Comments on: Bush: Ruling May Free Terrorists In U.S.
White House Lashes Out Again At Supreme Court Decision On Gitmo Detainees
Add a Comment See all 223 Comments
- bush just can''t stop playing the old ''fear'' card.
- Reply to this comment
- "We are in uncharted territory, and we have never had enemy combatants afforded constitutional rights like all of us have."
--White House spokeswoman Dana Perino
_______________________
If we''re in uncharted territory it''s because that''s where our fascist prez put us. Knowingly and intentionally. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old defensive perimeter against tyranny, although our present tyrant-in-chief and his supporters have no clue how much sacrifice and spilled blood it took to gain that particular freedom from despotic English monarchs.
Our fascist prez and his henchmen use the term "enemy combatant" interchangeably with "terrorist." He thinks he has the right to designate who''s a terrorist, without due process or trial for the accused.
Impeach, indict, imprison. - Reply to this comment
- The fact is, Saddam was maintaining a deception for the benefit of the Iranians, not us. He was paranoid they might try to invade and pay him back for the 1980-88 war, and he thought the "implication" of continued WMD possession was an effective deterrent.
...
If not for the invasion we wouldn''''t know any of these things, would we.
Posted by zoopster1 at 12:27 PM : Jul 04, 2008
If you are embarking on a course that will get thousands of Americans killed, not to say a hundred thousand Iraqis, you better have evidence beforehand that will stand up to a high standard of proof. Any less than a thorough and objective gathering of intelligence is criminal and puts blood on Bush''s hands. - Reply to this comment
- Iraq was a lie. This is beating a dead horse. There was no evidence beforehand to invade. On the contrary, the evidence that there were no WMDs was dismissed.
Posted by jon2012
Ahhh, what was I thinking?? Since you just said it, that must be how it really went down!
You must not have been reading the same news reports that I was back in 2002 and 2003, or saw Colin Powell''s speech at the UN, or heard repeated public statements by both Democrat and Republican politicians either, because I seem to recall TONS of evidence before the invasion, though again I didn''t think even that was enough to justify invading another country. I was just happy that we finally ended the 1991 war the way it should have been done to begin with. Maybe I just imagined all those other things then.
Oh well, let''s burn them all at the stake in the village square! Off with their heads!! :) - Reply to this comment
- The Supreme Courts 5-4 ruling, providing terrorists with the same rights as American citizens, and allowing for the possiblity of terrorists being set free in our country, is a prime example of the catastrophy brought on by liberal thinking.
Liberals, no matter the circumstance, believe in a world utopia where peace is aquired wholly by capitulation to outside demands.
Nothing could be further from the truth, or more dangerous to believe.
This is why liberals have no place in America''s future - because with liberal making America policy, America will have no future. - Reply to this comment
- You see, that is where you damned liberals get so confused - you confuse "subject to US laws" with "endowed with US rights and priveledges".
Get is straight - everyone in US territory is subject to our laws, but ONLY US CITIZENS HAVE OUR RIGHTS.
Posted by OneAmerican- at 12:03 PM : Jul 04, 2008
The Supreme Court has ruled differently at least concerning certain rights, among them that of habeas corpus, for noncitizens held in territories controlled by the U.S. It is no longer a matter of confusion. It is already the law. - Reply to this comment
- Bush''''s so-called evidence of WMD was "Curveball", code name for a drunk and discredited information source that the German Intelligence Services warned us about.
Posted by smurfcrusher
No, you are mistaken. Curveball was the source of the allegation that Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. THAT evidence was discredited, though unfortunately not before the invasion happened. Congress has already investigated that matter, and their finding is a matter of public record.
But we didn''t invade because of that issue alone anyway. Evidence of Saddam''s domestic WMD programs came from aerial and satellite surveillance of Iraqi territory, and NSA eavesdropping of cellphone and radio traffic. Unfortunately we also listened to corrupt idiots like Chalabi, who in 20/20 hindsight obviously had their own agenda. But again, naivete is not the same thing as intentional deception.
The fact is, Saddam was maintaining a deception for the benefit of the Iranians, not us. He was paranoid they might try to invade and pay him back for the 1980-88 war, and he thought the "implication" of continued WMD possession was an effective deterrent. And you also cannot deny that he planned to rebuild his military after sanctions. He himself told us this.
If not for the invasion we wouldn''t know any of these things, would we. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by zoopster1 at 12:07 PM : Jul 04, 2008
Iraq was a lie. This is beating a dead horse. There was no evidence beforehand to invade. On the contrary, the evidence that there were no WMDs was dismissed.
The Plame incident arose from her husband questioning the evidence of nuclear material transfer to Sadam which played a role in Bush claim of WMDs. The administration sought to discredit him and took reprisals against Valerie. Could you say ''dirty?''
Sure. So this was part of the lie about Iraq.
Global warming is everybody''s concern. We can''t begin to address our responsibility if Bush is saying the science is junk at a time when it is already considered mainstream and Imhofe of OK claiming it is all a hoax on the American people. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by zoopster1 at 12:07 PM : Jul 04, 2008"
The Bush admin said that Iraq had thousands of tonnes of WMD and knew exactly where they were
They produce pictures of these so called WMD in Iraq
The FACT that none of these so called WMD was in Iraq PROVES that the Bush Admin LIED
2. On Valerie Plame - *** Blossom Rove broke Plame''s cover and should be on trial for treason...if he decides to spill on the real culprit - the fact Dickless VP Cheney so be it....but rove should be on trial for treason
3 On Science, the bush Admin IGNORES science and uses theological BS.
the ROW was not responsible =for chimpy''s lies - El chimpo Blimpo is - Reply to this comment
- Bush''s so-called evidence of WMD was "Curveball", code name for a drunk and discredited information source that the German Intelligence Services warned us about.
Bush et.al. claimed they could not reveal the source "to protect him". In reality, they couldn''t reveal the source because it was not credible.
So the Bush administration DID lie about the intelligence - as anyone who watches the news, knows. - Reply to this comment
- If Shrub the Dumbnificent and his bunch of neocons have valid evidence these guys are terrorist then they will stay in jail, but if they don''t they are going to go free just like anyone else would...to say these guys are bad guys doesn''t make it so. Shrub your fear tactics aren''t going to work against the Constitution
- Reply to this comment
- But US troops were already free to walk the sewer infested streets of the US - the supreme ct had nothing to do with that
- Reply to this comment
- Liberals are the one''''s with the propensity for lying - they, like you, claim that "Bush lied", when by all factual accounts, the intelligence shared by all nations at the time said that Saddam Hussein was running a clandestine WMD program.
...
So you see, in the near future, liberals will have an extremely difficult time reconciling with the truth.
Posted by OneAmerican- at 11:59 AM : Jul 04, 2008
This is where the debate breaks down when the basic facts are disputed. I submit that Bush and the Republicans have lied, lied repeatedly for political gain, and done so on a scale that makes this administration that most corrupt in our history. This is why many people regard this administration with suspicion in matters that affect our constitutional rights. This is what zoopster1 is calling paranoia. - Reply to this comment
- ...the issue is the Bush administration lying about the facts...
Posted by jon2012
Again, I ask for proof. Personally speaking, I never believed that Iraq''s WMDs were worth invading over - I just wanted the 1991 war to finally be resolved - but that is the reason we were given. Once we got on the ground and checked out the sites for ourselves, we found that assumption was wrong. A mistake is not the same thing as a lie.
As for Valerie Plame, I already said who should have gotten hammered for it. Richard Armitage blew her cover, and Robert Novak (an established conservative columnist) reported it. Those two should both have been censured and possibly jailed. Not seeing any Bush "lies" there either.
Global warming I answered too, but I agree that Bush has a tendency to ignore science in favor of special interests. That doesn''t make him a liar, it makes him a politician. You haven''t answered my question though: what about the rest of humanity? Don''t they have a responsibility for this too? - Reply to this comment
- "Anyone inside US territory is subject to our laws. Doesn''t matter if they are citizens or not."
Posted by zoopster1 at 11:57 AM : Jul 04, 2008
You see, that is where you damned liberals get so confused - you confuse "subject to US laws" with "endowed with US rights and priveledges".
Get is straight - everyone in US territory is subject to our laws, but ONLY US CITIZENS HAVE OUR RIGHTS. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by jon2012 at 11:51 AM : Jul 04, 2008
Liberals are the one''s with the propensity for lying - they, like you, claim that "Bush lied", when by all factual accounts, the intelligence shared by all nations at the time said that Saddam Hussein was running a clandestine WMD program. Even Saddam Hussein did nothing to disprove it. In fact, Hussein led UN inspectors on an obvious goose-chase, making it appear that he had something to hide. And little has been written in the press about factual accounts from witnesses that testify Saddam flew WMD - nuclear and biological components - to Syria prior to the war.
So you see, in the near future, liberals will have an extremely difficult time reconciling with the truth. - Reply to this comment
- We don''''t apply our laws (like right to trial by jury) to these foreigners because they''''re Americans.
We apply them because WE are Americans.
Some of us, like OneAmerican-, AREN''''T American, of course, and that''''s been the problem.
Posted by ubrew12
That''s the most sensible thing I have seen this morning, but unfortunately you missed my point earlier. Anyone inside US territory is subject to our laws. Doesn''t matter if they are citizens or not. Anyone OUTSIDE our territory is not subject to our laws.
Maybe to resolve this argument, we just return these people to the places we got them from, to face the justice of those countries instead of ours. I''m sure they will get a fair shake. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by zoopster1 at 11:43 AM : Jul 04, 2008
On Iraq, Valerie Plame, global warming...the issue is the Bush administration lying about the facts. Whether global warming is real or not or what our responsibility should be is not the issue but misrepresenting the science is. Lying to mislead public opinion is a red flag for an array of mischief by governments. - Reply to this comment
- Oh yeah, and..
Conducting illegal spying on citizens - by law, NSA cannot monitor the communications of US citizens inside the United States. However, it can, and does, monitor communications originating from OUTSIDE the United States directed at NON-US citizens. That at least is from Bush''s own public statements on the matter. So my question again is... what actual US citizens do YOU know who have been spied upon? Have any of them been arrested and brought to trial based on said evidence?
Remember that a case like that would be summarily dismissed since the evidence was gathered illegally, not to mention it would be a public relations disaster. Still though, it MUST be happening to SOMEONE you know in order for you to be so paranoid. - Reply to this comment
- ===This is why liberals have no place in America''''s future - because with liberal making America policy, America will have no future.===
Posted by OneAmerican
Without libs believing in our laws and our Constitution, we would be a country run by people like you - fear mongers who think that dictatorship run by the rich white male is the only way to save the country.
Threats to America are nothing new. Since the birth of the nation, there have always been a$$holes trying to take us down. Islamic terrorists are just the latest. And in the list of most dangerous US opponents, these bunch of cave dwellers don''t even make the top five. And in 200+ years, we are still here - WITHOUT having to ignore our own laws or dishonor ourselves with the kind of behavior that the enemy uses. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
