Ultimately, THIS is the greatest legacy of the Bush Presidency

[ElNono]

It's really brilliant that the Supreme Court (in another recent 5-4 decision) wants to convey cons ional rights upon enemy combatants who are neither U.S. citizens nor uniformed POWs. They really should not be allowed the protections of the Geneva Convention either.

Actually, they only granted the ability to challenge their 'enemy combatant' status in a court of law. But don't let the facts get in your way.

[boutons_]

Where in the Cons ution are human beings who are not US citizens denied from "inalienable" rights?

Why does an enemy combatant, aka "irregulars" in the VN era, not officially, "regularly" a member of a non-US military, lose his rights as a human being (which are NOT God-given anyway, they are man-invented) only because he fights, like any patriot should, the American military invading foreign country?

Turn it around (this may be difficult for some here):

MX invades TX to reclaim TX stolen by force. But that's stated reason to inflame the MX jingos and Macho Men. The real reason, never stated, is to grab the oil and oil refineries in TX.

Several 100 fat NRA bubbas armed to the teeth and shooting at the MX Army, are captured and deemed "terrorists/enemy combattants" by the MX military, hooded and shackled, are taken to a MX prison, to a MX Gitmo, and held for years, without access to habeas corpus, lawyers, etc. If the American prisoners go on hunger strike, they are intubated and forced fed.

The MX versions of Addington, Woo, and Gonzo tell the MX Army that it's OK to crush the bubbas' testicles, rip out their finger nails, rub MX chili peppers in their eyes, and when the torturers want to go easy, just waterboard the American terrorists.

The MX versions of Addington, Woo, Gonzo justify torturing the American enemy combattants is OK "simply because the MX el presidente says it's OK".

You jingos here are OK with the Mexicans doing that to American enemy combattants?

[xrayzebra]

Where in the Cons ution are human beings who are not US citizens denied from "inalienable" rights?

Why does an enemy combatant, aka "irregulars" in the VN era, not officially, "regularly" a member of a non-US military, lose his rights as a human being (which are NOT God-given anyway, they are man-invented) only because he fights, like any patriot should, the American military invading foreign country?

Turn it around (this may be difficult for some here):

MX invades TX to reclaim TX stolen by force. But that's to inflame the MX jingos and Macho Men. The real reason, never stated, is to grab the oil and oil refineries in TX.

Several 100 fat NRA bubbas armed to the teeth and shooting at the MX Army, are captured and deemed "terrorists/enemy combattants" by the MX military, hooded and shackled, are taken to a MX prison, to a MX Gitmo, and held for years, without access to habeas corpus, lawyers, etc. If the American prisoners go on hunger strike, they are intubated and forced fed.

The MX versions of Addington, Woo, and Gonzo tell the MX Army that it's OK to crush the bubbas' testicles, rip out their finger nails, rub MX chili peppers in their eyes, and when the torturers want to go easy, just waterboard the American terrorists.

The MX versions of Addington, Woo, Gonzo justify torturing the American enemy combattants is OK "simply because the MX el presidente says it's OK".

You jingos here are OK with the Mexicans doing that to American enemy combattants?

Ah yes, Mexico. Land of the free. An old saying boutons along the border.

You have all the rights in the world in Mexico so long as you can stand the pain.

And my smart mouth friend. That is very, very true statement.

[Harry Callahan]

Ah yes,
Let's paint NRA members as "Fat Bubbas" across the board. You have no idea about the makeup of the NRA. Just take the lazy route lib.

Geneva rights were conveyed to uniformed soldiers of government armies. Not individuals loyal to terrorist organizations without a true nation or government representing them.

The members of the Iraqi army were for the most part released. True prisoners of war.

The guys in Gitmo should be processed, but not in domestic courts. They have not set foot in this country and broken a law, they were captured overseas.

These individuals have no cons utional rights as would let's say an undo ented/illegal alien who murders someone here in U.S. territory.

[Anti.Hero]

Where in the Cons ution are human beings who are not US citizens denied from "inalienable" rights?

Why does an enemy combatant, aka "irregulars" in the VN era, not officially, "regularly" a member of a non-US military, lose his rights as a human being (which are NOT God-given anyway, they are man-invented) only because he fights, like any patriot should, the American military invading foreign country?

Turn it around (this may be difficult for some here):

MX invades TX to reclaim TX stolen by force. But that's stated reason to inflame the MX jingos and Macho Men. The real reason, never stated, is to grab the oil and oil refineries in TX.

Several 100 fat NRA bubbas armed to the teeth and shooting at the MX Army, are captured and deemed "terrorists/enemy combattants" by the MX military, hooded and shackled, are taken to a MX prison, to a MX Gitmo, and held for years, without access to habeas corpus, lawyers, etc. If the American prisoners go on hunger strike, they are intubated and forced fed.

The MX versions of Addington, Woo, and Gonzo tell the MX Army that it's OK to crush the bubbas' testicles, rip out their finger nails, rub MX chili peppers in their eyes, and when the torturers want to go easy, just waterboard the American terrorists.

The MX versions of Addington, Woo, Gonzo justify torturing the American enemy combattants is OK "simply because the MX el presidente says it's OK".

You jingos here are OK with the Mexicans doing that to American enemy combattants?

Please dude. Chuck Norris would go to Mexico and save his own!!!




Like said. NRA, conservatives, etc are not all fat bubba redneck hicks. To think that makes you as clueless and ignorant as the real fat bubba redneck hicks.

[boutons_]

nobody addressed the reversal of the situation, figures.

Torture and unlimited detention without due process is OK when the Americans are inflicting it, but don't even think about other countries inflicting it on USA people.

aka "American exceptionalism"

[xrayzebra]

Reversal! Holy smokes. We abuse people is so many ways. Thats why they all are killing themselves trying to GET INTO our country where we torture and whatever. Get a friggin life, maggot. Or go back to Europe where you feel comfortable with the Muslims who will soon smother you with their "Human Rights".

[Wild Cobra]

In SF CA they are naming a raw sewage treatment plant, “The George W Bush” sewage plant…See liberals can have a sense of humor...Its not against the law...

No, it just shows how disrespectful those who demand political correctness really are.

they are very small minded people to try that.

[Wild Cobra]

There was a lot of crime before the ban too.

Yes, that was a reason they used to implement the ban. However, the crime went up after the ban.

[PEP]

nobody addressed the reversal of the situation, figures.

Torture and unlimited detention without due process is OK when the Americans are inflicting it, but don't even think about other countries inflicting it on USA people.

aka "American exceptionalism"

heehee, these "people" that are supposedly being tortured would slit your throat without even a second thought or care that you hate your own government.

[DarrinS]

It's still the rootin' tootin' Wild Wild Wild West in USA, beacon of planetary civilization.

The gun mfrs/dealers are encouraged to sell anything to anybody (ie, the status quo).

It's all about money, not about self-defense.

Self-defense is to 2nd Amendment as WMD is to Iraq.

$-grubbing hidden behind lying pretexts.

You would've hated the 1940's.

[RandomGuy]

The ban is a major reason [Washington DC] is the murder capital.

Do tell.

You opinion passed off as fact, is it not?

This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to get rid of the ban, just to see who is right.

I don't think such bans make much difference at all in larger cities, and I am pretty darn sure that there is not enough data to be able to say so conclusively one way or the other.

If you have read something that I haven't, feel free to point that data out to me.

I am not that pro/anti gun myself, and don't really support the bans much. I just don't see them as making much difference either way.

Crime is such a complicated problem and has so many causes that to say "it's all about the guns" over-simplifies things too much.

If everybody owned a gun, and that was "a major cause" of crime avoidance, you should be able to get a list of cities with and without bans, and compare relative crime rates to see if there is a real correlation, as well as what happened right after bans were imposed in the cities that have them.

[johnsmith]

Do tell.

You opinion passed off as fact, is it not?

This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to get rid of the ban, just to see who is right.

I don't think such bans make much difference at all in larger cities, and I am pretty darn sure that there is not enough data to be able to say so conclusively one way or the other.

If you have read something that I haven't, feel free to point that data out to me.

I am not that pro/anti gun myself, and don't really support the bans much. I just don't see them as making much difference either way.

Crime is such a complicated problem and has so many causes that to say "it's all about the guns" over-simplifies things too much.

If everybody owned a gun, and that was "a major cause" of crime avoidance, you should be able to get a list of cities with and without bans, and compare relative crime rates to see if there is a real correlation, as well as what happened right after bans were imposed in the cities that have them.

Better yet, you should write a report on this too. Again, you have until Thursday of this week.

Good luck.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

DC crime rates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071700689.html

a history of the ban, ins uted in 1976


If the ban was a major reason for the increase in murders, etc., then one would expect a jump the year after the ban was ins uted.

The murder rate actually stayed relatively stable at around 28 or 29 for the better part of a decade, until 1987 about when easily availabe crack cocaine was coupled with a severe downturn in the economy, suggesting the murder rate itself was sensitive to other factors.

If one looked at the crime rates only and tried to guess the date of the ban, based on the theory that gun bans are "a major cause" of crime, you would be off by about a decade, and hard pressed to show any real effect on crime of the ban.

I am for what works, and gun bans aren't it, although I very much understand the emotions driving people to ask for them.

[RandomGuy]

Better yet, you should write a report on this too. Again, you have until Thursday of this week.

Good luck.

Click on the little arrow or click here

[MannyIsGod]

such a stupid myth
No matter what happens, no matter who is president, no matter what justices they nominate (short of an abortion like a Harriett Myers who wouldn't know her from her gavel in the court) there are certain things that will always go a certain way in america.

This is one of them. Just like abortion....no way in a bajillion realities will abortion ever be illegal in the states. Get a grip people. Were you really surprised over this ruling? Were you surprised the way they gave us a grey, cloudy ruling, that will probably lead to alot more nonsense and waste of taxpayer money? But the status quo remains...Hmmm....very unforeseen....not.

QFT

People think the President does all this when really the one thing people should be voting for this office based on is foriegn policy because thats where the President has such a direct impact on.

[Galileo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=22&sp=true



The ruling heard round the world.....

the Supreme Court did this, not Bush.

[RandomGuy]

Under its bylaws, the IMF is charged with the supervision of the international monetary system. Roughly two-thirds of IMF members -- but never the United States -- have already endured this painful procedure.

For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.

My, my, my. We could have had a cold, hard, look at our banking system years ago.

Talk about playing politics with your livlihood. Iraq and an arguably preventable financial meltdown.

Thanks W.

[RandomGuy]

When the final report on the risks of the US financial system is released in 2010 -- and it is likely to cause a stir internationally -- only one of the people in positions of responsiblity today will still be in office: Ben Bernanke.

I guess either way, we find out history's judgment of the Bush administration a bit earlier than Bush and his backers would like.

[101A]

the Supreme Court did this, not Bush.

Roberts is 53
Alito is 58

They are his nominees. They are the two youngest members of the court.

Significant choices, no?

If Bush had lost either of his elections, this vote WOULD have gone the other way.