Your supreme court ruled otherwise, they voted for it, democracy at work.
I know, it sucks sometimes but options are far worse.

188:know:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2187rank.html

Buy now, pay later. It's a concept i really hate.

America's highest court has spoken, and although it was a split decision, it is a valid sentence and finally, after so long time of abuse, marks a first step of reason in an attemtp to find back to the road of legal principles to which also the united states have subscribed and which to defend and spread in the world they claim at every opportunity, since decades and almost two centuries. What one demands from others to follow, or wants them to convince of, one must practice oneself in order to set a convincing example. Also, I dare say that the court is in line with the majority opinion of the American people, and I even dare say: the vast majority of the american people. So now there must be consequences in form of changes and corrections to most obvious misgovernment and bad disgrace, wether the Submans of this world like it or not, and carry on to excuse the wrong or not. Instead of trying to convince those who won't be told anyway (which experience tells to be a totally wasted effort anyway), we better start thinking about the consequences that must be realised - despite these dyed-in-the-wool-"Americentrists". Succeeding in that, history will leave these people behind sooner or later. And that is good so.

but let's npot be mistaken that the cvourt has not discovered the holy grail, and so the news today is twosplit: I think Guantanamo has existed for the longest time. That is the good news, but I also think that activities like Guantanamo will be shifted and put away from the sights of the public and the world's awareness, and being carried on in the secrecy of black operations, the secret services, and in the realm of invisibility and lacking public awareness and lacking political countercontrol, and missing checks and balances. so I think that what will change is that a guantanamo that we knew off will be replaced with something we will not learn about, but serves the same purpose.

that's why I applaud the court's decision, but I am not getting enthusiastic. It most likely will cause a cosmetic face-lifting, and not more. Why do I think so? Because that is what I would do in their place if having their motivations.

Oh yes, me too. If one apple costs one thaler, and I have three thaler, I can buy one, two or three apples - not more.

Basic math, first school class.

And if someone decides not to pay, moneys worth comes the same you wipe your behind with.:lol:

I like the term "credit card conservative" which has been used to describe our current administration.

Spend spend spend, but pass on the pay pay pay on to a future generation(s). Hey grandkids can't vote yet so what's the concern?

As long as we can stand up and say that we did not raise taxes, everyone will think we are fiscal conservatives right :up:

The Constitution upholds democracy, not the other way around as you describe.

-S

This has set a very dangerous precedent in so many ways. However, the Supreme Court is not the final say. The president could go back to congress and get another law passed.

As far as I am concerned there is no need to take prisoners anymore. Our military should just now shoot to kill any terrorist or enemy that surrenders on the battlefield.

Exactly. That way the demo's will opt for going back to Guantanamo instead of outright killing them.

-S

If this is truly a constitutional issue, then i have only one thought.
Integrity.

Its a concept that i think moral crusaders everywhere can grasp. In simple human terms:

I will not lie, cheat, steal, commit any act of intentional dishonesty or tolerate those who do.

Integrity in my mind is paramount. If you screw up, make a mistake, or do something wrong, you should admit to it, even if it hurts. Better that then quibble and errode your person. At the end of the day, a man is only as good as his word. If you don't have that, you have nothing.

In summary, If we fail to adhere to the principles on which our nation is founded, our nation becomes nothing but a lie. I might add that George W bush, did infact, say, "Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper".

There is NO excuse for ANY president to say that in ANY context. It's my opinion that any president who says that, should be immediatly removed from office. It shows willful disregard for the framework and foundation of our country, and willingness to tap dance around our laws to get what he wants, the very action of which is a willful display of how he lacks integrity.

( Im a big fan of integrity in case you haven't noticed. :rotfl: )

Having said that, i also realize that according the ahh... "combatants" the same rights we have, is a really, Really, REALLY, hard pill to swallow. I can't say i like it much.

If that's so then why are you squandering it on this?

So, when we capture one of them, do we need to read them the miranda rights?:shifty:
I think all 3 branches of our gov't are out of control. Time to hit ctrl-alt-del. Term limit all of them.:up:

One of the tests of a democracy is whether we are willing (not forced) to recognize rights of those we intensely dislike.

So what separates you from the enemy? :nope:

heaven forfend.

I actually kind of agree with Wosman.

Which do you guys think is more effective against suspected insurgents?:

In Iraq, it has been common practice to round up the entire male population of a village that is suspected of harboring an insurgent. They would first cordon off the village. Then break down the front door of each house and humiliate the man in front of his family. Then they would ship them off to a military prison in Iraq where they would likely remain for quite a while until someone got around to talking to them. My source for this is Thomas Rick's _Fiasco_.

In post WWII Germany, there was a brief period of insurgency by the group known as the Werewolves. They were involved in beheading people by using wires strung across roads, snipings, and poisonings. When the US Army suspected a village was harboring one of these people, they would arrive at the village and line up the three most likely suspects. Then they would ask if the villagers had any suggestions. Then they would kill them and leave.

I think that Guantanamo type camps (they exist in Iraq as well) are one of the dumbest things we could be doing on so many levels.

PD

I hate to say it, but I agree with Scalia's take on this one. We have zero actionable intelligence for the most part to begin with on terrorists. And the military are not cops, nor are they trained to be, nor is in their psychology. They _are_ the executioner.

PD

I can see that the military are not a subtle instrument, or an investigative one, but if any arm of any nation is going to detain foreign nationals without trial or challenge for 7 years, the burden of proof is definitely on them. Not necessarily the military, though.

Response from Chez McCain - http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...eme_court.html

Not me. An enemy that knows he will be executed if he tries to surrender will make every fight a fight to the death, and that translates into way more friendly casualties. I see no reason to make our soldiers job tougher than it already is.