Detained at the whim of the president

"mellstrr" wrote in message
...

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
would be so much easier if he were one?

Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.

In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and for
the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW

He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been moving
the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.

For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be ****ED
OFF.

This is way OT. Take it outside.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:07:04 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

Ken Davey wrote:

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
about that very subject.

THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have
jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is
precedent on this from WWII.
But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in
Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release
order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has
some precedent-- the trial of General Yama****a, which the SC heard on
the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the
court system did indeed have jurisdiction.

I would have to disagree that this situation is analogous enough for
US v Yama****a to be considered a precedent. There was no doubt
that "War Crimes Tribunals" were a form of "Court", thus the Supremes
obviously had jurisdiction, however the situation in Cube is far
different. The detainees are "illegal combatants", and do not have
the right to petition for a writ of habeas corps, as they are not being
held as "criminals". Very complicated subject.

THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications,
the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they
don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way
themselves.

It is IMHO a question not of separation of powers, but rather
a question of jurisdiction.

Al Minyard

Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

Jarg

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mellstrr" wrote in message
...

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
would be so much easier if he were one?

Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.

In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and for
the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW

He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been moving
the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.

For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be ****ED
OFF.

Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.

Thanks,

Jack Schidt



"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

Jarg

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mellstrr" wrote in message
...

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second
term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
would be so much easier if he were one?

Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.

In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and
for
the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW

He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been
moving
the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.

For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be
****ED
OFF.

Sorry, I was just replying, didn't specify the groups. I will try to note
such in the future.

Jarg

"Jack Schidt®" wrote in message
m...
Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.

Thanks,

Jack Schidt



"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly
brighter
than most of these people.

Jarg

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mellstrr" wrote in message
...

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going
to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second
term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say
that
things
would be so much easier if he were one?

Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.

In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and
for
the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of
a
lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW

He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been
moving
the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.

For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be
****ED
OFF.

Jack Schidt® wrote:
Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.


Yeah, but if none of the others know Jack Schidt, what difference does
it make?

"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
They can ask but they can't do anything about it because the United States
is there legally under the terms of the lease. And your rumour is just
that, a rumour. I'm sure the presence of US forces in Cuba irritates
Castro
(and his left wing buddies like you) to no end.

Jarg

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is left wing? What are you, some kind of
communist? The land belongs to Cuba, they can tell the US to get the ****
out whether we like it or not. Leases can be broken. Where is the U.S.
going to sue to perfect their "lease" in the Cuban courts? Here in the
U.S.?

I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of another
country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem to
be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".

My point was very clear, and you attempted to subvert it. Cuba LIKES the
fact that Gitmo is there, but you shouldn't be surprised that they don't put
that fact up on billboards!

"Pan Ohco" wrote in message
...

Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?

Saudis, and don't you forget it!

No, I would imagine that people who disagree with me hold a variety of
polical views. But am I far off about you? I doubt it.

You may laugh all you want but the fact remains the US will continue to
enforce this lease and there isn't a thing Castro can do about it.

Jarg


"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
They can ask but they can't do anything about it because the United
States
is there legally under the terms of the lease. And your rumour is just
that, a rumour. I'm sure the presence of US forces in Cuba irritates
Castro
(and his left wing buddies like you) to no end.

Jarg

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is left wing? What are you, some kind
of
communist? The land belongs to Cuba, they can tell the US to get the ****
out whether we like it or not. Leases can be broken. Where is the U.S.
going to sue to perfect their "lease" in the Cuban courts? Here in the
U.S.?

I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of
another
country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem
to
be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".

My point was very clear, and you attempted to subvert it. Cuba LIKES the
fact that Gitmo is there, but you shouldn't be surprised that they don't
put
that fact up on billboards!