U.S. Presidential Election 2008

You say that their are only two options, release or trial in the US. As I stated above, the current system allows for another option, which is individual case review by a military tribunal outside the US. That is the correct course and the way it should be done under the Geneva Convention. The US Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds.

I don't think the Bush Administration will bring these terrorists onto US soil or go to court in the US. Neither will they release them. But, of course, the administration must comply with the ruling. What is the solution?...I'll tell you right now what will happen. These terrorist POW's will be repatriated to their home countries and imprisoned there. Then they will get their rights in an Afghan or Iraqi prison or a Saudi prison, or whatever. Then they will lament the day they left Gitmo.

From the beginning Obama has supported the constitution. McCain has not. Find a youtube video that explains that one, badbob.

It is clear to me that these people should be tried in accordance with US law if they are to be held by the US. This isn't some offshore hedge fund that can pay to dance around the rules, bob. If you don't think US legal rights should be applied to them because they're on Cuban soil, maybe they should be granted the rights of a Cuban. But they get nothing. You can't create a netherworld where civil rights have no meaning. And most importantly, as far as you or I are concerned, the constitution has given us the right and responsibility to protect the civil liberties of people everywhere. The way the current administration (and potential future administration) is treating that responsibility is disgusting.

Surely the remit of the Supreme Court is to uphold the constitution?

From whatever side and from whatever issue; if the charge is thrown that it is "overstepping its bounds" then it MUST be doing something right.
ie engaging in the conflict of powers that naturally occur in a state?

Look, Bohemian...

Ask McCain if he got his Constitutional Rights in the Hanoi Hilton. What do you think? What is this crap about NObama supporting the Constitution and McCain not? Did you just make that up? You obviously never served in the US Military and do not understand the UCMJ. They get a military review. What is your problem with that? Terrorists don't give you the benefit of "civil rights." But you want them to fall under the US Constitution overseas? And what is this crap about the US "Constitution giving us the right and responsibility to protect civil liberties everywhere?" Care to reference what part of the Constitution you are referring to? No, you can't. What is disgusting, is your ignorance.

My challenge goes to you too. Show me in the US Constitution where it says the provisions apply outside the US. If you can't, then a reasonable person must conclude that the Court has overstepped its bounds (jurisdiction).

1. Saying something is "ghetto" is an action reserved for young idiots that don't know where the word came from.
2. Labeling a man's action as "ghetto" when the man you are criticizing has actually spent years helping out people in the type of neighborhoods you are trying to use as a disparaging reference is worse.
3. Not understanding an extremely popular gesture happens, but using that ignorance to then judge it as an action without class is, well... ignorant.

Sorry.

No they don't.

But what seperates a civilised state and society is that we have certain standards.
Do we really want to stoop to the level of a dictatorship or do we believe in a fair and equal justice system?

We can't say now every thought that went through the minds of the Founding Fathers.
But the Supreme Court has to make judgements on their legacy for the world.

I don't think the reputation of Bush is going to be turned around.
But maybe the ruling will turn around some of the World's opinion of America?

All Men are created equal, we find this truth to be self evident.

Does that not mean if they are in US custoday equal right to a fair trila in a regular court of law as well?

The courts have decided that this transparent attempt to remove the detainees from their jurisdiction cannot be allowed to continue. Good for them. Nothing to do with being liberal: no-one likes people thumbing their noses at them, judges least of all.

So, MT, the whole world is or should be governed by the US Constitution, is that what you are arguing? I am sure the Queen would love that. Besides the brilliant arguments I have already made...are you trying to argue that terrorists are only entitled to limited protection under the US Constitution or should they get all the rights under the Constitution? All or nothing, I say, and I say again, NOTHING!

The Bushites tried to say Guantanamo was under the control of the US but not its jurisdiction. The judges have nullified that.

And I say again, detainees outside the US should not fall under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is obviously wrong here. Detainees should fall under the Geneva Convention.

That's the problem we are discussing. Under your definition...wherever a US soldier sets his foot is US territory. Oder? So the US bases in the UK are actually US soil, like the US Embassy? Right? No one agrees with that!

No. Did they just land in Guantanamo?

Fuck the Queen. You think I'm a loyalist or something?

I think the US Constitution is a fascinating and progressive doccument and has rightly influenced the World.

Are the prisoners at Gitmo being treated in line ith the Geneva Convention?

I understand that the International Red Cross has visited Gitmo on serveral occasions in accordance with the Geneva Convention.


We lease Gitmo...just like we lease every other US base aroung the world. Doesn't make it US territory.

The Red Cross suspect that they weren't shown all relevant areas IIRC.

The US maintains that the prisoners are not entitled to prisoner of war status as laid out in the Geneva Conventions and don't afford them their protections.

Anyway, Guantanamo is de facto US territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

Geneva Convention says that these prisoners

"shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Yeah, a military court.

@Wheel...see above...leasing a base does not make it de facto US territory.

Anybody else wanna try? The US Supreme Court is obviously out of bounds on this one.

A perpetual lease, unbroken control since 1904? Come on. UK Police can go onto US bases in the UK, although I doubt it happens often. Can the Cuban authorities visit Guantanamo to make sure their laws aren't being broken? Or is the base completely autonomous, as if it were US territory?

The US has what is know as "Status of Forces" agreements (SOF) and these agreements differ with respect to each country in which the bases and US Forces are located. Such an agreement is currently being negotiated with the Iraqi government, for example.

Futhermore, as an example, provisions of the US Constitution do not apply on US military bases, even in the US. Try holding a protest march on a US base under the Constitution and see what happens. So then, why should the US Constitution apply to Gitmo? It shouldn't.

"regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees"

Access to all the evidence.
Complete freedom of advocacy.
Disallowing evidence gained under torture.

Military Tribunals do not comply with the Geneva Convention.

We can argue back and forth what you think it should be, but the Supreme Court has ruled:
Regular US Courts or release.
What's it to be ?

@ BB

Is there an SOF agreement with Cuba? I doubt it.

Says who?


As I said, I think the US military will just return these people to their native countries and then they can fall under Shiria Law or whatever. These people will never appear in a US Court on US soil or simply be released to return to the battlefield. That's my opinion. Bush isn't as stupid as those 5 lib judges on the Supreme Court. Time to expand Abu Ghraib or building POW camps in the Middle East desert.

You read my email and made inferences without knowing anything about me or my friend.

My friend and I were born and raised on the south side of Chicago. Although, I haven't lived on the south side of Chicago for over 25 years I know this community area very well and still have friends and family who live there. It was only though extremely hard work and dedication by going to college and obtaining advance degrees we were able to move on and make a better quality of life for ourselves.

However, although it's admiral of Mr. Obama to have provided community service to this blighted area of Chicago, both my friend and I have also done the same by directing community outreach programs in an effort to give back to these communities. In fact, we both still support this area of Chicago by donating money for programs for youth to continue to support the community.

Regarding the hand gesture, I'm well aware of what this popular hand gesture means. As I wrote that email shortly after that pic was posted on the CNN for the world to see, my comment was my first perception. Later, I was surprised to read how this gesture evoked responses in others, like the Ed Hill comment.

I really don't gave a fuck if you consider my email comment about Mr. Obama's hand gesture to be ignorant.

It's a simple fix that should have been implemented from the beginning. They shouuld be classified as Prisoners of War and given the rights afforded that staus under the Geneva convention. The way they are handled is not that different any way.

As PWs they can be held until hostilities end, without trial or access to civil courts. (The Geneva convention does not allow PWs to be tried until after the conflict ends)

With the nature of the war on terror we get to say when hostilities are over, It's all legal, above board and everyones happy. a perfect solution.

Was it in the baddest part of town? Did you know Leroy Brown? Was he really badder than old King Kong and meaner than a junkyard dog?

Try Article III, Secs. 1 & 2



So, basically the Supreme court has jurisdiction over all US government actions, regardless of where they take place.

It is a really cool document, you should try reading it someday instead of turning your brain to mush with youtube videos

The Supreme court decision (BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH ) is quite instructive

You should try reading Robert's Dissent. It begins on page 82 of your link and ends with...


I too, dissent!

Bad Bob: Yuri Zhirkov!

Here's an interesting article from today's New York Times about how McCain shaped his war views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/polit...D16399KyKRhGoSA

Just perusing earlier in the German Vanity Fair (it was just by the loo, I swear) and it seems they are trying to sell McCain as a poor "man of the people" and Obama as bankrolled and elitist.

I think that pretty much sums up the image the candidates will convey and how it will be used to their disadvantage by opponents.

Yeah, I think this is how thy're trying to portray these two candidate. The irony is bankrolled and elitist has usually been the image of the Republican party and the Democrats the candidates who are more in touch with the grassroots or the average American.

McCain's Beer Gaffe

BadBob: "I'm Voting Republican"

I guess that explains your choice to situate yourself near the border with Holland. I suggest trying to read Hayek when you're not under the influence of drugs. You might finally get what he's saying.
The Unabomber was a middle-aged Ivy League graduate with a strong quantitative background (as is, ahem, Villager)


Let's be frank, the real problem with resuming relations with Cuba is the expropriated property that Fidel stole almost five decades ago. What is the Villager solution for that?


I am all for lower taxes on those in the lower and middle portions of the income scale, but not for Obama's proposed raise on capital gains taxes, which would discourage exactly the sort of savings they need to make since the future of entitlements in the US is less than rosy. I suggest exempting enough interest and dividend receipts and cap gains from the taxman to accomodate small savers, something that wouldn't affect the wealthy. The proposed middle-class tax cut should be funded by spending cuts rather than on higher taxes for high earners, who are anyhow too few in number to fund significant tax relief for the middle class. BTW, Bill Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut in 1992, but that never came to fruition, so I'll believe it when I see it, i.e., a Democratic tax cut (for anyone).

Soros is a political leftist (Villager, have you been living under a rock?) and has donated money to Moveon.org. Buffett's only pronouncements on political matters of which I am aware is his opposition to the repeal of estate taxes and his complaint that some of his employees had an effective tax rate of 33%, while he had one of one 19% in a recent year. If he is supporting a liberal Democrat in the presidential race, that suggests that his political beliefs tlit towards the left. I should also point out that if his employees had an effective tax rate of 33%, they must have been paid fairly well given the progressive nature of the US tax system, although I heartily agree that they should not have been paying tax at a higher rate than him. Sounds to me like an argument for a much simplified tax system with progressive taxation of income (at moderate rates) and low taxes on capital.


That explains a few things. My grandfather /who fought Franco and had a bounty placed on his head by the dictator) was a leftist, but he was also a businessman, and thus favorable to economic freedom. For those who don't know, Franco was from Galicia, as were Fidel Castro's parents.

it has been far more then the twenty years limit, under normal Spanish/Cuban civil law this property is lost, nothing to be recovered.
there is nothing to be gained by furthur sanctions, it has been 50 years of futile non-diplomacy
in any case the Cuban state had a right of eminent domain even if we did not agree with it
believe me, my family lost enough to be upset about it

As for the taxes, I agree with you: believe when we see it. All politicians are blowing smoke on this issue. I don't see much scope for furthur tax cuts on anyone, given the dire state of the nations finances and the total disconnect between economic growth and marginal tax cuts. Economic growth can be kick-started many other ways.


uh-oh, you are starting to sound reasonable here...


hmm, I hope you are not reaching for some ethnic stereotype here. Galicia is a beautiful green rainy region in Spain, which has traditionally been an agricultural economy with limited options for improvements. Hence it produced many emigrants, much like Ireland. Fidel & Franco are just unfortunate accidents, hardly representative of the culture at all. Aside from a weakness for bagpipe music and ambivalence, Galicians can be quite pleasant.

I'd suggest viewing it in the same way as most Germans view expropriation in Poland and Czechoslovakia after 1945.
It's gone. Get over it.

@MT: exactly, and most second generation Cuban-Americans are sick of hearing the same old nonsense from republican candidates, so Obama might do alright down there. But then there are all those shuffle-board-playing jewish retirees, and they are in a tizzy about voting for Hussein. The crackers up-state are even less sympathetic. Might have to write Florida off.

You are of course familiar with the saying, "He [Castro] is The Revolution".

The US doesn't have to normalize relations, although we should be negotiating with the Cubans on doing so, dependent on some sort of resolution of the issue of the expropriated property. Maybe something can be worked out. I obviously don't expect 100 cents on the dollar, but there needs to be some sort of compensation (not necessarily cash payments or the land/property itself). I generally don't support trade sanctions but this is not an issue that can be simply treated as water under the bridge.


No, just pointing out a piece of trivia. Haven't been to Galicia, but I might do it sometime after a future vist to Euskal Herria. The only part of Spain I don't want to visit is Castile.


That argument won't fly in Miami.

I have no personal stake in the matter, BTW. My grandfather's boat that escaped the Fascists didn't sail to Cuba.

Villager- about those ethnic stereotypes about Jews in the last post...

Those Germans who refuse to accept the exproriation of property post 1945 in Czechoslovakia and Poland are widely viewed as charming curiosities at best down the line to semi-fascist revisionists.
If most Germans can accept it, why can't exiled (or children of children of exiled) Cubans in the US?

If there "had" to be some deal then maybe individuals who personally lost property could buy property at a reduced rate
but with the rents thereof having to stay in Cuba or something like that. And any receipts the state made to be ringfenced for (say) education.

There is no reason not to establish normal relations with Cuba, apart from an obcession that a small poor country effectively rebelled against America.
America seems to be "over" Vietnam; maybe Cuba takes longer as it is nearer?

@Conq, ok, so maybe they don't really play that much shuffleboard anymore, but it used to be all the rage, really. And yes, in Miami there were/are a lot of Jewish retirees from the NYC area, no slurs are intended, I grew up partially in both cultures. Maybe now they are into golfing communities?

@MT Cuba has taken longer because of the strong Cuban-American contingent in Miami, whose votes could be bought in exchange for a few words against Fidel. But Fidel's banana republic image is also such a cliche that no US politician in his right mind would want to be photographed there. But then again, how many US politicians are in their right mind???

MT, any normalization of relations with Cuba faces different obstacles than that faced between the US and Vietnam.

It's inaccurate to say Cuba "rebelled against the US"- Castro basically stole property with hardly any compensation. I think some deal can be reached if the Cuban-American community is consulted on its parameters. Both the US and Cuba would benefit from normalization (although maybe not the Castros) so there is incentive to compromise.

There was a revolution against a corrupt dicator who was a stooge of American business interests.
In that process, property was expropriated.

I don't think it can be categorised as common theft.
One could argue that the United Fruit Company etc had been stealing from Cuba for decades.

I find the Cuban constituency in Florida was of the cutest aspects of American electoral politics.
How candidates just need to make a quick "Castro No, Liberdad Si" to get so many votes sewn up.

I would expect a Marxist to take such a line. Problem for your thinking is that Fidel Castro's regime has a decades-long history of stiffing non-US creditors and violating property rights of people with little or no connection with the US or US companies, so he's anything but a Robin Hood. In fact, while most Cubans live in squalor, this reputed revolutionary is a billionaire.

Given Castro's awful SCHUFA record, the expropriations take on an additional significance when you think about what could happen to US investments made in Cuba after trade normalization, trade financing, and other sorts of business relationships. Both sides have an interest in resolving this, and maybe it is a bit easier with Fidel in Rente.

@Conq: you are smearing us all with the bland grey insult ('Leftist', 'Marxist')
add some color to your labels. As long as we are all leftists here, you should learn to distinguish among the sub-species.
Eurovol seems to be the classic wishy-washy social-democrat, he still believes in elections and wants just a gradual degree left of the current corporate fascism
BTC seems to be an hard-bitten Stalinist, dismissing elections as mere propaganda
MT and FC seems to be outright Maoists, mixing confusion (confucian? ;-) philosophy with half-baked Little Red Book aphorisms
me, I am a traditional orthodox Trotskyite, but I gleefuly advocate the slaughter of innocents to baptise the revolution,
the others you can classify on your own, as a homework exercise

!!!??? I would have said I was Old Labour pragmatic socialist in the Smithite mould myself. Since when is it "Stalinist" to object to referenda? Many perfectly reasonable political analysts of all political complexions share the same view.

http://www.thetshirtblog.com/category/best...e-t-shirt-blog/