Forums | MacLife

omg Terrorist Lover!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Wait! What does the stock market think?

My stock ticker shows the DJIA at 8830.08.

DJIA dropped because Circuit City filed for bankruptcy. OHNOES!

DHL was afraid of his tax plan.

***BREAKING*** MSNBC is reporting that the Obama camp has called this reporting premature.

Mukasey in WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122722814865546291.html

Other federal courts hearing the approximately 250 Gitmo habeas cases have sought to answer similar questions. But as different judges reach different answers -- and as some of those answers, I fear, create risks for our national security -- there remains a pressing need for Congress, working with the administration, to establish one set of rules that is both consistent with the Supreme Court's decision and recognizes the important national security and intelligence interests of the United States.

In July, I urged Congress to work with the administration to fashion a uniform set of rules for these cases, expressing two basic concerns with leaving these matters to the courts. The first was that the courts would reach inconsistent decisions, leading to protracted litigation and the likelihood of different procedures in different cases.

The second was that the courts would not be well-positioned to address fully our national security and intelligence interests.

In the absence of legislation, however, the courts have proceeded with these cases.

Although a new president comes to office in January, these cases are moving forward quickly and the need for legislation is urgent. It is not yet too late for Congress, working with both this administration, and members of the incoming administration, to come together to fix this problem and to develop a sensible framework.

This will be like FISA, basically retroactive immunity. Or the MCA. Or Patriot Acts. Or the bailouts. Or the drilling.

Only worser.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

adndgamer wrote:

Guantanamo needs to be shut down, needed to be shut down LONG ago. Probably should never even have existed.

Of course it should never have existed. Taking prisoners was a really dumb-ass idea.

Well we had to radicalize the innocent ones somewhere.

resedit wrote:

How many of them were taken without probable cause?

"PROBABLE CAUSE?" 



Let's not torture legal terms here, please.  I'm sure they had good reasons to pick up many of these guys.  However, "probable cause" did not play a role in any of this (either apprehension or detention).

musta been some variation of the weird sisters chant there...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/ap_ … f8gWis0NUE

Mukasey collapses at a late night Federalist Society speech.

One statement I never agrue is "The lord works in mysterious ways." Or, maybe it was stress.

resedit wrote:

Most of them were picked up on the battle field.

As I recall, some were simply turned in by (often anonymous) sources, such as neighbors.  In any event, it's clear that they simply don't have any incriminating evidence on many of them.

What term would you prefer I use opposed to probable cause?

I dunno...."cause?"  "Reason?"  I assume that they had a "reason" for detaining most of these folks, even if they were flimsy or simply baseless in some cases.

It's also a minimum standard--and while it isn't a particularly stringent one, it probably couldn't have been met in many situations involving these detainees.  No 'probable cause' was required, in any event.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/leon-bio.html

legislating from the bench, again.

edit:
(Greenwald puts his pedigree in perspective..)

(3) Judge Leon is a Bush-43 appointed Judge known as a right-wing ideologue and known for ruling in favor of the Government and for expansive executive power.  He was Deputy Chief counsel for the Republicans on the Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, was Special Counsel to the Senate Banking Committee for the Whitewater investigation, and worked for both the Reagan and Bush 41 Justice Departments.  That Judge Leon -- of all judges -- ruled that there was no credible evidence to suggest that these detainees are "enemy combatants" is as compelling a sign as one can imagine that there is no such evidence.

Last edited by daemon (2008-11-21 12:10 pm)