U.S. Congress to govern a specific set of procedures and protections...again, for U.S. citizens.

Ho hum, another win for Mr. Waxman.

The constitution lives. Finally a rational decision from SCOTUS. Scarey thing is that 2 of the 4 dissenters are brilliant legal minds and they let politics interfere with their decision.

"Yes, 11.24am lets use the Taliban as the standard by which we should operate. Great idea."

Rights of p.o.w.s were traditionally viewed as something analogous to a contract - you treat my soldiers well, and I'll do the same. The contract was enforced via execution of the losing side's violators after the conflict was over.

I would also add this: given Al Queda's method of executing prisoners, I doubt many U.S. troops are willing to surrender when in a hopeless position. Result: more bloodshed all-the-way 'round.

Waaaaa!!! Even if they're violating the rules of war, and aren't U.S. citizens, isn't treating foreign terrorists just like any American citizen who has been arrested for a normal crime THE RIGHT THING TO DO?!?

This is judicial activism at its worst. Let's just extend all constitutional protections to non-citizens--especially those that want to kill us. Especially considering the point that Gitmo is not part of the US or even a US territory.

"Waaaaa!!! Even if they're violating the rules of war, and aren't U.S. citizens, isn't treating foreign terrorists just like any American citizen who has been arrested for a normal crime THE RIGHT THING TO DO?!?"

uh, no. Killing the enemy is the right thing to do.

*the right thing to do* would be to win the war and end the deliberate killing of innocents, which (contrary to the viewpoint of some) is what terrorists and not the U.S. does.

what is up with scalia? his panties have been more in a bunch than usual lately. per the AP, his dissent say the US is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." that assertion is as ridiculous as it is gratuitous. almost certainly fewer americans would have been killed if gitmo never opened or this stupid war was never perpetrated. and to the extent this decision reflects a slight concern on the part of the US for human rights, it will save lives. scalia's statement is up there with "get over it" re bush v. gore. basically, scalia is saying "i'm a radical judicial activist and if you don't my opinions you're an evil person, so screw off." it will take a generation to undo the damage being wrought by these fucknuts.

Wars are won by killing the enemy, not taking them to court.

Is terrorist even the right word for these people? I seem to recall that one of the detainees is being held for throwing a grenade at some American soldiers.

Killing the enemy? A Westpoint study (now there's a bastion of liberal thought) found that only 24 GITMO detainees were seized off of the battlefield.

We can only know they are enemies if we obtain and evaluate competent evidence. And the best people to do that are independent judges, not the generals who get promoted/awarded based on "capturing terrorists."

Since the beginning of this mess, the JAG Corps. of all four branches (which are slightly more diverse and liberal than the other parts of the service, but again, not a bastion of liberalism) have been kicking and screaming for more due process for these detainees.

Wake up people, and face reality. There are bad guys out there, but we have done a piss-poor job of apprehending them in both Afganistan and Iraq.

Not relevant to this post, but here's a link that show's some of AK's prized photos. http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-kozinskis-porn-images-from-judge-alex-kozinskis-web-site/

To the guy who said habeas corpus is about producing a body of evidence---wrong. It was about producing the body of the prisoner, i.e., taking him from captivity and bringing him in front of a judge. It was originally only used pre-trial, in cases where someone was held without charges or legal justification.

"it will take a generation to undo the damage being wrought by these fucknuts. "

It is taking quite a long time to "undo the damage" caused by radical Islamists on9/11. As a former Marine, I am sure glad we are on the offensive. All I need to do is remember people holding hands while jumping from the WTC to their deaths to know we are doing the right thing. You give peace a chance, while my fellow Marines save you from your naive idealism.

What's with people wanting to link to AK's post in every single string...people, stop satiating your own prurient interests during business hours. You're not a 9th Circuit judge!

"Wars are won by killing the enemy, not taking them to court."

Which is precisely why Hitler won WWII (killed the most enemies), the U.S. won Vietnam (same), and Napoleon V is emperor of Europe.

12:11- a voice of realism, and thus sanity, in a sea of ignorance. Thank you for your service.

Proposed caption for this article:

After being screwed so much by the Bush administration, Supreme Court decides Guantanimo detainees have habeas rights.

We take these truths to be self-evident...

12:13- expert military acumen you have. I'm sure Hitler's regime was stopped due to litigation, as well as Japan during WWII. Napolean certainly faced defeat as a result of Russia's stunning courtroom procedures and protections. Vietnam is a red herring as the military was not allowed to do its job (much like our current military would be hamstrung under Obama).

Wow, another dissenting opinion where the four neocon stooges basically parrot the bullshit that Bush's legal counsel has been feeding them since 2001 and then justify it with a whole lot of policy based drivel.

Look, dumbfucks, the law is clear on this. You can't just willy nilly grab whomever you'd like from a foreign country, slap a "Hello, I'm a terrorist!" name tag on them and then deny them any right whatsoever to contest their capture and detainment in a non-kangaroo (i.e., military) court.

I love how Scalia, et al. love to rant and rave about judicial activism while simultaneously clawing and scratching their way to decisions that just miraculously happen to fall against any petitioner who is:

-Gay
-Muslim
-Poor
-Pregnant

Remember kids: it's not judicial activism whatsoever if you have to distort (and break) the constitution up, down, left, and right in order to fit your lame ass opinion squarely into George W. Bush and the necon's lovely world view.

"isn't treating foreign terrorists just like any American citizen who has been arrested for a normal crime THE RIGHT THING TO DO?!?"

Normal crime???? there is nothing normal about what they did/do/and plane to do

"to the extent this decision reflects a slight concern on the part of the US for human rights, it will save lives. "

When will you left-wingnuts realize that they want you dead, and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal.

These animals have no problem killing a nun because of a cartoon, and you little piss-ants don't bat an eye. But you jump for joy when judges bestow constitutional rights on them. (How many of ass-wipes "convicted" the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib, without a trial?)

I can only hope they use court houses next to you childrens' schools - I'm tired of my friends dying.

To the former Marine at 12:11--I have no argument with you that we should punish our enemies, and although I am generally an opponent of the death penalty, I wouldn't be too unhappy about it in the context of people who launch terrorist attacks that kill anywhere from 10s to 100s to 1000s.

That said, there is pretty reliable information that a significant number of the Gitmo detainees are not actually terrorists. Some warlords randomly rounded up their enemies, and turned them in. Or just rounded up people who weren't their friends and said they were terrorists. We need to have some method for distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and JAG attorneys (including Marines) have been fighting for more accurate methods since day one. And I'm talking both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Also, as someone pointed out upthread, it's not like habeas corpus is a get out of jail free card. It is really hard for criminals to get relief, and we don't have a well-established body of law wrt foreign nationals whose behavior doesn't necessarily fit within the strictures of criminal law.

So while I sympathize with your position, I don't think denying habeas corpus would obtain the result you seek. I'm ex-military too, and a pragmatist, but I don't think that the way our government has handled gitmo has been pragmatically sound, legally sound, or done much to get the real bad guys.

12:16 -

It's "[w]e hold these truths . . . ."

If we have people detained in a military prison for 6-7 years without any charges being brought against them then thank god the court will step in. At the least the Bush admin needs to be held accountable for being worthless arbiters of justice against those who are guilty. Without some action then we are more likely to not be able to try and convict these detainees anyway. The admin needs to prosecute or not--at least the court is making them do something

I love how Scalia is unable or unwilling to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'ite terrorist groups who, in fact, fucking hate each other. See slip op. at 2 (describing America's "war with radical Islamists" as encompassing both Hizbullah actions in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and the al-Qaeda attacks on our embassies, the Cole, and 9/11). Of course, I guess he is in good company in not knowing the difference.

Also, note how he uses the Bush administration's scare tactics as evidence of the gravity of the threat. See id. ("[O]ne need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one.").

12:13: We won Vietnam? Clearly, I read a different history book.

12:27. The meaning of the language is what is important.

Okay, if we're being dumbasses about this, can anyone point to a war we lost due to habeas corpus? Anyone?

it's funny how the neocons have so infected the public perception of the way things are that 'accused of being a terrorist by GWB' is now synonymous with 'terrorist' in the eyes of so many.

12:02: "almost certainly fewer americans would have been killed if gitmo never opened or this stupid war was never perpetrated. "

Yes.....gitmo caused 9/11. It all makes perfect sense now. They saw the future, those Al-Queda stooges!

12:02, go back to your UCal code pinkos. If the war in Iraq doesn't happen, those terrorists trying to kill soldiers in Iraq would be trying to get US civilians. Saddam did have terrorist ties, despite what DailKos and HuffPo tell you.

South Park said it best: the reason why a third of the world hates us isn't any logical, rational reason. Its because they need someone to hate, and we're the biggest target, and they don't need us to keep Russia at bay anymore.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect THEIR Safety and Happiness"

11:57: "deliberate killing of innocents, which (contrary to the viewpoint of some) is . . . not the U.S. does."

When you drop a bomb in a city, no matter how smart, you deliberately kill innocents, you fucking Pollyanna. Even the administration recognizes that we kill innocents in pursuit of our goal (which, in its most recent formulation is, I believe, allowing democracy to bloom throughout the Middle East).

The FBI under the neocons surveils vegan potlucks.

http://www.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/moles-wanted/

Yeah, those damn vegans. They don't kill animals but they might--what? Try and convince people to eat bean curd?

12:35 - this would be the first time habeas corpus has been granted to prisoners taken on the battle field.

12:35 - this would be the first time habeas corpus has been granted to prisoners taken on the battle field.

12:38- good point about the dropping bombs part, why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, that's why the U.S. deliberately informed civilians in Baghdad before bombing that they were going to do so...and why forces now go in on the ground instead of with airsupport like, say, bombs.

Okay, 12:40, did you miss the part where I said "if we're being dumbasses?"

Or the other post where I said only 24 detainees were taken on the battleifield?

If they're taken on the battlefield, they should be treated like POW's under the Geneva Conventions. (No, I do not buy this enemy combatants line for a minute.) If they are not, we should have to prove that (1) they should be treated like POW's or (2) they have somehow committed a crime, or violated the law of warfare or SOMETHING that justifies detention or criminal punishment or (3) oops! we accidentally scooped up an innocent civilian, here is your plane ticket home and a settlement.

12:30: You do know that he didn't need to distinguish between the two at that point? Or are you saying Hezbollah is US-friendly? He made the point that radical islamic factions are engaging in anti-us terrorism. No different grouping the various Christian conservative groups that support the Republican party under the moniker "Right Wing Christians" or Judas Priest, U2, and the Beatles under the moniker "Rock Bands." You don't need to distinguish the groups in these arguments.

Doofus.

Marine@12:11 -- thank you for your service, but your policy implication (kill brown people until we erase the memory of 9/11) is precisely the reason why we don't let the military run the show. Many of you understand nothing but force.

hth!

12:39:
Yes, because Peta NEVER engages in terrorism.

What a moron.

Now this is a law blog no one has even mentioned TTT(oops)

12:41--Different poster here. Every time we go to war, we kill innocents. We do this directly, based on collateral damage (warning people only goes so far, even with laser- or satellite- guided munitions) and indirectly, based on the instability we introduce which allows crime and militias to run rampant. We do not now, and never have, had enough troops in Iraq to keep the peace. We created a power vacuum, and although we suffer for it, the civilians suffer more. Do not doubt that for an instant.

What does this tell me? 1. We had a moral obligation to send more troops over there, if we went and all, and 2. Any time we go to war, we need to decide whether the goal at hand outweighs the loss to civilian life that will inevitably happen.

The way I see it, the administration clearly failed no. 1; and I think (personally) that there was never a sufficient justification to go to war in the first place. (Full disclosure---I did initially believe that SH had dangerous chemical and biological, although not nuclear, weapons. I initially believed that the war was justified on those grounds. But I now believe that our government had enough information all along to know that he did not have either type of weapon. However, once we got involved, I think that we have a moral responsibility to set things as right as we can in Iraq. I am not at all sorry that SH is gone and dead, but I am damn sorry that we have burdened an innocent populace who suffered under him for so long, and now suffers due to internecine struggles we don't have the manpower to control. While the specific fracture lines weren't predictable, the fact that our troop counts were woefully inadequate has always been apparent, at least to me.)

"When you drop a bomb in a city, no matter how smart, you deliberately kill innocents, you fucking Pollyanna. Even the administration recognizes that we kill innocents in pursuit of our goal (which, in its most recent formulation is, I believe, allowing democracy to bloom throughout the Middle East). "

Terrorists TARGET "innocent" people. The U.S. is not TARGETING "innocent" people. The U.S. is bombing military targets, which sometimes results in unintended casualties. The U.S. has gone out of its way to avoid killing innocent people. Indeed, we have done this at the expense of U.S. soldiers. Many U.S. soldiers have died in an effort to avoid killing the innocent. U.S. soldiers went door to door in Fallujah and suffered many casualties, when they could have just turned that terrorist haven into a parking lot.

First, how is PETA "all vegans"?

Second, has PETA ever killed humans or planned to do so?

About time to impeach the four justices that don't seem to grasp the concept that the Constitution gives rights to people regardless of citizenship.

12:41,
go pick up the latest Newsweek and read about the Predator drones killing civilians (including kids) in Afghanistan. While I don't doubt that the US tries to minimize civilian casualties, it's bs to imply it gives fair warning to civilians on regular basis. Don't try to wipe out a discussion of the morality of "collateral damage" with such an idiotic comment.

To 12:51(2)--Even if we don't "target" civilians (and some would disagree with you) they still wind up dead. And we know they will die. Although a legitimate military objective justifies these deaths, according to just war theory, we must balance the justice of the cause, and the means of obtaining it, against the lives that those means will destroy.

Preemptive war (not preventive war, which is striking first when they are GOING to strike you) is a very new concept in just war theory, and not accepted by all. Several military thinkers lost all respect for Walzer when he uncritically accepted preemptive war.

One thing is clear, it does NOT square with Aquinas' just war theory at all to launch a preemptive (not preventive) attack. So I would be a little leery of simply accepting this innovation on a very old and well-respected idea, and I would also be leery of applying that idea to this context without more in-depth analysis then I've seen in your post.

"Marine@12:11 -- thank you for your service, but your policy implication (kill brown people until we erase the memory of 9/11) is precisely the reason why we don't let the military run the show. Many of you understand nothing but force. "

I do not want to erase the memory of 9/11. I want to erase those responsible, and those who wish to commit similar acts of terrorism upon my nation. Unfortunately, the memories of many of those who do not support Bush's fight against terrorism have already been erased.

Thank you 12.25 and 12.43. It seems no one has mentioned yet that the petitioner in this case had been held for over six years, with no charge, and no links to terrorism. In fact, he'd been picked up once by the police in Bosnia & Herz. and the judges there dismissed the terrorist changes as having insufficient evidence, and released the guy, and the police picked him up AGAIN and sent him over to the US.

Whoever thinks that these are enemy combatants just because the US military says so, doesn't deserve to practice law.

As for habeus corpus and the constitution applying ONLY to US citizens, even that's debatable. When the constitution was created, a lot of people weren't US citizens, they were immigrants who hadn't yet attained citizenship status by meeting residency requirements, but they still lived and operated under the constitution. What about greencard holders? What about those on T-1 visas practicing law? Do they have no protection from the US randomly classifying them as enemy combatants? Something similar just happened in the UK where a doctoral student who had been studying in the UK for 10 years was given al-qaeda training manuals for part of his doctoral research regarding present-day terrorism. The point is that there is no system at the moment for weeding out genuine terrorists and those who were falsely detained, and yes, this is detrimental to Americans and the American legal system.

Preemptive War is a new theory? Yeah, that's an accurate statement. Not everything that is wrong in this world is reducible to our current President.

12:54: Constitution doesn't "give" rights. It recognizes them.

12:54: Constitution doesn't "give" rights. It recognizes them.

12:51(1)- this is 12:41 and I have respect for your well-thought and reasoned response. First, my point was simply that the U.S. military does not target innocent civilians, while terrorists do. Second, while civilian deaths are probably inevitable in any war, that does not mean our objective changes (which is the point I was making in my earlier post about the need to win the conflict). By ending the conflict, regardless of how meritorious the bases at this point, we accomplish your goal (if I read the post correctly), which is to end or minimize the suffering in Iraq. We can do that only through (responsible) engagement of the enemy without too much interference by judicial intervention.

"12:41,
go pick up the latest Newsweek and read about the Predator drones killing civilians (including kids) in Afghanistan. While I don't doubt that the US tries to minimize civilian casualties, it's bs to imply it gives fair warning to civilians on regular basis. Don't try to wipe out a discussion of the morality of "collateral damage" with such an idiotic comment."

Idiotic is the inability to distinquish between the terrorists who target the innocent, and the U.S. soldiers who give their own lives in an effort to avoid killing the innocent.

12:44,

Christian conservative groups that support Judas Priest, U2, and the Beatles are labelled "Rock Bands"?

News to me.

To 1:03---Yeah, actually, in Just War Theory, preemptive war is a new theory. I'm not saying nations haven't attacked eachother preemptively before, I am saying that under the moral framework of just war theory, until the late 90's or later, there was no preemtive war. Just preventive. Read Walzer if you don't believe me (and he supports it!)

"Terrorists TARGET "innocent" people. The U.S. is not TARGETING "innocent" people. The U.S. is bombing military targets, which sometimes results in unintended casualties. The U.S. has gone out of its way to avoid killing innocent people."

You're not seeing the issue. Do we "desire" to kill innocent people? No. Do we "target" targets knowing that we will blow up innocent people by doing so? Yes, of course.

At the end of the day, they kill innocent people, and we kill innocent people in response.

Do people truly not understand that our recognition and application of fair treatment, even of people we believe to be enemies, even in the face of an absolute lack of reciprocity by said enemies, is precisely what makes us better than those scumbags?

Where are your purported Christian morals? What would Jesus recommend in this situation?

"almost certainly fewer americans would have been killed if gitmo never opened or this stupid war was never perpetrated"

oh really asshole? i don't recall the US getting attacked since 9/11, do you? gee, why is that? could it be that unlike you liberal retards who hate this country and believe the only purpose of our military is to go to Darfur, the Bush administration has (gasp!) kept this county safe? could that be? so let's elect Hussein -- a one term senator who has done absolutely nothing in his life so we can "change" things. Things will "change" all right. More Americans kills, right here at home. That'll be the change. Good luck, shithead.

1:07,

There's an extremely important distinction between pre-emptive war, and preventive war.

1:09- "'target' targets". You are deliberately misconstruing and avoiding the point. A legitimate "target" is an enemy point that the U.S. needs to take out. Now, if civilians are there it's either due to (1) human shield issue, which only furthers the notion that terrorists are the ones trying to get innocents killed; or (2) faulty intelligence. No intentional killing of civilans.

The further error in your logic is that because we know that we might kill innocent people (in your theory, we always will and therefore know innocents will die--I don't accept your premise) we should never bomb a target. That's not rational or possible without surrendering from the outset.

Just wanted to add that I hate when people make it seem like those whose lives were tragically lost on 9/11 are the only lives that matter. That somehow you are avenging their deaths by going after 'terrorism' or engaging in war. So many people seem to conveniently forget that it was the Americans who are the only ones who have dropped an nuclear bomb and in doing so killed over 200,000 innocent civilians with the short and long term effects. Truman had been advised that Japan was on the brink of collapse, that at most only 25k soldiers lives would be lost by invading Japan, but he went for it anyway, and in the end got exactly the same results as he would have if he had accepted Japan's initial offer of admitting defeat. My point isn't to compare the two, since obviously WWII is completely different, but Americans have inflicted pain as much as they've received it

See, 1:05, my problem with that is that I don't see habeas corpus interfering with the battlefield. I really don't. Particularly since we're having a really hard time identifying those who are causing us harm in Iraq. Even in raw numbers, we haven't capture a tenth part of those harassing our troops. And like I've said, most of the time people are just turned over to us, often for bounties (and the bounties aren't always connected to a specific, known, baddie.) You think that might create incentives for people in war-torn countries seeking, power, influence, and money to turn over other people who aren't terrorists?

Also, bad PR (I know that's an understatement) can harm us on the battlefield. When people 'disappear' revolutionaries/terrorists are born. One of the people we seized and held for years was a British citizen, living with his family (in Pakistan, I believe).

Good grief! See the last line of my post at 12:11.

1:12,

You can't prove that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq prevented any attacks after 9/11.

1:12---I completely agree that preventive and preemptive war are distinct. I was trying to point out that while we have had a doctrine of preventive war for a long time (i.e., first strike is okay when enemy is about to aggressively strike you--to vastly oversimplify); preemptive war is entirely different (strike "enemy" who some vague time in the future might strike you---although there was never any argument that Saddam had nukes and ICBMs) and entirely new, and pretty questionable.

Sorry if that was unclear.

1:15- I guess circumstantial evidence, no matter how strong, is insufficient to you.

1:14
Excuse me? Did we strike back a bit to hard after being attacked at Pearl Harbor? A lesson can be learned here. DO NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

To 1:18--I'm not 1:15, but please present this circumstantial evidence, and tie it to our foreign, rather than domestic, efforts.

1:12(c),

You fail to understand the full spectrum of the terrorist motive. Yes, they want innocents to die. They want the U.S. to come into their country with military might, to kill civilians - even unintentionally - and thereby galvanize the population against the "evil imperial U.S."

This war will not be won on the battlefield, but in the mind. Think about the store clerk who has never supported activist groups, but simply minded his own business for years. All of a sudden the U.S. comes storming in after some nutjob group that has never bothered him, and blows up his store. What we need to be doing is making sure that the store clerk doesn't blame the U.S. for that, and instead blames Al-Qaida. That he shouldn't blame us may seem obvious to you and many Americans, but it is far from clear-cut for him.

What is wrong with the court saying that foreign people:
Cannot be held for over 6 years without charge
Should not be classifed as Enemy Comatants when they were not picked up on the battlefield.

I suggest some of you read the case before automatically jumping to the Bush Admin's side.

Here's a very simple concept I hope to fuck you can get your head around, innocent until proven guilty. If you can't accept that, please do the RIGHT thing and cease being a lawyer.

1:19- I submit that no attack on U.S. soil for almost 7 years constitutes circumstantial evidence. That evidence is even stronger when coupled with the numerous known plots to carry out such an attack, even with support of U.S.-based terror cells. Even the tapes from bin Laden and other statements from terror leaders more than indicate the terrorists would have liked to do more in the past 7 years, on our soil, but it has not happened.

1:24/1:18,

You've still failed to tie that to our foreign, rather than our domestic, efforts.

1:20- this may shock you, but I agree that there must be some sort of uniform method for addressing the situation of the detainees. What I disagree with is the idea that constitutional rights apply in this situation. I think that the military, in line with prescribed and uniform norms should be allowed to address the situation. At most, these people should be given Geneva Convention status and dealt with under that framework.

There were no attacks on U.S. soil for the 2 years between 9/11 and deployment in Iraq, so clearly a military campaign in Iraq is not necessary for an absence of home-soil terrorist attacks.

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1:26- here's where I believe it ties into our foreign efforts: the place of the fight is overseas and not here. Now, that raises the idea that we've put Iraqi's and Afghans in the middle of our fight unnecessarily and unfairly. I disagree with that assumption, however, as those are the places that were harboring and training terrorists (potentially Pakistan and others fall into this camp, but those countries at least, on some level, try to be allies). As a result of us fighting them there, it is my position that they are unable to pull off an attack here.

""almost certainly fewer americans would have been killed if gitmo never opened or this stupid war was never perpetrated"

oh really asshole? i don't recall the US getting attacked since 9/11, do you? gee, why is that? could it be that unlike you liberal retards who hate this country . . ."

we've lost 3,000+ americans in iraq. are you really confident that just as many would have died in a terrorist attack on our soil if we hadn't invaded iraq?

i'd say most of us are pretty sure iraq cost us more lives. apparently we're liberal retards who hate our country because we don't like to see u.s. soldiers die, especially while fighting the wrong enemy.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

Scalia is a lunatic.

"[O]ne need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed."

Perceived threats lead to responses, and the consequences of those responses prove that the initial threat was real? I'm not buying the crazy he's selling.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007

Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

Anyone else think that it is ironic that a group of Saudis take over 4 planes due to terrible security procedures, fly into WTC and Pentagon, kill a couple of thousand people and in response to the actions of, at most, 100 fanatics:
a) America is fighting 2 wars and has killed hundreds of thousands of people
b) Anti-Americanism is at record highs (remember the cover of the french daily "we are all Americans on September 12th - didn't take long for Bush to fuck that up)
c) The American Government has held hundreds of people without charge, a move that Reagan condemned the Soviets for doing in the 80s.
d) America invaded possibly the only country in the middle east who had NOTHING to do with 9/11
e) Oil is at record highs
f) The counterweight to Iran's dominance in the region has been taken out by America
g) The main beneficiaries of 9/11 have been the fanatics who have grown in numbers, the Iranians, the Oil companies and the companies who support the war effort.

Despite these truths, which are self evident (I can see neocons disputing (d) but the rest is fact), people still do not see the damage Bush's policies have done.

At 1.19 (from 1.14). Yeah, you did. End of. Japanese civilians didn't come over and attack Pearl Harbor did they. In fact, many didn't support the Japanese government at the time. I don't believe killing 100x the civilians killed in Pearl Harbor out of pure retribution for no purposes at all, and in fact creating an area so full of radiation that crops can still not be grown there is on par or in any way justified.

So wait, 1:24, are you speaking about Iraq or Afghanistan?

The Taliban supported Al-Qaida, who ran the hijackers, but they themselves were from Saudi Arabia (15) and I think the other 4 were educated in Europe. So where is the Iraqi connection?

Lat--this is where ATL should be--not talking about summer associate lunches

1:12(3): *Yawns*

This sub-discussion began with the argument that terrorists kill innocents deliberately and the U.S. doesn't. But we do.

It hardly matters to future jihadists that we only blew their mothers and babies to bits in pursuit of a "legitimate" target, especially where the "legitimate" target was deemed legitimate based only on the accusation of some other dude bearing an old grudge over some missing goats.

This war is idiotic. There were many fewer terrorists in Iraq in 2002 than in 2008, and there was no Iraqi contingent of Al Qaeda in 2002 (now there is). That is beyond dispute.

1:35 - You misundertand the nature of ATL. It is a gossip site focused on Biglaw.

If you like war on terror stuff, try Balkinization:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

1:27, 1:20 here. Agree that Geneva more applicable. But surely a decent, democratic country that has the rule of law would invole the constitution when the government of the day refuses to allow geneva to apply.

1:37- thanks for clearing that up. We'll have to take you on your word, of course, including about the missing goats. In any event, would you please see to it that those goats are returned...Kozinski needs them for a photo shoot.

I haven't read the opinion, but if Scalia is an originalist, what is he doing appealing to what happened last week and when we board a plane?

1:37 but i do understand the purpose--this is just refreshing--attorneys actually caring about more than NY to 190.

1:29 QUICK QUESTION - YOU'RE A LAW STUDENT, RIGHT? very obvious.

1:29: Iraq was not harboring terrorists.

"we've lost 3,000+ americans in iraq. are you really confident that just as many would have died in a terrorist attack on our soil if we hadn't invaded iraq?"

Hey liberal retard - did you notice how many were killed on 9/11 or were you too busy trying to recount Gore's votes?

1:27/1:38- honestly, though I do support this administration generally, I can't give an adequate response to that point except to say that the administration should either be ordered to implement basic military justice rules (if the uniform code of military justice could apply) or apply Geneva. But, in the end, the problem with applying our Constitution is the vast and myriad protections afforded regarding evidence, trial, etc. that simply aren't feasible in this situation, much less appropriate in my opinion.

"Unfortunately, the memories of many of those who do not support Bush's fight against terrorism have already been erased."

WTF MIB?

1:41 "liberal retard" is superfluous.

Right, 1:41, so now we lost 3,000 on 9/11, and another 3,000 + in Iraq. Which is a total of more than 6,000. The deaths in Iraq wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gone there. I know a lot of lawyers go to law school because they don't like math or hard science, but for pity's sake!

Posted by guest | Permalink
Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:10 PM

1:24...and? how is that connected to our invasion of Iraq, as opposed to our greater awareness of the threat and adoption of greater security measures? all we've done in Iraq is MAKE MORE TERRORISTS. by your logic, all threats to US soil should have ceased over the lat 5 years, b/c "we're fighting them over there instead of here."

"Do people truly not understand that our recognition and application of fair treatment, even of people we believe to be enemies, even in the face of an absolute lack of reciprocity by said enemies, is precisely what makes us better than those scumbags?"

apparently all that goes out the window when you're scared.

1:24...and? how is that connected to our invasion of Iraq, as opposed to our greater awareness of the threat and adoption of greater security measures? all we've done in Iraq is MAKE MORE TERRORISTS. by your logic, all threats to US soil should have ceased over the last 5 years, b/c "we're fighting them over there instead of here."

1:10 says: "Do people truly not understand that our recognition and application of fair treatment, even of people we believe to be enemies, even in the face of an absolute lack of reciprocity by said enemies, is precisely what makes us better than those scumbags?"

apparently all that goes out the window when you're scared.

1:40 - no, sorry, not a law student. mid-level at a top international law firm.

1:41- I'm referring to the fact that, among other thing, Iraq provided training and medical care for Al Qaeda.

last time i checked, iraq came after 9/11 and the argument the fascist douches on this board were trying to make was that iraq saved more u.s. lives

1:44---Wasn't Schwarrzenegger (sp?) in a movie about that too? Someone has been watching too much Spike. (Would that it were me.)

1:41, hey asshole: "Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals from over 90 different countries." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)

More US soldiers have been killed fighting a war in a country that had no citizens involved and provided no funding for the war and was not hiding the mastermind of 9/11 than were killed in 9/11. Also, 9/11 killed not just US citizens.

SINCE YOU THINK EVERYONE AGAINST THE WAR IS A LIBERAL RETARD, PLEASE ANSWER ME THIS QUESTION: HOW MANY AMERICANS DO WE SEND TO DIE TO AVENGE 9/11?

Also, How many innocent people (unless you believe that all people in the middle east are guilty) do we kill and let be killed to avenge 9/11?

my house was broken into a few years ago. i began locking my doors and windows. i also began wearing a tinfoil hat.

the hat must be working, b/c no one has broken into my house since then.

This is just going around in circles. Why don't we just take up another banal topic.

It's crazy how these neocons just eat up the platitudes that W throws out.

"We have to be on offense!"

Terrorism is not a country or a person, it's an idea. Offense against an idea? That's fucking absurd. You can be on military offense against a country, but you can't destroy an idea by bombing it. You have to use diplomacy.

"We're fighting them over there so they don't fight us over here."

Even though our freedoms have been truncated, it's still pretty easy for a Muslim person to get on a plane and fly to the U.S. Who are we "fighting" over there? Even the CIA reports that we're creating as many terrorists as we're decommissioning (or, at least as many are "signing up"). This is another stupid assumption: there's some finite amount of terrorists, and they all want to go to Iraq because we're "fighting them over there."

"They hate our freedoms."

This might be my favorite. Yeah, that's why Canada and the Scandanavian countries have been attacked so often. They just hate freedom so goddamned much. To the idiot who said "they hate us because we're the biggest threat and they need someone to hate," I'm pretty sure that no one needs to hate anything. Also, maybe we should try not being a threat.

If we took a tenth of the money that we have/do/will spen(t/d) on the war and put it toward foreign aid and national security, we might actually be able to prevent further attacks AND make a few friends while we're at it.

BTW, it's very important that we don't elect that Moslem Negroid Hussein Obama to be president because his family is black and he likes black things and people.

1:52- without going through each of your points, just answer this. Why is it that, despite our having aided bin Laden against the Soviet Union, and being one of the biggest (if not the biggest) supplier of world aid, did we get attacked on 9/11?

Okay, maybe one more, how is it not in our best interest to attack countries or targets that harbor, promote, and train terrorists? Terrorism is not a person or an idea. Islamofascism is an idea and islamofascists are people. Just because it's difficult to find them, doesn't mean we should try. And, if they happen to be drawn like magnets to where our troops happen to be fighting, then great.

I can't accept your premise that we're creating more terrorists than we're capturing or killing.

1:32 --TITCR. This is why people are voting for Obama. My spouse is military and facing a career of deployments to the middle east --I would at least like a legitimate reason to look to, other than "we are safer here." if every day the war continues more terrorists are created, then neither "we" nor any of our international friends are safer. Period. And to those who say that habeas corpus will hurt us on the battlefield...really? I am100% sure that they don't give an Eff because they want to martyr--but you can be sure they love to watch our internal turmoil.

PSA: 84,000-92,000 Iraqi civilians have been documented as killed by violence since our invasion of Iraq. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

And there are still people here who think it's a good idea to fight 'em in Iraq so we don't have to fight 'em over here. Do your brains just not work?

"SINCE YOU THINK EVERYONE AGAINST THE WAR IS A LIBERAL RETARD, PLEASE ANSWER ME THIS QUESTION: HOW MANY AMERICANS DO WE SEND TO DIE TO AVENGE 9/11?

Also, How many innocent people (unless you believe that all people in the middle east are guilty) do we kill and let be killed to avenge 9/11?"

as many as necessary you liberal retard.

come on, there's nobody left today who seriously defends this administration or the iraq war. the "neocons" here are just jokers trying to stir it up. please don't feed the trolls.

the real debate is whether bush jr. reign takes the title of worst presidency from warren harding and u.s. grant.

1:32
I appreciate your sacrifice. I know it must be very difficult having your spouse deployed overseas. However, as a former Marine, I must remind you that the purpose of our military is to fight and win wars. When we are not fighting wars, we are training to fight wars. That is what we sign up for. God bless you and your family.

1:50,

Bingo. I was trying to think of a similar analogy but I was suffering from a case of epic fail. Though maybe instead of a tin foil hat, you could say "I also threw rocks through my neighbor's window, since he's kind of a dick anyway. He had a big fight with my dad about 10 years ago but we stopped short of getting him evicted. I just tell everyone that I think he collaborated with the burglars as revenge. I finally got him evicted last year, but now his next-of-kin are fighting me for the property rights. There's a pond in his backyard that I really want for my garden, and I've got more money than they do so I figured I'd just try to buy them out. Still, nobody has broken into my house even though the entire neighborhood despises me now. Must be working."

First Cheney cite: 11:22
First anti-Kennedy bash: 11:30
First anti-Scalia bash: 11:32
First Iraq cite: 12:07
First Bush cite: 12:14
First anti-Obama cite: 12:17
First neocon cite: 12:18
First confession of a commentator on the opinion that he hasn't read the opinion: 1:39
First pro-Obama cite: 1:58

Relevant legal analysis after 130+ comments: nonexistent.

"Why is it that, despite our having aided bin Laden against the Soviet Union, and being one of the biggest (if not the biggest) supplier of world aid, did we get attacked on 9/11?"

(a) Because our motives with the Mujahadeen were insipid, and we have since set up tons of military bases in Saudi Arabia and doggedly supported Israel

(b) Because we supply more military aid to Israel than all food/humanitarian aid combined to all other Middle Eastern countries, with the exception of Egypt, who we are basically bribing to act as an intermediary between Israel and other countries.

"how is it not in our best interest to attack countries or targets that harbor, promote, and train terrorists?"

Because it creates more terrorists. Terrorists are not born, they are created. We don't have to 'kill' people who support islamofascism, just change their minds. Because there is not a finite number of islamofascists. Because, in these countries, the citizens who we kill might not agree with government support for terrorism, or the government might not agree with citizen decisions to support terrorism. You don't have to agree with my premise, just ask the CIA.

1:46, I call bullshit. I do not believe you are a first year associate, never mind a midlevel associate, and argue so piss poorly.

I also fail to believe you have been out of the cocoon of college for a number of eyars and believe that Iraq harboured al-Qaeda. I know neocons do not understand this, but al-Qaeda/Bin Laden and Sadam were mortal enemies. Iraq was, to extent you could be in middle east, secular, with pan arab support. Bin Laden hated that. No way they ever worked together.

Finally, 1:46, you lawyer at international law firm, if Iraq so bad, why did Rummy go give him support? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Why did the US sell so many arms to Iraq?

1:52,

Amen.

Oh, and "BTW, it's very important that we don't elect that Moslem Negroid Hussein Obama to be president because his family is black and he likes black things and people." -- I LOL'd.

We have to keep killing those god damn ay-rab muslim civilians until they realize that we are not the bad guy.

The ruling doesn't seem to effect the treatment of enemy combatants BEFORE they are captured.

We should just be a little more selective on whether we decide to take prisoners or not.

Anyone who says that fighting them over there works, please watch this movie: http://www.amazon.com/Bloody-Sunday-James-Nesbitt/dp/B00008DDHZ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1213294452&sr=8-1

I speak from personal experience. I was there at the time, but thankfully left and did not get swept up in the violence. What I can tell you is that in 1971 the IRA was estimated as having 120 active members in the Derry area. February 1972 my uncle, 3 cousins, school teacher, 5 guys from my Gaelic football team, and numerous guys from my school joined. By end of Febraury they had 3000 active members in Derry alone.

If you have not lived in a country that has had descrimination based on religion, and not had to deal with the constant risk of being shot due to your nationality, I respectfully ask you to shut the fuck up when you try to argue that fighting them over there helps you here. You don't even know who "them" are, and all you are doing is causing more pain for the next generation, both here and there.

2:18
See my post at 11:55.

"BTW, it's very important that we don't elect that Moslem Negroid Hussein Obama to be president because his family is black and he likes black things and people.".

um, actually is very important that we don't elect Obama because he hates white people and America in general, except of course when he is given the opportunity to be educated in our elite schools paid for by his typical white person grandmother.

2:21 here again, the movie is amazing in how it captures the day perfectly. Which is what you would expect from director of the 2 good bourne movies.

The CIA two years ago cited that the invasion of Iraq was a recruiting bonanza for al Qaeda, generating legions of volunteers.

Of course that's the danger of being short-sighted. Since then, our fortunes have turned remarkably in Iraq.

Not by our own design, of course, but instead al Qaeda essentially shot themselves in the foot by their brutality in Iraq, particularly their attempts to foster a civil war by indiscriminately slaughtering Muslims.

I'm a refugee from the former Soviet Union and agree with the above statement 100%.

@1:32: "c) The American Government has held hundreds of people without charge, a move that Reagan condemned the Soviets for doing in the 80s."

Source?

12:52:

please... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if you're working for PETA, you've got a better than 50% chance of being a vegan. Probably higher. And also, I'm going to bet that if you're in a vegan support group, 50% of your members have contacts in or have joined PETA. Again, probably higher, but 50% is the lowest percentage.

Now, on to the rest of your redoubtable logic.....So we just wait until PETA's violent activities, like physically attack people for wearing fur, throwing paint and piss on people wearing animal products, and blowing up/destroying animal farms actually injures some one before we call it Terrorism?????

Terrorism is using threats of violence/actual violence to get your way politically, which is EXACTLY what the nuts at PETA do. Simply because no human has died from their activities doesn't mean their not terrorists. Or perhaps you think Weather Underground/Black Panthers aren't terrorist groups either, since no one they deliberately have set out to kill has died yet. They just threaten to kill and injure for political changes, no harm in that, right?

Go back to your commune, hippie, and worship the obamamessiah!

2:23,

Source? The candidate himself, his books, and all of his position papers and voting records say differently. Of course, if you want to listen to what Faux News says he thinks instead of what he says he thinks, that's your prerogative.

Old Ronnie Reagan supported/trained/harbored terrorists who killed civilians (including nuns), blew up planes, etc. Excuse me, "counterrevolutionaries". Maybe we should dig him up and put him on trial?

Still waiting for discussion on Geneva III and IV, the Additional Protocols and peremptory norms. Or we could just keep calling each other shitheads (why isn't always the right wingers who resort to the vulgarity first?)

1:59:

Those numbers have been debunked. Don't believe everything Kos Kids tell you.

And what about the 50-100,000 people Saddam killed? Do you think we should have left him in to do it again? Then you liberal whiny wuss, you'd be screaming for international intervention.

2:32:

Actually, moron, the lefties start throwing around the f bomb a lot sooner, in my experience. But I guess that doesn't count, since you agree with them.

2:26, I was thinking of his involvement in Sergei Grigoryants's position, and my recolections of the time.

Please inform me if I am incorrect in thinking that the man who called the USSR an evil empire did not speak out against it imprisioning people without trial.

2:21: Yes, thankfully, you can see the future, and this situation is EXACTLY like Northern Ireland/Britain circa 1973.

Or making lame comparisons based on the loose fact that both arguments have their grounded on religion--which is not true here, as Al-Quada targets America/Israel, not Christians--is stupid.

Claiming the vague liberal truism that "all wars involving religion end badly and should be abandoned" as the center of your argument is moronic and can be debunked by any basic study of war for the last 1000 years.

Or we could just keep calling each other shitheads (why isn't always the right wingers who resort to the vulgarity first?)

Wrong. See 12:02, 12:18, ...

2:10:
Espousing the liberal unproven beliefs the Kos Kids methodically chant every night before bed. Might as well have thrown in the "Larry Silberman blew up Building 7" mantra and make yourself a full fledged member of the wingnut party.

as many of you seem completely unaware, because people at gitmo have had no due process, there has been no meaningful finding that they are enemies of the united states. and many of these man are NOT enemies of the U.S. The circumstances of their capture basically ensured that the wrong people would get swept up and taken there.

Aight! Let's take a moment and rejoice!

The rule of law has prevailed. Moral fiber is making a comeback! I started to read the comments, but when I got a little past 12:00, and saw some genius using South Park to support his ignorant, bigoted assertions, I had to stop the self-torture.

And for the clowns mentioning 9/11, as if it had anything to do with the Court's ruling: does the fact that it was an inside job perhaps change your analysis a bit?

@ 2:10,
His last name is Silverstein, but your latent antisemitism is noted.

I didn't say anything that CIA studies themselves have not show. And your post really does very little to argue my points.

Oh, and South Park guy: Francis Fukiyama. Ever hear of him? He's an ex-neocon. He was one of them, until he apparently had a change of heart, thank god.

I saw him being interviewed on the net. He stated, unequivocally, that they needed a new enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union so that they could continue to justify their evil agenda. "A NEW ENEMY"

Do you idiots get it yet? It's unbelievable that there are so many seemingly smart people who'll so easily swallow the bullshit about being at war with "radical islam."

There're millions of them. If they wanted to wreak havoc, they could've blown my ass up about 10,000 times on the 4 train en route to Wall Street with the rest of the rich American pigs. Funny that they didn't, yet this "war" justifies bankrupting the country and shredding the Constitution.

2:46, or they weren't enemeis before they were held for 6 years without due process. May be different now.

2:40, sorry my point seemed to fly over your head. Let me break it down into smaller pieces. In NI the British made the mistake of killing innocent people. In the NI context, it matters that they were Catholic, in the Iraq/Middle East cntext it matters that they were different from thsoe firing the bullets. The POINT, that you missed, was that people who had no desire to take up arms, did so due to the murder, hummiliation, injustice, detention and cover ups that occured. They sided with the terrorists because of what the army in their front yard was doing.

If you ignore the rule of law, if you think it should be susspended because you are fighting bad people and terrorists, then you foster a situation where hate grows. And then it becomes easy to develop a factory for terrorists.

Is there a difference between a guy in the pub convincing my friend to attack an army barrack in Crossmaglen because of why the "Bastards did to Bobby Sands", then a man in Iraq getting a young man in Bagdad to attack an American Soldier because of what happened in Gitmo, etc.

Obama hates white people so much, he wants to become president of their country and turn them all into muslim black men with apelike, monstrous penises. then he will let cubans and terrorists into the country to bomb all those bitter white people and turn it into a fun terrorist place where muslims can just bomb anything the like.

obama's grandma is black and wears crazy black people clothing.

12:53
You're not one of those people that actually think Dick Cheney was in a secret bunker flying planes into the WTC with remote control, are you?

2:48(1): Conspiracy theorist. here's your tinfoil hat, buddy boy.

2:48 (2): Yes, getting a man's name wrong=antisemitism. Confusing one ethnic name with another from the same ethnicity=antisemitism.

Nice logic, kid. Back to coding for you.

2:34 said " Those numbers have been debunked. Don't believe everything Kos Kids tell you."

Link? I think you're thinking of a different set of numbers. This figure is a compilation of civilian deaths as reported in newspapers. I know you'd like to think the number was much smaller, but it's not.

"And what about the 50-100,000 people Saddam killed? Do you think we should have left him in to do it again?"

You're right, it's much better that we cause their deaths first! We deprived SH of the satisfaction, that murderous bastard!

Are you truly this fucking stupid, or are you actually a left-winger trying to sabotage the pro-war side with the idiocy of your arguments?

2:59:

Are you an idiot? Your would have Left genocidal dictator in charge and let him cavort with terrorists.

I challenge you to point out a valid source (and not "Iraq body count.org") to back up YOUR assertions.

@2:59:

What does coding mean?

Look, there's nothing antisemitic about confusing one ethnic name for another when the names are "Silverman" and "Silvermunn." But when the names are "Silverman" and "Silverstein," two things that couldn't be spelled or said remotely alike, it tends to show that "mans" and "steins" are all the same, and you want to treat them as a Monolithic Jewish group rather than as the individuals that they are. That's pretty bigoted.

former marine: you should kjnow better than anyone that the marines in Iraq aren't fighting a war, they are occupying and nation-building and serving as a security force. This is all because of an insufficient invasion force and faulty post-invasion plan. If the marines go to Afghanistan, I would support that (and I think so would the int'l community) but what we are doing in Iraq is a neverending uphill battle that cannot be resolved by the military. I would think more people sympathetic to the military would be outraged at the admin for setting them all up to fail. So that us what my beef is--not about the point of the military, which I really understand, but its mis-use by those who didn't want to listen to any of the generals in the first pace.

Thank you for you kind words...
marine spouse

P.s. I am part of a large but non-vocal minority in the military community.

Hey 2:59: I'll accept the "conspiracy theorist" label when you call yourself a "coincidence theorist."

Because, ya know, you'd have to accept the fact that literally dozens of occurrences surrounding 9/11 were mere coincidences; completely unrelated to one another.

No, I'm not that naive.

And you do realize that the "official" story (whatever the that is) alleges a conspiracy, right? So your parroted label doesn't even make sense in this context.

And you realize the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash, right?

Oh, and a few months ago the Japanese Parliament openly discussed 9/11 being an inside job.

You know, those crazy Japs and their advanced technologies, superior healthcare, and clean streets. Fuckin wackos!

Ever hear of Sibel Edmonds? You will if you haven't yet.

2:55 obviously thinks he's a social psychologist with years studying how terrorist become terrorists and reams of data on Iraq to back up his argument. Or he's just a prick posting on a message board who thinks making vague comparisons to a former terrorism situation will make him right.

Buddy, I got your point. You think because you were there in NI, that somehow makes you an expert on Iraqi psychology.

Of course, you can't explain why the IRA was a take-hostage-and-shoot mafia versus a suicide-bomber terrorist. but I'm sure there's some weak, untenable link to occupation you'll make up to pat yourself on the back.

Oh, and I forgot that NI was under the hand of a genocidal dictator back then. And, of course, that the US has occupied Iraq for hundreds of years and withdrew from all but a significant industrial portion in 80 years ago.

Or maybe your analogy is off. But nah, can't be the case, right, lib?

3:05: still wearing his tinfoil hat. lol. Free Mumia! JFK was a CIA cover-up! Moon landing was faked!

3:09: Yes, I'm sure Japanese parliament never has conspiracy theorists as a part of it. Or US Congress, for that matter. Perhaps You and William Jefferson will have something to talk about.

303

Are you trying to say Saddam was a leftist or do you just have problems typing? The CIA was the ones who put him into power in the first place, as check against socialism. And it was conservative Republicans and defense contractors in the '80's who gave him his weapons of mass distraction. Including Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. Seems like some of those deaths you cite were indirectly our responsibility, too.

I wonder when ignoramuses like 3:15 will do when the truth becomes so obvious that even the most sheep-like, myopic, "the government would never do anything to harm US!" people must accept it.

Will you have an existential crisis or something?

But don't worry, I'm a good liberal who strives to be the best person I could be, with exceptions for sarcasm in times of weakness.

That means that when it becomes so obvious that even the corporate media can't ignore it, I promise I won't say "I told you so." Really. I'll accept you with open arms and compassion, as I've already forgiven your dangerous ignorance.

haha mumia.

3:05:

"Look, there's nothing antisemitic about confusing one ethnic name for another when the names are "Silverman" and "Silvermunn." But when the names are "Silverman" and "Silverstein," two things that couldn't be spelled or said remotely alike, it tends to show that "mans" and "steins" are all the same, and you want to treat them as a Monolithic Jewish group rather than as the individuals that they are. That's pretty bigoted."

I'm sorry, what what, in your butt? What a psychology lesson! I am in awe at your detailed analysis.

Or perhaps I've known people named "Silber" and "Silberman" in my life--and the confusion is basically the same as if I called a Mike O'Reilly a Mike Sullivan. Yes, two Irish names, two similar first names--I must hate the Irish, those monolithic bastards! Somehow, I don't think a lib like you would make that argument.

3:11, parse irrelevant differences all you want (the IRA never bombed anything? really?), but:

a) you haven't rebutted any of his actual arguments; and

b) you haven't given anyone a reason to believe you over him.

his argument makes a lot more sense. in such a situation, you might sit back while your home was destroyed, but i know if i lived in a country that was overrun by a foreign force, i might become a "terrorist" too. i can certainly imagine why normally peaceful and law-abiding citizens might be motivated to strike back against an "invading" force.

3:20:
"I wonder when ignoramuses like 3:15 will do when the truth becomes so obvious that even the most sheep-like, myopic, "the government would never do anything to harm US!" people must accept it."
----Is it just me, or does that sound like an argument a cult leader would use?

"Will you have an existential crisis or something?"
---Prolly not, since this all depends on a future event that won't happen.

"But don't worry, I'm a good liberal who strives to be the best person I could be, with exceptions for sarcasm in times of weakness."
----Ah, Libs: arrogance is like their natural state.

"That means that when it becomes so obvious that even the corporate media can't ignore it, I promise I won't say "I told you so." Really. I'll accept you with open arms and compassion, as I've already forgiven your dangerous ignorance."
---Arrogance, conspiracy theories, insanity and a hug: The four things libs are never without.

lol Tin foil!

Thank you to our Irish friend for bringing up what are probably painful memories. I, for one, get your point.

What about the "Gowanus" and how it affects all of us?

3:27,

Just you. And if arrogance is the natural state of liberals, selfishness is the natural state of conservatives.

3:26:

Since his entire argument is based upon the similarities between NI and Iraq--in other words, he bases his entire argument on ANALOGY--and its been shown how UNALAOGOUS the situations are, then his argument has (gasp) FAILED.

As posner said, arguing by analogy is inherently flawed. Any analogy can be made, and any analgoy can be proven false. he's not arguing facts, he's just arguing analogy.

But perhaps that went over the head of the BarBri kids in here.

@3:22:

Actually, I would say that calling an "O'Reilly" a "Sullivan" just because you know he's Irish is incredibly bigoted. Have you ever heard of the racist epithet "Mick?" That comes from people thinking that all Irish people are named Mc-something. That's offensive because it seems to equate one Irish person with another rather than respecting them as individuals. That's why if I, a Russian person, introduced myself to someone, and they said, "Wait, let me guess, your last name is Ivansky," I would be quite offended.

Sorry, but you're still a bigot.

3:40: selfishness? How does selfishness apply in that situation? I mean, mockery, condensation, yes...selfishness? Not getting it.

3:42: you're a pc windbag with your head up your ass with the thing most concerning you is not breaking the pc rules. A simple mistake is amistake, not an excuse for an Art History major to make a flawed freudian analysis of someone they never met. You're a tool.

3:42:
A racial slur is not the same as a mistake. The term Mick is a conscious insult--not an unconscious one. and taking a guess at someone's last name is offensive? ARE YOU MADE OF GLASS, WUSS? THEN WHY ARE YOU CRACKING UP?

Now, your ethnic studies class meets at 1pm. Discussion: Why mistaking someone's name for another's is worse than the Holocaust.

all that matters is power and results...when will you people learn???

342 sure shut up pretty quick. must getting his nap time.

So 3:27, I'm breaking my own rules by continuing to argue with someone who writes "lol" and uses the term "libs," but you're so much fun!

So, tell me, whatya think of Sibel Edmonds? And I'd love to hear your response to those who posted on patriotsquestion911.com.

Actually, I'll just take the Sibel Edmonds response for now. I look forward to it.

Because, obviously, someone who's SO sure that no one in the gov. was behind 9/11 is intimately familiar with all the "alleged" holes in the story that we "conspiracy theorists" cite and have cogent arguments in response. Do your thing.

@3:45 & 3:50
way to throw out the "PC" label. Also, great job calling me a wuss. You probably could beat me up, but that won't change the fact that I'm smarter than you. Then again, this is the internet, where neither brawn, nor intellect matter.

There's a continuum between something being merely "politically incorrect," meaning selectively and perhaps irrationally offensive and "bigoted." For the record, 9/11 conspiracy theories fall somewhere in between. Saying "retarded" is politically incorrect, and saying "niggers are lazy" is at bigoted end.

Making no distinction between ethnic names that sound totally different and are spelled in completely different ways is not a "mistake"...It can't plausibly be one, unless your mind chooses to view the entire ethnic group as a block, rather than as individuals. It's not just politically incorrect, because it's not merely using a disfavored word. It's closer to the bigoted end because it betrays your perception: that every Jewish person might as well be named Silverberg or Goldman.

3:11, I am not going to get into an insult match with you over this, as then you can just convince yourself I am a crackpot, or a crazy liberal or some other comforting fact. (I am actually a Reagan republican). What I cannot let go unaddressed is your dilution of the IRA.

Please be under no illusions, they were murdering scum that killed innocent people in pub attacks, drive by shootings, kidnapping, and blowing up buildings. Between them, the UVA, the UDA etc, they inflicted a horrible campaign against the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. They were not some background mafia, and certainly not a million miles from the terorists that the US is dealing with in Iraq. 9/11 may have been planned by Bin Laden, but sadly the people strapping suicide bombs onto themselves are typically teenagers who have bought into a mentality that the US is bad. I truly believe that they are wrong to hate the US, but only offer my experiences as to why this can happen.

The point here is that you fight an idea by getting the hearts and minds. Yes you need a stick to follow the carrot, but it never ceases to amaze me that the country that won the cold war, which was a battle over an idea, cannot do the same with Terrorism. How hard is it to admit that might is not always right? The US was the country of rights, free speech, freedom.

I am no psychologist, and have spent too many years being a lawyer. I felt compelled to write as it truly pains me to see the same cycle of violence again. I only offered my experience of why good people take up arms against what they see as an oppressor. (What you may not know is that the British army came to NI to protect the Catholic population against the protestant majority. Yes, they came as liberators!).

Finally, just because a situation is not the exact same does not mean that leasons cannot be learnt. I know it is easy to mock annoymous posters, but I tell you, I would gladly trade my life in America, partnership, clients, homes around the country, to have grown up in a place without hatred and bigotry, and I would gladly give it up to get back the friends I lost and the family that were taken. I went down south and got an education and saw that the situation up North was not black and white. People I grew up with either didn't have the eduation or the options to see past their hatred. I realize I was lucky to escape the cycle of violence, you don't seem to realize that that cycle is only begining in Iraq.

3:42, well if posner said it...

Look, can you admit that there are more terrorists in Iraq now then there were before?
Can you admit that more people hate America NOW than before the war?
Can you admit that young people in the middle east are becoming terrorists due to injustuice that they see the US commit (while ignoring or not being as aware as we are of the worse thigns their own goverment or terrorist group are doing)?

Not sure if you will admit these things, but if you can and are willing to do some research you will discover that:
a) the IRA got more people to join after Bloody Sunday than before
b) hatred of the Brits increased after this and a policy of internment. This was where they rounded up Catholic males and detained them on no charge and set no trial (not at all like what is happening here).
c) Young people in Derry and Belfast were encouraged to join the IRA in response to Bloody Sunday, collusion of the British Army and the UDA, rigged elections so Unionists won even in Catholic heartlands.

It may be an analogy, but its a bloody good one (no pun intended at all). See also Algeria, see also Israel.

Thanks

Not 2:55, but someone from the Republic who actually studied history and follows foreign afairs.

During this fight, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!

Rocky IV FTW

I second 4:26's scholarly sources. And may I add:

U S A! U S A! U S A! U! S! A!

3:03 said: "I challenge you to point out a valid source (and not "Iraq body count.org") to back up YOUR assertions."

I understand that you're reflexively stupid, but did you consider visiting the site? That website only compiles newspaper articles that report civilian deaths.

I'm sure you are suspicious of the librul AP and Reuters reporters who write those stories, but if we're not going to accept reports from people on the ground, who would you recommend looking to as a "valid source"? I'm sure you'll equally reject Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross & Crescent, etc. Is it best just to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and hope that those numbers aren't true?

4:04, 4:20 - i don't think you're going to get through to 3:11, no matter how well-reasoned and logical your arguments.

3:11...there are good analogies and bad analogies. making analogies is what legal argument is all about, your oversimplification of Posner notwithstanding.

Yeah, 3:11 is going to have an interesting legal career if he or she doesn't believe in arguing by analogy. Good luck finding cases on all fours, buddy, because apparently those are the only arguments that persuade you. (Hint, as someone who has been a clerk 2x---it isn't easy. Sometimes there is NO case on point. Who'da thunk.)

3:6:
It's apparent you have a pet project called 9/11 conspiracy. Fine.

But you mistake the onus of proof, moron. Your job is to prove your point, not demand other people investigate exactly as you do. Accepted theory: organized, trained Islamic radicals hijacked the planes, while influenced by Osama Bin Laden. So your onus is to overcome that theory and prove your new one. A daunting task you fail at completely.

And Sibel Edmonds? Whose basic point is, "Yeah, well, the gov't had intel before 9/11 that Al_Quada might attack?"

Um, hate to break this to you, moron. That the US government had intel Al-Queda wanted to attack the US before 9/11 was public knowledge just a few weeks after 9/11. Just because that information was had somewhere in the government does not= conspiracy. Quite frankly, to make such a logical leap requires a faith in the conspiracy that is a priori.

What you conspiracy theorists never accept is that people/organizations do not constantly act in the most efficient manner, nor is there perfect information. Warnings are ignored, breakdowns in communication occur, other matters hog the spotlight over issues that in hindsight become vastly more important. You assume that if the information was ever known (or possibly known) by on person, it must have been known by all. Bingo, Conspiracy!

9/11 Commission Whitewash? lol. got proof?

And one more thing, 3:20:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
According to the ACLU, who is advocating for Sibel Edwards, she exposed security breaches and shoddy work--not a 9/11 coverup.

but of course, the ACLU is all about hiding the truth and protecting the Bush Administration, those crazy ACLU conservatives.

4:20:
I'm glad you studied foreign "afairs." In any event, you keep bringing up similarities, I bring up differences;

like the centuries old occupation (Ireland) versus the recent one (Iraq))---him, maybe, just maybe, that had as much to do with people supporting the IRA as one incident;

like the constant broadcasts to the Iraqi people that the US wants out versus the staunch fighting by Unionists to keep Britain in-----hmm, you think the IRA was not only fighting against the British army, but also for a political cause that was untried? Or, to put it another way, the more the Iraqis fight, the more they guarantee US involvement, whereas the more the IRA fought, the more support for Unionism was on the wane?

like the governmental situation pre-occupation---one ruled by a foreign power generally democratic but still discriminattory whereas one ruled by a genocidal, homegrown dictator?

Like the cultural similarities/differences between occupier and occupied---in Ireland, physically and culturally similar groups divided by religious and govnernemental philosophies (home rule v. union), in Iraq, practically no similarities/governmental philosophies/cultural exchange for years?

face it man, your analogy falls apart quite readily under scrutiny. And, once again, you cannot merely say some superficial similarities you want to be true dictate the same result. Unless you're claiming the IRA hatched suicide bombers, which it didn't.

5:14, I'm sorry but you are an idiot. You have no grasp of either British/irish politics and History, PLUS completely no understanding of Iraqi history. You do know it was also ruled by the British, right? Fecking moron.

Unionists just wanted to have power, like the Sunnis and Shiites. BUT, and this is where you lack all comprhension neither my post, nor the original guys posts are saying they are the same. It is a universal argument, one that is not countered by spotting the differences. As you have no concept of NI history, perhaps you missed fact that Bloody Sunday was an attack on a civil rights march, or maybe you did not realize that prior to this the majority favoured peaceful means of getting independence. I assume that you missed fact that IRA embership was dwindling. They were not considered a force until the British Army and Govt made them so.

Seriously, I read and reread your post and it amazes me. Did you wiki Northern Ireland, because you are so wrong and so all over the place that I really don't know where to begin.

The Analogies made is not that the situations are the same, the point is not that this is the same, the point is that when you use force over reason, and when you commit crimes as bad as what you claim others would do, and when you abandon the law, you help to create an environment where normal law abiding people get swept into fighting you and where young idealistic people fight the occupying forces.

Again, the point is universal, not specific. You really are a knob if you cannot see that. I hate to get into name calling but seeing the history of my island so fucked up to make a pro Iraq war point is just so upsetting. The Gov of South Africa is coming to Northern Ireland to take notes of efforst to rebuild trust in the communities. Maybe we should call them up and explain that there is no point looking at other countries' history as one was to do with religion the other with race, one involved english people, other involved dutch.

I'm so glad 3:58 to dictate to all of us just what is acceptable speech and what is blasphemy to his pc heart. And the sliding scale of free speech. I'm glad we elected him Supreme Decider of What is Acceptable and What is Bigoted. Free Speech is not Free when I Disagree with it. Must love Jeremy Waldron.

I'm sure when he and his comrades take control, we shall sing praises to the glorious revolution...and any one who doesn't is committing hate speech.

"he point is that when you use force over reason, and when you commit crimes as bad as what you claim others would do, and when you abandon the law, you help to create an environment where normal law abiding people get swept into fighting you and where young idealistic people fight the occupying forces. Again, the point is universal, not specific. "

---Listen up, you fecking nutcase. You're dictating to me that you're not arguing analogy, yet the only proof you cite for your theory quoted above, which you only derive from NI.

Perhaps you're pretty thick, but I'll try again: your "universal truths" are not derived from any study of multiple communities or the Iraqis themselves, but merely analogizing from NI to Iraq.

Or, worse, deciding yourself (with no proof other than your own warm fuzzy feelings) what NI "proved" and then applying it to Iraq.

Any idiot who comes up with "universal truths" from merely his own deep reading of a separate situation is either using analogy (which, as I have shown you is inapposite here) or making a induction with a limited sample size and applying it to other situations, which becomes a de facto analogy.

Your "universal points" is unproven, unreliable, and therefore inapposite. Until you have a sound psychological and social board to stand on, rather than what you "feel" is true, I suggest you take your half-assed theory and put it where the sun don't shine.

"when you abandon the law"
---Apparently, the US, after getting Congressional and Allied approval, broke the law. What law isn't certain, but certainly its any law the moron can find to justify his point, even if it's Iraqi dictator law.

5:46--So you don't think it is happening in Iraq. For reals. Wow.

Did the majority think people wouldn't read the Eisentrager decision that they distinguished? The intellectual dishonesty is simply shocking.

5:56: Perhaps you've never heard of Michael Yon. Perhaps you should read him. You might like an on-the-ground perspective of the fact that Iraq is actually being helped by this involvement--and not what Kos tells you.

5:35:
Do you really think that centuries of British rule had NO effect on the psyche of the Irish people after Bloody Sunday?

Or perhaps...and this is just perhaps, dingbat...perhaps Bloody Sunday reinvigorated a festering anger that had been quelled for a time?

6:00 p.m. Considering the fact that I know and have discussed Iraq extensively with half a dozen vets. who served there (of a variety of political persuasions, including two who were awarded Bronze Stars, one with a v), and a former CIA agent who was part of the weapons inspections team, and read the Sandbox, and saw Taxi to the Dark Side, and Brokedown Palace, and have never IN MY LIFE relied on Kos for anything, I don't think one analyst could change my mind about how shitty reality is on the ground according to even my staunch REPUBLICAN veteran friends.

My cousin has served there. My classmates have served there. My former boss served there.

You have a damn funny idea of helped.

Let me guess, we had to destroy the village to save it.

6:00- whether or not Iraq is "being helped" by our involvement is irrelevant to the discussion 5:56 and 5:46 are having. the questuion is whether our presence there has cvaused some formerly peaceful Iraqis to take up arms and become "terrorists." it strikes me as utterly illogical to suggest this hasn't happened. surely some Iraqis' lives are worse than they were before 2003.

6:05--Do you really think that years of Western economic supremacy and support of brutal dictators had NO effect on the psyche of the Iraqi people?

Do you remember the uprising after the first Gulf War? All the Iraqi patriots who were killed trying to overthrow Saddam after we convinced them to go forward and compromise their cover, and then permitted Saddam to have helicopters mounted with guns--with which he mowed them down?

Do you remember we backed Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war? How do you think the Shia majority feels about us backing their Sunni ruling party against another Shia majority country? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Oh come on now 4:56: "moron?"

I may be many things, but a moron I'm not. I doubt anyone who comments on this site w/any regularity, including you, is a moron. Immature, naive, egotistical: sure. But hardly dumb. Try for a better insult in your next response please.

And no duckie, the onus is on the government---ya know, the ones who control virtually ALL information related to 9/11---to provide an adequate explanation of those events. This they failed to do, and miserably. Instead, they confiscated all video footage in DC and NY, resisted the 9/11 Commission all it could, and appointed lackeys when they couldn't resist no more. Oh, and as you may recall, Bush couldn't even meet with the Commission w/o Cheney present.

I, as a lawyer and former investigator, can smell bullshit a mile away. If you study the government's purported explanations, and mix-in all the surrounding circumstances (e.g., PNAC and the pre-planned invasion of Iraq, both of which are verifiable), you'd be a fool to believe that its story holds water.

And perhaps you missed my earlier post on this point. So I'll repeat, b/c I like you: using "conspiracy theorist" is meaningless in this context. Assuming you're a JD, you should know that a conspiracy is basically two or more people agreeing to do some bad shit in the future. That means that the government's bullshit version is also........wait for it......a......a..... CONSPIRACY THEORY!

The difference between the two competing conspiracy theories is that the government's never accounts for many glaring holes, such as Building 7's fall. Nor does it adequately address why NORAD stood down that day. But since you seem to know, please enlighten me.

And you do realize that Osama was in cahoots with the architects of the plan, right? That's rhetorical; of course you don't. He takes responsibility and we get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia, which incensed him. And guess what? We got out.

1. To those wonderful legal scholars who say we should bestow geneva protections to enemy combatants:

a) If an EC is being held for terrorism, the EC is not eligible for protection b/c he/she was not wearing a distinguishing uniform (among other things).
b) Under Geneva, enemy combatants who blend into civilian populations may be labeled spies and immediately EXECUTED.

2) All this ruling will do is encourage the US to transfer enemy combatants to other country to "take care of things."

3. To those arguing about the Iraq War:

3. to those arguing about the Iraq War:

a) Saddam repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement by shooting at US fighter jets and kicking the weapons inspectors out; thus, the US did not need to find WMDs to make the war "legal."

b) Can someone please explain to me how political reconciliation is supposed to occur without military stability? It seems common sense to believe that politcal reconcilation can only occur after stability. The surge has provided stability, reconciliation is now occuring from the ground up, so why pull out now?

6:39/:45.

I'll bite.

1. Geneva conventions:
a. How do you know they aren't wearing a uniform? What about militaries in countries too poor to wear uniforms? Also, we nabbed only 24 from the battlefield. Even our soldiers take off their uniforms some times.
b. I'll have to take this on faith, but do we just execute people for this, or does the GC give them some form of process?
c. Let's say the GC don't apply. What justification do we have, under our constitution (remember, GC part of Sup. Law of land b/c treaty), to do anything to these people?
2. Wow, so because our government will expand another horrific policy, we should deny habeas corpus? Great argument.
3. a. Okay, let's say it is technically "legal" under International Law. Does that mean it was a good idea? Are use of force resolutions "legal" or does the constitution only provide for a declaration of war, and nothing else? (So, is the war legal under U.S. law? Is it legal, but less than a war because there was no declaration of war? Does that effect the scope of our powers?) Is a preemptive war/a war for kicking out inspectors a good idea?
b. You're confusing things. It is one thing to say the war is bad and should not have happened. It is quite another to say that we must immediately withdraw. I happen to believe the former, and not the latter.
c. I don't think the surge has provided stability. I think successful ethnic cleansing/creation of homogenous populations has caused stability. In other words, there is a lull in the fighting because we couldn't stop them from killing those whom they wanted to kill, and now they are dead, and peace reigns. How's that for twisted? (It happens to probably be true.)

Where is Roger Luo?

He's probably been seized, as an enemy noncombatant.

He's probably been seized, as an enemy noncombatant.

6:45 -- It wasn't legal bc the UN had not issue a use of force resolution. The legal question is a red herring --- this is the biggest foreign policy debacle in a generation.

7:08 here. Good point, 8:03, I can't believe I forgot that. I need more sleep.

8:03 The US doesn't need the UN's permission to use force when a country fails to abide by a peace treaty with the US. Legally the US had authority from Congress (resolution authorizing force...the same thing that has been used in every armed conflict since WWII) and Iraq had broken the peace treaty from the Gulf War (no treaty...war can resume).

And to all the Bush Lied, People Died liberals.....he may have relied on faulty intelligence, but he didn't lie (and if he did we need to round up some democratic senators and party leaders)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

You didn't answer my question. Just because we haven't declared war since WWII, doesn't mean it is okay. Some analysis, please. (I seem to remember, before this whole Iraq debacle, learning in history class that the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions were considered wrong, and I also seem to remember the UN condemning us for our actions in N. Korea without a declaration of war.)

Based on the information Bush and our other representatives had (including the democrats!) there was insufficient reason to believe that Saddam possessed weapons that posed a threat.

Furthermore, he DID have biological weapons the first time we invaded them---and he did not use them against us or Israel. So the danger of him using those weapons against us or are allies is and always was virtually nil. (I was really embarrassed when a middle-east expert friend of mine pointed this out.)

And there was never any credible evidence that he had nukes. I mean, never. Not even that he would be able to get the stuff to make nukes. Did not exist.

And you really don't have a problem with Bush having Colin Powell rely on a British intelligence estimate containing information that we had previously discreditied? Really? I am, for one, deeply saddened that Colin Powell had a part in all of this. I heard him speak when he was involved in charities, and was no longer actively in the military, and I had tremendous respect for him. His failures in this leave me feeling a great deal more betrayed than Bush's. I didn't trust Bush by the time we invaded Iraq, but I did trust Colin Powell.

which law firm argued the case?

9:48 said:
"Furthermore, he DID have biological weapons the first time we invaded them---and he did not use them against us or Israel. So the danger of him using those weapons against us or are allies is and always was virtually nil. (I was really embarrassed when a middle-east expert friend of mine pointed this out.)"
---Um you do realize that just because he didn't use them then is no guarantee he wouldn't use them in the future.

And "the first time we invaded them" is not true--The First Gulf War was about pushing him off of Kuwait, which he did not own.

And since Saddam wasn't afraid to commit mass murder against the Kurds (his own countrymen) using poison gas, I guess that kind of proves he IS willing to use them.

I'd be pretty embarrassed right now, if I were you.

"there was insufficient reason to believe that Saddam possessed weapons that posed a threat."
---Except that you only make that judgment in hindsight, when it has been proven he didn't have those. At the time, plenty of people--not just the US and UK gov'ts, but (gasp!) France, Russia, and Germany--all believed Saddam had the WMD and would use them.

11:06---Actually, we did invade Iraq during the first war. In case you forgot. Saddam had good reason to think that we were going to depose him, in fact the plan was to allow rebels to overthrow him, with our support. We gave them the go-ahead, but then Gen. Schwartzkopf (like a genius) permitted Saddam to use helicopters, and when his people asked if the helicopters could have guns, he said yes. Gen. Schwartzkopf has since said that was his biggest mistake. (You think?) We were decimating his army. In fact, part of the reasons hostilities ended so quickly is because fighter-pilot brass who covered the retreat to Baghdad, as it is euphemistically called, were grossed out by the fact that they were mowing down uniformed enemy soldiers who were retreating. (I think it was technically okay under the law of warfare, because they were not surrendering, but the pilots had a really hard time of it. Because it was such a slaughter and they could see the little moving dots they were killing.)

Don't talk to me about being embarrassed; you're the one that doesn't recall the major battles of a war fought during OUR LIFETIME.

Re: the Kurds. That was horrible, and should have been stopped. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the U.S. will EVER protect the Kurds from ethnic cleansing. We're letting the Turks do it, we didn't intervene after Karbalah, the only thing we've done that was mildly helpful to them was the no-fly zone. If we had cared about the Kurds, and sent peace-keeping troops to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq conflict, I would be all about that. And perhaps if we had done so, we could have saved lives. Damn shame the international community won't stand up for the Kurds. But using chem. weapons on your own is different then deploying them. Clearly, since he doesn't have ICBMs, he couldn't use them against us. He could use them against Israel, but when we were invading his country, he was losing, and it looked like he was going to be deposed, he didn't do so. Talk about nothing to lose.

There was insufficient evidence. Did I believe all that stuff about mobile chem. labs? You bet. Was I a dunce? Also yes. But the leaders of our country (and I am pointing fingers and dems. and reps. alike) had enough information to know that there was no credible evidence that he had significant stores of biological and chemical weapons. No, I did not know. And I was a little dumb. But they were criminally stupid, based on the information they had, to conclude what they did. They probably didn't bother to read it.

And you seem to concede the point that there was never credible evidence re: nukes. And you don't answer the point about how we relied on ridiculous information to argue that they might have nukes. (The discredited British intel.)

12:00
First of all, little boy, there was zero chance we were going to depose Saddam in the First Gulf War. No mention was made of it, no plans were enacted, and the forces involved had no pretense about it. Your history is as shoddy as your argument.

Secondly, so with your basic argument, you claim that, if someone has never used a weapon before they will never use it now. Until they do. Whew. I guess we can give out nukes to everybody, including Al-Queda, since they've never used one./ Good logic there, buddy boy.

Third, bird brain, never conceded it, there was just too much stupidity in your posts to dispel with. Now here you go: except the Intel of other nations confirmed the discredited Intel. No, we weren't relying on the other nations' intel, but it sure as hell made a convincing point.

Fourth, please, this "criminally stupid" language is idiotic. Now, not only are both parties criminals, but also Britain, too. And Let's not forget France, germany, and Russia. It shows that you want to convict people for mistakes they didn't know about. they had equal parts intel telling them "Iraq has nukes/WMDS" and equal parts not. They're also dealing with a genoicdal dictator that they themselves helped to install.

Was the intel "overwhelming"? No. Was it sufficient to warrant what happened? Yes. Unfortunately, trying to make this into a "criminal" case is exactly why people laugh at you lefties at your little protests. If you logically stated, "The government overreacted and made a mistake" then you'd be a grown up. Now, you're just a pissed off little boy, mad that we aren't all following trotsky and self-flagellating.

Bite it, kid.

12:38---Actually, I'm a girl. And I don't see what size has to do with it. To answer your disrespectfully phrased and uninformed points, one by one:

1. There was never a peace declared after the first war. Some of the allies wanted Saddam out. And the CIA encouraged a Shia uprising in the North, which we sabotaged by giving Saddam gunships. This is no secret or "CIA conspiracy theory" Schwartzkopf has talked quite openly about it for years. Before the run-up to this current war, many commentators discussed how unfortunate it was that we had sabotaged the Shia uprising or hadn't decided to depose Saddam. So it was DEFINITELY on the table, in more ways than one, regardless of your ignorance. It has been public knowledge for years. At leat inform yourself before you go spouting off.

2. That was not my argument. My argument was that when Saddam had more biological and chemical weapons and more incentive to use those weapons, he did not.

3. No one confirmed the discredited British Intel. We relied on it, freestanding, when our own intel. contradicted it, and their intel. discredited it. It was based on outdated information, from two years prior, and we knew that.

4. I don't know why you think France and Russia agreed with us. They certainly did not. That is why they didn't join the coalition. They were annoyed by Iraqs technical violations but they never agreed with the rest.

5. The intel was insufficient. We had no credible information to suggest that he had the resources to create chemical and biological weapons. We had no credible information to suggest he had significant stores. We did have credible information to suggest (the weapons inspections) that he had destroyed large quantities of those weapons, as ordered. My information here is from a post-war CIA weapons inspector. Aside from reading the news, I actually like to go to talks and interact with people who were there. Military, CIA, diplomats, you name it.

6. The government did not just overreact. They did not spend enough time analyzing the evidence they had, and they were extremely, extremely, foolish. I do think it meets the standard for criminal negligence. Why don't you do your homework, and actually LEARN something about both wars, and the information that was available to our political leaders, instead of being patronizing and calling it "grown up" to ignore the information and just assume that it was an overreaction instead of gross stupidity.

If you think that our government is incapable of gross stupidity, then I salute your idealism. I really do.

I use the term "criminally negligent" to describe their level of incompetence. I'm not advocating war crimes tribunals, dunce.

And as far as Trotsky goes, not that this is anything more than an uninformed smear, I happen to be very anticommunist, since I grew up with Chinese friends, some of whom had parents who were tortured by the commies. I also have friends who escaped from the Soviet Union. You really give trotsky too much credit if you think informed political discourse = being a trotskyite.

Legend has it that Napoleon once declared war on a blizzard because the snow was making it difficult for his army to advance on the enemy.

GWB and the neocons' fight against terrorism is similar. Trying to wipe out an ideology is like shooting at snowflakes. All we're doing is wasting resources, wearing out our Army, and destroying our readiness to deal with a real threat (North Korea, Iran, etc.)

Britain is going through a similar soul-searching process right now. A bill giving police the power to hold people for over 40 days without charges passed by 9 votes. The difference is, over there it was the Conservatives who argued against the bill. It was the more liberal Labour party that fought and cajoled to pass a law that completely ignores legal precedent dating back to the Magna Carta.

I mention this to show that fear is a powerful motivator, no matter who's in charge.

What's interesting is that in both countries, the people arguing in favor of abandoning just and fair law are the people who've been in power for so long, they've forgotten what it means to NEED the law to be on your side...

12:54/58 here. 2:36 makes a really good point. When I was in the military, it was the 90% conservative base that was anti-interventionist, to the point where I thought they were practically isolationists. And when I lived in libertarian/conservative Alaska, people were much more pro-civil rights (of all kinds) then in either of the two very liberal states I'd lived in before.

The cold hard pragmatism of self-defense laws as described by Blackstone probably existed because even some of those lords knew they might NEED to have the law on their side, if they were accosted by criminals or even peers.

You guys are too boring. It's just the rule of law. It should never have been different. Not if the U.S. is in charge.

After a few years of thinking I may have made the wrong decision choosing to live in this country, I'm finally starting to believe America still stands for the high ideals it was founded under. Looking forward to us as a country regaining the moral high ground and me personally being able to hold my head high when I'm abroad.

Speaking of detainees as "terrorists" instead of "terror suspects" is the whole point: if there were no innocent people wrongly imprisoned, there would be no need for habeas corpus. The fact that many detainees have been let go after years of detention and torture without ever being charged with a crime is a sign that there are innocent people in American custody left and right. Either cases of mistaken identity or people accused by some jealous neighbor of crimes they didn't commit. If we take away the right of those people to challenge their detention in court, we are no better than the petty dictators we look down upon.