BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US

Subject: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 11:56 AM

And thank goodness for the Geneva Conventions. This looks promising...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060629/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_court_dc_2

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:24 PM

That is fantastic! Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:26 PM

The Shrub must be shedding his dry old leaves over the way "his" court has gone on this. Suhprahs, suhprahs, suhprahs!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 02:20 PM

Not a good day for Bush & company,,,,,but it is for justice. It seems that tBush is already looking for someway around this ruling. Now he wants to make a bad day worst.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 02:30 PM

I try hard not to post to these types of threads, but, hoofuckinray!

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 03:36 PM

Between this and Mr Justice Sullivan in England, the rule of law is having a good week....

This is most ecouraging - but I want to read Alito's dissenting speech....

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 04:50 PM

Full text of Supreme Court decision here

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 05:21 PM

Warren Burger was appointed to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower. He said it was the worst mistake he ever made.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:11 PM

I have now skipped through some bits of the judgments. Parts are quite interesting.

Principally, it seems to me, the main text of the principal dissenting judgment is so inflammatory and insulting that it will create, I imagine, a de facto bloc of the majority in the present case who will tend to stick together against those who have apparently wilfully insulted them. This is very good news for civilised America.

Second, Alito seems to me to be overtly political, in effect acknowledging that he is in thrall to the chimpanzeemaster, and he rests himself upon what I see as a farcical interpretation of common article 3 of the Geneva Convention - that article simply does not apply because the dispute in question was an international conflict.

Pass the Molotov cocktails please.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:41 PM

I'd have to agree Richard. Very embrassing for this gang in power. It would also seem that no thought was given to any articles of the Geneva Convention or to any articles of war. It's all a case of break the law now & we'll find a way around it later.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:11 PM

I was, frankly, amazed, but very heartened...

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:51 PM

I was surprised at this verdict, and it is encouraging, however it must be noted that the case had a long path to get to the Supremes, and several lower courts had given differing opinions. I'd be curious how many of the judges for those lower courts are "New Appointments" by this Administration and Congress.

This case, in fact, moved incredibly rapidly to the Supreme Court when compared to most others, which adds to the "startle effect" of the decision.

A concern, or perhaps just more of a question, is that this decision made reference to, and appeared to affirm, the President's authority to "write the rules" for Military trials "as long as they're applied consistently." In effect it appears that the Court said, or at least implied, the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo would be ok if we treated our own soldiers the same way.

The decision appears to hinge at least in part on defects in the way the rules were written, rather than, in those parts, with the intent and effect of the rules.

With this as a precedent, and with this administration, that scares me.

In theory, the Legislature writes laws about how the military sytem of justice is to work, but as "Commander in Chief" the President writes the detailed rules within the limits of the laws enacted by the Legislature. The working rules are embodied in what's called the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" (UCMJ) and are published primarily in what's called the "Manual for Courts Martial" (MCM).

Recent "amendments" to the MCM have departed from the previous practice of showing the existing paragraph and a replacement paragraph. With the current administration, all one finds is a 600+ page book (the MCM) and 800 pages of:

"paragraph 368.713(a)(b1)[11.63492] and following 17 paragraphs are replaced by 'if the President is having a good day'."

I can't read it, and so far as my searches have shown, neither can anyone else who lacks a staff to make the insertions and strikeouts to see what is actually said, in context. The Supreme Court implies that they have enough clerks to have made the collations, but the public has little or no access to it in any intelligible form. Based on my rather dated experience with prior versions of the UCMJ and MCM, I would have to believe that the obfuscation is deliberate.

In other recent cases (within the last week):

1. The Court trashed a century of precedent to rule that the Kansas Death Penalty law can require the court instructions to the jury to say "if the evidence for and against the death penalty is equal the jury must find for the death penalty."

"Preponderance of evidence" equals "flip a coin?"

2. The Republican Legislature in Texas (and by implication any party with a temporary majority anywhere) is free to rearrange voting districts to favor their own party - at any time.

I haven't read the last one yet, since the decision is only a couple of days old, but many years of hard battles to minimize the effects of Gerrymanders appear to have been put into a bucket and pissed upon. (A tentative conclusion, possibly subject to change.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 09:59 PM

This news was a fantastic way to start the day, thank you for posting it, Carol. Hurrah for the Geneva Conventions! Now the Pentagon will have to set up standard courts martial for prisoners, with all the protections afforded them under US law. To say these people were not prisoners of war was outrageous.

Whether they are guilty or innocent, they are entitled to a fair judicial process.

How long will the next phase take? I hope they are not kept waiting for another few years.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 07:04 AM

So when did George abolish the concept of "Habeas Corpus"?
Sorry, that's only in England, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 07:32 AM

At last something will be done about Guntanamo. The US should be able to find a way to deal with a relativly small number of people without sailing so close to the wind of the Geneva Conventions, and in a fashion that upsets large parts of the World less.

There are many important issues that US leadership would be very desirable in, aand other countries will find it easier to follow if they're not having to hold their nose.

There was some brief reporting of the Gerrymandering ruling here in the UK, but it was made to sound like a one-off redistricting, rather than being able to do so at will. That is really not good.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:33 AM

The Constitution says (Article I, Section 2) that the number of Representatives (members of the House) shall be determined every 10 years, based upon population. The states then decide on the districts, and how and when this is done isn't in the Constitution. There is an obligation to follow the one-person, one-vote concept.

The Texas Democrats gerrymandered like mad in 1990. The Republicans, who were the majority party in Texas by 2000 (based on state-wide elections), tried to do the same then (when the state got 2 more representatives) but the 1990 gerrymander denied them a majority in both houses of the state legislature. The Federal Court imposed a redistricting when the legislature couldn't agree. The 2002 state elections gave them a majority in both houses and they passed their redistricting plan. What the Supreme Court basically said is that (1) there is nothing in the constitution specifically forbidding mid-decade redistricting and (2) this, being the will of the elected representatives, properly supercedes the court-ordered plan imposed in 2000. Gerrymandering itself is enshrined in American political tradition.

The part of the redistricting that was thrown out specifically involved a district that had been majority Latino that was changed to reduce that majority. This was determined to be a violation of the Voting Right Act.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Arne
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 04:47 PM

Kendall:

Warren Burger was appointed to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower. He said it was the worst mistake he ever made.

Ummm, I think you mean Earl Warren. Burger was a Nixon appointee, IIRC.

Richard Bridge:

Principally, it seems to me, the main text of the principal dissenting judgment is so inflammatory and insulting that it will create, I imagine, a de facto bloc of the majority in the present case who will tend to stick together against those who have apparently wilfully insulted them. This is very good news for civilised America.

Clarence Thomas excoriated Justice John Paul Stevens for his "unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare" in his dissenting opinion. ACSBlog notes: "Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service." (from Think Progress)

Justice Stevens earned a Bronze Star in WWII. The RW loves to tell real military people that they don't know anything about war....

Whatta man, that Thomas guy....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:15 PM

Thomas is very possibly the worst Supreme Court justice ever.

In addition, he's an ignorant blowhard who thinks he knows everything. Such men, in posiotions of power- are dangerous.

[ P.S.to professional Clinton Haters that excoriate him about consensual sex: remember Anita Hill, et.al? ]

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 07:08 PM

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

I guess this statement was taken to heart in this ruling.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 08:02 PM

Not such a big deal. The congress will simply pass a law giving the president the authority to do what he was going to do.

I wrote to the President, though, and suggested a way to get rid of Camp Gitmo in the interim. I suggested he tune in to the Mudcat and simply send the internees to the homes of those Mudcatters who are delighting in the Supreme Court decision because, in their view, it's a slap at GWB. So those of you who share that POV, ready your extra bedrooms. You may soon have some new house guests!

The President hasn't responded to my suggestion as yet though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 08:21 PM

What kind of fool thinks the President should outvote the Supreme Court? I thought you loved your country. Guess not.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 08:43 PM

'The President hasn't responded to my suggestion as yet though.'

What nmakes you think he knows how to write?

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:36 PM

... or read?

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:39 PM

"ready your extra bedrooms. You may soon have some new house guests!"

Why? they won't be staying for even one night: they'll be wanting to get back home to their own familes, so they can find work to support them again...

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:45 PM

Sorry, Douggie- Not original. Not clever or amusing. Childishly fatuous about sums it up.

And, as usual, you misrepresent what has been posted by others, either intentionally or because you're unable to comprehend simple English.

But at least you're consistent and predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:51 PM

Greg F,

Couldn't agree with you more about Clarence Thomas... He is not only an embarrassment to black folks but to the entire human race...

Everyone else,

George wants to know if he can at least keep the crown for the memories...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:56 PM

But Bobert, how will he prise it out of his ass?

'tanks for da memories!'

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: 282RA
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 10:13 PM

The SCOTUS decision doesn't abolish the military tribunals. It only says that Bush must go to Congress for permission to have military tribunals. Bush said he will. Bill Frist said he is putting together a bill to give Bush that permission.

I doubt very much it will go anywhere. It's too much a hot-button topic for the GOP to just forge ahead with--not during an election year at a time when it is not clear how the public feels about Gitmo and the secret prisons. But the longer the war goes on, the less likely the public is to look favorably on it. More and more it's starting to really look so damned un-American.

I don't think most of the GOP wants to go there right now. Best to wait after November to see if it's even worth doing.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 10:21 PM

"More and more it's starting to really look so damned un-American."

Glad that Americans are finally getting this - but most of the rest of the world saw this problem from the start... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 10:30 PM

FT:

That was pure posturing on your part, or you have paid no attention to the threads around here for the last 7 years. Sheesh.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 10:40 PM

Yo, RA...

I don't think the GOP Congress wnats any part of this, this year or next, or next... They are gonna punt it back to Bush and then, Bush will punt it back to them...

I hate to say it but the Dems have the best chance right now of comin' up with something that will halfass fly...

Oh, I hate it when the Dems ain't done jack and are in position to influence policy...

Grrrrr....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 06 - 11:24 PM

DougR doesn't believe in the rule of law.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Jul 06 - 07:39 AM

Amos

SOME US citizens have been on the ball...

only those above average...

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jul 06 - 12:08 PM

a nice commentary

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 06 - 12:09 PM

that was me

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jul 06 - 12:38 PM

This is not in response to any posts in this thread, but rather, a reponse to the way this story is being handled in the media...

I think we are making a very big mistake if we use this issue as a political football for the next election cycle.

The issue is our democracy and the rule of law. It isn't who (which party - which candidate, etc.) is currently prevailing over whom. When we frame the discussion in terms of one political side over the other, we lose sight of what is important. What is important is keeping this country free and democratic, and upholding the rule of law.

Everything else is just petty partisanship.

This is not a victory of anyone over the Bush administration... it is a (possibly small) victory of the rule of law over lawlessness and an out of control radical ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Jul 06 - 01:19 PM

I think you're right about that, Carol.

It doesn't really matter what party is in power. What's important is that tyranny cannot prevail as long as the checks and balances are in place and are upheld.

I see this as proof positive that U.S. Constitution is intact and should remain intact. It gives me hope that all is not lost.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 06 - 01:59 PM

I'd like to share your hope; but I don't think the all-clear has sounded yet by any means at all. Suppose Bush does go to Congress and ask them for this essentially unconstitutional authority as a war-power? Another blow for inhumanity from those sterling mink-lined assholes on the Hill.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 06:29 AM

Arne, right you are.I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks for clearing that up.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:15 AM

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/072006/07022006/203471

How tightly does a Supreme Court ruling handcuff the administration's War on Terror?

Date published: 7/2/2006

No tribunals

What should we make of the Supreme Court's smackdown of executive power?

GEORGE W. BUSH isn't the first president to claim broad powers in dealing with an international threat. "The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether," believed Founder Thomas Jefferson, while Harry Truman noted, without perturbation, that the American people every four years elected a dictator in foreign policy. And, of course, neither Jefferson nor Truman had to deal with a nebulous enemy whose fondest hope is to use available technology to turn an American megalopolis into a morgue.

The Supreme Court's 5-3 decision last week in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, involving a former driver of Osama bin Laden now held at the military's Guantanamo Bay detention center, nonetheless trimmed presidential power, declaring illegal the military tribunals set up by the administration to try the Gitmo prisoners. This left to dissenting justice Clarence Thomas the defense of Mr. Bush's prerogatives. "[W]e are not engaged in a traditional battle with a nation-state," wrote Mr. Thomas, "but with a world-wide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows conspiring to reproduce the atrocities of Sept. 11."

Yet the majority decision does no apparent harm to the nation's security. Mr. Bush can reconstitute the military tribunals if Congress passes enabling legislation. Or, said the majority, he can bring the military commissions into line procedurally with the courts-martial created by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In that case, defendants would have the right to appear at their trials and to examine prosecution evidence, abilities denied by the tribunal system. What the president cannot do is anything he pleases merely because the nation is effectively at war. Yet the high court's ruling frees no prisoners, and it prevents no future detentions of those who would kill us and destroy our way of life.

This isn't to say, however, that Americans should be all smiles about the ruling. The court majority foolishly suggested that the inmates at Gitmo enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. This dishonors true soldiers everywhere, whatever their beliefs. The Taliban and al-Qaida fighters scooped up during the late-2001 invasion of Afghanistan by coalition forces wore no uniforms and observed no rules of warfare above the fang-and-claw level. Pious brigands, they brutalized the defenseless, killing as they pleased. The Wehrmacht and Gen. Giap's soldiers, as POWs, deserved humane treatment; for any kindness beyond a well-placed bullet, the average Gitmo detainee can thank the spirit of charity, not Geneva.

Also disturbing is what the court's ruling portends. Just how many Geneva rights can the 460 or so Gitmo prisoners legitimately assert? How many other extraordinary presidential programs related to the war on terror are illicit? Must Congress always give its assent? (Generally, far from being thwarted, Congress has been happy to let Mr. Bush run the war.) A rope here, a rope there, and will Mr. Jefferson's "Executive" end up like Gulliver, large, strong, but immobilized in a crisis that demands operational flexibility?

The answers are murky. This is indeed a new kind of war, and that fact, which will continue to test the wisdom of our leaders, is unfortunate for many. That these include people who started the war and now reside in a limbo their savagery helped create seems somehow just. Yes, each Gitmo detainee deserves a fair hearing, but Executive Communique No. 1 for the worst of civilization's enemies should be: Life's a bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:34 AM

AH, yes, that's yer typical 'Left Wing' Fascist media...

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 11:42 AM

Since the majority of the people who have been detained at Guantanamo are not guilty of anything at all except for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the Supreme Court's decision is more a protection of the rights of the innocent than anything else.

And that is why it is important. If someone is innocent and being detained, they have a right to defend themself in a court of law. The military tribunals as they were set up by the Bush administration denied innocent detanees the ability to mount an effective defense.

The Supreme Court decision upholds the rule of law in the US. The military tribunals as set up by the Bush administration violate the rule of law in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:07 PM

S'matter, Wordy, can't you think & write for yerself? Enough with the C&P already.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM

Also, I agree with this quote posted by Dave (tam)...

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 01:59 PM

Lesson Eighteen form the Al Quaeda terrorist handbook
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS

IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brother 's defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother 's family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge.[These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness ], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case, they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.

6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

7. It is possible to resort to a hunger strike, but i t is a tactic that can either succeed or fail.

8. Take advantage of visits to communicate with brothers outside prison and exchange information that may be helpful to them in their work outside prison [according to what occurred during the investigations]. The importance of mastering the art of hiding messages is self evident here.

-When the brothers are transported from and to the prison [on their way to the court] they should shout Islamic slogans out loud from inside the prison cars to impress upon the people and their family the need to support Islam.

-Inside the prison, the brother should not accept any work that may belittle or demean him or his brothers, such as the cleaning of the prison bathrooms or hallways.

-The brothers should create an Islamic program for themselves inside the prison, as well as recreational and educational ones, etc.

-The brother in prison should be a role model in selflessness. Brothers should also pay attention to each others needs and should help each other and unite vis a vis the prison officers.

-The brothers must take advantage of their presence in prison for obeying and worshipping [God] and memorizing the Qora 'an, etc. This is in addition to all guidelines and procedures that were contained in the lesson on interrogation and investigation. Lastly, each of us has to understand that we don 't achieve victory against our enemies through these actions and security procedures. Rather, victory is achieved by obeying Almighty and Glorious God and because of their many sins. Every brother has to be careful so as not to commit sins and everyone of us has to do his best in obeying Almighty God, Who said in his Holy Book: "We will, without doubt. help Our messengers and those who believe (both)in this world 's life and the one Day when the Witnesses will stand forth." May God guide us.

[Dedication)

To this pure Muslim youth, the believer, the mujahid (fighter) for God's sake. I present this modest effort as a contribution from me to pave the way that will lead to Almighty God and to establish a caliphate along the lines of the prophet.

The prophet, peace be upon him, said according to what was related by Imam Ahmed: "Let the prophecy that God wants be in you, yet God may remove it if He so wills, and then there will be a Caliphate according to the prophet's path [instruction], if God so wills it. He will also remove that [the Caliphate] if He so wills, and you will have a disobedient king if God so wills it. Once again, if God so wills, He will remove him [the disobedient king], and you will have an oppressive lung. [Finally], if God so wills, He will remove him [the oppressive king], and you will have a Caliphate according to the prophet 's path [instruction]. He then became silent."

THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAM WORK:

    1 .Team work is the only translation of God's command, as well as that of the prophet, to unite and not to disunite. Almighty God says, "And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves." In "Sahih Muslim," it was reported by Abu Horairah, may Allah look kindly upon him, that the prophet, may Allah's peace and greetings be upon him, said: "Allah approves three [things] for you and disapproves three [things]: He approves that you worship him, that you do not disbelieve in Him, and that you hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah, and be not divided among yourselves. He disapproves of three: gossip, asking too much [for help], and squandering money."

    2. Abandoning "team work "for individual and haphazard work means disobeying that orders of God and the prophet and falling victim to disunity.

    3. Team work is-conducive to cooperation in righteousness and piety.

    4. Upholding religion, which God has ordered us by His saying, "Uphold religion," will necessarily require an all out confrontation against all our enemies, who want to recreate darkness. In addition, it is imperative to stand against darkness in all arenas: the media, education, [religious] guidance, and counseling, as well as others. This will make it necessary for us to move on numerous fields so as to enable the Islamic movement to confront ignorance and achieve victory against it in the battle to uphold religion. All these vital goals can not be adequately achieved without organized team work. Therefore, team work becomes a necessity, in accordance with the fundamental rule, "Duty cannot be accomplished without it, and it is a requirement." This way, team work is achieved through mustering and organizing the ranks, while putting the Amir (the Prince) before them, and the right man in the right place, making plans for action, organizing work, and obtaining facets of power......

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 02:19 PM

What's your point, Woody? Do you ever even have a point, or do you just engage in random, drive-by copy-paste jobs just for the fun of it?

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 05:31 PM

I agree that the survival of the American system and the rule of law is paramount, but I don't see the recent Supreme Court Ruling as either a valid correction or a severe slap-down to Bush and his backers.

It appears to be partly a power struggle over what the Supreme Court may rule on.

It appears to be a recognition by the Supreme Court of aspects of the Geneva Accords that the U.S. may or may not have formally ratified.

It doesn't get Hamdan out of Gitmo nor does it rule on the legality of Gitmo as an entity.

On a practical level, the incarceration of 'enemy combatants' with no official standing (such as 'POW') may have been a valid, if not entirely legal, stop-gap measure as prisoners of some kind have been taken. Exigencies of war can do that. Over time it becomes important that some meaningful plan to put a name to the enemy and perhaps empty Gitmo be devised. If the Adminstration doesn't to it, someone will do it for them, and the Supreme Court has basically said it's Congress' call.

I am sure there are enemies interned in Gitmo who it would be a bad idea to release, just as I'm sure there are probably some relatively harmless people there who are victims of circumstances. What I'm not sure of is whether there is a mechanism of impartial justice to separate 'em out and deal with them as they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: GUEST,RIchard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 07:43 PM

Call me naive if you like, but why should those the security forces believe to be "guilty" not have a fair trial?

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 07:58 PM

No reason anyone should not have a fair trial, Richard; it's just that "fair" is not an operational term in W's so-called mind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:16 PM

"What I'm not sure of is whether there is a mechanism of impartial justice to separate 'em out and deal with them as they deserve. "

"Kill them all - let God sort them out!"

Oh, that's been said before in history, hasn't it?