Democrats Take the House

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Habeas corpus in GITMO? Who would you apply it to, Padilla? Habeas corpus is not appropriate for what are in effect POWs.

POW would be good, too. The problem is making a new category where no laws apply.

No, HM, there's no reason to extend the rights of American citizens to not-American citizens;

Habeas corpus is not a right of American citizens. It is a restriction on the abilities of the American government.

Remember, these guys are crazed anti-Americans: we must exhaust their enthusiasm for their sins.

Some are, some aren't. That's the purpose of habeas corpus. Of course, the ones who weren't when we grabbed them may pick up a bit of the enthusiasm you refer to as a result of false imprisonment. It certainly won't be exhausted.

[Griff]

I listened to some Rush today and he came very close to getting it right. He said essentially that the Republicans didn't run as conservatives so the Democrats won running against nothing (outside the war). The bit he missed was that the Republicans failed to rule as conservatives by invading countries, exploding the deficit, and becoming as corrupt as the Dems they evicted. Here's to the blessings of divided government.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

POW would be good, too. The problem is making a new category where no laws apply.

We are to some degree in agreement here, but really about the only applicable model is that of the Prisoner Of War. They are realistic enough to see this, and have seen it from the Gitmo git-go.

Habeas corpus is not a right of American citizens. It is a restriction on the abilities of the American government.

In judicial dealings with American citizens, yes. It must not be used as a rallying cry to keep the GWOT from being won, the way the anti-Republican freakos have been doing.

There is no sense in opposing the GWOT just because it's a Republican President trying to win it, yet that is what I see over and over, not only among the most frayed threads of the lunatic fringe, but among Democrats who ought to know better -- and don't! The Democrats have abandoned fighting the war in favor of fighting the Republicans. Dopes. Dupes.

[Elspode]

The problem with Gitmo is real simple. If we *say* you are an enemy combatant, you're an enemy combatant. It is irrelevant whether you actually are or not.

That's not the American way, and that's what sticks in American craws.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

It's pretty easy to say so once somebody's emptied a magazine at our troops.

Sure, I've heard the same things about assorted anonymous people getting swept up, but to have exactly zero dubious cases like this is, well, an impossibility when lead and high explosives are flying. There is also the consideration of the sources of such allegations -- they don't stem from the parties that want humanity's cause to win, but from those who oppose humanity's cause because America is leading it, for crying in a bucket. Can you imagine any motive more disgusting?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

While I would have been happier to see the socialist-Democrats repudiated again, it's still politics as usual -- seldom far, in general, from the Republic's center. Everything else is mostly grandstanding on the one part and brand loyalty on the other.

The Democratic Representatives now have to behave in a responsible manner. They will have the responsibility, like it or not, of winning the war, and winning the war better than the Republicans.

I don't think the chances of that are good. The Democrats have no war-winning plan, but a near-gravitational, going-over-the-falls tropism for finding some substitute, any substitute, for victory. The Jackasses don't know there isn't one. Folly maintained as an article of faith since the Truman days is folly still.

Habeas corpus in GITMO? Who would you apply it to, Padilla? Habeas corpus is not appropriate for what are in effect POWs. No, HM, there's no reason to extend the rights of American citizens to not-American citizens; they are at war with us -- at war with you too, dummy. Remember, these guys are crazed anti-Americans: we must exhaust their enthusiasm for their sins. I have no problem with having these nuts die of old age in sunny, sunbaked even at night, Guantanamo. (I've been there. Lots of sun, lots of green iguanas.) This may take a while; they've all put on about twenty pounds since being incarcerated, so inhumanely do we treat them. One rather expansive fellow went from around 220 pounds to over 410, though I believe he's been dieting back down since that peak. Slow metabolism and endomorphic?

Habeus Corpus is appropriate for EVERYONE!!! It's a HUMAN right, not an American right. Our rights don't come from government.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

NO.

There was never habeas corpus for German or Italian POWs in WW2, nor habeas corpus for our men in the Hanoi Hilton.

NO. NO. NO.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

In judicial dealings with American citizens, yes.

Or anyone else in American custody. If a Japanese tourist is arrested, they get habeas corpus too. The "argument" the administration made about Gitmo is that it's not under US jurisdiction because it's in Cuba, which is asinine.

It's pretty easy to say so once somebody's emptied a magazine at our troops.

And it's exactly as easy if they haven't. What makes it harder to hold someone who hasn't is habeas corpus.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

There was never habeas corpus for German or Italian POWs in WW2,

That's because they were POWs.

nor habeas corpus for our men in the Hanoi Hilton.

That's because they weren't in the custody of the US.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My point being that radar's argument failed by overreaching -- and whether in law they are in the letter of the law POWs in Gitmo, they are de facto POWs in any way that's really going to count.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It must not be used as a rallying cry to keep the GWOT from being won, the way the anti-Republican freakos have been doing.

GWOT? You mean T.W.A.T.?

[warch]

Nancy says they are "ready to govern". I gotta think they cant do any worse than the last bunch.
I am jazzed that Waxman will be able to get in there and account.

The house will be able to question and check and exercise some control over the use of the military in Iraq to hopefully ensure less missuse and abuse.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'd rather they concentrate on the contractors misuse and abuse in Iraq.

[Ibby]

The SENATE is theirs too!

[Pie]

I was hoping the Rs would hold on to their by-the-skin-of-their-teeth majority in the Senate, thus promoting the principle of Gridlock. The American public does best when their politicians do the least (damage, that is). Still, not a bad outcome.