baazipay uocav…

And Kirk, in your reference to my drinking Kool-Aid, perhaps your wife has fed you some Chinese Kool-Aid…you are equating a military war on foreign terrorists to the “War on Drugs”, a mere slogan? Seriously? Really? And you are equating some Chinese dude defining me as a terrorist from blogging, to people who are actually real terrorists who behead and homicide-bomb innocents? Jeez, have another drink of Chinese Kool-Aid my friend, good to see your wife has “indoctrinated” you properly.

And Stephen, you make good points that are actually logical…those certainly make me think, but since these GTMO detainees ARE getting hearings (just not in U.S. civialian courts), I support the law passed by Congress and upheld by this Court of Appeals. But if our court system overturns this law as unconstitutional, I would approve of that too. Its how our system works…not by polling whether we are popular or unpopular among foreign populations. (I’m sure if we had polled Japanese civilians in Dec of 1945, they would have shown intensed hatred for us forcing democracy on them.)

A bleeding heart liberal, Stan, is not one that advocates the equal application of the Rule of Law to all people. That equal application includes the concept that differences of social or financial position, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. play no part in determining how the law should be applied. The term you used originated from the group of “liberals” who advocate the intervention of the government on behalf of those who have been determined to be in some fashion disadvantaged by their position within society. Not one person who writes here advocates such a thing. Nor do the majority of our commenters.

If you’re going to insult us, at least be accurate in what terms you use to do so. I’m sure the true “bleeding heart liberals” would feel insulted that you had called us that!

As far as your like it or leave it attitude, maybe you need to take a look at how that compares with the attitudes of citizens of Germany and Italy in the 1930′s.

Sorry but you are drinking the kool-aid.

“We are facing something much more complicated than our previous military actions…mainly because its a war that will never end against an enemy not associated with any nation-state.” Is this real??? Did you forget the war on Drugs, with many many more American casualties than the War on Terrorism? The war on poverty? The war on steroids? Why not suspend the rule of law in these “wars.”

Maybe because wars are against countries or groups and not abstract noun?.

I would like to give you something to thing about.

My wife is from China. China is exploding in economic size and power. China is a civilization that was contemporary with the ancient Egyptians and they are still around. They invented the printing press 500 years before we did and did not use it to print a “National Enquirer” with it. They invented gunpower and did not make weapons with it. China is awake from a 200 year nap and they are remaking Asia.

Question, What happens when you ,Tim, write in a blog something derogatory against China. China ‘defines” you as a terrorist. Guilt is not the issues (remember that more than 1/2 of GITMO detainees have been released because they were not involved in any action against the US, i.e., innocent), kidnaps you and takes you somewhere for detention. When this happens, what credibility will the US have to defend your rights? To release you from China’s detention.

None. IN fact we set the precedent for this.

Let’s see, we lose ca. 5000 Americans in the last 50 years to Terrorism and we should give up basic freedoms to fight this “terrible thing” not to mention flushing 650 billion US$ down a toilet.

We lose 13000 a YEAR to gun violence but should not give up our right to guns?
We lose 50000 a YEAR in Auto accidents but don’t take away the right to drive 80 MPH? Etc, etc,
What if we had spent 650 B US$ on Cancer research?

You’re right about ONE thing Tim. Our children will judge us. They will use posts like yours as evidence against us. IF we do not stand against this then we’re guilty as hell.

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it, especially with you, Tim, and I hope it continues. Bye now.

Rather, this is a concern for me and others precisely because of its selective non-application, as well as the Bush administration’s intentional efforts to avoid its application. This is downright insulting to the spirit of habeas corpus both in its inception in the Magna Carta as well as in its inclusion in our constitution. That is what concerns me.

Lastly, as an addition to the point above about possible an administrations influence in the Judicial branch: after all, supreme court justices are appointed by a president with the intent of placing justices who are friendly to an administrations policy and ideology. It is indeed possible that such influence can also work through other levels of the highest courts in the US, though again, to make such a claim would require more investigation.

I must go now, so I wish you all fervent discussion of the above points.

While I agree with you that offering the writ of (habeas corpus) to all detainees in a time of war is impractical, we must nevertheless uphold this right when we (the US gov’t) insist on holding such detainees for unreasonably lengthy periods of time (years in this case) without so much as a charge or hearing. If we have reason to hold them, then let’s hear it. Charge them, question them, schedule a hearing in a timely manner so that we can get to the point of why they are being detained. This is necessary both for the detainees (who have a right to know why they are being detained and to know that there is at least some kind of process that will come to an end at some point) and for their captors (to prevent the corruption and self-serving selective application of a basic human right so as to uphold and maintain the captors moral authority in that situation, in its own eyes and in the eyes of the community of nations. But to let it drag on and on for years with no end in sight and without so much as an indication of why they are being held is inexcusable. This is what I contest, and their detention is being perpetrated with the intent of holding them there specifically to preclude their right to habeas corpus. This is demeaning, and undermines what little moral authority we think we have as a nation. Is this distinction clear?