OMG! WOULD BIN LADEN GET HABEAS RIGHTS?!
That's the scary headline on this post over at MSNBC's First Read. Toward the middle of the post, author Domenico Montenaro highlights a question asked during a McCain campaign conference call this afternoon:
But beyond that obvious point, there's a deeper ignorance at work here. Embedded in Hayes question is the bizarre and completely unamerican notion that your legal rights should somehow depend on how "bad" a person you are. The more serious the crimes for which you stand accused, the less rights you should have under the law. But that's quite obviously not how any system of rights is supposed to operate. Hayes' question is like asking whether a serial killer has the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Of course he does. The whole point of due process is to determine whether someone is guilty. It's the punishment that is supposed to vary depending on the seriousness of the crime, not the process.
It's pathetic that someone with even moderate intelligence would ask a question like that or think that it was in any way insightful.
And the "3 a.m" jab at the end is even weirder. As McCain's surrogates seem to acknowledge, the Supreme Court's ruling is now the law of the land and it will be binding on whoever ends up winning this election. Are McCain's surrogates suggesting that only Obama will follow the law? That McCain will disregard the Court's ruling? And if they're not suggesting that, then what exactly are they suggesting?
It's becoming increasingly clear (sadly) that McCain intends on running the exact same fear-based campaign that the Republicans have been running since 2002. The good news is that Obama's track record on this subject, particularly having been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, allows him to confront these kind of attacks in a way that other Democrats have not. Unlike John Kerry, for example, Obama is free to point out--without risking self-contradiction--that the Bush/McCain policies in the war on terror have been horribly misguided and strategically ill-advised. He can point out, as he did today, that the decision to invade Iraq was an enormous distraction and strategic blunder, the primary beneficiaries of which have been al Qaeda and Iran. He can also point out that had we listened to him, bin Laden might well be in U.S. custody right now pursuing pointless habeas petitions instead of building up his forces and plotting his next attack.
In a question posed toward the end of the call by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, the McCain campaign might have found a new talking point with which to emphasize the possible effect of the Gitmo decision. Hayes' asked if -- in the campaign's interpretation -- the Court's decision would mean that if Osama bin Laden was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo, he too would be entitled to Habeas Corpus rights.This is obnoxious on several different levels. First, of course Bin Laden would get habeas rights if he were held at Guantanamo. Since when do rights vary based on your name? But more importantly, why should anyone find it troubling that Osama would have such a right? If he sought to petition a court, it would result in the easiest and most predictable judicial decision ever. Habeas corpus just means that you have the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of your detention. The evidence against Bin Laden is overwhelming. He would have the right to challenge his detention, but he would lose, quickly and decisively.The McCain campaign's answer was yes.
"If Sen. Obama did receive that 3 a.m. phone call," Scheunemann said of the call so often mentioned throughout the Democratic primaries, "I guess his response would be to call the lawyers in the justice department."
But beyond that obvious point, there's a deeper ignorance at work here. Embedded in Hayes question is the bizarre and completely unamerican notion that your legal rights should somehow depend on how "bad" a person you are. The more serious the crimes for which you stand accused, the less rights you should have under the law. But that's quite obviously not how any system of rights is supposed to operate. Hayes' question is like asking whether a serial killer has the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Of course he does. The whole point of due process is to determine whether someone is guilty. It's the punishment that is supposed to vary depending on the seriousness of the crime, not the process.
It's pathetic that someone with even moderate intelligence would ask a question like that or think that it was in any way insightful.
And the "3 a.m" jab at the end is even weirder. As McCain's surrogates seem to acknowledge, the Supreme Court's ruling is now the law of the land and it will be binding on whoever ends up winning this election. Are McCain's surrogates suggesting that only Obama will follow the law? That McCain will disregard the Court's ruling? And if they're not suggesting that, then what exactly are they suggesting?
It's becoming increasingly clear (sadly) that McCain intends on running the exact same fear-based campaign that the Republicans have been running since 2002. The good news is that Obama's track record on this subject, particularly having been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, allows him to confront these kind of attacks in a way that other Democrats have not. Unlike John Kerry, for example, Obama is free to point out--without risking self-contradiction--that the Bush/McCain policies in the war on terror have been horribly misguided and strategically ill-advised. He can point out, as he did today, that the decision to invade Iraq was an enormous distraction and strategic blunder, the primary beneficiaries of which have been al Qaeda and Iran. He can also point out that had we listened to him, bin Laden might well be in U.S. custody right now pursuing pointless habeas petitions instead of building up his forces and plotting his next attack.
posted by A.L. at 9:01 PM
37 Comments:
Habeas corpus just means that you have the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of your detention. The evidence against Bin Laden is overwhelming. He would have the right to challenge his detention, but he would lose, quickly and decisively.
A very simple argument is he has no right to challenge his detention, as a non-citizen captured during a military operation on foreign soil. But an even simpler argument is that we'd shoot him on sight. I really fail to understand why liberals insist on making stupid, offensive arguments -- like that Osama bin Laden deserves habeas rights -- which 61% of the American people reject (see the latest WaPO-ABC poll, 6/15/08), rather than making a very simple argument in reply:
WHO CARES IF HE MIGHT GET HABEAS ONCE DETAINED? WE WON'T DETAIN HIM. WE'LL SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD ON SIGHT.
Grow some goddamn balls.
Very mature. Notice the part you're missing, though. I wrote "if he were held at Guantanamo." If bin Laden was killed by a drone missile or captured on the battlefield somewhere, that's a totally different question. The question from the call was whether he would have habeas rights "if he were detained at Guantanamo." And the answer is clearly yes, as pointless as it would be for him to try to invoke them.
The question isn't whether he "deserves" such rights. Anyone in U.S. custody within sovereign territory of the U.S. is granted such rights under the Constitution. It has always been thus, even if the Bush administration decided to ignore it.
A very simple argument is he has no right to challenge his detention, as a non-citizen captured during a military operation on foreign soil.
Simple indeed. And incorrect. Habeas has never been limited to citizens. And when and where you are captured is irrelevant. It's where you are held that matters.
But an even simpler argument is that we'd shoot him on sight.
That's not an argument. It's a statement that assumes away the very premise of the question, i.e., that bin Laden is being held at Guantanamo.
Wow... a starker juxtaposition of reasonableness alongside right-wing nuttery is scarely more possible than putting the original post next to the utterly retarded and predictable anonymous first comment.
I'm so glad that such a large percentage of Americans feel competent to weigh in on issues of habeas corpus ... I'm sure they have a keen understanding of precisely what's being asked of them. We should certainly take their expert opinions regarding bin Laden's individual case into consideration as we craft a law of general application.
As someone who as handled dozens if not hundreds of actual habeas petitions as a former U.S. District Court law clerk, it's astounding to watch both (a) the amount of pure intellectual dishonesty and naked politicking of Justice Scalia, who clearly knows the "intellectual" pot he's stirring with that dissent, and the seemingly few conservative commentators that have any concept of the actual ramifications of the decision and (b) the mouth-breathers who somehow think this means that actual terrorists are going to be getting out of jail.
Anonymous ... sorry, but you are really dumb.
Lor', the Stupidos crawl out and repeat the same things over and over again.
Here's the thing about Rights: you don't "deserve" them you simply have them - and quoting some poll doesn't change that. Why so scared of applying it universally, as defined by law and the Constitution? American values aren't good enough for you? If you like their process better, go join them. That's why us Liberals are different than people like you: we believe in American values.
OBL doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to be let off the hook (oh wait - Somebody didn't go try to catch him, so we don't have him yet) so why are you worried that being "nice" to him is a problem?
Anyone in U.S. custody within sovereign territory of the U.S. is granted such rights under the Constitution.
Gitmo is not soveriegn territory of the United States. It is the sovereign territory of Cuba and Congress explicitly disclaimed it as American territory under its Article VI, sec. 3 power in a series of statutes, the MCA and DTA. Indeed, you must not have read Justice Kennedy's opinion, because he relies on a bogus category de facto sovereignty, which essentially means that habeas follows the American military, whether it is in American sovereign territory or not. That has never been the rule before. And it may mean that foreigners who are not citiens, anywhere in the world, so long as detained by the American military, even on foreign land under a foreign sovereign's authority, may receive habeas. That is novel. It is not a longstanding rule at all.
In any event, you shouldn't be having this discussion. You should be saying "We'd kill Osama before he was detained."
I'm so glad that such a large percentage of Americans feel competent to weigh in on issues of habeas corpus ... I'm sure they have a keen understanding of precisely what's being asked of them.
Washington Post-ABC News Poll:
13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?
6/15/08
Should 34
Should not 61
No opinion 6
Yes. The poll was detailed. They do know what was being asked of them.
Dear lord ... teh stoopid .... it burns.
You know how silly this line of argument is. Gitmo is Cuba like Suite 212 at Claridge's is Yugoslavia. Do you know what de facto means?
Somehow, I think if Cuba wanted it back, we'd probably say "no."
I do know what de facto means. But you fail to understand that there is no such category known as de facto sovereignty under international law or the history of habeas corpus or under any of the precedents related to the Suspension Clause.
Kennedy contrasts de facto sovereignty to de jure soveriegnty -- one meaning we govern in fact, the other meaning we govern as a matter of law. But as determining territory is a legal determination and sovereignty is a politico-diplomatic construct, the Constitution grants exclusive territory-making authority to the Congress and the Executive (see Art. IV, sec. 3). So, there is no such thing as de facto sovereignty; there is only de jure sovereignty. Not to mention the lease by which we operate under in Cuba has a reservation clause that reserves Cuba's sovereignty, and Congress recently pass a law stating that Gitmo is not American territory.
In any event, AL completely misunderstood the opinion. It does not say "Habeas is where they are held," which may have been a reasonable rule that has some basis in history and constitutional tradition. Instead, it says "habeas is wherever the military is," which is directly in opposition to the governing precedent, Eisentrager, and which has no support in history or in the Constitution. Indeed, the holding of the opinion states "[T]he lack of an on point precedent is no barrier to our holding. We hold that..." The lack of an on point precedent means the lack of an on point precedent.
That's why Kennedy has to make up the concept of de facto sovereignty; to get around Congress' explicit disclaimer, and the reservation clause in the lease the Executive agrees to, and the lack of precedential authority.
In any event, you don't want this conversation. You want to talk about killing Osama.
Anonymous (the idiot one) said:
In any event, you don't want this conversation. You want to talk about killing Osama.
If we hadn't wasted our military power and personnel invading a country that wasn't a threat to us and used it against those who actually attacked us, there might be some point in having that conversation.
If you'd like to live in a world where disclaiming "sovereignty" is all it takes to allow government agents to murder, torture, maim, detain indefinitely, etc. without any law, then I guess that's up to you. Under your view of things, would Cuban law govern such conduct in those cases? If not, why not? If not Cuban substantive law, how about Cuban procedural law? Could they bring charges? After all, it's their sovereign territory -- by your way of thinking, they clearly have jurisdiction.
How about our prison ships? We do have them. If we "disclaim sovereignty" or operate in international waters, I guess we can do whatever we want then.
In the end, the unspoken portion of this decision (as well as it's predecessors) is "Just because you stick people in Cuba doesn't mean you get to play by a different set of rules, even though we all know that's what you are trying to do." I don't think even you would deny that's the whole point of the Guantanamo -- to try to find a place where U.S. law and some, including myself, would argue common decency are inapplicable.
The difference is that the majority, unlike Scalia, doesn't just engage in naked, citation-free political finger-pointing. It's called a judicial temperament.
If we hadn't wasted our military power and personnel invading a country that wasn't a threat to us and used it against those who actually attacked us, there might be some point in having that conversation.
Actually, I'm all the same anonymous, and it should be clear I'm not an idiot. I agree with you that we should have waged a strong fight in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone. Bush erred.
We should still have a conversation about killing Osama rather than one about habeas that most Americans cannot comprehend.
Nor does Bush's error excuse Anthony Kennedy's manipulation of the legal materials in Boumediene.
If you'd like to live in a world where disclaiming "sovereignty" is all it takes to allow government agents
That is rhetoric. The Constitution exclusively vests determination of territory to Congress. Either you value the Constitution or not. Just like adhering to the Constitution doesn't mean terrorists will get out of jail free, adhering to the Constitution doesn't mean the government will start torturing innocent civilians. It should be obvious I understand these issues on a more complex level than you, so drop the condescension and discard the brainless rhetoric. If you want to read a dissent that I agree with, try Chief Justice Roberts'.
I think the MCA and the DTA were an adequate substitute for habeas, so the constitutional question was moot. That's a technical objection, but it doesn't make me a supporter of murder, or whatever ignorant nonsense you're spouting. I suggest you try actually reading the opinion.
Just because you stick people in Cuba doesn't mean you get to play by a different set of rules
That's a fine argument. The only problem is that it's foreclosed by Eisentrager, an opinion written by the lead prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials. Hence, the reason Kennedy lacked any precedent. You want to disagree with the man who prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg, go ahead. But don't assume you have the moral high ground.
(1) "Bush erred" -- um, yeah ... to put it mildly.
(2) Just earlier in this thread, you were all for leaving it to "most Americans" and their poll responses.
(3) Claiming something is "rhetoric" is not an argument.
(4) All of the sudden you're going with the Roberts dissent? I thought "A very simple argument is he has no right to challenge his detention, as a non-citizen captured during a military operation on foreign soil." Um, whatever that is, that's definitely NOT the Roberts dissent.
(5) Again, do you really need to have it explained to you what the difference between Eisentrager and this case is? It's not exactly subtle.
(6) No one accused you of being a supporter of murder. Please read again. I'm asking you a hypothetical (you know, as a law professor might) -- if Cuban "sovereignty" is dispositive in this case, could they arrest, charge and try people for the homicides/torture that have occurred at Guantanamo? Explain to me why the "sovereign" Cubans can't do this. I know you won't because you can't.
Stop trying to play with the adults.
As an aside, I absolutely love it when right-wing nutters trot out stare decisis arguments (misguided as it is in the instant case). Let me guess, you think Roe v. Wade was teh awesome right? And you think of the Rehnquist Court's comprehensive roll-backs of civil liberties and criminal procedure protections were a total outrage, right? Because, I mean, once the Supreme Court has decided something, THAT'S IT!
(5) Again, do you really need to have it explained to you what the difference between Eisentrager and this case is? It's not exactly subtle.
Explain it.
Because, I mean, once the Supreme Court has decided something, THAT'S IT!
That totally explains Dred Scott. And Plessy v. Ferguson. And Lochner.
"That totally explains Dred Scott. And Plessy v. Ferguson. And Lochner."
Dear god, even teh sarcasm is lost on you.
Dear god, even teh sarcasm is lost on you.
No. You just aren't as smart as you think you are. Liberalism isn't intelligence; it's an ideology.
Let me put this as bluntly as I can:
In my sarcasm, I am ridiculing your absurd stare decisis argument regarding Eisentrager. That has nothing to do with "liberalism" or how smart I think I am.
You've now gone from "the American public doesn't like it and we should just shoot bin Laden" to
"a very simple argument is he has no right to challenge his detention, as a non-citizen captured during a military operation on foreign soil" to "OK, I guess I'm with Roberts even though that isn't his argument at all" to "Eisentrager is totally on point, and stare decisis roolz", with a stop at "Justice Kennedy is playing games" along the way, ending up at "just cuz you're a librul doesn't mean you ain't stoopid." Looking at that progression, this isn't going too well for you.
As for the explanation of the differences between the cases, please turn to Page 36 of the slip opinion, beginning at subsection "C". Justice Kennedy doesn't need my help.
I will note simply the first major point:
"...unlike in Eisentrager, supra, at 766, there has been no trial by military commission for
violations of the laws of war. The difference is not trivial.
The records from the Eisentrager trials suggest that, well
before the petitioners brought their case to this Court,
there had been a rigorous adversarial process to test the
legality of their detention. The Eisentrager petitioners
were charged by a bill of particulars that made detailed
factual allegations against them. [...]
To rebut the accusations,
they were entitled to representation by counsel,
allowed to introduce evidence on their own behalf, and
permitted to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses."
There's one rather notable difference ... see how many more you can find in the next 7 pages of the opinion.
Please also keep in mind what's NOT being said, out of an abundance of proper judicial temperament: "If you think we're going to let you lock people up for 6+ years without any serious adversarial hearing just because you stuck them in a place in Cuba where they are being tortured so you could make a tortured, formalistic jurisdictional argument, you are out of freakin' mind."
But, hey, stare decisis roolz!!!!1!!! Even if it's a totally different case!
Something tells me you were a rabid Federalist (or in elementary school) both before and after (but not during) Bush v. Gore. If you'd like to see an example of actual Supreme Court sophistry, I suggest you start there -- it's the best one there is.
And you still haven't answered a single one of my questions.
Looking at the downward trend of your arguments, I eagerly await some retort about "book lernin'" or "thinkin' I'm better'n you"
As an aside not for Anonymous, just how both (1) obvious and (2) politically charged does a case have to be for "noted moderate" (*ahem*) John Roberts to find himself on the losing side of a 5-4 decision on this court? I know it didn't happen a single time last term (maybe it has this term, I've been in the South Pacific the whole time) ... but seriously ... last year he was the deciding vote in something like 23 different 5-4 cases (with Scalia and Thomas in the majority each time) and never once on the losing side of a 5-4 decision. I think the only way it can happen is if the case is both really obvious (the other way) and really political. All that "referee" stuff at the confirmation hearings looks pretty humorous in retrospect...
Note one other thing.
OBL is already past the habeas stage in the US. A grand jury has already indicted him. So if we were to hold him, it would already be justified based on that indictment.
Anonymous, do you even know what habeas is? Just because he's been indicted doesn't mean he can't file a habeas petition. If that were the case, then no one in jail could ever file habeas petitions, and if you've ever been a law clerk (or, you know, paid attention to basic criminal procedure and constitutional law), you'll know that's not the case.
i am under the impression that bin laden either always has been or turned informant
Anonymous, do you even know what habeas is?
Yes.
But, hey, stare decisis roolz!!!!1!!! Even if it's a totally different case!
Simply citing to the majority opinion to prove that the majority opinion does not distort the underlying legal materials is circular logic. The claim is that Kennedy's opinion creates unprecedented rights for aliens abroad. His very opinion admits that there is no precedent warranting his result. The claim is further that Kennedy accomplishes this by making up de facto sovereignty -- a non-existent legal category -- by deriving a "functional test" from Eisentrager that is not there. I would direct you to Justice Scalia's treatment of Kennedy's abuse of Eisentrager, as that is the part of Scalia's dissent with which I agree.
Your questions consist of a rhetorical parade of horribles that are irrelevant to the case under discussion. There is no reason to discuss irrelevant hypotheticals. But, I did. My answer to your parade of horribles was that if I had a vote on the Supreme Court, I would have done what Roberts did, so no horribles would have occurred. Roberts would have avoided the constitutional question and permitted the detainess to pursue their review process at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, because the law Congress passed providing for that review was an adequate substitute for habeas. But you failed to understand why I did this because you are not very smart.
Ah. That was a different anonymous. I did not make the Osama bin Laden/indictment comment. I am the anonymous who has commented numerous times on this thread, in reply to AWH.
Well, obviously "no" on your first point -- the Insular cases created such rights for aliens "abroad" (as in "not in the United States") ... again, this is just about the way you are using the term "abroad," just as you (and the dissenters) are playing games with the word "sovereignty."
On your second point, no again. It has nothing to do with WARRANTING. He says there is no precedent DICTATING the result, which, to any responsible reading, is true. Big difference (like night and day), kiddo.
The parade of "rhetorical horribles" to which you refer is decidedly not rhetorical. We, the U.S. of A., have tortured people at Guantamano Bay (not as many as in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's beyond the point) -- that's pretty much beyond discussion now in 2008. So, my "rhetorical" question is a serious one -- if Fidel/Raul Castro decided to charge the people who have done/authorized those things, you'd be all for it, because it's his sovereign territory, yes?
Obviously, we'd all say "no way" to that, and that is what puts the lie to all this "sovereignty" bullshit, and it is what the Court is saying without actually saying it.
Indeed, have a look at Souter's extremely restrained dissent. It, rightly, says, "wow, what a load of crap" to the dissents' arguments about sovereignty and sufficient alternative processes without resorting to the preposterous political out-lashing of Scalia's silliness.
Listen, considering the limited time I'm interested in devoting to your personal education from my limited days here in Tahiti, I can't do a short-form better job of defending the majority opinion than very smart Justice Kennedy and his very smart law clerks who worked on it for months already have.
But what is obvious is that it is a VERY extravagant point to say that this case is somehow just like Eisentrager, so much so that Eisentrager is plainly controlling. That is, IMNSHO, f'ing nuts. You'd get no better than a C- (and that only for bringing up Eisentrager) on a law school exam making that argument. Kennedy spends seven pages absolutely eviscerating that stupid argument.
There's nothing "circular" about saying that the majority opinion contains all you need to know about the differences between Eisentrager and the instant case. So, you simply say "it's the same" and that Kennedy is playing games and I realize that you [are not open to/are ideologically incapable of/have no interest in] being convinced, but that's neither my fault nor Justice Kennedy's. If you are committed to thinking an apple is an orange, I'm confident your willingness to deny the difference will outlast my desire to convince you otherwise. I guess this is why we have waterboarding at Gitmo...
What is silly though, is, in an area in which there is admittedly nearly zero useful precedent, to merely say, "Well, we have a very limited number of cases -- A, B, C, and D -- and this being case E, I think it's most like case C, so case C is controlling." That's not how the law works. That's never been how the law works. You're not a lawyer, right? Because you'd know this...
In case you are still missing it, that's the point of my "stare decisis roolz!" crack. Big fan of Adarand (or know what it is), are you? Try out your stare decisis arguments discussing that. Oh, yeah, not so convenient with that one (or any post-Roe abortion case or Rehnquist-era criminal procedure case...)
As I've said before, what is really going on here is that the majority is on to the Administration's game. If you had roughly a dozen law school contemporaries working in the Bush Justice Department, you'd know that these detainees aren't being held at Guantanamo Bay by accident -- it's probably the place in the world that we most totally own that we can best claim that we don't totally own. Their detention there is in anticipation of litigation like this. Simple as that.
I think even you would admit that, on a practical rather than theoretical level, the "sovereignty" argument is totally specious, especially if you accept (which you certainly don't have to) my point that these guys are being held in this specific location for a reason. Thomas Jefferson wasn't sitting around considering the off-shore sequestering of people we wanted to torture when he and his pals were writing the relevant Constitutional provisions (ah, but you're a textualist when convenient, right?). Formalist quasi-textualist "sovereignty" arguments sound almost quaint when you think about the actual facts.
If you don't like "de facto sovereignty," just be glad that the majority isn't as overheated as Scalia's dissent, otherwise it would read: "we hereby hold that, as a nation, we are simply better than holding people, who are uncharged of crimes, without a proper adversarial hearing of any kind for 6+ years at a time in a place over which we have total dominion while we torture them in the interim." If Justice Kennedy was as ridiculous as Scalia, that would be the holding of the case. A small part of me wishes they had the courage. A bigger part of me is glad that they were bigger than Scalia and his signers-on.
Not to argue from authority for a moment, but I've also clerked at the Circuit Court level as well as the District Court level (at both levels for Republican appointees, btw). Cases like this are fundamentally, more than anything else, political. Ask anyone who has been there. I think even you would agree that the terrorism-scare portions of Scalia's dissent are heretofore unprecendented in their nakedly political ridiculousness. I think that even you would agree that President Bush has what amounts to four dependable go-to stooges on the Court. Those are the only four even sort-of signing on to the Administration's outlandish position.
So Scalia, I, you and Justice Kennedy can all play with the precendents and draw our own conclusions. But what's silly to say is that this is somehow just like Eisentrager, and that Eisentrager provides all the judicial wisdom we need to reach the right result in this case.
No, it's IMMENSELY not the same. How to resolve the case from there is debatable, but saying that Eisentrager ties this all up neatly with a bow is either (a) disingenuous or (b) retarded.
I just try to take on your arguments as you bring them, but you keep shifting positions...
"I would have done what Roberts did, so no horribles would have occurred."
Um, dude ... you are YEARS to late to keep the horribles from happening at Gitmo.
"too," dammit
And that's a concurrence by Souter ... sorry, it's late
I'm here to point out that anyone with so much contempt for others that he will not put in some consistent sequence of characters down in the Name/URL box fails to reach the level of a person with whom you can build a constructive dialogue. You don't even have to register for an account or provide any personal information! Just put in alittlelearning so that we know which pseudo-intellectual posts are yours and which belong to the other guy who doesn't care what we think. This fixes the problem of having to explain what you said and didn't say. Of course, if all you care about is registering your own opinions rather than engaging with the opinions of others, this won't be too important to you.
Cgaros,
Go fuck yourself.
Oh, and I am anonymous.
Not to argue from authority for a moment, but I've also clerked at the Circuit Court level as well as the District Court level (at both levels for Republican appointees, btw). Cases like this are fundamentally, more than anything else, political.
It does not show. You read like the stupid liberal in the wheelchair from the local democratic club. Those must have been some stupid judges.
You'd get no better than a C- (and that only for bringing up Eisentrager) on a law school exam making that argument.
Perhaps at McGeorge's School of Law's summer program in Salzburg where Kennedy teaches. But I bet Scalia at the University of Chicago would have graded differently, you low-class idiot.
Indeed, have a look at Souter's extremely restrained dissent. It, rightly, says, "wow, what a load of crap" to the dissents' arguments about sovereignty and sufficient alternative processes without resorting to the preposterous political out-lashing of Scalia's silliness.
Not only is Souter's concurrence not the the law, it didn't even convince all the Justices who signed onto the majority opinion. It is meaningless shit. And, you don't know the difference between a concurrence and a dissent. You probably haven't even gone to law school.
You can bet what the grading would be like at the University of Chicago Law School. I could actually tell you ... from three years of first-hand experience. Good guess! I'm glad you hold the education I received in such high regard. I certainly do.
Have another drink on me... and say hi to the guy in the wheelchair down the bar from you.
Adios for good, clown.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home