TCS Daily


Making Lemonade out of Hamdan

By Michael Rosen - July 13, 2006 12:00 AM

BERKELEY, CA -- It goes without saying that my wacky hometown -- where cars proudly display bumper stickers like "Who Would Jesus Bomb?", "U.S. Out of My Uterus!", and (my personal favorite) "I'm for the Separation of Church and Hate!" -- is beyond liberal.

The city council recently approved a ballot measure that would allow Berkeley residents to vote on whether or not to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for domestic spying, fraudulently justifying the Iraq invasion, and torturing U.S. citizens. Although the ballot measure will cost the city $10,000, the council -- spurred by luminaries like Cindy Sheehan and Daniel Ellsberg -- has pressed ahead. While the symbolic vote may seem laughable to most ordinary Americans, keep in mind that Rep. Nancy Pelosi -- the would-be Speaker of the House -- resides in nearby San Francisco.

Small wonder such measures are popular here: Republicans make up on 5 percent of registered voters there. And while contrary to popular belief, neither Ho Chi Minh City, nor Havana, nor Pyongyang are Berkeley's sister cities (shouldn't it be "sibling" cities?), small towns in China, Nicaragua, and El Salvador are.

What better place, then, during a visit home over Independence Day (yes, along with Indigenous People's Day, the Fourth is an official Berkeley holiday), to ponder the implications of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld?

For one thing, experiencing the meshugaas of Berkeley makes Hamdan, however wrongly decided, seem downright reasonable. After all, while the Supremes slapped down much of President Bush's approach to the Global War on Terror, at least they didn't call for his impeachment.

What's more, it's always interesting to see how a group of people steeped in their own self-inflicted, woe-is-me, all-is-lost attitude react to a piece of good news.

But more than anything, while the Court got Hamdan manifestly wrong, the decision provides an opportunity for the President, Congress, and the American people -- even residents of the People's Republic of Berkeley -- to begin devising the norms that will govern our War on Terror.

Yes, the narrow plurality opinion misconstrued important provisions of federal and international law. These errors have been exhaustively catalogued throughout the blogosphere but a few egregious ones bear mentioning.

For one thing, the justices appeared to offer Al Qaeda terrorists a suite of civil rights properly reserved for legitimate fighters. This is wrong not only as a matter of political expediency but also under the plain language of the Geneva Convention, which accords certain protections to participants in "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties." In other words, the Convention applies to those engaged in an internal civil war. There seems to be little question, however, that Al Qaeda warriors are most definitely pursuing international conflict that has raged from the Philippines to Afghanistan and Iraq, across the Middle East, into Spain, England, and our fair country, among many other locations.

In addition, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) expressly states that "other military tribunals may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts." (Emphasis added.) Justice Stevens's plurality opinion concludes that the Administration did not make a sufficient showing of impracticability:

"[T]he only reason offered in support of that determination is the danger posed by international terrorism. Without for one moment underestimating that danger, it is not evident to us why it should require, in the case of Hamdan's trial, any variance from the rules that govern courts-martial."

Yet as Justice Thomas outlines in a blistering dissent (which, in rare fashion, he read from the bench), nothing in the UCMJ requires any particular type of showing of impracticability; instead, it empowers the president to make his own determination.

More importantly, the threat of international terrorism, which the Court insists it's not underestimating, clearly imposes the need to withhold certain kinds of sensitive evidence from captured terrorists and to separate suspects from one another -- all behavior that deviates from "the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts."

In short, the Court in Hamdan essentially (and problematically) blurred the distinction between the unique circumstances posed by international terrorists and the customary protections afforded to run-of-the-mill domestic criminals.

And yet the Court's ill-conceived conclusion nevertheless offers a unique opportunity to strengthen our collective resolve against the terror threat we all face. True, the president will now be forced to haggle with Congress over the particulars of the policies governing detention and trial of suspected terrorists.

But while bringing Congress -- and, yes, the courts -- into the process will be contentious and messy, it will also force all branches of our government to come to terms with militant Islam. Rather than hiding behind naked criticism of the administration's actions, representatives and senators will have to partake of them.

This will undoubtedly benefit Republicans by driving a wedge into the Left. Democratic legislators who've made a living bashing Bush over the military commissions and Guantanamo will now have to present actual alternatives to both.

To be sure, many Democrats -- and most die-hard leftists, such as Berkeley's congresswoman, Barbara Lee, the only representative to vote against the war in Afghanistan -- will resist any legislation that would bestow anything short of the full suite of due process rights on suspected terrorists.

But the absurdity of such posturing will only reinforce in the minds of ordinary Americans that the Left is not to be trusted in prosecuting the War on Terror. The coming negotiations will force Democrats to choose between the Left's braying and swing-voters' swaying.

Yet more than mere partisan advantage for the Republicans, arriving at common ground on these crucial questions will place our war effort on a firmer footing.

While in the short-term, there will surely be partisan and inter-branch squabbling over the limits of presidential authority, the applicability of international treaties to terrorists, and the proper treatment of enemy combatants, in the long run the fiber of our democracy will have been fortified. Instead of fighting each other over these issues, we can develop a common approach and battle the bad guys. Although unifying behind this approach will be slow and painful, and while it's been improperly foisted upon the administration by the courts, it will ultimately benefit our polity.

Such unity is indeed something in which all Americans can take comfort -- even the ones who live in Berkeley.

Michael M. Rosen, TCS Daily's IP columnist, is an attorney.

Categories:

168 Comments

A matter of law
One thing to keep in mind is that until Hamdan is convicted in a court of law, he is not an "Al Qaeda terrorist". He is a suspect. That's one point that's a bedrock of American jurisprudence.

It is also explicitly described in the Geneva Convention of 1949, a document we have signed and thus attested forms a part of our body of law. Much has been made of the idea that such random captives, picked up on the streets of Afghanistan or JFK Airport in New York, were not in uniform. This is the way they are to be treated under the laws of the United States:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

It's the competent tribunal part that the Supreme Court required in their decision.

If we have evidence that Hamdan has engaged in acts of terror-- that is, acts that go beyond the mere defense of his country while in a state of war-- I'm sure we will have no problem offering up such evidence in a proper tribunal. Then the world can see whether this person is really a monster, or whether he's just Osama's chauffeur.

Twilight zone time
Roy demonstrates the Marxist mindset that prevents anyone reasonable from entrusting the Left with national security matters.

Terrorists are illegal combatants in warzones and do not require nor have ever been allowed trisls by courts that the Left now seeks to give them. The recent Supreme Court decision, brought to you by the same idiots who gave us Kelo, now allow Bin Laden to be caught carrying the head of a US soldier in a knapsack, and providing him the same rights of a US soldier despite Al Queda's never having been a party to the Genevea Convention nor abidding by it.

It is Leftist abuse of the judicial system that allows them to exhalt a decision that overturns legal precedent of the entire republic; overule the legislative and executive branches in an attempt to now take unto itself the ability to interpret foreign treaties and execute the conduct of wars.

Now where it becomes obvious Roy is the proud owner of a forked tongue is where he quotes "Should any doubt......"
an amendment to the VConvention that the US has never ratified and has refused to do twice. Sp Roy argues that a non existent provision is somehow binding? How very Marxist, but then Roy never met a measure that might hurt the US he didn't like.

What is also typical of the Left is their constant use of falsehoods as exemplified by Roy's stating we are a party to the convention. Now either he is delibertly lying or ignorant because Article IV states how illegal combatants are to be treated. With summary execution. Now let Roy explain this to us, since the Supreme Court can't.

We also have the Supreme Court overturning all precedent regarding how terrorists should be handled. Fortunatly, the Supreme Court excess allows us to hold these terrorists without charge or trial till they rot. I guess the terrorists have people like Roy to thank for this fate.

Wrong Decisions by Supremes
I just wondered last evening, if we have a checks and balance system, who checks and balances the mistakes made by the Supreme Court. Seems to me, if we are a government by "the people," "We the People," should have the last word. "We the People" should be given a chance at least once a year to vote on all the Supreme's decisions and all the legislation passed by Congress. "We the People" should have the final veto.

We have a Constitution?
If the Supreme Court can change "public use" to "public purpose" without going through the Amendment process specified in Article V, then do we have a Constitution that is worth more than the paper it is printed on?

No Subject
'Terrorists are illegal combatants in warzones and do not require nor have ever been allowed trials by courts that the Left now seeks to give them.'

The IRA were/are considered terrorists. They were put on trial in the no-jury Diplock courts. These were non-military courts presided over solely by a judge for 'special offences'.
As republicans didn't recognise UK jurisdiction in that part of Ireland they refused to recognise the courts.
During a time of war (though the Brits never claimed it was a war) the courts operated in such a way to clear soldiers and convict republicans. They were acknowledged as political courts with one purpose.

Old fuddy duddy
Rosen is the perfect fuddy duddy. Think of the fat slave owner sipping mint julip on his ample veranda huffing: "Let my slaves go? Why, they wouldn't have the first idea what to do with themselves." There would be plenty of TCS quality scientific data and David Brooks style reasoned commentary to support that.

None of his Berkeley bumper stickers is absurd.

"Who Would Jesus Bomb?" points out that "turn the other cheek" Jesus might not have approved of military solutions to political problems. In particular, Jesus might not have approved military retaliations against countries and peoples who did not attack us (Iraq).

"U.S. Out of My Uterus" is a simple statement of the principle of Roe vs. Wade, with a streak of libertarianism that should appeal to certain conservatives.

"I'm for the Separation of Church and Hate!" is a message Jerry Fallwell could use.

Looney Tunes
The convoluted thinking the left is. They despise religion but seem when convenient suddenly attach their desires for radical pacifism to to a purposefully misconstrued "turn the other cheek" verse, which prescribes individual forgiveness, not national suicide.

Yet in the same prose asserting anti-war messages, ol' LG can't find the same outrage when the war is conducted with a scalpel.

Savage is right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

So apparently you'd prefer a Stalinist security system
I mean, what's the bottom line here?

>Roy demonstrates the Marxist mindset that prevents anyone reasonable from entrusting the Left with national security matters.

Your answer seems to be to allow the President complete immunity from all law, U.S. and International, as long as he says he's combatting "terrorists." How does this differ from Soviet or Fascist practice in combatting "class enemies" or "cosmpolites" or "communists."

You consistently seem to be saying that American safeguards and checks and balances -- indeed, democracy itself -- isn't a strength, but a hindrance. What kind of government would you prefer.

Please try to speak to the issues on this, rather than simply another eruption of invective and generalities.

Then answer the question, Supe:
Who would Jesus bomb?

Who knows?
I suppose you believe this to be a clever response since most "Progressives" find it extremely hilarious to belittle a religious figure that is not Mohammed. As they say, "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

So to answer your question: Jesus did not have that technology nor the concept of what "bombing" is. Not to mention that when you are the Son of God you don't need to defend yourself.

So what's the bottom line?
that bombs have made Jesus and his teachings obsolete? that religion exists in a little historical pigeonhole and has no relevence to the present?

As for this:

>Not to mention that when you are the Son of God you don't need to defend yourself.

and he didn't, & was crucified. What's your takeaway from that?

And "belittling?
>Find it extremely hilarious to belittle a religious figure that is not Mohammed.

How is asking such a question "belittling" Jesus?

>As they say, "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

"they" don't say it. William Shakespeare said it. Or are you saying that everyone who quotes Scripture is the devil? If not, how do you distinguish?

The perfect solution to lemuel's religious dilemma
Nuke 'em 'til they all glow and shoot them in the dark; kill them all and let God sort 'em out. Of course, for lemuel, that only applies the "them" are Americans, preferrably conservative Americans.

That's what Jesus says?
I never would have thought it. And my enemies aren't conservative Americans, they're fanatic terrorists. Maybe you have a different set of priorities.

Hint: why not focus on facts and issues instead of labels?

Adopt a terrorist today
Sniff, poor IRA. Cry me a river. Did you send your IRA bomber some cookies.

Oh the shame of it, imagine the fate of the poor baby killers. What is to become of civilization when it doesn't protect the right of baby killers?

Terrorists as victims
Thank you for demonstrating the depth of reason of a typical red diaper baby; the moral compass of someone who believes in the system of justice; how a Marxist defends the rights of the innocent; and finally the complete and utter contempt he holds those he disagrees with.

It is quite clear that there is nothing inherent in a Stalinist state you wouldn't support. Only a witless wonder could make the statement you have and claim to care about justice.

What Constitution?
How can we have a Constitution if five people can define and tell us what it says whenever the whim strikes them?

If no one can ever be sure what the Constitution means why have one?

Lefty Two Shoes and the People's Republic
Anyone who has had the misfortune to have ever passed through these Marxists enclaves knows all too well that 1984 does exist, whether they be nuclear free zones, immigrant sanctuaries, or Marxist-feminist-metrosexual-secular-animal rights-soccer playing-educational communes.

No doubt Lefty Two shoes probably resides in one of these outposts of the Twilight zone. Its the kind of place that nutures the morals of Clintons, the ethnics of Jeffersons, the analytic thinking of Reids; the bravery of Kennedys; the coherenece of Kerrys; loyalty of Carters; the reliability of Schumers and the honor of Pelosis.

Your answer doesn't speak to any of the issues
Calling me (inaccurately) a "red diaper baby" doesn't speak to the issue of what limits there are to a President's authority in the present situation.

You seem to be criticizing the idea that people suspected of terrorism should have any rights at all. Is that the case?

I earlier interpreted your answer to these questions this way:

>Your answer seems to be to allow the President complete immunity from all law, U.S. and International, as long as he says he's combatting "terrorists." How does this differ from Soviet or Fascist practice in combatting "class enemies" or "cosmpolites" or "communists."

>You consistently seem to be saying that American safeguards and checks and balances -- indeed, democracy itself -- isn't a strength, but a hindrance. What kind of government would you prefer.

Is this inaccurate? If so, how?

>t is quite clear that there is nothing inherent in a Stalinist state you wouldn't support.

On the contrary, I'm the one arguing for human rights. You're the ones saying that they don't apply against the terrorist enemy, as the Stalinist state said they didn't apply against the class enemies.

>Only a witless wonder could make the statement you have and claim to care about justice.

Again: please try to state what you believe, rather than telling me (inaccurately) what you say I believe.

Didn't the Bible say in the end that the forces of good would fight the minions of Eric?
Seems to me Jesus recognized evil when he met it.

What does this have to do with the issues in Hamdan case
Once again, your ignoring the facts and issues at stake to go off on a tirade about people who disagree with you.

Instead of making up laws for imaginary "Marxist enclaves," why don't you try telling us the way you think government and law should work in this case. Should the President have the power to suspend or ignore laws he doesn't approve of? Do you think democracy is outmoded and should be replaced by another form of govenrment? If so, what?

Again, you making up labels and cartoons and telling me that's what I believe doesn't speak to this issue. Is that really all you can do?

First in line to cast a stone - but TJ's on Jesus' side
And you're not the final authority of its meaning. But if you can point to places where Jesus urged his followers to kill people, go for it. Remember the woman caught in adultery was guilty. Why do you think Jesus didn't lead the stoning? Wasn't she evil enough.

But TJ has one up on Jesus: he know who's evil, and he's out in front with the first stone.

Love the first paragraph...
"It goes without saying that my wacky hometown -- where cars proudly display bumper stickers like "Who Would Jesus Bomb?", "U.S. Out of My Uterus!", and (my personal favorite) "I'm for the Separation of Church and Hate!" -- is beyond liberal."

How very true. This is the regrettable mainstream nightmare for what passes for todays conservatives: the vast majority of the country believes: the war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do (not to mention poorly managed and planned); supports abortion rights; and rightly detests the Fallwells, Robertsons, etc., that profess to be followers of Jesus yet preach hate, descrimination, and assination (in the case with Robertson).

The conservative of today: despises Jesus's teachings (as demonstrated by actions) yet claims the liberals are God-less; think everything the lawless administration does is good despite the damage they have committed to the US of A (finacially, diplomatically, economically, ecologically, etc.); apparently loves the big-government maximum spending corruption of the incumbant administration; and, despite the many tools the government has (such as FISA) that they refuse to use (thereby breaking the law) to get access to the information they need to fight terrorism - they blame the whistle-blowers and the liberal media for outing the fact that they are breaking the law and and claim that anyone that doesn't agree with them (despite breaking the laws they could use to keep what they are doing secret) is a traitor.

My - but its a funny world we live in.

If WJC was doing this - we'd be hearing screams of bloody murder and impeachment from the conservative of today.

Incredible.

This has been true for as long as there's been a U.S.
Judicial review. congressional oversight, executive obediance to enacted law is set in generations of actual practice.

But it seems you just deeply distrust the idea of democracy and individual rights. Why don't you offer your alternative. Jail everyone you think is disloyal? Do away with Congressmen you don't like? Set up a monarchy? A dictatorship?

I don't think I'm exaggerating. You regard fellow citizens you disagree as traitors, evil, and worse. Among many other things, this is not the way to win a war.

Human rights for terrorists goes Erica Frisch!
You seem to be arguing that terrorists have rights, well what a wonderful viewpoint. Can you justify it?

Knowing you equate America with facism only reveals your mindset and indicates what you believe.

Its fortunate you can ignore 200 plus years of American history to make such ridiculous statements, but Marxists deal in such newspeak. The powers of the presdient are defined in the constitution. Perhaps ypou could point out in the Constitution where the Supreme Court has the ability to wage war or interpret foreign treaties?

Ah, isn't terrible the way facts keep tripping up all those Marxist theories, but you can always call out the courts to over rule the law of law can't you?

Its broadcasting what you believe that makes it so easy to show you identify olely with the forces of darkness and the ideas that witness barbarism. Such are those who wear the facade of "human rights" for people who massacre kindergarden children.

Erica Frisch deep distrust of democracy and individual rights
One understands you hate America and its institutions and worship at the altar of statism. I can't say your ideas regarding dictatorship and monarchy are attractive.

We are all sure you are as patriotic as Jane Fonda. We all believe you wish to win the war, how do you and Bin Laden plan to celebrate when you win?

Jesus didn't recognize evil?
Didn't you meet with him in the wilderness?

Demonstrating that the Devil can quote scripture Erica Frisch proves yet again that there will never be a final battle of good vs. evil that there will rather be a negotiated settlement.


In your dreams there Erica.

Beware they walk among us.

Erica Frisch demands suspension of democracy and institution of Marxist state
Sorry your Marxism doesn't work here. The people don't buy your BS and no one else outside the people's republics do either. If you have any proof or any evidence of violation oby the president then why not show it. We'd all be interested.

Instead of making up labels and cartoons and telling me what I believe try to provide some evidence. And do focus on the issue its distracting when you parrot the Marxist line. Is that all you really can do?

Still not addressing the issues
I have said none of the words you're putting into the mouth of "erica frisch," whoever that is.

you say: The powers of the presdient are defined in the constitution.

the problem is, the constitution doesn't give the President complete immunity from law, or the power to obey only the laws he likes.
>>Your answer seems to be to allow the President complete immunity from all law, U.S. and International, as long as he says he's combatting "terrorists."

>Perhaps ypou could point out in the Constitution where the Supreme Court has the ability to wage war or interpret foreign treaties?

The Supreme Court is not "waging war," it is ruling on a suit properly brought before it in process.

Again; instead of answer the questions posed you just keep brinig up irrelevanc

and you keep avoiding answer the question:

>You consistently seem to be saying that American safeguards and checks and balances -- indeed, democracy itself -- isn't a strength, but a hindrance. What kind of government would you prefer?

hint: the answer to this is not "Erica Frisch prefers a marxist state.


>>t is quite clear that there is nothing inherent in a Stalinist state you wouldn't support.

>On the contrary, I'm the one arguing for human rights. You're the ones saying that they don't apply against the terrorist enemy, as the Stalinist state said they didn't apply against the class enemies.

You still have not addressed this question. again, saying "Erica Frisch wants a marxist dictatorship" is a) wrong, and b) not a response to the issue.

"Erica Frisch" whoever that is, is not the issue
Again, the challenge to you was to discuss the issue instead of simply spouting slogans and calling names. Clearly, you're unable to do this.

Jesus recognized evil quite clearly
Are you now claiming that you are Jesus?

as far as the devil can quote scripture -- why is everyone supposed to believe that you're not on the side of the devil? Just because you say so?



The views of "Erica Frisch" are not the issue here
Again, the challenge to you was to discuss the issue instead of simply spouting slogans and calling names. Clearly, you're unable to do this, so much so that all you can do is goofily repeat the challenge, thusly:

>Instead of making up labels and cartoons and telling me what I believe try to provide some evidence.

It's not me calling a fiction mame "Erica Frisch" a marxist instead of speaking to the issues.

Hmmm burning women and children for their religious beliefs
Yeahh imagine burning 80 women and children to death for their religious beliefs.

It is a funny world we live in. Especially since the Left defended Willie so. Defended his rapes; defended his use of cigars; defended his use of inetrns.

Its a funny world where Leftists can defend the pardoning of terrorists and drug traffickers;

Its a funny world where they can pardon slick's accepting millions from the PRC while president.

Its a funny world where thy can defend a slug who lied before a jury.

Its a funny world where they believe his definition of "is".

Its a funny world where an adminsitration is more corrupt than Nixon's and Grants combined convictions is held up by the Left as their idea.

Its a funny world where the Left loves a man who was a draft dodger and displayed all the courage of a Kerry and Kennedy.


Its a funny world where the Left worships at the feet of a man who was disbarred by the courts for his actions as president.

Its a funny world that believes a man who engages in military adventurism and invades nations like Haiti and Bosnia for no discernable nation interest is a fount of wisdom.

Yes it is a funny world indeed.

Still soliciting for the mentally handicapped Erica Frisch?
What can one say when we see such absurd statements as " the Constutiton doesn't give the President complete immunity." From what? The wrath of the NY Times? The hatred of self appointed commissars? The demented ravings of Marxists every where?

Or the witless wisdom only the truly demented can say with a straight face:

The Supreme Court isn't waging war-Yup it tells the people of the US what the Geneva Convention says and how we have to treat prisoners of war. Notice Erics Frisch cannot respond but when cornered hurls monkey feeces.

And do Marxists have an endless supply of feeces to smear. But its so much easier to flinge this than utilize logic and reason and ever so much easier than to document their cases. All throughouyt the history of the US we see the Supreme Court telling us how foreign treaties work and how wars are to be run correct? We await one single example.


But as we all know where asked for p[rof the Marxists among us run for the hills.

I do love it when the commissars preach to us about human rights when they are the ones that erect gulags. Whether they be Churchcills or Frischs they remain the same calling Americans "little Eichmans." So much for human rights.

Poor Erica so wants a Marxist state based on her concept of huyman rights. Stalin would be touched. When will you give up on the newspeak and Ministry of Truth act?

Erica Frisch thinks she's Jesus
Hate to tell you, its obvious you're on the dark side commissar. You haven't the foggiest idea what the inside of a church looks like or ever understood the Bible, oops, the Christian Bible, not Mao's little red book.

But take heart commissar there's always Berkeley.

Erica Frisch provides endless spouting of slogans and calling names
And goes on and on and on. Res ipsa loquitur.

The commissar can't use logic; marshall ideas or evidence; but parrots the party line.

Erica Frisch preaches Jesus loved terrorists
Maybe in your little twisted world there commissar.

'Seig Heil' Jackson wants to establish concentration campus and execute minorites
This is exactly as accurate as the "Erica Frisch" drivel.

'Seig Heil' Jackson wants to establish concentration campus and execute minorites
He has a copy of Mein Kampf on his bedside and dreams of sezing state power.

"Hate to tell you, its obvious you're on the dark side gauleiter. You haven't the foggiest idea what the inside of a church looks like or ever understood the Bible, oops, the Christian Bible, not Hitler's Mein Kampf."

Friisch unable to do anything but shourt party slogans and calling names
Wah goes the commissar, you won't play according to the party's talking points. You'd rather point out the holes in my logic. That's unfair to terrorists and those who love them. So unfair. Snifff!

Frisch named gauleiter proclaims take a terrorist to lunch day
How is the dark side commissar/gauleiter? Love you and your terrorists.

Bin Laden

'Seig Heil' Jackson pushes Hitlerism and anti-Americanism
>What can one say when we see such absurd statements as " the Constutiton doesn't give the President complete immunity." From what? The wrath of the NY Times? The hatred of self appointed commissars? The demented ravings of Marxists every where?

Complete immunity from the rule of law. That's what I said. None of this stuff has anything to do with the issues.

". All throughouyt the history of the US we see the Supreme Court telling us how foreign treaties work and how wars are to be run correct? We await one single example."

Treaties are law. Who else decides law. As a matter of fact there's a huge amount of jurisprudence around enforcement of treaties.
For example, this:
http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01.decision.1.html

> do love it when the commissars preach to us about human rights when they are the ones that erect gulags.

Again: nobody on this board is a communist. Nobody approves of gulags. Nobody on the left does. But concentration camps are ok for you as long as the inmates are labeled "terrorists?"

'Seig Heil' Jackson refused rational debate, instead spams site with hate-speech
But that's all he's able to do, isn't it?

Frisch's deepest desires made public
What do you intend to do when you have established these concentration camps, oops you all ready said to execute minorities. I guess this means people who disagree with you, Christians, capitalists, those who aren't terrorists.

'Seig Heil' Jackson wants to establish concentration campus and execute minorites b
It's not me claiming the right to hold people indefinitely without charges, TJ. Recycling 60-year-old John Birch society rhetoric doesn't do anything but discredit yourclaims.

'Seig Heil' Jackson wants to establish concentration campus and execute minorites b
>You'd rather point out the holes in my logic

I've done that repeatedly. Your response is to pick up your megaphone and start yelling 'communist."

Frisch clueless-but he's headed for the bomb shelter
Frisch was last seen headed for his bomb shelter muttering "My precious, my precious."

Seig Heil' Jackson once again avoids dealing with issues by posting irrelevent attacks
on fictional marxists that exist only in his imagination. Sober up and take off the jackboots and swatika.

Frisch still recruiting for the *****
Poor little Nazi recruiter. He can't defend his own assertions. When asked for proof he just does his commissar act and boogies.

Asked for a single example of the Supreme Court interpreting conventions he sends us to a Marxist web site that is incoherent. So incoherent he can't even post one example. In case you haven't noticed the courts have nothing to do with the passing, preparation nor interpretation of treaties, excepting the current court which had to use foreign law to interpret our constitution. It also gave us Kelo. Both are probably the worse outrages ever inflicted on the constitution by a bunch of senile old Marxists.


Ah yes no on loves gulags, only human rights for terrorists. And some people's terrorists are others freedom fighters. We know commissar, we know.


Beware they walk among us.

A famous example of the Supreme Court interpreting a treaty: the Amistad
in 1841....

http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01.decision.1.html

I'm sure it was the communists who did it.

TCS Daily Archives