Article

2006-06-29 Home Front: WoT

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-06-29 10:47|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A wina and a loss. The opinion seems to say that we can detain these people, without trial, for as long as the active conflict exists. We cannot, however, try them before a military tribunal.

The door remains open for trials in a non-military court, for Congress to establish a military tribunal, or... for trial under the UCMJ.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-06-29 11:09|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2006-06-29 11:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Once again, thank ~~liberal assbite~~ "moderate" Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for joining with the liberal weenies.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-06-29 11:10|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-06-29 11:10|| Front Page Top

#3 From SCOTUSblog:
More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

Posted by Steve 2006-06-29 11:11|| 2006-06-29 11:11|| Front Page Top

#4 Fine. Just shoot the assholes and close Gitmo.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-06-29 11:16|| 2006-06-29 11:16|| Front Page Top

#5 Next time, dump captured terrs into a ravine, toss in several hand-grenades, and then finish the job with napalm.

So now we'll have to provide lawyers and criminal trials in the USA to these maggots. Marxist Michael Ratner's Center for Constitutional Rights and the Left's beloved ACLU are lining up.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-06-29 11:17|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-06-29 11:17|| Front Page Top

#6 Next time, don't capture anyone.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-29 11:21|| 2006-06-29 11:21|| Front Page Top

#7 Doesn't that only apply to legal combatants? Not to illegal combatants who are not clearly identifiable as combatants and hide within/behind the [protected] civilian population?

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-06-29 11:22|| 2006-06-29 11:22|| Front Page Top

#8 CF, reread #3. It applies to al-Qaeda, so it applies to everyone.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-29 11:26|| 2006-06-29 11:26|| Front Page Top

#9 The liberals are demanding an international court, still spouting about the Cowboy's unilateralism. Maybe an international tribunal, with the US working in conjunction with those nations involved. If captured in Afghanistan, but a Yemeni citizen, and Australian or British troops assisted us, then all can work together in a tribunal. The can learn about the best justice system in the world while the Euroweenies who opposed the war and the death penalty have no say in it all.

Posted by Danielle 2006-06-29 11:26|| 2006-06-29 11:26|| Front Page Top

#10 Scotus is lawyers and judges defending the gravy train.

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-29 11:31|| 2006-06-29 11:31|| Front Page Top

#11 How can we be bound by a treaty to somebody who didn't sign it?

This is absolute BS.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2006-06-29 11:34|| 2006-06-29 11:34|| Front Page Top

#12 Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

In other words, SCOTUS has given the Reps the message for the November elections. It will be on the docket before the election to indeed force the Dems to defend the terrorist who abide by no law. [Note to the Dems, you didn't win too many being on the wrong side of the old Law and Order debate, its going to be the same this time around too.] Heh.

Posted by Sniper Chease8428 2006-06-29 11:34|| 2006-06-29 11:34|| Front Page Top

#13 As much as I agree with Nimble Spemble we shouldn't even take prisoners in the first place; unfortunately we will be collecting more of these animals in the future. Close Gitmo but where should we create the new prison? I vote for Hyannis Port, Johnstown, PA, or San Francisco.

Posted by vietvet68 2006-06-29 11:42|| 2006-06-29 11:42|| Front Page Top

#14 Sniper's on the money - take it to Congress - make the Donks vote up or down!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-29 11:49|| 2006-06-29 11:49|| Front Page Top

#15 Let's try them in civilian courts. Turn them over to Federal marshalls for incarceration in the US tomorrow, preferrably in holding pens attached to Federal Courthouses with lots of judges in them, and start construction on a new wing for the Florence Supermax. Make sure there's cameras and microphones in the courtroom to catch every threat to the American people from these wackos.

The American people need to be reminded that we are in a war. Counterintuitive as it may seem, this could be the best way to do it. This will not redound to the donks benefit. Perhaps it was a Rovian plot all along.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-29 12:03|| 2006-06-29 12:03|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm conflicted. Lock them up and try to find a venue in which to try legal cases against them. Or just shoot them, here and now, and be done with it.

Then, after that, we'll still have the issue of the prisoners at Gitmo.

Geez. Problems everywhere you look.

Posted by Unavising Tholugum6632 2006-06-29 12:04|| 2006-06-29 12:04|| Front Page Top

#17 If I'm remembering ConLaw I right (and I had a moonbat for a professor, so it wasn't like I actually learned much of anything in the first place), a treaty is equivalent to a statute. If a treaty and a statute conflict, the last in time controls. Therefore, all than needs to happen is to have Congress pass a statute authorizing the President to set the terms of detention for any enemy combatant who is not associated with a state which is signatory to the Geneva Convention. Soon as it's signed into law, the Geneva Convention no longer controls the case.

Added bonus: might be fun to watch certain Congresscritters try to explain why they're arguing in favor of expanded rights for terrorists.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-29 12:16|| 2006-06-29 12:16|| Front Page Top

#18 Mike's right. Even Arlen might have to vote for it...Chafee won't. Added Added bonus - the congresscritters will be forced to take a position AND can't use Gitmo as a stick to beat Bush if they vote to overturn the SCOTUS ruling with a congressional vote. Ultimately the animals caged at Gitmo won't be turned free unless W wants it

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-29 12:23|| 2006-06-29 12:23|| Front Page Top

#19 The ruling also provides they can be tried under the UCMJ. But the media value of that would be much lower.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-29 12:27|| 2006-06-29 12:27|| Front Page Top

#20 Additional point on the Geneva Conventions (I'm sure someone here knows this): Even if binny himself were to walk up and sign it tomorrow (for AQ), they still have to meet other requirements in there BEFORE it applies to them (such as a soldier of a State gov't, wears identifiable soldier uniform, not hiding in civilian areas, etc.)? So, even if they DO sign the thing, they still aren't living up to their end of the bargain (surprise, surprise).

Posted by BA 2006-06-29 12:28|| 2006-06-29 12:28|| Front Page Top

#21 hopefully, one of the liberals will die soon on the court

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-29 12:41|| 2006-06-29 12:41|| Front Page Top

#22 I must be on the right track, anyway--one actual expert in counterterrorism is already saying the same thing. (I'll post it as a separate article here in a moment.)

Posted by Mike 2006-06-29 12:43|| 2006-06-29 12:43|| Front Page Top

#23 Lots of future chum in GitMo.

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-29 13:17|| 2006-06-29 13:17|| Front Page Top

#24 The amount of blood americans have spilled in the middle east over the last 20 years or so not withstanding the arms supplied by america to various factions to fight and kill eachother .. your blood lust and lack of concern for the innocent victims that will account for more than 80% at a guess of all those wounded, killed dismembered and the children left homeless foodless and shelterless from such carnage.. stop and think before you start typing your rants .. please .. just think for one second before you click Submit !!!!! fuck you america
you will be nuked one day

Posted by nuke iszrael 2006-06-29 14:04|| 2006-06-29 14:04|| Front Page Top

#25 Mike -- you seem to be right -- lifted from Michelle's site:

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on the Hamdan case:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Courts decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.

"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.

"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."

Posted by Sherry 2006-06-29 14:05|| 2006-06-29 14:05|| Front Page Top

#26 Oh goody! #24 is today's chew toy! Yummmmm.

Posted by Crolump Glereper5426 2006-06-29 14:09|| 2006-06-29 14:09|| Front Page Top

#27 fuck you america you will be nuked one day

. . . and the following day Islam will cease to exist.

Posted by spiffo 2006-06-29 14:22|| 2006-06-29 14:22|| Front Page Top

#28 Nuke Iszrael (sic): the incredible hardships brought down upon the Islamic peoples are typically the result of their stupid 7th century backassward cult of death. How many "Lions" typically hide among their women or use children as human shields? Cowards, pussies, and pedophile degenerates deserve to die. We are merely the implementation of ~~Allan's~~ God's will and Darwin's law unto them :-)
HAND

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-29 14:35|| 2006-06-29 14:35|| Front Page Top

#29 I love the mood swing: stop and think ... please .. just think for one second, which is at least the beginnings of an appeal to reason, followed immediately by fuck you, which isn't. Can you say "bipolar?"

Posted by Mike 2006-06-29 14:36|| 2006-06-29 14:36|| Front Page Top

#30 Looking on the bright side of things

It will be a whole lot easier, efficient and cheaper simply to turn captured enemy illegal combatants over to host country forces. They of course can invite anyone they want to observe and record information obtained from subsequent interrogation, if any. The downside of course is the reliability of information gleaned from using a Dremel on the teeth while the head is clamped in a vice and cattle prods are being applied to the genetalia.

So now, Justice Stevens, the war on terror aint over until the last scream of the last suspect *not* under your purview is heard and the last bullet from a summary execution is fired. Rendition instead of tribunals. No prisoners except the ones we want to keep and try - and those we hand over to the local countrys intelligence interrogators.

Message recieved, loud and clear.

Thank You Justices Stevens, Bryer, Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy. This is a red-letter day for local nationals and their far less gentle means of persuasion, or else for summary execution (or both).

Unintended consequences - do you think this outcome is what the lefties on the court intended? Last laugh = best laugh

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-29 14:37|| 2006-06-29 14:37|| Front Page Top

#31 stop and think before you start typing your rants .. please .. just think for one second before you click Submit

Sorry. I didn't realize my rants were so powerful. I will stop all the carnage in this world by not hitting submit.

Oh crap. Here I go again.

Posted by oh boy here we go 2006-06-29 14:38|| 2006-06-29 14:38|| Front Page Top

#32 My friend who was downtown in Anchorage, Alaska during the 1964 earthquake, brought to me the principle that "Every disaster is a new opportunity." This outrageous decision by the SCOTUS fits into that principle.

Heaven knows that we have had enough disasters. We are fighting an enemy that gives no quarter overseas, and we are fighting an internal one in this country.

The Left will use any tool to hobble and defeat the Administration in this internal war. And make no mistake, it is war. Not a shootin' war---yet, but it is a war. They cannot do it by legislation, so they put maximum effort into the media front and in the courts.

Mike---you are onto the possible solution of the situation. So now the front will shift back to the Congress. We do not have the treasure, the judges, or the time to have court cases for every one of these Gitmo Guyz. Especially with judges with a liberal agenda. The SCOTUS decision is designed to hobble the war effort. Therefore, it is imperative that the Congress make legislation that will give the President the power for military tribunals. I guess we all better get cracking and let our congress people know what we expect of them. I know that some Rantburger's congress people are hopeless. Well, they better toe the line or be shown the door in November.

As far as interrogation goes, do what is necessary, whether we do it ourselves, or our allies do it, to insure that our armed forces get the intel that they need in a timely manner. After intel is extracted, give the detainees to their home countries and let them deal with these guys. That will minimize the number of detainees that we have to deal with.

Gitmo has had over 1000 journalists visit the place already, plus 170 or so Congressmen. Who is running this war, the press or the President?

Get the intel, kill these guys, have others kill them, or hand them over to allies less sympathetic to them. You cannot win this war being PC. The enemy is certainly not PC.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-06-29 14:40|| 2006-06-29 14:40|| Front Page Top

#33 So it is the opinion of SCOTUS that an organization that does not adhere to the Geneva Convention (al Qaeda) is still protected by it?

To quote GWB "That don't make any sense!"

Posted by eLarson 2006-06-29 14:43|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-06-29 14:43|| Front Page Top

#34 There's certainly room for debate as to the bounds of executive power in this less-than-formally-declared "war". I've not had time to study the opinion yet but I'd wager that the swing votes are hedging and would vote the other way if, as Breyer suggested, the Legislative & Executive branches reach an accord.

The truly troubling part of the decision to me is the extension of the Geneva Convention to cover terrorists. Am I wrong in thinking that the court's decision there vitiated the underpinnings of the Convention, namely the separation of lawful combatants from all others? That seems to display a shocking lack of basic understanding of the very purpose of the Convention. It also will give the US quite a black eye in the international arena if Congress takes up the issue and begins excluding those the Court should not have included.

Posted by AzCat 2006-06-29 14:53|| 2006-06-29 14:53|| Front Page Top

#35 The Supremes have goofed badly on this. They have totally ignored the previous history of legal dealings with such people, including the Nuremburg tribunals and the military courts in Vietnam and Korea. We have five supreme court justices that need to be removed for failing to show "good behavior" (Article III, Section 1, US Constitution). Ginsburg especially, with her insistance on using "foreign law" (not debated, passed, or any other way accepted by the United States) should be dismissed. The United States military is being compromised by this ruling, in violation of the separation of powers between the Justice System and the President, who has authority during time of war to do just about anything necessary to maintain the security of the United States. The Justices that voted for this should be soundly slapped. Removing them from the court would do that.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-06-29 14:57|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-29 14:57|| Front Page Top

#36 The Supremes (not to be confused with Motown group or maybe) can't have it both ways--we are either at war or not. Seems pretty clear to just about every rational person that we are at war.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-06-29 15:08|| 2006-06-29 15:08|| Front Page Top

#37 Maybe GWB could order the Supremes to GITMO to try the cases themselves. That should hurry thing up considerably.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-06-29 15:12|| 2006-06-29 15:12|| Front Page Top

#38 your blood lust and lack of concern for the innocent victims that will account for more than 80% at a guess of all those wounded, killed dismembered and the children left homeless foodless and shelterless

You just don't have a sense of humor. We're laughing with you not at your starving kittens.

It's kinda fun, I advise trying it, at least once. anyway.

Posted by 6 2006-06-29 15:16|| 2006-06-29 15:16|| Front Page Top

#39 Just for the sake of argument, what if W assumes the Jacksonian position of US v Cherokee Nation: "John Marshall has made his decision. Let's see him enforce it."

Posted by doc 2006-06-29 15:46|| 2006-06-29 15:46|| Front Page Top

#40 Just for the sake of argument, what if W assumes the Jacksonian position of US v Cherokee Nation: "John Marshall has made his decision. Let's see him enforce it."

The barking moonbats continue howling at the moon and calling for W to be impeached while the RINOs quietly side with the left and cut all funding for Gitmo operations or continuing confinement of the folks currently held there regardless of location. Beyond impeachment and funding there's really not much to constrain W's action here.

Posted by AzCat 2006-06-29 15:51|| 2006-06-29 15:51|| Front Page Top

#41 hehehe.... Chew toy is right.

The amount of 'blood spilled' by americans in the ME is insiginicant compared to the amount spilled in muslim-on-muslim slaughter. Iran-Iraq anyone? The current war (where the vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by other muslims). Even during 'peacetime' muslims engage in wholesale slaughter of their own people.

How about that Saddam who diverted funds for his starving people in the oil-for-food program to build palaces and monuments to himself? And his two son and their rape squads, rape rooms, and torture chambers?

Funny how the world and muslims get in a tizzy because of a rumor of a flushed Koran - but didn't say shit while Saddam was feeding people to industreal shreadders alive.

It was Saddam who filled the mass-graves which are still being found in Iraq. Not 'americans' or the west.

What about Dafur Sudan? Muslim on Muslim. But I guess its ok since the victims are black, have the heart of a donkey and are only fit for slavery (isn't that the prophet's own words?). Rape of women and children is the norm.

And lets not get into the Death worshipping cult which is Islam. The Prophet was a Pedophile, Murderer, Robber/hiwayman, liar, rapist, and all-around false prophet (and those are his good points). Allah is a moon-god. Islam is a religion based on hatred, murder, rape, and death.

As for me, I feel sorry for most muslims since they are trapped in this death-cult and cannot even leave (without incurring a death sentence). They canot even hear any other words since to question Islam is to be killed - as shown by the 'muslim' reaction to the cartoons.

Go peddle your shit at some other site such as Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. There are real men and women here.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-06-29 15:53|| 2006-06-29 15:53|| Front Page Top

#42 CF: I would accuse you of Islamophobia, but that means the irrational fear of Islam. I personally think you just hit the nail on the head with that rant! Bravo!

Posted by BA 2006-06-29 16:04|| 2006-06-29 16:04|| Front Page Top

#43 On to practicalities. The military itself never liked the idea of giving military tribunals to these mutts. It just goes against the grain. "Not our job", was much of the attitude.

We now stand in an interesting situation. Gitmo was never a top prison camp for the most important al-Qaeda. Instead it was a Potempkin village, a lightning rod for troublesome lawyers, leftist terrorist symps, protestors, etc. It has worked very well in that regard, filled with losers and also-rans who for the most part sit around all day, pray, eat a lot, and live the medium security lifestyle.

The real business was done under the auspices of other countries with far less liberal laws. And if there was any problem with some prisoner, the US could just shrug and say he was not in US jurisdiction.

Even if the military convicted any of them, what would it do with them? Ship them to Leavenworth, the military side? Most of them we want to send to some other country for disposal, eventually. Now we just have to figure out how to empty the place gradually.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-29 16:08|| 2006-06-29 16:08|| Front Page Top

#44 Issue pre-knoted monogrammed sheets to S A Hamden, substitute a bucket for a chair, check back with him in a week or so.

Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-06-29 16:45|| 2006-06-29 16:45|| Front Page Top

#45 but first, let him know we can hold him there until the permanent WOT is "finished"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-29 17:34|| 2006-06-29 17:34|| Front Page Top

#46 The "catch and release" program worked so well. Maybe the remaining ~~terrorists~~ "detainees" should be released in the neighborhoods of the liberal court members for rehab.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-06-29 17:58|| 2006-06-29 17:58|| Front Page Top

#47 So the court has reversed itself from its previous precedent Yamashita v. Styer 327 U.S. 1 (1946).

The United States Supreme Court denied the application of General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the commanding officer of the Japanese forces in the Philippines, who was also military governor of the Philippines, for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the writ of prohibition. Based upon Congress's war power, a military commission appointed by Commander of the United States Armed Forces, Western Pacific, which command included the Philippine Islands, had jurisdiction to try the General as an "enemy belligerent" on a charge of violating the law of war. In this case there was no "termination of war" and peace had not been agreed upon, even though actual hostilities in the field had ended. The Japanese General had failed to meet his affirmative duty to take appropriate steps within his power to protect prisoners of war and the civilian population from violations of the law of war during the time Japanese forces occupied the Philippines.

Posted by Sniper Chease8428 2006-06-29 19:59|| 2006-06-29 19:59|| Front Page Top

#48 So the court has reversed itself from its previous precedent Yamashita v. Styer 327 U.S. 1 (1946).

Not exactly.

There a formal declared state of war existed because of Congress' earlier declaration of war on Japan thus the Executive was acting with the explicit approval of Congress, the very situation which in which the Executive power is most broad.

As a practical matter we're at war today but as a legal matter we may or may not be. A formal declaration of war isn't strictly necessary but where one exists the power of the Executive branch to conduct hostilities as it sees fit is at its most expansive. Because Congress stopped short of a formal declaration of war, some seemingly applicable legal precedents (cf Yamashita) may not apply.

Posted by AzCat 2006-06-29 22:25|| 2006-06-29 22:25|| Front Page Top

#49 In other words, the SCOTUS is just making this up as it goes along because -

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Posted by Sniper Chease8428 2006-06-29 22:39|| 2006-06-29 22:39|| Front Page Top

#50 Americans already know when America is gonna be nuked - both Russia-China have indicated that war against America, and only America, circa 2015-2018 is not only possible or realistic but even desired. Some Chicoms officios had also indic as early as 2010 or 2014 where China and the Taiwan issue is concerned, i.e. limited REGIONAL war o'er a limited concise, managed, Taiwan < > Norkie battlefield(s).The Chicom "Assassin's Mace" + "War/Battle/Local Zone" anti US strategems includes resort to area/crisis-specific IMMEDIATE NUCLEAR ESCALATION = ESCALATION TO NUCLEAR COMBAT. FREEREPUBLIC.com > English interpetation of captured Sadddam docs = MOSCOW, etal. told Saddam they wanted the Iraq cris TO LAST AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. THE ONLY REAL, ALL-ENCOMPASSING, SHORT-ORDER POINT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW IS THAT IFF AMERICA DOES NOT ACCEPT SOCIALISM AND OWG, i.e. "AMERICA BEING CONTROLLED/RESTARINED, AMERICA WILL BE DESTROYED HER ENEMIES, TO INCLUDE BUT LIMITED TO ANTI-AMER AMERICANS. Clintonian Fascist> hated despicable Nazi Bushitler Fascist = also Deregulated Communist misguided arrogant ditzy kultzy Half-A-Stalinist, Socialist-Commie Amerikkka won the battle(s), but lost the War due to PC/
PDeniable "Creeping/Gradual Socialism-COmmunism-Totalitarianism" and Universal Governmentism-Policratism.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-06-29 23:36|| 2006-06-29 23:36|| Front Page Top

00:00 Swamp Blondie
23:59 newc
23:56 Swamp Blondie
23:55 Swamp Blondie
23:52 newc
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 Old Patriot
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:19 SamAdamsky
23:18 FOTSGreg
23:17 Captain America
23:16 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:11 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:09 Oztralian
23:04 RWV
23:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:00 RWV
23:00 Rambler
22:56 RWV
22:55 anonymous2u
22:54 anonymous2u
22:53 RWV
22:49 anymouse
22:47 anymouse