Bognoz
Jun 12 2008, 10:11 AM
sez the Supreme Court.
QUOTE
The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detention at the US military base in civilian courts, dealing a stiff rebuke to the Bush administration.
"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," the court said in its historic ruling, for the third time in four years striking down the government's case for trying "war on terror" suspects in military tribunals.
"Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law," the court added, ruling that prisoners in the remote US jail in southern Cuba "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus."
By a vote of five to four, the court found that even if the base was officially on Cuban territory, it was in fact operating as if it were on American soil.
louchefabrik
Jun 15 2008, 08:14 PM
It's not their first time. There was Scott v Sanford (1857) and Roe v Wade (1973), to note a few other of their famous fuck ups!
Bognoz
Jun 15 2008, 08:59 PM
Um, yr one fer three. The gubmint
ain't got no right to regulate a woman's
body. Nor to lock up people w/o
cause or legal representation or recourse
to a fair and impartial civil trial.
Bognoz
Jun 15 2008, 08:59 PM
The point being, that yeah,
people are never chattel.
Bognoz
Jun 15 2008, 09:03 PM
Nor should human lives be
smart-bomb fodder.
Collateral damage demeans
the meaning of life.
Bognoz
Jun 15 2008, 09:05 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The US gubmint has sunk
to the moral level of the sewage
they purport to be fighting.
Kirk
Jun 16 2008, 04:22 AM
We blow people up so we can sell more bombs, then
we torture them so they'll shut up about it.
Justin
Jun 16 2008, 04:50 AM
You forgot the oil. Got to keep the oil flowing.
And I would mention the weapons of mass destruction, but everyone has forgotten about finding them, only to learn that WE are actually the WMD.
Woohooo, I love America.
Click to view attachment
elfnmagik
Jun 20 2008, 11:12 AM
QUOTE(Justin @ Jun 16 2008, 08:50 AM)
You forgot the oil. Got to keep the oil flowing.
That doesn't seem to be working out right now.
Le Gimp
Jun 20 2008, 12:30 PM
We know he had WDMs, because we helped him develop them and he used them on (1) Iran, and (2) the Kurds. It is a tired argument.
I will not dissagree that it was a fucked up thing to do (invade) however.
Crosby
Jun 22 2008, 05:10 PM
QUOTE
We nowed Hem hasWDMs, ,becuz we helped Hem develop them an Hem yous them onn(1) )Iran, ,an (2) )thu Kurds. .i tissthu tired argument.
I wudnots dissagree thar i twasthu spuck upp think toodoh(invade) )however
I'm trying to remember where I saw the rule that says only the USA is allowed to have WMDs.
G&C
Jun 22 2008, 05:20 PM
Wasn't that made some time around the war with Spain?
Snarfalarfagus
Aug 1 2008, 08:42 AM
There was a war?!
Rimbaud
Aug 1 2008, 08:49 AM
Nice avatar, noob.
You crazy or sumpin'?
DrinkSlinger
Aug 1 2008, 09:08 AM
If'n he's crazy, he'll fit right in.
(as long as he's a drunk too).
absinthist
Aug 1 2008, 09:24 AM
His siggy tells it all.
Wild Bill Turkey
Aug 1 2008, 11:47 AM
Pay no tension to the man behind the Wizard of Oz avatar.
Le Gimp
Aug 1 2008, 06:29 PM
QUOTE(Crosby @ Jun 22 2008, 09:10 PM)
QUOTE
We nowed Hem hasWDMs, ,becuz we helped Hem develop them an Hem yous them onn(1) )Iran, ,an (2) )thu Kurds. .i tissthu tired argument.
I wudnots dissagree thar i twasthu spuck upp think toodoh(invade) )however
I'm trying to remember where I saw the rule that says only the USA is allowed to have WMDs.
Page 37 of the CIA handbook.
Le Gimp
Aug 1 2008, 06:37 PM
Also in here if you read closely enough.
Kirk
Aug 1 2008, 09:07 PM
Snarfalarfagus
Aug 4 2008, 08:28 AM
QUOTE(Rimbaud @ Aug 1 2008, 12:49 PM)
You crazy or sumpin'?
No?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.
