i. the article i read said that the 5-3 ruling against military trials for prisoners held at guantanamo was written by stevens; alito, scalia, and thomas EACH wrote their own dissenting opinion, and kennedy and breyer also wrote one! ??? am i right in thinking this kind of thing is an outlier in the usual way things work? (usually: one opinion and a dissent) - it seems a particularly fractious case for these guys if not even the dissenters can agree on, or trust each other with, why they dissent.
ii. so first the supreme court says: you have to give these guys SOME kind of access to lawyers and SOME kind of trial .. now they say, a military commission type thing is NOT sufficient w/o authorization from congress .. what do it mean? are all these guys going to have to be given proper trials under normal US law now? cuz that would be kind of awesome
― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 13:53 (nineteen years ago)
maybe it will take a little heat off NYT et al as well.
― pleased to mitya (mitya), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:00 (nineteen years ago)
― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:02 (nineteen years ago)
― Party Time Country Female (pullapartgirl), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:11 (nineteen years ago)
xpost
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)
xpost haha
― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:14 (nineteen years ago)
― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 29 June 2006 15:31 (nineteen years ago)
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:18 (nineteen years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:26 (nineteen years ago)
― Party Time Country Female (pullapartgirl), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:41 (nineteen years ago)
― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:44 (nineteen years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)
― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:49 (nineteen years ago)
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:53 (nineteen years ago)
They shouldn’t have ruled the way they did. This is not a bunch of pussycats we’re talking about here... This is Osama bin Laden’s driver.
A DRIVER OH NOES
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:36 (nineteen years ago)
wait wait wait - is there some court higher than the Supreme Court I don't know about? Is there some law of the land that the SC doesn't have jurisdiction over? wtf is he referring to here? fuckin Lott, I hate that asshole.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:38 (nineteen years ago)
twunts
― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:46 (nineteen years ago)
― Goo-night, Swede Hurt (noodle vague), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:48 (nineteen years ago)
Look for Justice Sunday IV: Vengeance is Mine Sayeth Delay.
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 23:06 (nineteen years ago)
[...]
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said after the ruling: "Guantanamo serves as an important detention and intelligence (gathering) facility. These are dangerous people."
Whitman, speaking at the Pentagon, said: "Many of them have vowed to go back to the battlefield if they were released. And it serves as a place where we're able to learn about terrorist networks, their operations, their activities. It enables us to thwart future attacks."
ASSHOLE, we don't release folks who have actually been convicted. way to completely bullshit the issue.
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 23:16 (nineteen years ago)
― Big Loud Ape Mountain (Big Loud Mountain Ape), Friday, 30 June 2006 00:07 (nineteen years ago)
― Maria (Maria), Friday, 30 June 2006 00:16 (nineteen years ago)
...The Court thus properly rejected Justice Thomas’s extraordinary idea that the “structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch” in war-time—aspects of executive power that make that branch the “most dangerous” to individual liberty today—merit a hands-off approach by the courts. (Ironically, Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”; but 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....
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 05:31 (nineteen years ago)
― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 30 June 2006 05:53 (nineteen years ago)
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Friday, 30 June 2006 10:57 (nineteen years ago)
― pleased to mitya (mitya), Friday, 30 June 2006 12:24 (nineteen years ago)
― pleased to mitya (mitya), Friday, 30 June 2006 13:46 (nineteen years ago)
― Deric W. Haircare (Deric W. Haircare), Friday, 30 June 2006 14:30 (nineteen years ago)
that's been the thing. the only way they can possibly get around due process is to paint these guys are the end-all/be-all of horror "america's never faced so great a threat not even global thermal nuclear war or a war where half the citizens are actively trying to shoot the other half or a war taking on the greatest military force ever" and drum enough so much fear that it short-circuits people away from wondering about the 80-odd% of the guys in there who just got grabbed off the street by pakistani/afghani/northern alliance bounty hunters 4 years ago.
so they have to cover up any possibility of their mistake being revealed by completely shearing away from any reality of what's actually going on, i.e. repeatedly stamping their feets like a 5 year old demanding that any trial whatsoever is akin to turning these evildoers loose into our gated communities and enabling them to actively date, corrupt, and/or sodomize the upstanding virginial white daughters of god-fearing americans.
it's the same thing about the NSA dealie; deliberately misrepresenting the fact that folks were pissed off about them completely blowing out any law or judicial oversight to wiretap the Kerry campaign, senate democrats, NYT/WaPo reporters, etc.
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 15:42 (nineteen years ago)
Akin to the folks who stake their life and their sanity on the fact that each & every single word in every book of the Bible ever printed/written in the last 3000 years has to be God's Literal Truth, or It's All Over, Man.
Any nuance, any complication, any possible interpretation or differece in opinion, and they percieve their entire authoritarian structure as 2 microseconds from obliteration. And so that must never happen, therefore anyone who dares disagree with Dear Unitary Executive is a evil traitor who must be immediately put to death etc etc etc.
You get the idea.
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)
― youn (youn), Saturday, 1 July 2006 01:07 (nineteen years ago)