"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice."
Now he cares about bringing them to justice? How many years has taken him to reailze that is priority number one?

Defeatist Democrats? They're the only ones who seem to care about bringing those bush spoke of to justice, you sheep just want to waste time and lives in Iraq....well if anyone does, Al Qaeda surely thanks you.

Yah and the terrorist thank the ACLU opy! Don't pretend that you liberals aren't the real problem when it come to justice(for anyone), we are not blind bro!

What exactly is it about habeas corpus that you hate, Margolis?

But - the military and the CIA caught the 9/11 planner and forced him (yes - forced) him to give us the dirt on 18 other leaders. Thats good right?

OPUS please, with you ENORMOUS brain will you guide us?

What is YOUR plan for winning in Iraq?

What is your plan for winning in Afghanistan?

Do you think (or hope) the Democrats will pull out of Iraq? Really?

I was wondering when he would begin to legislate torture...

Were you CK? Care to define it?

Where is Osama Mr President and why dont you spend that much time on him or thinking about him?

Which nearly 3000 innocent lives is he referring to, the 3000 killed in 9/11 when he dropped the ball and taok the longest vacation in presidential history rather than respond to intelligence clearly showing Osama was determined to strike America

Or

The nearly 3000 dead soldiers killed when Bush lied America into a war against a country that posed no threat to America or any other country, a country that never attacked america and before Bush invaded, never even had terrorists living there.

This law is all moot, the Supreme court already struck down a lesser version and this will be struck down even harder, meaning that this will still be an unsolved problem a year from now when the Supreme court rules it unconstitutional.

If this were my site, axass would be banned for repeating redundant talking points. Opuss and SeepsThroughSh*t would be gone for the same reason.

I saw their hero, Charlie Rangel, on O'Reilly, spewing his talking points and lies. All I could think of was that ol' Charlie will retire if the DemocRATs don't win the House in November.

Let's help ol' Charlie the Liar out, folks--get out and vote!

1H8L1BS, my comments are redundant and yet you have no answer to the question because you cannot answer without making yourself look like a fool.

You cannot answer WHY President Bush took the longest presidential vacation in American history right after being briefed that Osama was determined to strike America. We know that he was, we know that Condie knew as well and both dismissed it and only took it seriously AFTER nearly 3000 people died.

You cannot answer WHY bush was quoted just 6 months after 9/11 that he didn't spend much time on Osama and didn't know where he is and was not really concerned about him.

You cannot answer why Bush stayed on Vacation while thousands were dying in Louisiana, or why he took NO action for 3 days afterwards when he was briefed that it was going to be really bad and that the levees would likely fail by Brownie more than 4 days BEFORE Katrina made landfall.

You cannot answer why Bush ignored North Korea for over 5 years and only took notice AFTER they became a serious nuclear power and bacause it makes good political sense in light of the midterm elections.

The fact is that real answers are hard to come by when America's president is better known for his INACTION rather than action.

In high school I wondered how average people could allow their will and rights to be handed over to a maniacal human being; Adolph Hitler. And today I watched in horror as the President signed law that gave him the power to place any citizen in jail without the benefit of habeas corpus. I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, but Republicans who support this bill are fools and naive if they don't think a future President, one like Nixon who was so paranoid wouldn’t use this law against his political enemies.

Who are Republicans? I don’t even know anymore. Republicans support the government when it wiretaps phone calls without warrants, promises between a husband and wife are open for government debate with a special session of Congress. Republicans support nation building policies. Republicans said nothing as the government grew to the to the point it is this heavy weight on all of us. And now Republicans cheer a bill that could throw a citizen in jail without trial. Who are you? You are not the Republican Party I once knew.

1H8LIBS, they are parrots however & polly want a crakker. They are useless & one is a canadian to top it off. Point being, who really gives a you-know-what, what they say.

Silly silly axis, still whining about OSB. Al-Zarqawi was just one man, killing him would not make any difference, thousands more would just flock to fill the vacuum---but OSB, on the other hand, is the KEY---get him and the whole problem is solved. Poor silly flip-flopper axis, just can't keep his story straight.

Habeus Corpus? Do you even know what that means? Or did Anty Ranty just say the word often enough to penetrate your teeny tiny brain?

How about making a reasoned, nonemotional, argument for granting enemy combatants, who clearly do not fall under Geneva protections, the same rights we are required to grant those IN OUR COUNTRY, accused of CRIMINAL (not terrorist or war related) activities. Let's see your justification for applying standards set up for one group of people to another, completely separate and unrelated, group.

Without Airhead rhetoric, please.

Oh, and name the "lies" told by Bush. BTW, don't bother listing the wacko claims of lies that have already been rebutted and proved unfounded by actual fact. You have to come up with actual lies---that is to say, efforts to decieve by stating things known to be untrue.

CK, you simply MUST stop defining anything you don't like as "torture". It is silly and proof of lack of willingness or ability to think clearly.

But it IS a great talking point for those who can't handle facts, and/or those so obsessed with BDS that they are willing to regurgitate any old BS that sounds good to them at the moment.

Enemy Combatants are a weird thing, they don't really exist in the rest of the world except America do they? That was just a term made up so baby Bush could open Guantanemo and do what he wanted. Surely an enemy combatant is like any other person attacking, in WW2 depending on whos side you were on obviously surely the Germans were enemy combatants? I mean they were the enemy and were involved in combat against us yet were afforded human rights what's different about these ones?

I don't get what happens when you hold these peole without trial and whatever else they do to them in there and then they turn out innocent?

D'ya just give them a wee clap on the back and say terribly sorry and then let them go or what, coz seems a sure fire way to turn people who weren't originally against you against you.

How do you define who deserves to be under the Geneva conventions anyway?

SCOTUS may indeed throw much of this out. I presume the elimination of habeas is dead on arival as blatently against the plain wording of the Constitution. POTUS's unrestricted discretion on whom may be name an enemy (lefty bloggers?) is also highly suspect.

What the bill did accomplish was to give everyone in the executive branch a LEGISLATIVE PARDON, for previous war crime accusations -- which will stand up -- even if congress changes the law later down the road because of the Constitutional provision against ex post facto laws. Everything in the bill could be thrown out, but any criminals already got their get out of jail card. (As long as they stay here.)

And you thought Clinton was "slick."

News Flash, Rrepeated here because they probably hadn't heard it in Canada.

The President of the United States is always on duty as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and as the Chief Executive, unless he is incapacitated.

When he is on "vacation", he is not really on vacation. He still receives his daily intelligence brief, he still conducts the duties of the President, he still is in contact and provides guidance and direction with the remainder of the Executive Branch.

It doesn't really matter where the President goes to bed at night. Whether at the White House, Camp David, the Ranch in Crawford, Texas, or somewhere else, he is still the President. It's not as if when "on vacation", he completely stops being the President.

weefee,

Yes "Enemy Combatants" are a new and unique category. Actually, the proper title is "unlawful enemy combatant" which is "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);"

"A "lawful enemy combatant" is a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;"

So, the Germans we fought in WWII were "lawful" enemy combatants as long as they wore the German uniform and abide by the law of war.

The terrorists we are dealing with are not affiliated with a "state" (meaning a country), do not wear the uniform of a "state", and do not abide by the law of war. Thus they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Get it?

Josh Keaton,

"...today I watched in horror as the President signed law that gave him the power to place any citizen in jail without the benefit of habeas corpus."

WRONG. Did you read the Military Commissions Act? You couldn't have, otherwise you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself by making such stupid statements.

The Act applies to "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant.."

An "alien" is defined as: "..a person who is not a citizen of the United States".

An "unlawful enemy combatant" is defined as: "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);" "A "lawful enemy combatant" is a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;"

So, the Military Commissions Act does not give the President the power to "place any citizen in jail without the benefit of habeas corpus." It doesn't even apply to US citizens. Even if you decided to go to the Middle East, join al Qaeda, and take up arms against the US, he Act wouldn't apply to you, because you are a US citizen. Of course, you could be tried for treason and, if found guilty, be executed, but that's a different question.

Posted by: A-10 at October 18, 2006 11:58 PM

Did you read the Military Commissions Act? You couldn't have, otherwise you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself by making such stupid statements.
__________________________________
I did read it and I do cede the fact the term alien is written into the act. The problem is when you give government too much power they can use that power maliciously. It has happened in the Civil War and WWII with similar statutes. Just say there is a knock on A-10’s door one night. You are whisked away to a secret prison and labeled by the President as an “alien” unlawful enemy combatant. With habeas corpus suspended how will you ever have your day in court to prove you are neither an alien or unlawful enemy combatant? There would be no court for even your family to plead your case that you are a US citizen. Unless you are very rich, only the ACLU may take up your cause.

For this you are the fool for being so trusting of the government and naïve to think they would never use this act maliciously. There would be no need for the ACLU if all levels of government did not, from time to time, trample individual rights.

911 was a tragedy of monstrous proportions, but not one comma or period should be changed in the Constitution as a result. Otherwise the terrorist have won.

The Taliban is technically affiliated to a state, no matter how much you hate the regime, they were in power therefore you could argue they are an army. I am in no way apoligising for what they did in Afghanistan.

You never answered the bit about what happens when they are innocent after 3 years or so detention without basic human rights and whatever else happens there. How is that fair, do you think that they'll be happy with I'm really sorry we thought you were someone else and that you were doing/planning evil things when actually you were visiting your family etc. It still seems to me a way to make people, who previously didn't care about the US, Islam or terrorism hate you. It gives them cause and their families cause and could potentially help recruit more terrorists.

The Geneva Convention was agreed for a reason. As soon as we ignore that we are no better than them and everything the West is supposed to stand for is down the pan. That's what they want isn't it no basic human rights for everyone so why is the US giving them it?

weefee,

Four Michigan National Guard and Army Reserve units have served at GITMO. I personally know two of the Generals who were in charge of GITMO for a year. One was the Commander, the other was the "jailkeeper". I've talked to them about their experiences. The folks being detained at GITMO are the worst of the worst. On a daily basis, they threw every kind of bodily fluid and excrement at the US Service members guarding them. And I mean EVERY KIND. Our troop routinely find homemade knives and other weapons which the detainees try to use against our men and women.

Those detainees who are not considered a threat or we believe have no value for further intelligence gathering have been and are being sent back to their country of origin. But you know what? Many of these countries refuse the transfer. At the same time they condemn us for detaining the terrorists at GITMO. HELLO. Can you say hypocrite?

Consider also that many of the detainees do not want to leave. They are getting three culturally correct meals a day, medical and dental treatment, can pray their five times a day. Besides, if they do get sent "home", many will be executed.

My question to you is: what do you suppose we do with those "illegal enemy combatants" we capture on the battlefield? If we don't "detain" them, what do we do with them? Let them go to attack us again? In days of old, those caught on the battlefield, not in uniform, were shot as spies. We don't do that. We detain them. We treat them humanely. We "aggressively interrogate" them, but we don't kill them. When they kidnap a Westerner, what do they do? Normally, they will torture them a while. And I don't mean waterboarding. I mean cutting off fingers and toes. I mean glowing-hot pokers in the eye. I mean electrodes connected to the private parts. Then they cut off your head and record it for broadcast on al Jazeera.

Finally, the Geneva Conventions protect those in uniform fighting for a nation-state. It does not apply to terrorists. We have not dropped to their level. We are not cutting off their heads on TV. We are not strapping bombs to our bodies and blowing them up. There is no comparison to our treatment of the terrorist thugs, and their treatment of us infidels.

josh keaton,

Your problem is that you believe too much of the liberal crap that we are progressing to a fascist state. We aren't. We never will. You guys act as if there are "brownshirts" lurking everywhere ready to swoop down and grab you as soon as that evil Bush gives the word. Let me give you some advise from an "insider" (I work for the Department of Defense, I have hundreds of friends in the Reserve Components, I have dozens of contacts and friends in the Law Enforcement community, I have contacts with FEMA), there are no secret camps. There are no special teams lurking in the shadows.

Name one person who has been denied their freedom of speach. Name one person who has been denied their right to dissent. Name one person who has been rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to a secret detainee camp. It hasn't happened and it never will.

It cracks me up to see the spoiled Hollywood brats moan and compain on national TV about how dissent is being suppressed. HELLO. You're on national TV. How can that equate to suppressing dissent. It is hilarious when a leader of the Democrat Party stands up on the floor of the House or Senate and crys about the erosion of our rights. HELLO. You're on CSPAN, being broadcast across the nation.

I guess the bottom line is: If you are a terrorist, a criminal, or a supporter of terrorism, you have every right to be worried. But, if you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. This isn't Nazi Germany. This isn't the USSR. This isn't China. This is the good old US of A.

Oh, and sleep well tonight. There are 2.5 million men and women in the Active and Reserve Components who have voluntered to put their lives on the line, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in dozens of other places, so you can sleep well. Before you go to sleep, however, how about saying a prayer for those who serve, both in the military and our first responders. They need and deserve your prayers.

Thank you, A-10, for your concise and factual rebuttal of the Lib non-information they keep posting.

Josh says: "Republicans support the government when it wiretaps phone calls without warrants,.." Clearly, Josh has no respect whatsoever for truth or fact, or he wouldn't be regurgitating this worn-out old lie yet again.

I know it FEELS good to come on and emote, to cough up the Airhead drivel you've been assimilating all these months. But parading ignorance is not the same as debating issues.

And there is no law, anywhere, that cannot be subverted by someone determined to do so. Look at the Clintons getting access to what were supposed to be confidential FBI and IRS files on people they were mad at.

But instead of working to create safeguards to prevent abuse of the system, the radical BDS Libs are just making false statements about it, trying to scare people with lies. And then they wonder why we don't trust them.....