Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush can hold US civilians indefinitely, court rules. UPDATED x2 (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then why make such a definitive ruling? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pompatus, wonmug, sockpuppet

    Obviously, I haven't read the whole opinion, but this seemed especially stupid (from the NYT article):

    In the conclusion of his long opinion, Judge Wilkinson said terrorism cases presented courts with special challenges.

    "We may never know," he said, "whether we have struck the proper balance between liberty and security, because we do not know every action the executive is taking and we do not know every threat global terror networks have in store."

    It's hard to handicap which branch is more eager to bend over and give up our constitutional rights--the  Congress or Federal Judiciary.

    Every day brings more reasons why wholehearted support of Obama is the only option.

    Let the word go forth from this time and place...that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--Obama '08

    by Azdak on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:36 PM PDT

    •  assuming you get to vote for him (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trevzb, sockpuppet, blueoasis

      in a real election.

      assuming he's not declared an enemy combatant. Why, just imagine if something questionable was dug up on him, courtesy of...oh, FISA?

      What if he was declared unfit to be on the ballot, because of it? What happens then?

      On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

      by o the umanity on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He clearly seeks... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina

        ...to undermine democracy in Iraq, what with his emphasis on ending the war there. That was one of the definitions of enemy combatant, if I recall correctly.

        T.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site