Google
 
Web jonathanandwanda.blogspot.com

Monday, August 08, 2005

Terrorist Loving Liberals Hate Roberts Nomination

WASHINGTON - Lawyers for a Guantanamo detainee asked the Supreme Court on Monday to consider blocking military tribunals for terror suspects, and overturn what they called an extreme ruling by high-court nominee John Roberts. (The spin begins. Is this as much of a way to throw up Roberts as an 'extremist' as it is to defend a terrorist?)

Roberts was on a three-judge federal appeals court panel that last month ruled against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once was al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's driver. (Keep this tid-bit in mind over the article).

Hamdan's attorneys told justices that the appeals court gave the White House authority "to circumvent the federal courts and time-tested limits on the executive." (Read the laws ... the President DOES have that right in these cases, and more.)

"No decision, by any court, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has gone this far," wrote Hamdan attorney Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University. (so)

The Pentagon maintains it has the authority to hold military commissions, or tribunals, for terror suspects like Hamdan who were captured overseas and are now being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Guess what ... they DO have that authority!)

A lower-court judge ruled against the government, but Roberts and two other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed. That opinion was written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who was named to the court by the first President Bush. (you have to love how they squeeze that in. There's another "first President Bush" appointee on the court you liberal terrorist loving pukes are appealing to ... any comment on that?)

The ruling was handed down shortly before Roberts was named to the Supreme Court, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (yup ... keep Roberts name in this story as much as you can.)

O'Connor has been skeptical of government wartime powers. In 2004, she wrote that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

remember that tid-bit of information I said to remember? Let me refresh your memory ...

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once was al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's driver.


And that goes with O'Connor's statement how ?


"a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Hey Idiot liberal terrorist loving pukes ... News Flash ... A "Yemeni" is NOT a "citizen", and someone that is trusted by bin laden enough to drive him around is a terrorist!


The appeals court said last month that the 1949 Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war does not apply to the al-Qaida network and its members. (And they were right! Go read the conventions for yourself.)

Katyal maintained that the decision "radically extended legal precedents set during conventional wars." (ok then ... how about we do what the "conventional wars" real "precedents" are. Anyone ... according to the Geneva Conventions ... found fighting not in a uniform, as a civilian, hiding amoung civilians, etc. is immediatelly taken out and EXECUTED on the spot!!!)

The court "held that the president has the power to decide how a detainee is classified, ... how he is treated, what criminal process he will face, what rights he will have, who will judge him, how he will be judged, upon what crimes he will be sentenced, and how the sentence will be carried out," Katyal wrote. (yah baby! Don't like it? Go get more liberal terrorist loving pukes elected and TRY to amend the Constitution then ... won't happen, however, because there's not enough of you terrorist loving liberal pukes to win.)

Hamdan, who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, denies conspiring to engage in acts of terrorism and denies he was a member of al-Qaida. (again ... NOT a "citizen", NOT protected by OUR Constitution, and as for his denials ... plenty of convicts nationwide in our prisons that are 'innocent' ... they all are ... if you ask them.)

His trial was halted last fall when a district court ruled that Hamdan could not be tried by a U.S. military commission unless a "competent tribunal" determined first that he was not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Hamdan "asks simply for a trial that comports with this nation's traditions, Constitution, and commitment to the laws of war, such as a court-martial," Katyal said in the appeal.


I repeat the main points ...

Hey Idiot liberal terrorist loving pukes ... News Flash ... A "Yemeni" is NOT a "citizen", and someone that is trusted by bin laden enough to drive him around is a terrorist!

ok then ... how about we do what the "conventional wars" real "precedents" are. Anyone ... according to the Geneva Conventions ... found fighting not in a uniform, as a civilian, hiding amoung civilians, etc. is immediatelly taken out and EXECUTED on the spot!!!

NOT a "citizen", NOT protected by OUR Constitution, and as for his denials ... plenty of convicts nationwide in our prisons that are 'innocent' ... they all are ... if you ask them.

Listed on BlogShares