We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:00:46 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2010 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification [Kat] Well, I'm nearly at a loss as to what to say about yesterday's ruling that unlawful enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (and possibly other detainees held on or in any other quintessentially "official" "territory of the United States") have the right to challenge their detention on the grounds of habeas corpus. US Constitution, Section 8 Congress shall have the power to... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; The law that congress created to deal with the trials apparently didn't float with the courts because, I suppose,... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:45:52 -0600 linked back to you here.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74285 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74285 Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:42:14 -0600 Robes Noir! Hah! Well, *she* won't expect the Inquisition! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion!]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74232 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74232 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:45:42 -0600 I don't see what good amending the Constitution would do. Our berobed overlords don't pay any attention to what the Constitution says anyway when it conflicts with the end they have in mind. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74231 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74231 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:30:30 -0600 Actually, I didn't think I expressed much of an opinion so much as asked a lot of questions people ought to and probably are asking. My only concession to the "Liberal" wasn't even about the judges, but the struggle over the definition of terrorism: criminal or war? Did you read anything that said otherwise? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74201 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74201 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:57:13 -0600 Hi, Cliff. Lessee - you've just shown that being appointed by a Republican doesn't mean you're always going to go with the anticipated flow, eh? Better to look at the overall record of the individual doing the voting, when they have one, vice the party of the person doing the appointing. Everybody - Cliff is back, remember the Rulez, please. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74200 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74200 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:51:23 -0600 Kat, You might be better off leaving the analysis to the big boys lest you find yourself on the wrong side of the very things our service people fight for. In the early part of this war, ya'll said you were fighting for freedom. Now you've changed the conversation to something else. Just like this administration -- always moving the bar. You are aware I assume that: Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by President Reagan. John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Ford. Justice David Souter was appointed by President George W. H. Bush. All were part of the 5-4 majority in this case. Please, please, please, try to get informed before spouting off on issues sacred to our Country. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74197 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74197 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:38:28 -0600 "... The SC did more than usurp a Constitutionally- ordained Legislative function -- it just inserted itself into the Chain of Command. ..." Why, it couldn't be because the liberals on the SC really want that Chain of Command to flow through an internationalist UN or some other global, supra-national authority, would it? Naaaah.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74193 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74193 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:01:34 -0600 Or, created a disincentive to take prisoners? The Chain of Command sets the Rules of Engagement. Our ROE in Vietnam allowed us to engage any non-uniformed military-age male carrying a weapon whenever they were 1. shooting at us, 2. shooting at friendly troops, 3. shooting at civilians or fleeing an engagement area where those acts had taken place. If we saw him toss his weapon away, we couldn't kill him, but we *could* capture him, because he had been actively engaged in hostile activity. The SC has now decided, in essence, that someone who has been actively engaged in hostile activity may be killed, but may not be detained. The SC did more than usurp a Constitutionally- ordained Legislative function -- it just inserted itself into the Chain of Command.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74187 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74187 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:09:46 -0600 take no prisoners in this war. That is the main conclusion I draw from this decision. The second conclusion is the Court is making power grab that will have extremely negative consequences in the future. Lastly, it’s basically a huge employment contract for ACLU lawyers. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74186 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/guantanamo_no_m.html#comment-74186 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:45:55 -0600