Or, and I know this might be a novel approach, dubya could get warrants for gathering information on possible terrorist activities. You know, like he said he had to. "Nothing has changed..."

I'm sure the snarky comments will come soon enough - but in the hope that, perhaps once, there can be a discussion ...

My understanding is [i]Hamdan[/i]doesn't question our right to hold these people, it only says they can't be tried in the military tribunals as presently constituted.

So .... hold them for the duration.

Mark Steyn nails it, again. People are going to die-blown up, beheaded, etc.-because of this Supreme Court ruling.

Congress Shall Make No Law....

respecting an establishment of Jihad, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You know, this is the heart of the matter. Jihad is an inseparable part of Islam. We are going to need a Constitutional amendment to outlaw Islam/Jihad. If anyone is still under the delusion that Islam is the "religion of peace", read the following link. Using direct quotes from the Qur'an, it shows the progression of Muhammad's Islam from a peaceful religion to a religion of perpetual war and expansion until Islam rules the world. The link's author breaks down Islam's formation into 4 stages. Here's part of Stage 4:

JIHAD: THE TEACHING OF ISLAM FROM ITS PRIMARY SOURCES - THE QURAN AND HADITH:

STAGE FOUR: (AFTER CONQUERING MECCA) - OFFENSIVE WAR COMMANDED TO KILL THE PAGANS AND HUMBLE THE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS: [The Muslims continued to gain strength until the Meccans surrendered (in 630 AD). Most of the pagans of the city then became Muslims, so Mohammad and his followers were able to take over the city and cleanse the Ka’aba of some 360 idols resident there. At this point a new order was given to fit the new situation. By this time it was evident that the Jews would not accept Muhammad's claim to be a prophet, so the list of enemies now included all unbelievers - Jews and Christians as well as the pagans. Now it is no longer just defensive fighting, but aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers is commanded. Since this is the final teaching of the Quran regarding Jihad, it is what is still in force today.]

Mark, I think the reason we're flailing around and getting stupid and dangerous rulings like this latest Supreme Court ruling is because we haven't identified the enemy in the global war nor do we know our enemy-Islam. Until we do, we're going to continue this trend of dangerous, PC, "touchy-feely" laws and rulings. In a 2004 article, Oliver North reminds us of Sun Tzu's wisdom:

Washington, D.C. - The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

One of the unfortunate drawbacks of being the good guys is that you have to enforce fair play, even when that means giving the bad guys the first whack at you.
The alternative is to adopt their ideals and strategies - which is letting them win.

PM,

This is war, not an episode of "Law and Order"...

Small Town,

RE: "One of the unfortunate drawbacks of being the good guys is that you have to enforce fair play, even when that means giving the bad guys the first whack at you."

Not in my book it isn't!

What liberal rule book did you get that idea from?

You may choose to stand there while someone knocks you silly[ier], but I'm not going sign up for that! Any rational and logical thinking American is not going to set back and wait for someone kill their family, wipe out thousands of Americans, or destroy one of our cities because "we are the good guys" and our enemies get the first punch in the interest of "fair play"!

Are you a "good guy"? Would stand still and let a killer have the "first shot" before you tried to shoot back.

Thinking like that is the way people get killed!

Again... NEVER... EVER... trust a liberal [progressive] with America's security and defense!

AAR

"could get warrants for gathering information on possible terrorist activities"

Remember in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid when Paul Newman is going to fight the huge dude. He asks about the rules of the knife fight.

Get a clue sparky. You wanna win the fight or what.

Did the Supreme Court ruling set Hamdan, or any other detainee free? In what sense did it "elevate an enemy"? For that matter, in what sense does it change their status in any practical way? As far as I can tell all the court said was that the Bush administration has to consult the Republican congress to develop some kind of legal frameword for how to proceed. Wouldn't it have been nice if they had done that early on? You know, kind of like it's supposed to be done. And yet, by advocating the traditional approach the Supreme Court is somehow activist?

Then we have Freedom1 coming along recommending we consider the wisdom of Sun Tsu (considerable wisdom, IMHO) while at the same ignoring same. If the enemy is Islam, Freedom, what do you know about it other than what you've been told? And who has told you? I mean come on, Freedom1, if you believe what you said what are we doing in Iraq? What's the point of trying to establish a democracy there? Or in Afghanistan? For that matter, why bother invading either one? If all Islam is evil, why not turn the whole region into one big smoldering crater immediately?

IMHO, to the extent that you know the enemy -- any enemy -- you know that said enemy (assuming it is not a single individual) is never a monolithic entity. They have disagreements and schisms among themselves that can be exploited -- but only to the extent that you know your enemy. THAT is Sun Tsu's fundamental wisdom. That is the essence of Machiavelli's strategy too. That is the essence of Karzai's and Maliki's strategies, too.

Fortunately, the Dems haven't figured it out yet. They still think that disagreements among themselves is actually a strength.

This supreme court decision is not a victory for the Dems if the Repubs don't consider it a defeat. Nothing in it cannot be overcome -- unless you consider the legislative branch at war with the executive branch. If you do, the Dems win.

People like AAR sadden me.
There was once a time when words like "Death Before Dishonor" and "Live Free or Die" were more than bumper stickers. There was once a time when people really would prefer to die than lower themselves to the level of the heathens.
Nowadays, people like AAR are too common. Ethics are for church on Sunday; morals are for peacetime. Do what you have to, just stay alive. Reduce yourself to the level of the jihadists; maybe even become one - bomb THEIR skyscrapers.

"These are the times which try men's souls."
Not as in try their patience, but as in test their worthiness. To put it another way, every man is a hero on the parade ground - it's the firing line that separates the men from the mice.
It is at times like this that America's Constitution should shine - the testament to civilization that states "We will not be reduced to savages by the acts of little men - we shall endure, we shall triumph, and most of all, we shall TRIUMPH ON OUR OWN TERMS!"

It's time for America to reclaim its nobility, and its courage. The courage to hold true to its beliefs, no matter what the temptation, no matter what the risk, no matter what the odds.
Better to die free than live like they do.

Ricorun,

But it is still an unconstitutional ruling, and we need to take some severe and sharp action to bring the Court to heel. They aren't little dictators able to just do whatever they please.

"They aren't little dictators able to just do whatever they please."

Mark, change "they" to "the president" and aren't to "isn't" and you're right on the money about why this is a good decision.

"If the enemy is Islam, Freedom, what do you know about it other than what you've been told?"-by: Ricorun

I researched Islam.

I know this is obviously a novel concept to you, but you should actually do the same. Research Islam. Start with the link I provided above. Also, it's 2006! America was attacked 5 years ago on 9/11/01. Why in the world haven't you researched Islam, yet?!? What are you waiting for-the next attack? Here are several links to information on Islam:

10 Myths About Islam
Offensive War to Spread Islam
FaithFreedom.org
Answering Islam
Islam & Terrorism

"I mean come on, Freedom1, if you believe what you said what are we doing in Iraq? What's the point of trying to establish a democracy there?"-Ricorun

Haven't you been paying attention to what President Bush has been saying about Iraq and Afghanistan? Muslims aren't mindless robots. They are intelligent human beings capable of change. America/the West can show Muslims a better way to live than under Islam's theocracy or under a tyrannical dictatorship. America/the West can show them that freedom and democracy is a much, much better system of government and a much, much better way of living. It's a win-win scenario for us and them. Through the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, they can live free...and free people are less likely to attack us. Ergo-VICTORY.

Mark, I asked several specific questions. You responded with, "But it is still an unconstitutional ruling". What do you mean by "still"? Do you mean that even though you agree with everything I said, somehow you still find some problem with my logic? Or is the logic just uncomfortable to you? Unconstitutional in who's eyes? And to whom, exactly, shall we bring the court to heel?

In this case, I have to agree with Mr. Shipley -- you change the wording as he suggested and you arrive at the fundamental problem. For the umpteenth time I remind you (and all) that this isn't an issue about Bush, but the office of presidency and the executive branch. The precedents you grant to Bush aren't only granted to him -- they are granted to the office, and the branch, to be enjoyed by all who come after. Looking back through history and extrapolating what you've learned into the future, do you really want that? In other words, are you all going to be so keen on the concept of an imperial presidency when and if that presidency is held by a Democrat?

Well, Small Town,

People like you irritate me!

How about "Don't Tread On Me!"

You want Marquis (Marquess) of Queensberry Rules? Take up boxing. You want nobility? Go to a country ruled by a monarch! You want a second rate wimpy nation? Go live in France!

That's the problem with bleeding heart liberal [progressives]. They think everything in life is and should be even and fair. The liberal way to make something equal though, it to lower the strong down to the level of the weak! Liberals don't like winners and losers. It makes the losers "feel bad" and liberals can't have that. Liberals want "pass-fail" grading in schools to "make it more fair" to those who don't try as hard or who may not be as intelligent. Liberals don't like competitive sports, especially for children, because it creates winners and losers!

Liberals believe all nations should be equal too. They can't stand or accept the fact that the United States is the only remaining superpower. They "want and need" all nations to be co-equal with the United States And just how do they propose to do that? By insisting that the other nations work hard and rise to the level of the United States? No! That would be too difficult, would take too much effort, would take too much time, and would be impossible for most.

So just how would liberals make all nations equal to the United States? By reducing the United States to a second or third rate nation of course -- by reducing and lowering the United States to their level!

And what about America's military? What would liberals do there? Cut our military spending! Cut our military capabilities! Eliminate our ability to take pre-emptive actions to protect this nation! Eventually... eliminate our ability even to defend ourselves!

The United States plays to win! If someone wants to play, then play by our rules. If you want to be on the losing team, then go play for the other side!

If you bleeding heart liberal [progressives] can't or won't fight, get out of the way.

AAR

Ricorun,

If your brief is a desire to protect the office of the Presidency, then you should be just as outraged over Hamdan as I am...and, indeed, you should also be outraged over the way the SC usurped the legislative power at the same time.

We are a nation of laws, not men - even if the men in question are five Justices on the SC...the ruling is wrong, and it doesn't matter if it is a "good" ruling or even a completely useless ruling...it is an unconstitutional rully and it should not be allowed to stand.

Mark said: "If your brief is a desire to protect the office of the Presidency, then you should be just as outraged over Hamdan as I am...and, indeed, you should also be outraged over the way the SC usurped the legislative power at the same time."

Nice dodge, Mark. You should run for congress.

I think I have made it abundantly clear not only in my previous comments on this thead, but time and time again in other contexts that I am not in favor of the concept of an imperial presidency. And I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat presidency. That's kinda the whole point, ya know? As far as the part wherein you say, "you should also be outraged over the way the SC usurped the legislative power at the same time," I guess you're going to have to explain that to me. Because, as I see it, it is precisely the LACK of legislative input that is the center of the conundrum. As I see it, this ruling had no significance at all but to let it be known to the legislative branch to stop being a bunch of feckless, nattering nabobs and put your vote where your mouth is. And given the fact that the congress is heavily Republican, I have to ask... what's the problem? I mean, jeepers. And we're supposed to re-elect this bunch of spineless ninnies? Legislative power? WHAT legislative power?

For these reasons I reiterate for the umpteenth and one time... this isn't an issue about Bush, but the office of presidency and the executive branch. The precedents you grant to Bush aren't only granted to him -- they are granted to the office, and the branch, to be enjoyed by all who come after. Looking back through history and extrapolating what you've learned into the future, do you really want that? Personally, I'd rather do what I can to demand the legislative branch to get a freakin' backbone. The present situation is ridiculous.

As long as liberals [progressives] agree with the ruling of a judge or court, that ruling is good, right, and proper. It doesn't matter if the ruling is unconstitutional or that it was made by a bunch of liberal activist judges legislating from the bench. It doesn't matter if the judges are making laws that are unconstitutional, as long as judges are the ones doing it and... liberals agree with the rulings. It doesn't matter that the Constitution does not give judges the right or the authority to make laws. As long as liberals like the ruling... the court is right!

But... let another court with different judges reverse some of the liberals "cherished" rulings, and the liberals [progressives] go absolutely and insanely nuts -- screaming like it's the end of the world. Let's see how liberals react when a court finally reverses that blatantly unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade ruling!

Yes... liberals believe in activist courts and "law-giver" judges as long as they can select the judges who will rule the way liberals want them to rule. However, let rational thinking people attempt to place judges on the court who will interpret the Constitution and our laws the way they were intended, and those same liberals will do every thing they possibly can to block and stall those judges.

It's past the time that we mount a sustained effort to fix those activist courts once and for all! It's time we force judges to rule in accordance with the Constitution. It's time we put an end to the liberal "living Constitution" which judges constantly "amend" by ONE or TWO VOTES -- and then FORCE the PEOPLE to reverse their rulings with a 2/3 and 3/4 vote of Congress and the States.

The "law-giver judges" CHANGE THE MEANING of the Constitution to suit THEIR AGENDA and THEIR OWN PERSONAL VIEWS!!! Activist judges interpret the Constitution to mean something differently today, than yesterday (when it was written), or tomorrow (after another activist judicial amendment!).

Activist liberal judges have TURNED THE CONSTITUTION UPSIDE DOWN! In effect, WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTION. The judges unconstitutionally "make the laws" and then expect the people to "overturn their rulings" using the amendment process specified by the Constitution!

It's time all Republicans, Conservatives, Moderates, and Christians unite on this issue and mount a sustained effort to stop judges from legislating from the bench -- PERMANENTLY.

We need some leadership to get the job done!

AAR

"The United States plays to win! If someone wants to play, then play by our rules. If you want to be on the losing team, then go play for the other side!

If you bleeding heart liberal [progressives] can't or won't fight, get out of the way."

AAR

These kind of remarks are what the world thinks of when you say the words UGLY AMERICAN.

Do you think this arrogant, self-important garbage impresses anyone? You do no service to the Christian ideals you espouse, believe me.

AAR, you really need to get a grip on reality, drop the strawman arguments about what you believe about 'Liberals', and read the U.S. Constitution. What you are seeing now in the Supreme Court is 'Strict Constitutionalism' from a very Conservative court.

Canadian Observer

RE: "These kind of remarks are what the world thinks of when you say the words UGLY AMERICAN."

If that's what they believe, then so be it!

Most of the anti-American hate has been caused your liberal progressive Democrats and their incessant anti-Bush, anti-American campaign waged in the world's media -- go tell it to them! And, who in the European nations is it that "hates" America so much? It's the liberals there too -- just like it is here! Of course they can not understand that. They are in a constant state of denial about the results of their own actions!!!

RE: "Do you think this arrogant, self-important garbage impresses anyone?"

You call it arrogance... I call it national pride and patriotism in the United States! That's something liberals do not know or understand.

I really DO NOT CARE what impresses or does not impress anyone else. I support America and those nations who are our friends! Do you think those who oppose America will change because I ignore and condone their anti-American views and actions? NO!

You want to talk about arrogance. Go talk to the French and French Canadians! France can really teach you something about arrogance. The French don't even tolerate English words like "e-mail" which "might do great harm" to the French language.

AAR

I'm a fan of the Stargate SG1 television series and I've always thought that Islam is very similar to the aliens called the "Ori". Sort of a believe or die philosophy.

Mark,
Once again you are criticizing -very heatedly - the Hamdan opinion without apparently having actually taken the time to read it. The Geneva Conventions offer three different degrees of protection. One is to uniformed soldiers. You discuss that protection.

Another level is for combatants who are out of uniform, such as guerrillas, which get the lowest level of protection. And another is to innocent civilians, which get a high degree of protection. In Guantanamo, the government acknowledges that there are both civilians and guerrillas, yet the government has done nothing to sort out who is who. The Hamdan decision says that Hamdan, at the least, is a guerilla and, so is eligible for the lowest level of protection under the Geneva conventions.

That's all it says. It doesn't blow a hole in any theory about high degrees of protection for uniformed combatants or give anyone the right to jihad.

The Supreme Court, by the way, has never ruled on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

Canadian Observer:

AAR said: I really DO NOT CARE what impresses or does not impress anyone else.

Guess he pretty much proves your point about ugly americans.

God blesses the world.

As far as I can tell all the court said was that the Bush administration has to consult the Republican congress to develop some kind of legal frameword for how to proceed. Wouldn't it have been nice if they had done that early on? You know, kind of like it's supposed to be done. And yet, by advocating the traditional approach the Supreme Court is somehow activist?

Rico, you ignore the fact that Congress did past the The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 last December which excluded SCOTUS from any jurisdiction in this matter:

Article III of the Constitution leaves the definition of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction up to Congress. In the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) Congress very clearly gave the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition. (emphasis - mine) After the effective date of that statute the Supreme Court had no more authority to decide Hamdan’s case than the Arizona Liquor Control Board or the World Court in The Hague.

And yet five Justices have the temerity to use that case as a vehicle for pronouncing that the President is acting beyond his proper authority. Forget the old joke about the parricidal orphan; we have a new definition of chutzpah.

Now Congress has the redundant task of passing new legislation explaining what they meant by the DTA they passed 6 months ago, which SCOTUS (or at least 5 Justices) has conveniently ignored.

Ash

Exactly.

Well, CO, in the past few years I have had the interesting opportunity of helping several immigrants (legal, mind you) adapt to the United States. It's been interesting.

Comment: "I don't know why people are upset about President Clinton and his girlfriends, when American men have girlfriends all the time."

Me: "They do? And what makes you think that?"

Response: "We get American TV in "_________". We see "Dallas" and "Dynasty" and the other shows. We know what life is like in America."

Hmmmm. So the Ugly American of the 80's and 90's is from the foreign view of CONSERVATIVES?

I also learned that foreigners "know" that American woman are promiscuous, that they often bare their breasts in public and nearly always wear very revealing 'hooker' clothes, that most babies in America are illegitimate, that everyone does drugs and drinks all the time, that everyone drives fancy cars and lives in penthouse apartments, and so on. These poor people have been both disappointed and relieved to learn that what "everyone" knows is simply a very fake, very insulting, fantasy spun by-----uber-liberal Hollywood. Hardly the fault of conservatives.

When one of my new friends was invited to a family Thanksgiving in the Midwest, he returned absolutely stunned. Why? He simply did not know that Americans had family gatherings, just like back home! I had a hard time believing he was really as suprised and impressed as he kept telling me. But it turned out that this very real aspect of a very real American had NEVER been portrayed in the exported Hollywood version of what we are like. It was a total surprise.

I also learned that it was the cowardly retreat from confrontation after we were repeatedly attacked that generated the most contempt from the people I met. They are from a country which has been transformed by terrorism. They do not cringe at the thought of retaliation---on the other hand, they understand it is the only thing terrorists understand.

When President Fujimori of Peru stepped over the bleeding bodies of slain terrorists in the Japanes Embassy in Lima in 1997, after it was retaken, and American bleeding hearts moaned and wailed about his "coldness" and whined that the army "should have tried to capture them" and how they "were so YOUNG!!!!" it disgusted people. The weakness and silliness and sheer stupidity of the pampered, who have no idea of real life, was quite offensive to them. This came out in a very spirited discussion I initiated to find out how people abroad think of the United States. The silly, vapid, ignorant Liberal response to what was clearly a very appropriate response to a hostage situation did more to create the image of an "Ugly American" than any of the stuff that apparently impresses the neorads. The Liberal whingeing was shown world-wide, to ridicule our country and show the world how weak and cowardly we had become.

One of these people, trying to find a way to describe her impression of American Liberals, finally compared them to Jar-Jar Binks. It was a funny moment, as it had to be acted out, but it was very funny, and very accurate.

But I learned that while people grumble, sometimes, about strength, they respect it, and they despise cowardice, especially when it tries to disguise itself as intellectual superiority.

Sorry, CO, you have your opinion, and it is clearly based on anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-pretty-much-everything-that-is-not-radical-Liberalism. But that does not mean it is shared by those outside your cell.

We fought for our freedom. You did not. We value freedom. You evidently do not. We insist on the preservation of and adherence to our Constitution. You evidently feel it is silly. But as it is OUR country, and OUR Constitution, we really do NOT care what you think. You don't get a vote here. You are insignificant. You can gripe all you want to---it's not your country, it's none of your business. When I am in Canada, I am respectful of it as a soverign nation. I don't ridicule it, or disparage it. If I did, I would earn the title of "Ugly American", just as you have earned yours of "Ugly Canadian".

Of course, I mostly do business in Alberta, which is, fortunately, not nearly as silly and vapid as "those toffee-nosed fairies over in Keh-Beck".

But back on thread----I can't imagine anything that could make the point so clearly about the dangers of Liberal activist judges. When the wording of the Geneva Conventions is so clear, their contortions to claim they say something completely different are totally transparent. Funny how the Libs here never bothered to address the inconsistencies there.

As the radicals get bolder and bolder, I think they drive away more and more of the reasonable people who just happen to be Democrats. I don't think you can count on continuing to get away with just flipping off the American public. I think the neorads think they have fooled the public, when in fact they have just not been called on their shenanigans yet.

I talk with some Libs, who are genuinely surprised and distressed to find that the things they have been TOLD are simply not true. "Separation of church and state"? Well, a simple copy of the Constitution lays that to rest---anyone can see that it really only says Congress shall not establish a religion. The threat of a "theocracy" established by the "Religious Right" falls apart when it is pointed out that Christianity, overall, is a general religious philosophy, and that there are more than 1600 Christian religions---which one would run this "theocracy"? I ask. And it is obvious that the idea is patently ridiculous.

No one can find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, at least not without a special decoder ring to make it possible to discern the emanation from a penumbra.

When people believe that the SC "gave" the 2000 election to Bush, they get right ticked off to learn that they really only stated that all votes had to be treated equally. Well, of COURSE they do!! That's just common sense!

The neorads are pushing for a head-to-head confrontation between Constitutionalists and those who think it is just a floppy general guideline to be twisted at will to accommodate the latest political fad. And I don't think they will be happy with the results.

"We insist on the preservation of and adherence to our Constitution."

But your President clearly does not.

"I also learned that foreigners "know" that American woman are promiscuous, that they often bare their breasts in public and nearly always wear very revealing 'hooker' clothes"

Two words "Ann Coulter"

"When one of my new friends was invited to a family Thanksgiving in the Midwest, he returned absolutely stunned. Why? He simply did not know that Americans had family gatherings, just like back home!"

I really hope you are not insinuating that Liberals don't have family gatherings. LOL!

Almiranta, I am sure if you look into the immoral goings-on in the Christian Conservative arena, you would be shocked to learn it is just as depraved as anything the loose-living liberals can come up with. They're just more hypocritical about it.

One more thing, I am not anti-American, I am anti-Bush. If you had a legitimate leader in office, say, Feingold, for instance, I would applaud the good sense of the American voters and know that the country is back in good hands.

I'm a fan of the Stargate SG1 television series and I've always thought that Islam is very similar to the aliens called the "Ori". Sort of a believe or die philosophy.

Posted by: Art Patscheck

Me, too! I'm surprised that I'm not the only one who thinks that! I love Stargate SG1, Stargate Atlantis (and while we're at it) Battlestart Galatica. :) I wonder if the "Ori's" creators understand Islam and based the Ori/Book of Origin on Islam and the Qu'ran?? Or maybe it's just a coincidence. hmm. Glad to know there's another sci-fi fan on this board!

(PIMF-that's Battlestar Galactica.)

AAR,

I love your posts and I support your positions wholeheartedly! Keep up the good fight! Canadian Observer-like the entire country of Canada (sans a few)-is completely irrelevant.

America Rocks!!!

Spook,

The article you cite states, "Article III of the Constitution leaves the definition of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction up to Congress. In the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) Congress very clearly gave the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition."

Indeed so. But the DTA specifically excepts cases pending upon the date of its enactment. Hamdan's case was pending. Also, as I understand it, SCOTUS found that many stipulations of the DTA had been violated -- most seriously in this case the reluctance of the administration to submit to Congress a plan for their review and the reluctance of Congress to demand one. And that, it appears to me, is the fundamental bottom line in the SCOTUS decision. The ruling doesn't release any detainees, and does little to change any of their status in any practical way -- so long as the executive and legislative branches come to terms. And why they can't is a real mystery to me.

To my mind, this and many other issues wherein the president has challenged the relative authority of congress -- not only including other stipulations of the DTA (which themselves have the potential to be hugely explosive), but also including Bush's numerous signing statements and his "secret" surveillance techniques -- has set up the SCOTUS to be the nexus of many other, very volatile controversies. And I'm sure SCOTUS is going to take a lot of heat and blame, probably from both sides, when in actuality the real blame should be placed on the reluctance of both the executive and legislative branches to recognize, and come to terms with, the relative limits of each other's authority.

By the way, I am finally home again(!), so once I get caught up I will respond to you privately.

This is pretty funny here...

First of all, the decision didn't "elevate terrorists" nor did it outlaw the use of military tribunals. All it really did was say that the president has to seek the approval of congress before establishing such courts, which may actually give Republicans a leg up for November.

Then again, I am no fan of the unitary executive or the expanding of executive powers. Bad things happen when executives act unilaterally (Japanese internment, Bay of Pigs, watergate, Iran Contra, et al), and the congress was made to be a check on the executive's power. As long as Congress sits there with their thumbs firmly inserted in their rectums, trolling along, fat, dumb, and happy, that check doesn't exist, and we need only wait until a current or future president (republican or democrat) repeats the sins of the past.

Now that I have had time I notice that longz made the same point that I did concerning the basis of the SCOTUS decision. He did so on a previous topic entitled Hamdan: Null And Void?" I just wanted to give credit where credit was due. I'm sorry that I didn't notice it (and thus acknowledge your contribution) earlier, longz, but I've been busy. I also notice that after your comment in which your main point was made in substance, you followed it with a second post, basically wondering why no one addressed your first. And since I came to the same conclusion, I wonder why. And in fact, you made it more clear than I did which specific paragraph of the SCOTUS opinion upon which you primarily based your opinion. I could quote others for different reasons, but I think the one you offered is the bottom line -- that is, the DTA does not apply to Hamdan.

And though I'm inclined to believe that he and I inhabit places on different sides of the main political fault line, I have to agree with Frawg in the sense that the fundamental problem is that "Congress sits there with their thumbs firmly inserted in their rectums, trolling along, fat, dumb, and happy..." unwilling to challenge their Constitutional authority (and responsibility) to provide checks and balances on the actions of the executive branch. That to me is the bottom line in all this. And any attempt to construe the argument along partisan lines (while relatively easy at this juncture, but still incidental), is missing the point. The real question is: what do you want? I mean really... WHAT DO YOU WANT?? Imagine a Democratic presidency... do you really want them to have the rights and priviledges that you have granted under the Bush administration? How many times and in how many ways do I have to ask that question?

And if you ignore it, what do you anticipate for the future? And what if you're wrong?

Freedom, I have tried to answer your question a couple of times. Each time I have met with the
"blue screen of death". And despite my attempts to counteract it, my response to you was somehow singled out for continual death. But I will try one more time...

Freedom1, I read your citations. As far as I can tell, they don't answer the essential questions vis-a-vis Sun Tsu. Namely, why are there Sunni and Shiite factions in Islam? Why are there differences between the Shiite faction centered in Qom (Iran) and Najaf (Iraq)? Why are there tensions between the followers of Sistani and those of al Sadr (junior, I mean)? What's the difference between Sunniism in general and Wahabbism? Why did Syria back the US against Saddam in the first Gulf war, yet not in Iraqi Freedom? Why was Jordan AGAINST us in the first Gulf War yet are somewhat more than neutral on Iraqi Freedom? Why have Syria and Iran signed a non-aggression treaty despite their obvious differences? What is the difference between the Iraqi Sunni nationalists, Shia nationalists, Baathist loyalists, foreign jihadists, and Iraqi jihadists?

Freedom, you say, "Muslims aren't mindless robots. They are intelligent human beings capable of change." In light of your previous comments -- most specifically your comment that "Jihad is an inseparable part of Islam" I find that to be remarkably disingenuous.

The point is that to the extent that we understand the answers to each and every one of these questions (and many more), they represent potential opportunities to exploit differences between them. THAT is knowing your enemy, Freedom.

Each time I have met with the "blue screen of death". And despite my attempts to counteract it, my response to you was somehow singled out for continual death. Posted by: Ricorun

ROFL! I know what ya mean! Artificial Intelligence at work at Blogs for Bush???
:P

Ok, Ricorun. Here we go....

"Freedom, you say, 'Muslims aren't mindless robots. They are intelligent human beings capable of change.' In light of your previous comments -- most specifically your comment that 'Jihad is an inseparable part of Islam' I find that to be remarkably disingenuous. -Ricorun

No offense, Ricorun, this comment is evidence that you know almost nothing about Islam. That comment you made is like saying you don't believe that violence and hatred of Jews are inseparable from Nazism. And yes, I did just compare Nazism with Islam. Jihad and anti-Jewish racism are both inseparable from Islam. I gave you many links above so that you can obtain a general knowledge of Islam. I suggest that you read "10 Myths About Islam". But, for now, let's start your Islam tutorial with the concept of "jihad". There are many Qu'ran/ahadith quotes about jihad at this link- Jihad: Notice in this verse-

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

-that the "prophet" Muhammad, himself, admitted that some Muslims "dislike" war and fighting. However, Islam still requires ALL Muslims to fight in jihad holy wars. Click the link and read more about: jihad, fighting, terrorism, torture.

The following quote from the Qur'an is representative of Islam's racism towards Jews. Click the link for many, many, many more like it. Jews:

Qur’an 2:61 “Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah’s wrath.”

********

Ok. Now, let's jump to some of your questions.

"Freedom1, I read your citations."

The links I gave you provide extensive knowledge of Islam. There's no way you could have even scratched the surface of them in just 2 days.

Q:"Namely, why are there Sunni and Shiite factions in Islam?"

A: Here's a brief explanation in an article at LAtimes.com
"Shiites and Sunnis -- centuries of strife"

"But sectarian strife is nothing new in Islamic history, and battles between Shiites and Sunnis have erupted periodically since Hussein challenged the Umayyad claim to the caliphate and raised the banner of revolt in AD 680. In the late 13th century, for instance, the Sunni Mamluks of Egypt were as anxious about Shiite expansion as that of the Crusaders, who were still in the coastal and northern parts of Syria. They sent expeditions to check the spread of Shiism in the mountain region of Kisrawan, which overlooks the coastal area north of Beirut. The Mamluk expeditions, sanctioned by the respected Sunni jurist Ibn Taymiya, forced Shiites in Kisrawan to conceal their identity during the 14th century."

[..] In Saudi Arabia, the religious-ideological divide has played a decisive role in shaping relations between the Saud ruling family, backed by the state's clerical establishment, and the Shiite minority concentrated mainly in the Hasa region, site of the country's oil. The rulers' adoption of Wahhabi-Hanbali Islam as the state's religious ideology has meant an inferior status for Shiites, whom the Wahhabis view as infidels. Shiites regard themselves as second- and even third-class citizens within the kingdom."
********

Freedom1-Many Sunni Muslims around the world view Shiite Muslims as "infidels". Here's a selection of media reports which evidence this:

JihadWatch.org
MULTAN, Pakistan (AP) -- "Two bombs planted in a car and motorcycle exploded at a gathering of Sunni Muslim radicals in central Pakistan before dawn Thursday, killing at least 39 people and wounding about 100 others. Police suspected it was a sectarian attack.

About 2,000 angry Sunnis gathered outside a hospital where victims of the explosions in the city of Multan were taken, shouting "Shiites are infidels!" and slogans against the government, witnesses said."
***

Trudy Rubin-The Philadelphia Inquirer
"Iraqis will dictate when U.S. will exit"
"The Shiite leadership is holding a series of meetings with key Sunnis, urging them to hold caucuses around the country to pick representatives for the constitutional committee. Shiites hope such political participation will split moderate Sunnis from die-hard insurgents.

But fear and mistrust divide the two communities. Some Sunnis regard Shiite Muslims – who believe in a different line of succession to the Prophet Muhammad – as infidels. The language used by some educated Sunnis to refer to Shiites sounds like 1950s Ku Klux Klanners talking about blacks.
***

"Many Witnesses Report Massacre by Taliban"
Washington Post Foreign Service
genocidewatch.org

NEW DELHI, Feb. 19 [...]"According to New York-based Human Rights Watch and interviews by The Washington Post, the killings appear to have been carried out partly in retribution against communities the Taliban believes supported its opponents, and partly in an ongoing sectarian crusade against Hazaras, a minority ethnic group that is Shiite Muslim. Members of the Taliban are Sunni Muslims who regard Shiites as infidels.
***

More RE: More "Sectarian" Violence?

Milblog PoliPundit.com: I stumbled across an earlier AP version of the story this morning (my time), with that event right up front:

BAGHDAD, Iraq Jun 5, 2006 (AP)— Masked gunmen stopped two minivans carrying students north of Baghdad Sunday, ordered the passengers off, separated Shiites from Sunni Arabs, and killed the 21 Shiites "in the name of Islam," a witness said.

Milblog-Seems pretty clear exactly what was going on here - if you have some knowledge of the situation. The "name of Islam" quote is the hallmark of the Takfiri - "those Muslims who regard other Muslims as infidels " - a better designation than the overly broad "Sunni" or the too narrow "al Qaeda" for those who share al Qaeda in Iraq's 'kill the Shia' ideology.

This is not stated in the AP piece - some background knowledge is required - and the subtlety is no doubt lost on anyone who only learns of Iraq via TV soundbites. The shorthand "sectarian violence" is correct, and fits those soundbites, but it also leads many to the conclusion that we have no business involving ourselves in "those peoples" problems.
***

Q: "What's the difference between Sunniism in general and Wahabbism?"

A: Not much from what I can tell. Islam is inherently violent and extreme. Sunni Muslims and Sunni Wahabbi Muslims both want to kill infidels. Wahabbism is simply publically acknowledged as a violent ideology.

Q: "Why are there differences between the Shiite faction centered in Qom (Iran) and Najaf (Iraq)? Why are there tensions between the followers of Sistani and those of al Sadr (junior, I mean)? Why have Syria and Iran signed a non-aggression treaty despite their obvious differences? What is the difference between the Iraqi Sunni nationalists, Shia nationalists, Baathist loyalists, foreign jihadists, and Iraqi jihadists?-Ricorun

A: These questions are answered (mostly) in the following National Review Online article. Read the whole article. I just want to highlight a few passages: NRO:

It’s the Terrorism, Stupid
Fancy that…Iranian fighters in Iraq.

Who’s a Shiite?
The single greatest distortion of reality in the war is that old chestnut about the profound hatred and total incompatibility between Sunnis and Shiites. The truth is that Sunnis and Shiites happily cooperate when it comes to killing Americans, Europeans, Jews, Christians, Suffis, Bahais, and anyone else who can be defined as an infidel and/or crusader. This has been going on for a very long time. In the early Seventies, for example, the (Shiite) Revolutionary Guards were trained in Lebanon by the (Sunni) Fatah of Yasser Arafat.

Indeed, as I reported some months back, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told his closest advisers late last year that Iran now controlled all the major terror groups, religious or Marxist, Sunni or Shiite.
********

Ricorun-"The point is that to the extent that we understand the answers to each and every one of these questions (and many more), they represent potential opportunities to exploit differences between them. THAT is knowing your enemy, Freedom."

I'm well aware of that. There are 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, Ricorun. How many of them do you want to kill, Ricorun? We could use our knowledge to spark still more Muslim Sunni vs Shia warfare-even though this warfare has been ongoing between Sunnis and Shiites since AD 680. However, even if this warfare killed 10 million Muslim terrorists, that still leaves over 1.19 billion Muslims. Promoting such evil, wholesale slaughter won't give the West victory, Ricorun. We need to encourage Muslims to give up Islam-the ideology that condones killing "infidels". We also need to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East. THAT will give the West victory.

Freedom1,

Thanks. I left a little longer reply under "Open Thread: Mexican Election."

AAR

Freedom1, I have to say that I urge everyone to read what you said in all your posts on this topic. In the end it's not what I think or you think, but what the true policy-makers think in terms of the likelihood of success in Iraq, and by extention the whole Middle East. You lay it out very effectively.

And in light of what you said (and your suggested reading), one has to wonder what the heck the policy-makers were thinking, doesn't one? Basically, you suggest that the only possibility for success is to convince all Muslims to abandon their religion in favor of a western-style secularist democracy. Given that 94% or so of the votes cast in the Iraqi elections were cast for various sectarian parties, it suggests we have a very, very long row to hoe. In fact, if your analysis is right, it sounds completely hopeless, don't you think? So hopeless, in fact, that one wonders how the policy-makers could have gotten it so totally, utterly wrong. And yet in light of that you still support them? What's wrong with that picture? It sounds to me like your thinking is more ideologically-based than fact-based.

So it seems to me that either you have to change your analysis or you have to change your opinion as to the likelihood of "success" in Iraq. THAT was my fundamental point. And thank you for cooperating so thoroughly.

"You lay it out very effectively."- by: Ricorun

Thanks.
:)

"It sounds to me like your thinking is more ideologically-based than fact-based."

Ok. Here's the fact-based reality re: the West vs Islam:

1)The West does nothing and Islamists attack us.

2)The West fights back and Islamists attack us.

3) There are 1.2 billion Muslims. The West can't kill enough of them to make a dent in their population. Ergo, this won't give the West victory.

4) Someone recently compared this GWOT to the Cold War. I think he was correct. This war will most likely last for at least a generation.

"Basically, you suggest that the only possibility for success is to convince all Muslims to abandon their religion in favor of a western-style secularist democracy."

That's the long-term goal, yes. If we want peaceful, secular democracy to actually last in the Middle East, then Islam must go the way of the dinosaur. The short-term goal is to establish at least a quasi-secular democracy in Iraq and then elsewhere in the Middle East.

"So it seems to me that either you have to change your analysis or you have to change your opinion as to the likelihood of 'success' in Iraq."

After World War I, Ataturk of Turkey artificially separated mosque and state in Turkey. So, there is precedence in the Muslim world for the secular government we're trying to create in Iraq. Also, the Iraqis are accustomed to a secular government because for the last 26 years Saddam's secular dictatorship ruled Iraq. So, yes, I think it's possible for the Iraqis to achieve a secular democracy. This would be a short-term result. If the West wants a peaceful, secular democracy to last in Iraq, then Islam must eventually be rejected. (In recent years, Turkey has become increasing violent with radical Islamic terrorists flourishing and going medieval on Christians and other non-Muslims living in Turkey. Turkey has a slew of violence directly related to the re-emergence of Islam.)
*********

A little bit about Ataturk from the Economist.com:

...Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, "Father of the Turks", the founder of modern Turkey.[..]Over the next 15 years, Ataturk reinvented Turkey on the model of a European nation-state. He replaced an absolute monarchy with a democratic republic, an explicitly Islamic ethos with staunch secularism, a fractured and inefficient administrative system with a centralised bureaucracy, and an agrarian economy with an increasingly urban and industrial society. For Turkey, Ataturk was the equivalent of the Pilgrim Fathers, George Washington and Henry Ford all rolled into one.

Astonishingly enough, it worked. Ataturk’s creation has not only survived but thrived.
**********

Strategy for the West:
However, while the West attempts to transform the Middle East into a democracy, we must be careful that our nations don't get transformed into de-facto Islamic states. The West should stop all Muslim immigration into Western nations. America should outlaw Islam immediately, because it is a terrorist ideology. Anyone who refuses to give up Islam should be deported to an Islamic nation. That's harsh, but this is war.

"Basically, you suggest that the only possibility for success is to convince all Muslims to abandon their religion in favor of a western-style secularist democracy."

That's the long-term goal, yes.
.............................................

I've been wondering if it would nudge things along to stop going along with the pretext that radical Islam is more of a religion than a political movement. It seems to me that it has moved well outside of what we would normally consider a religion, in its domination of countries, control of governments, and now its movement into military-type actions and declarations of war on nations.

It seems that it could be a productive start to simply start referring to anything terrorist-related as being done by "secular Muslims" or the responsibility of "secular Islam". We accept the idea of secular Jews being the majority in Israel. Clearly there is a cultural/political aspect to many Middle Eastern identities. So why not recognize that, regarding Islam, and start to differentiate between the religion and the political movement?

I think that this would eventually have a big impact, psychologically. For one thing, right now many Muslims can merely say they are "moderate" and that theirs is a religion of peace. This might make them put their money where their mouths are. It would create a line, and people would have to choose which side of the line they wanted to inhabit. By firmly identifying all violence as being "secular" we could start to drive a wedge between the true fanatics and those who secretly admire them but who want convenient deniability. As a chasm grows between violent, secular, Islam, and peaceful, religious, Islam it would become harder and harder to try to straddle the gap.

And it might be harder to use religion to recruit ardent new blood if the movement doing the recruiting is constantly identified as "secular" Islam. It would require making a conscious decision to move from an identififed religion to a movement identified as being outside that religion.

No, it would not immediately solve all the problems. It is not a Utopian one-size-fits-all guarantee of instant peace. But it might be one small step toward making Muslims think and choose, whereas now they can have it both ways.

Also, depriving radical Islam of the protections it now enjoys as a "religion" would make it much easier to control the madrassas and other truly political activities that we now have to tolerate under the concept of religious freedom.

"It seems to me that it has moved well outside of what we would normally consider a religion, in its domination of countries, control of governments, and now its movement into military-type actions and declarations of war on nations." by: Almiranta

This is a correct statement. The reason it's correct is because Islam is a political movement. Islam is different from what we would normally consider a religion-way different. Islam is different from Christianity or Judaism or many other religions. Islam is a total way of life. I read a quote that sums up Islam quite well: Islam is "a portable theocratic state."

Definition of Islam as a "total way of life": first from a Muslim source and then by two non-Muslim sources:

Muslim American Society
"An Introduction to Islam-The Applied Aspect"
By Dr. Jamal Badawi

How about the application? Are we just talking theology? Since the human is Allah's trustee, it would be inconsistent for a Muslim to separate the various aspects of life, the spiritual and the material, state and religion. We hear a lot about the "five pillars of Islam," but they are often presented as the whole of Islam, many times in a shallow way. They are not the whole of Islam any more than one can claim to have a functional house composed exclusively of five concrete pillars.[..]

What may appear as separate compartments of life simply does not exist for the Muslim. A Muslim does not say, 'This is business and this is moral." Moral, spiritual, economic, social and governmental are inter-related, because everything, including Caesar, belongs to Allah and to Allah alone.
************

"Islam is not only a "religion", but a "total way of life"; there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular, the religious leader is the political leader, and every aspect of the individual life should be Islam: Dress, food, and every detail of the family or social life...- All about Islam
**************

"...Islam is a total way of life, guided first by the Qur’an and then by the Sunna. All areas of life—religious, economic, social, and political—are addressed, and guidelines for the faithful are provided."- culturalorientation.net
****************

(I'll throw in a comment from an LGF poster): "I should explain. Islam completely mixes the religious and political. There's no distinction. Islam has its own crappy legal system (shari'a), dictator (caliph), and rules of conduct down to how you wipe your butt (left hand only, with stones)."
****************

"Also, depriving radical Islam of the protections it now enjoys as a 'religion' would make it much easier to control the madrassas and other truly political activities that we now have to tolerate under the concept of religious freedom." Posted by: Almiranta

That's why I've often referred to Islam as a terrorist ideology. The terrorism of Islam is driven by its religious principles layed down in the Qu'ran and the Ahadith. The West needs to excise Islam from our nations.

"...and those who secretly admire them but who want convenient deniability."-Almiranta

I really wonder what percentage of the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world this applies to? I really wonder.

I need to define one more concept called dhimmitude. I'll do that in the following post. (I'll be brief. I promise!)
:)

DhimmiWatch.org: "Why Dhimmi Watch?"-

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.

But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.

Freedom1 and Almiranta,

I find it interesting that we are having this discussion around the July 4th weekend. Think about what you have said regarding secularism versus sectarianism. And think about it in the broadest context.