Bush's secret justice hauled into the dock

[Cocoa]

<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1237590,00.html[br />
Its rulings have defined some of the most momentous events in US history, from school desegregation to abortion rights. Now the Supreme Court is to examine conditions at the controversial Guantánamo Bay prison camp and question some of the fundamental principles of George Bush's 'war on terror'.

In the next fortnight observers believe the court will deal a massive blow to an administration already reeling from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, and which has endured international outcry over the sprawling Guantánamo Bay prison, whose 700 inmates are held without charge or access to lawyers.

'These sorts of decisions come around for the court maybe once every 20 years. This is very big stuff,' said Professor Bill Banks, a Supreme Court expert at Syracuse University.

Of the three crucial cases, two involve the treatment of so-called 'enemy combatants' and one challenges the status of Guantánamo Bay itself. It will deliver its verdicts by the end of June at the latest, and possibly as early as this week.

more...

[Tellurian]

1. NO! This is disasterous to the people...

How did the SC involve itself in this?

[NMDemDist2]

3. how is this "disasterous" ???

the court will deal a massive blow to an administration already reeling from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, and which has endured international outcry over the sprawling Guantánamo Bay prison, whose 700 inmates are held without charge or access to lawyers.

[Branjor]

8. I think he means.....

This is the same court that selected *. :scared:

[Toots]

38. When did you start accepting wishful thinking as fact?

:shrug: This court is not "fair and balanced" to borrow a term.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. No, but if you'll look at some of their rulings over the last year or....

...two, there has clearly been a bias on the side of what the Constitution ACTUALLY says as opposed to what certain members of the court would like it to say (Scalia and Thomas).

This development has nothing to do with "wishful thinking"...it has everything to do with upholding the law as it actually exists.

Additionally, it has been known for a while that at least two of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) that voted to place the FratBoy in the White House have had strong second thoughts. That by itself is enough to swing the court to a 6-3 vote on these issues.

By the way, O'Connor had wanted to retire once Junior was installed in the White House...why has she chosen to stay on the court? Is it because she is actually afraid that Junior would replace her with someone much farther to the right? Come to think of it, what have NONE of the justices retired when speculation in early 2001 indicated that at least two would be resigning rather quickly?

Rehnquist may actually surprise some people when these SC votes are finally taken. I believe that he sees his legacy as Chief Justice being badly eroded since the events of December 2000.

Scalia and Thomas will surprise no one...they are totally beholden to the NeoCons.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Clearly SDO'C has had 2nd thoughts.

Doesn't change the facts of her ruinous, illegal decision, though. A permanent black mark on her record and she knows it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Because they've come to the realization that the NeoCon Junta is...

...out of control and working outside the farthest limits of the law.

I'm also willing to bet that some of the five justices that selected FratBoy in December 2000 have had quite a few second thoughts.

[Just Me]

2. Will my intuitive sense will be right, this time?

Will the next couple of weeks be monumental to our history?

[Tellurian]

4. The very last graph of the article, says it all!

"However, the Supreme Court's decisions cannot be taken for granted. 'We simply do not know for sure, no matter what we think in private,' said Albert. If the court announces shock rulings that support the government, it would represent a huge erosion of US civil liberties, say critics. 'If that happens, then God help us all,' said Banks."

If their findings exude an hint of anti-democracy, they shoud ll be run out of DC on a rail.

[Cocoa]

5. lots of stuff going on

especially for summer. The Sept. 11 report, this ruling, the Cheney ruling.

Then there's Clinton's book and Moore's movie.

The handover of Iraq is another story, I don't think anything's really going to change.

[Tellurian]

7. My Shrimp Primavera just flew off my fork...

The SC appointed Bush. They all support Federalism not Constitutionalism. I expect they will find evidence of abuse but will not blame Bush or Rummy for it..

They'll walk, as usual-

[Cocoa]

11. it's not a criminal case

read the article, it's pretty intersting. And important, imo.

[yardwork]

12. Calm down. They are not all federalists.

The Court selected Chimp-Boy by a 5-4 margin, and I think that the two swing voters (O'Conner and Kennedy) have regretted their votes for a while.

While we know for sure that Scalia will side with BushCo, and Thomas will always side with Scalia, and Rehnquist will probably side with them, the rest of them are by no means bought into the Chimp agenda.

I think the Supreme Court is very likely to rule against BushCo on this, because it sounds like the law is not at all on BushCo's side (no surprise there). I predict that the Court will go against the Chimp, anywhere from a 5-4 to 7-2 majority. If I had to bet, I'd say 6-3, with both Kennedy and O'Conner siding with the majority against the WH.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. My thoughts exactly. Good post.

[foo_bar]

47. Shrimp Primavera?

Anti-Semite!

</kidding>

[Tellurian]

52. HA!...

I keep Bertolli's Shrimp Scampi w/Linguine and Shrimp Primavera in the freezer for when I'm pinched for time. Done in 10 min...and it's real food! Should be in all the supermarkets in their frozen food case.

Bon-Appetite!

[Just Me]

10. I suppose it's the culmination of all those incredibly impactful issues,..

,...that drive my intuitive sense that the next couple of weeks will surely prove to be a historical turning point,...for all humanity.

I'm not afraid. I don't feel afraid, at all.

[Mokito]

28. I agree Cocoa. No time for shark-attacks, or is there?

[daleo]

6. I am not optimistic

They put the BFEE in, and I think they will stand by their BFEE.

[Tellurian]

9. All the Judges that voted to appoint Bush should recuse themselves..

Theres no ding-dang doubt about it..

[Just Me]

17. Forget optimism,...put together all the shit which will hit fan this month

,...and imagine,...just imagine,...all that which has held us all together. We are going to get through this climatic season of change. And, we are going to grow. We can't help it even though we cannot help but to resist it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. I'm looking forward to the findings in the Plame case...

...and understanding why Junior hired an outside lawyer.

[Pachamama]

57. Don't laugh-many believe that the "Transit of Venus" across the Sun...

...is very symbolic energetically for great events happening...

Hey, its just something interesting....Even more interesting is its correlation to the Mayan & Incan calenders and the fact that the next transit is in 2012....

I love it...Ronnie is buried in the Sunset as the transit of venus takes place and then the shit hits the fan for the Shit administration w/ a damning decision from the Supreme Court throwing out their enemy combatant justification, more news and pix on Abu Ghraib etc. etc...

[cosmicone]

13. Kennedy is the key

I think that Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas are beyond help. It is clear that O'Connor flip-flops between her loyalty to Bushco and her personal interests.

Kennedy has the power and he may change the world.

[UpInArms]

14. I shall make offerings to all the god/doss(s/es)

for the oxygen of freedom.

[teryang]

15. Political dynamic to SCOTUS rejecting unlawful detention

Such a decision will strike a serious blow to the intimidating extralegal GULAG the junta is trying to create along the appearance of total power.

But why would SCOTUS do that when the majority are Chimp enablers? Primarily because their unconvincing and overtly political decision to put an unelected candidate in power damaged their image and legitimacy so severely as the third co-equal branch. This was followed by an eviscerating abdication of power by the Congress in the form of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution. All power flowed to the Executive branch. The spurious legal foundation for the GULAG being erected by the administration, which apparently knows no territorial limits, is a dagger pointed at the very nature of a government of law. This is the chance for the highest Court to restore legitimacy to itself and the stature of the United States of America in world opinion by placing the constitutional limits back on the executive. If they don't do it, who will?

Presumably, the S.Ct. could envison a time when even men of property and distinction might not feel safe from imprisonment without hearing or habeus or other fundamental rights based upon ill considered edicts and codes taken up in the heat of the moment. Such arbitrary rule is readily and easily discarded by the opportunity provided, and the S.Ct. has an obvious self interest in doing so. If such opportunity is neglected when will it be afforded again? These decisions are quite clearly the constitutional prerogative of the Court and the traditional language of conservative blow offs, that we may look to the legislature or the states for such relief is clearly inapplicable. The Supreme Court should and probably will jealously recoup its own power and prestige which it so carelessly squandered to elevate this dangerous regime.

[buycitgo]

18. hey! you do that for a living?

if you don't, you should

at least, you should submit that someplace that deals with legal issues

[teryang]

19. Thanks

It's a political argument but a practical one. I have written for a living at one point or another as a legal writer, currently unemployed.

[daleo]

23. I hope you are right

It is logical for the Supreme Court, as an institutional entity, to do this for all the reasons you give (which were very well given, indeed). My fear is that the actual characters in the seats may not see their institutional interests to be the same as their personal interests, especially when they have invested so much in the BFEE (and vice versa).

But, I hope you are right.

[teryang]

36. The alternative is awful to contemplate

I've been hopeful about this for a while. If I am wrong, I dread the consequences.

[Spazito]

16. The Justice Department is expecting to be defeated on this...

according to Newsweek.

Facing Defeat?

June 9 - Justice Department lawyers, fearing a crushing defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few weeks, are scrambling to develop a conventional criminal case against “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla that would charge him with providing “material support” to Al Qaeda, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospective case against Padilla would rely in part on material seized by the FBI in Afghanistan—principally an Al Qaeda “new applicant form” that, authorities said, the former Chicago gang member filled out in July 2000 to enter a terrorist training camp run by Osama bin Laden's organization.

snip

Lawyers within the Justice Department are now bracing for defeat in both the enemy-combatant and Guantanamo cases, both of which are expected to be decided before the Supreme Court ends its term at the end of the month, according to one conservative and politically well-connected lawyer. “They are 99 percent certain they are going to lose,” said the lawyer, who asked not to be identified. “It’s a very sobering realization.”

While Supreme Court forecasts are hazardous at best, the conventional wisdom among former Supreme Court clerks is that recent disclosures about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and internal administration memos disavowing compliance with international treaties involving treatment of prisoners has badly hurt the government’s arguments before the court and turned two key “swing” justices—Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy—against it, the lawyer said.

more

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

[Disturbed]

20. I am holding on to hope.

I still believe that most of the SC does not believe in tyrany.

"If they don't do it, who will?

According to the Declaration of Indepence, We the People will have to exercise our rights.

[Sparky McGruff]

22. I'm not sure about tyrany, but I think the SC cares about its power

If the SC cedes on these cases (especially Padilla), it seems like it would be allowing the executive branch to say that they have powers that are outside of the court's domain. That would be a power grab of immense proportions.

While I'm sure that some of the partisans (Scalia, Thomas) would love to give a gift to their republican buddies; I don't know if Rhenquist would like his legacy to be the gutting of the supreme court's power. The supreme court has been at the top of the heap since Marbury vs. Madison. (Geez. I remember that, and I'm the product of the California public schools!)

[spokanelaw]

24. Dred Scott

This case is the modern equivalent of Dred Scott v. Sanford. In that pre-Civil War case the Supreme Court decided that Scott, a slave, did not have standing to sue in federal court.

[Sparky McGruff]

29. One difference from Dred Scott...

One difference, it seems, is that the key aspect of the Padilla case is the claim that Guantanamo, while under the control of the US military, is outside of the jurisdiction of the US courts. As far as Padilla is personally concerned, it's similar to Dred Scott--a way of establishing a certain class of people that do not have constitutional rights. But, for the rest of us, it seems like such a ruling would have a more ominous overtone: the White House can do whatever it wants, without a peep from Congress or the courts, as long as these actions are not on US soil. Their main argument to the court was that Padilla couldn't sue in US courts because he is in Cuba, but he couldn't sue in Cuban courts because he is in US custody.

It's like offshoring of US companies, only this wouldn't be for tax evasion, it would be to evade the whole judicial system. They could set up the "Guantanamo White House Branch", where they could openly take bribes. They could drag anyone off to the GitHouse and -- because it's not US soil -- there's nothing we could do about it. It would be a legal black hole, for any activity. If this succeeds, the "MBA president" may have pulled off a stunt that opens a "legal loophole", similar to the "tax loopholes" that his corrupt buddies at Enron and Arthur Anderson (et al.) loved to create in the business world.

[dbt]

21. Interesting Moment For The Five Traitors,

as they get to confront their Frankenbu$h. They created it, now it's destroying everything in its path. Will they continue to humor it, or will they pull the plug?

I hope Rehnquist, Scalia, Accessory-to-Rape O'Connor, Kennedy and Uncle Thomas sweat sulfuric acid between now and when they "rule."

:grr:
dbt

[happyslug]

30. Supreme Court will vote 9-0

The reason for this is simple, Rehnquist and Scalia will want to write the opinion and to do so they (or at least one of them) must be on the prevailing side.

You must understand the Chief Justice (Rehnquist) decides who writes the opinion if the Chief Justice is on the prevailing side. If the Chief Justice is NOT on the Prevailing side than the Justice with the most seniority acts as the Justice to decide who writes the opinion.

Thus if the decision is going against Bush, Rehnquist will want to be on the Prevailing side so he can write the opinion (Or decides who writes the opinion) so to minimize the effect of that opinion. Rehnquist has done this before.

I see Scalia and Thomas voting with Rehnquist to form some sort of "Majority" decision. i.e. Rehnquist decision will be the law. The reason for this is if Scalia and Thomas decent, than Rehnquist may end up writing an opinion support by less than four other Justices (A plurality Decision). Such a decision has no legal effect BUT DOES REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW. Worse the trial court did decide against the Government (The Appellant court ruled for the Government) thus you will have a situation where the Trial Judge can cite the Supreme Court decision and order the reforms needed, and the APPELLANT COURT COULD NOT REVERSE HIM. This is bad (Through not as bad as leaving one of the Liberal Justices writing the Majority decision).

No the best solution to this mess (From a Right wing perspective) would be a ruling that these people have the right to access to the courts but to minimize those rights. This can best be done by all three agreeing that the right to access to the courts (or some sort of Court) is a prime element of Due Process, but at the same time minimize those rights i.e. saying a Court Martial may fit the bill as opposed to access to the Federal District Court (Or worse since Git mo is on Cuban Soil the prisoners must first have to get a CUBAN court to rule against the Retention and than take that order to Atlanta for the Federal Court of Appeals to enforce if the Cuban order fulfills the requirements of Due Process). Another worse case scenario is if their rule the Git mo prisoners must be given some sort of Access to the Courts BUT THAT PRISONERS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN DO NOT FOR THEIR HAVE "FUNCTIONING" LAW COURTS.

Notice all of the above can only be done if Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are in the Majority. They may have to write the opinion broader than they would have among themselves but it is the only way to restrict the language of the decision (and this restricting the Breath of its decision).

I do not see the other Six Justice agreeing to what is happening in Git mo. I also do not see Scalia agreeing to it (In the past he has emphasis lawyer-client privilege and the need for someone to have access to a lawyer much more than Rehnquist has).

A lawyer, almost any lawyer, values the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the right to seek legal counsel. Prosecutors really likes the right for it makes their job easier (A lawyer will tell a Client what will happen to him at a trial and urge his client to strike a deal). Now Prosecutors will tell you it is easier to get a confession if no lawyer is present, but rarely is a confession needed. What you need is for the Defendant to plead guilty and accept the Sentence normally given for the crime committed. A defense attorney knows what evidence is needed to convict someone of something and has his client plead to what the prosecutor can prove (This is the heart of "Plead Bargaining" two attorneys arguing what crime was done and the correct sentence for such crime).

My point in the last paragraph was to show how deep the concept of access to a lawyer is within the legal community. This concept is DEEP and any Justice will have problems ruling against access to the Court AND against Access to a lawyer. Now it can be done (and was done prior to the Civil Right Movement of the 1950s) but even than lawyers and Judges were uncomfortable with it (State Legislators and Congressmen tended to be the point me AGAINST providing legal assistance).

Thus I see a 9-0 Decision upholding the right to have access to the Courts and access to a lawyer of their choice. I also foresee the right be limited to areas under exclusive US Control (Git mo NOT Iraq or Afghanistan) and the court may be a Military Court.

[Tellurian]

32. Good Summary! I would have more faith in the court had it not

involved itself in this perfidious fraud to begin with, but it did.

happyslug, did your summary take into consideration not only the Padilla case but the PAII that is now in front of the court as well? Bush is asking for an extensive broadening of his executive powers in PAII.

Here are a few highlights of the 87 pg draft here:

....* Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But – and read this carefully from the new bill – 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'"

....* Legal permanent residents, could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus – a protection guaranteed by the Constitution – since the Civil War."

....* The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."

....* Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

....* The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

....* Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds – even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong – would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

....* Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

....* Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."

....* American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.

....* The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.

....* And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" – stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 – would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."

I've just submitted some of the highlights put together by Matt Welch in his column a year ago. The SC will have all of these requests under consideration at the same time they are looking at the Padilla case.

[Toots]

40. It has been my opinion that all US bases and embassies are

American Soil. This is not happening in Cuba, it is happening on American Soil. If it were to go to a Cuban court they would be free in a heart beat. Cuba has absolutely nothing to say or do about this issue.

[lawguyry]

43. Not quite so dire

This is actually an unlikely option. Even if Rhinequist or Scalia wrote "the opinion" they'd have to have 5 signatures on it for it to be the controlling opinion. Every single justice can write a separate opinion if they want. if there is no majority opinion, only the points in common between the opinions will be a controlling law. So Let's say the neo-con judges write an opinion, that goes against the administration in a vague sort of way, but really vindicates no rights. Souter then could write a "concurring" opinion, that if he had 5 signatures on, would be the controlling law. So it doesn't help the neo-con faction at all (beyond being on the right side of history) to join up with the vindication of civil rights. When it really matters who writes the opinion is when the court is highly fractured, and unlikely to sign off on anyone other opinion en masse. So if it turns out 9-0 its because the triangle of terror realized things have gone too far, and probably not as a manipulation of the legal matters.

[Hekate]

31. Do you think the Supremes are lying awake nights like we do?

Especially the Gang of Five: I've often wondered who among them wakes in the small hours with an "Oh God, what was I thinking when I put Dubya and the Neocons in charge?"

Maybe this is a way they can begin to rectify some of the damage done.

Hekate

[BlueCollar]

33. So the end result is a win for the administration

Win-Win for the administration.

They win if the Supremes back them...

or they win if the Supremes vote against them...now they go with a full-court press on right-wing radio and media talking about "Activist Judges Legislating from the Bench ....blah/blah/blah"


and our Senator Daschle, The DLC, The DNC et al roll over and go away without a protest...

[Sparky McGruff]

34. It doesnt' seem so win-win...

If the court reverses the Padilla decision, they have few options:

• Release Padilla immediately (looks bad... isn't he their "big catch" in the "war on terra"?
  
• Have a trial for Padilla, and show how botched their case is (if it was any good, they'd probably have had a show-trial already)
  
• Give the Supreme Court the finger, and start a major legal crisis

I'd put my money on the last option. I bet they'd love to ignore the court's order. However, the public at large might not find this as exciting as the right wing radio idiots.

[BlueCollar]

35. I tend to agree with you...but

I still think they'll go with option 3 but John Q. PUblic will be listening to the radio idiots and they'll find a way to link it to Gay Marriages supported by "...activist judges legislating from the bench...yaddah,yaddah,yaddah...we need to elect bush and appoint conservative judges..." and the whole issue will clouded and the Dems will sit on their hands...

[teryang]

39. Option number three

...could result in a fairly speedy impeachment process. This would be a gut check for the cowards in Congress. If it didn't proceed one could confidently say that the United States of America has definitely ceased and some sort of fascist state was solidly in place.

[BlueCollar]

46. except that impeachment

requires a majority to move ...

since the dems control neither the house or the senate...that option's out

[teryang]

53. right you are

...but I don't rule it out completely. This matter might not be resolved by November. A democratic congress and a republican executive could happen.

Of course the election of Kerry would be the better outcome. Then chimp could be tried, but I'm anticipating pardons.

[BlueCollar]

56. but a Dem White House and a Repub Congress

is a stalemate...unless the Dem White House decides to release info on it's own....

There is a chance the Dems can take the Senate...a long shot but better than them taking the house since Texans gave all those seats to the right wing...

If the Dems get a majority in the Senate they can start inquiries...won't happen in the house this time around though...

[Cocoa]

37. ironic that you're criticizing Daschle

this story is just more evidence how important the federal courts are, and the filibusters of Bush's judicial appointments is arguably Daschle and the dems' greatest accomplishment.

[BlueCollar]

45. fillibusters

which are bypassed through the use of appointment when congress is not in session?

Please...

[Spazito]

41. The defeat of the Justice Department in the three cases...

has very serious ramifications beyond the specific cases. If, as anticipated, the detainees in Gitmo are entitled to the safeguards in the Geneva Convention then bush admin has broken the law according to US Code Title 18 Section 2441 (War Crimes Act)and is subject to the following:

a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United

States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described

in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the

victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Link to the Code:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+1070+0++%28War%20Crimes%20Act%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%282441%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

[BlueCollar]

48. and Atty General Ashcroft

will be the one bringing forward the charges?

[Spazito]

49. Ummm, don't think so, he will have been forced to resign and

under charge, as per the US Code. The appointee replacing him will place the charges. There is a process to be followed.

[BlueCollar]

50. I'll feel a lot better after

Bush is tossed and The Dems initiate a full inquiry into the Iraq war...

My faith in the conservatives in America is non-existent

[Spazito]

51. Will be interesting to watch for sure...

Which will come first, the chicken or the egg? Removal for war crimes or defeat at the polls and then charges? I, too, suspect it will be the second option.

[BlueCollar]

55. Defeat at the polls

may not lead to charges in the US...

it may take charges filed internationally to fully expose the rampant corruption of the * administration...and may be why they fear the International Court in the Hague as much as they do...El Salavador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, Iran, Phillipines, and now Iraq, Venezuela, and Colombia?

[Fovea]

54. it says the base is theoretically on Cuban territory

So by this stretch of reasoning, all embassies could be entered and searched by the police of the host country, and we could not do jack.

If we hold territory by treaty or force, it is not held by another nation by definition. So let's see the Cuban Human Rights commission in Gitmo ASAP. If they are turned back, then Bush is lying.

[Pachamama]

58. Why doesn't Cuba & Castro challenge US's authority in GITMO?

The Bush Administration is constantly trying to screw Cuba and Castro, what does he have to lose? In fact, he would more like have much to gain in the eyes of the international community by taking on and challenging the Bush Administrations policies in GITMO...

Hmmm....very interesting concept...any DUers have comment here?