’)It’s an intriguing thing being a Republican. Emboldened by their electoral success, Republicans have created a culture of simply making stuff up and justifying it via apparent hocus-pocus. They get away with it a lot, because the Democrats are too weak-kneed to call them on it and the mainstream press is no better than a simple lapdog (not even my real lapdog is as lapdoggish as the MSM). But sometimes we get a concrete answer that fairytale Candyland rules simply do not apply.
Once again, Karl Rove’s mind-rays work their magic. This sets up perfectly for the 2006 elections with the Dems having to defend the Al Qaida Bill of Rights while Republicans get to take a tough-on-terrorists stance. (which, btw, does REALLY well at the polls.)
wow, Clarence Thomas actually wrote an opinion! Usually he just scrawls “Me Too” on Scalia’s opinions.
Had Roberts been able to rule, it would have been 5-4. If bush gets to name just one more replacement in the next 2 1/2 years the balance will be tipped in favor of the Scalitofascists.
Now’s the test to see if Bush is going to stand for “Jacksonian values.” After all, Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court, too.
I think the Malkin hive-mind can only handle one message at a time. Just a few days ago it was “cut and run… cut and run… cut and run…” Now that the Bush administration is showing signs of, well, cutting and running, the GOP noise machine is switching over to “torture is legal… torture is legal… torture is legal.” Disgusting to see our American values trashed by these people, but it’s nothing new, I suppose. At least it’s not “send liberal journalists to the gas chamber.” Oh, wait, it is.
SaveFarris Jun 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Republicans get to take a tough-on-terrorists stance.
Are you referring to the Bush Revolving Door Programme of Bullshit?
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02
The only way this makes any sense is if you have actionable intelligence that shows Osama currently in Okinawa.
Don’t hold your breath, frame. Just like cons never said that global warming didn’t exist, cons never said the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply. It must have been our imagination.
SaveFarris, you should never assume that a history of tactical success will yield a future tactical victory. Republicans can’t wave the bloody shirt forever. It will grow old and then the Republicans will again have to rely on their thin legislative record.
“. . . while Republicans get to take a tough-on-terrorists stance. (which, btw, does REALLY well at the polls.)”
It’s only the charade of being tough on terrorists. Bin Laden wanted bush to win in 2004.
“As a result, the court said in a 5-to-3 ruling, the tribunals violated both American military law and the military’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions.”
I’ll be awaiting retractions, corrections and apologies from every right winger who spent the last five years arguing that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.
Yes, I’ll be interested in reading how we are bound to a treaty obligation to which al Qaida is not a signatory. It opens up a lot of questions about our other treaty obligations to non-signing entities.
frameone,
“did not”? eh. The question is (or ought to be) “should they”? And any rational reading of the law would be “abso-friggin’-loutely NOT!”
If you really believe these dirtbags should be allowed Genea protections, please answer me this:
When did al Qaida sign the Geneva Conventions?
Which uniform were they wearing when they were picked up?
Since al Qaida has repeatedly violated the conventions by lopping off heads and targeting civilians, what method of restitution are we owed and in which International body do we file our claim?
The reason al Qaeda should be allowed Geneva protections is the same reason Jeffrey Dahmer wasn’t allowed to be killed by a mob in the street: we are a civilized people whose goodness is measured by the rules we’ve established and by the extent to which we follow them. We do not abandon our rules simply because “it feels good.”
The presence of monstrous people in the world is nothing new, so the sooner you grow up and stop crying about how the sky is falling, the better.
Come back when you have dry pants on, Farris.
I guess the blast fax went out already- Talking point #1290 How do Geneva Conventions apply when Al-Queda never signed them!!!!
On Hannity, Limbaugh, Scarborough, and coming to a wingnut show near you!
“Yes, I ll be interested in reading how we are bound to a treaty obligation to which al Qaida is not a signatory.”
That’s easy to do, JWG. Just go read the court’s majority opinion. That issue is specifically addressed.
The court found that obligation in two separate articles of the conventions.
And the same people who think it’s not important for Bush to catch bin Laden seem to think it was very important that Bill Clinton didn’t either.
5 years and no capture. Bush being re-elected is the best thing that ever happened for Bin Laden.
No kidding. Nobody’s benefited more from the strategic error to invade Iraq than bin Laden. Well, except for Iraq’s Shia fundamentalists. And Iran.
Too bad we took our eyes off the ball. It just felt so damn good to tell ourselves what manly, manly freedom warriors we all were, didn’t it? Not only that, but we wouldn’t have to pay taxes, and we wouldn’t have to send our own kids to do it! Win-win-win! Now it looks like we’re going to be paying a lot more than we did even for Vietnam, with no end in sight, and the backpats of freedom aren’t making me feel quite as good as they used to. Where did America go wrong?
I agree with robberbaron. What the SCLM didn’t point out when our soldiers were kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded recently is that that wasn’t happening to our soldiers until Abu Gharib came to light.
The US can’t be outraged when our soldiers are abused if they abuse the enemy in a similar way.
I agree, Farris, but I’d clarify that the death of neither Zarqawi nor bin Laden would make much difference practically. He was a bastard who pushed Sunni to kill the Shia, and now he’s dead, his work for civil conflict is very much set in motion, but independent of him. Bin Laden, similarly, has an ideology and a method that will certainly outlive him regardless of whether we eventually catch him with a predator drone, and it’s not clear that he represents any plausible threat (given the compartmentalized nature of wahabist terror,) so much as a symbolic one.
That said, it is still criminal that bin Laden is not dead, a crime that’s tied part and parcel into the whole decision to blunder in the Iraqi tar baby. The classic problem with hawks and conservatives, time in and out, is that they misunderstand the wars that we fight. They only understand war in terms that are complimentary to themselves, particularly their love of freedom, their manly resolve, etc. But even they know, though they won’t admit it, that Iraq’s already slipped away from them. Just like bin Laden. That’s two conservative blunders. Now our job is to make sure Bush doesn’t make any more.
I think the whole Al Queda did not sign the Geneva Convention is a really bad excuse. By that logic it is totally cool if Al Queda tortures, abuses, and murders American solders without it being a war crime because they aren’t bound by the Geneva Convention having never signed it.
That’s like saying it is cool for an immigrant to kill a US citizen because they cannot be a bound by US law because they aren’t a member of the United States. It doesn’t work that way.
America pledged to act with decency in times of war not only because it was the right thing to do but because it was beneficial long term with how our enemies might treat their prisoners.
What confidence does any other enemy whether “civilized” or not have that if we capture their men we won’t abuse them even if they signed Geneva? I would say not a lot.
The same people who say that it’s criminal that Bush hasn’t put Bin Laden’s head on a pike were the same ones who just two weeks ago poo-pooed Zarqawi’s death because “it doesn’t make any difference because someone else will spring up and take his place.”
Bush being re-elected is the best thing that ever happened for Bin Laden.
And vice versa.
By the way (because it needs to be said), kudos on the new font size.
Oliver, any chance of having a site redesign thread so we can give feedback?
thanks,
Tom
I expect two things to result from this:
1) A flurry of bloviation starting today claiming the SCOTUS is another example of an activist liberal court (despite that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Repub presidents). I’ll be checking O’Reilly and Hannity tonight (at least as much as I can tolerate and still keep my dinner down)
2) A sudden push in Congress to create new laws retroactively authorizing everything the SCOTUS decision just negated, resulting from the misinterpretation of language in the decision as well as this new system of retroactive lawbreaking approvals we’ve invented lately.
“Yes, I ll be interested in reading how we are bound to a treaty obligation to which al Qaida is not a signatory.”
Don’t even start, JWG. The Supreme Court just weighed in. But I guess that doesn’t mean shit to a conservative who thinks judges,just like congress, should be the lapdogs of an imperial presidency. Still, I’d be happy to rehash the facts for you if you’d like but suffice it to say now that the Geneva Conventions do not create, as conservatives would like to believe, a category of people to which no laws or rights applies. Everyone who falls into the hands of a combatant force, regardless of affiliation or status, is to be afforded the right to humane treatment and a fair trial.
Similar in that they were both illegal. Different in degree. Different in that we have laws we abide by. Different in that it is those laws, that system, that separates us from the monsters. I know that you are scared of the monsters, Pedro. I know that you would gladly trade in your own rights, and the rights of every other American if you thought it would make the monsters go away. But not only is that not going to work, it’s not the right thing to do. It’s not the American thing to do. One day, when you grow up, you’ll understand that winning a war is about more than just who’s the best torturer.
Fact- are you serious? You really think that Abu Gharib was the catalyst for the murder, torture, and beheading of these soldiers?
What freaking world do you live in? How long ago was Abu Ghraib. How many people have been kidnapped, tortured, murdered, hung, mutliated, burned, and other wise by the “courageous” “freedom fighters” in Iraq and elswhere. That’s the weakest bs. Of course you like to think terrorism didn’t start before Bush.
And TomY- another difference is that we investigate, proscecute, and jail those found guilty of illegal acts of torture and brutality. The other side celebrates them. (And you equivocate them, regardless of degree.)
Damn!Are you sure you’re not a cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution?
Factcheck has formally lost his marbles
“The US can t be outraged when our soldiers are abused if they abuse the enemy in a similar way.”
Our soldiers had their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths, their eyes were gouged out, and they were beheaded. Their bodies were then booby trapped, and surrounded by IED’s.
Two people took naked pictures of a dog barking at an Iraqi, those two people are doing jail time.
This is similar how?
Paraphrased from Andrew McCarthy at The Corner:
Period.
“Where are the prisoners sargeant?”
“The prisoners were shot while attempting to escape, sir.”
How many?
All of them sir.
Yes, Abu Gharib, Haditha, Guantanamo invading a country without provocation, depleted uranium, all these are things that lead to our soldiers getting tortured.
See, if you treat Iraqis like sub-human garbage, they tend to lash out in uncivilized ways. They are like people that way.
So when you look to point the finger at people who torture and murder our troops, point the finger on the insurgents– and the Pentagon that made them insurgents in the first place.
“who in his mind claim that the U.S. is the same as al Qaeda.”
Dugger, on the other hand, and plenty of his despicable brethern on the right — let’s give Hugh Hewitt a shout out — thinks that many progressives are exactly like the terrorists.
Marty continues his brave fight against liberal strawmen, who in his mind claim that the U.S. is the “same” as al Qaeda. Next time address the actual argument I made, chicken: namely, that torture erodes our moral authority over the terrorists and weakens our actual ability to confront them in the public arena. Will you be brave enough to address these arguments this time, or will you retreat to beat up another man of straw?
Frank nods approvingly as conservatives call the Supreme Court “dictatorial.” Being an idiot, the irony is lost on him. Hey Frank, try defending American freedoms for once, instead of trading them in for a few silver coins of security.
From Counterrorism Blog
From Marty, “another difference is that we investigate, proscecute, and jail those found guilty of illegal acts of torture and brutality. The other side celebrates them.”
Well, I think it’s quite possible that if America were populated by 100% total right wingers, Abu Grhaib would have been celebrated here as well.
Will everybody stop hyperventilating about this decision?
The decision says the detainees can’t be tried by the secret-evidence commissions as planned. They can still be tried by a standard military court martial or a civilian court.
Nobody said anything about letting them go.
but Okinawa would be safe!
ROFLMAO!
thanks god we have people like you Rounds, to help keep us moral….
You might want to climb down from that soapbox before you get dizzy though…..
Of course, that line of thinking can be taken in the reverse as well.
It is quite possible that if America were populated only with leftists, we would all be under Sharia law right now….
No Rounds- the investigation was already well on it’s way before any of us saw the first photo. The assholes at Abu Ghraib would still be in jail and we would have moved on.
And not Pedro, we wouldn’t all be under Sharia law- we’d just teach kids in schools how to be Muslim (You know- Muslim week) so we could understand them better. Oh wait- that is already happening in some schools. Where’s the ACLU?
Hey Quaker- you and I agree on something. I don’t think the court did anything extraordinary with the trials part of the ruling. They just defined the rules in a way that puts the onus on Congress for deciding if, how, and where the prisoners are tried.
The Geneva Conventions part seems shaky to me, only because of the signatory status of the enemy, but there is no reason for us NOT to follow Geneva as far as it’s tenents for treating people humanely- even in the absense of our enemy doing so.
“When did al Qaida sign the Geneva Conventions?”
First of all, it doesn’t matter if a person belongs to al-Qaeda for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions. What matters is the person’s actual nationality and whether the country they are a citizen of is a signatory. I think you’ll find that Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudia Arabia et al are all signatories to the Conventions. If a citizen of Jordan, for instance, is arrested in Iraq by US authorities they must be processed according to procedures laid out in the Conventions.
Second, the US has a right to determine who is and who isn’t granted extra protections under the Geneva Conventions based on their combat status through military tribunals. If a person is found to be an “unlawful combatant” they may be denied the protections of the Conventions but, the Conventions clearly state that they cannot be stripped of all rights period as many would like to think.
Article 4 of Convention 4 defines protected civilain persons:
Now here’s article 5:
So even if a civilian is determined to be an “unlawful combatant” we they “shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.”
Stevens and Kennedy also cite Common Article 3 as the reason why the Bush administration’s policies are inadequate when it comes to our responsibilities under the Convention. Article 3 states:
Notice that Article 3 does not simply apply to people determined to be POWs, but to any member of an armed force who has laid down their arms.
Now I’m no lawyer. I’m simply going by my understanding of the Conventions and how I’ve seen them interpreted by the organzitions charged with monitoring their enforcement.
If you’ve got a counter argument let’s hear it. But don’t simply say stupid ass shit like When did al Qaida sign the Geneva Conventions? It only makes you look like an idiot.
The Supremes…
Con una decisione a maggioranza (5-3 con l’astensione di John Roberts che si era già espresso pubblicamente sul caso), la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti ha stabilito che a Guantanamo l’amministrazione Bush ha violato la legge americana e la Convenz…
Then I recommend the court’s written decision. Stevens addresses this point explicitly.
I think it’s pretty clear that we are talking about “out – of – uniform” combatants (‘civilians engaged in hostilities’)
The “bone of contention” would seem to be this paragraph:
When it comes to “affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples,” should we go by their standards — cutting their hands off, dropping walls on them, or decapitation?
Or ours? Trials that last years; ridiculous courtroom demonstrations; innumerable appeals, at a cost of possibly millions of dollars?
Are you pondering what I’m pondering?
“Are you pondering what I m pondering?”
No Frank, because I’m not a savage idiot. Next …
You could have fooled me… When was the last time you read your own comments?
If there are any thinkers on this thread (obviously, you can sit this one out, Paul and Fastcheck), it might occur to you that this decision provides a hefty incentive not to take prisoners — once again, the Left takes home the trophy for unintended consequences.
Do you seriously think commanders-on-the-ground would consider that? Really, Frank? Do you think so little of military command?
And BTW, how does the left “take home the trophy” when it is a Supremem court decision?
Hamdan’s military lawyer is a Lefty?
“When was the last time you read your own comments?”
Um, the last time I checked I haven’t been advocating summary executions and murder. I’ll just take your barbaric nonsense as yet more proof that you haven’t the slightest what you’re talking about but are driven to post comments nevertheless as a cry for help.
frameone: Why don’t you stop grandstanding, come down off your high horse, and join the human race?
Your conceit is smelling up my monitor. Your posts reek with anger, hostility and contempt, and you have the nerve to say my posts are a cry for help?
The only reason why you don’t see your posts as a cry for help, is because you’re too narcissistic to be introspective.
duros62: There are people in the military who think all kinds of ways. They are humans, not cyborgs or androids.
And before you tell me about how little I think of the military, why don’t you tell me about your initial reaction to the news from Abu Ghraib, the Qu’uran in the toilet story, Haditha, the Gitmo hangings?
Who’s doing all the celebrating over this decision? The left or the right?
When it works against the left, who will they blame — SCOTUS or Bush / Rove?
This was a Supreme Court decision, not a parking ticket case, Quaker. Why don’t you cut out this childish crap?
“It is quite possible that if America were populated only with leftists, we would all be under Sharia law right now& ” Pedro
How did you come to that conclusion? I thought leftists were godless?
I made my comment about righties celebrating Abu Ghraib because I heard so many of them think that what happened there was no big deal, especially compared to the treatment of captive Americans by the insurgents. While I agree with the relativity point to that argument, I truly believe the right would go beyond being merely cavalier about it if they were the only occupants of our country. I wouldn’t put it past them to even celebrate, if in private.
Now I’m off my soapbox and can resume being just as moral as you.
Childish crap, Frank?
You’re the one who attributed this decision to [cue ominous music] The Left!
In fact, it was Hamdan’s military lawyer who took this case to the Supreme Court, not any political group.
Rounds
Leftists, as well as myself, are godless…I don’t consider that an issue.
The leftist however are also afraid of their own shadows, and can’t differentiate between good morality and bad morality. As far as they are concerned, the fact that muslim jihaadists torture people stems from us not understanding and accepting their “culture”. They only torture cause the big bad US of A gave them the idea in Abu Ghraib.
so in order to be accomadating, the leftist would allow this country to be overrun by some of the most intolerant people inhabiting the earth.
All that fear about christian right wingers? Clearly unfounded…yet you defend muslims extremists? People that would do things to the leftists “protected” classes that would make your head spin…. Gays? Hung. Women? Chattel. People speaking out against the government or Koran? Dead.
Quaker says:
“it was Hamdan s military lawyer who took this case to the Supreme Court, not any political group”
Uh, not exactly Quaker. His attorney is Neal Katyal….but based on mr katyal CV, he might as well be a political group…
He was law clerk to Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge Guido Calabresi of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. During 1998-99, Professor Katyal served as National Security Adviser to the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. He was commissioned by President Clinton in 1999 to co-author a report on ways the legal profession can enhance its pro bono activities and diversify the Bar, served as co-counsel to Vice President Al Gore in the United States Supreme Court case of Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board in 2000,….
Nice of the liberals to be sure that we can get a “fair trial” for OBL’s bodyguard…imagine what happens if we are dumb enough to capture him alive.
pedro says:
Contrary to propaganda by Bush apologists who call themselves “conservatives”, we progressives or “leftists” as you say, care about the future of this country just as much as you ascribe. Unfortunately, it’s just so much easier to regurgitate insidious talking points than attempt to explain why the USSC, far from being a “leftist think tank”, disagrees with you and this administration.
I can see another “constitutional amendment” coming down the pipe. After all, this republican congress only has 3 or 4 phony issues they can count on, so one more is bound to help.
Yeah, I’m with Dr. P.
Show me where these talking points are, bushwacked.
Reading all these blogs, online newspapers and magazines is a drag.
I’d much rather cut and paste the talking points.
yea Bush, and when the Congress gives the president exactly the permisision he wants to have tribunals, then what are you going to say?
You guys are really fond of the idea of “talking points”…would you mind telling me where they are so I can get an idea of what it is you are referring to?
I think you misspelled that military lawyer’s name, Peed’. It’s Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift.
Katyal. Swift. Musta been a typo.
What do you think just repeating it again makes it right quaker? I didn’t think you were really an idiot but….
Neal Katyal represents Hamdan this morning
http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2138841/
In sifting through their inboxes last spring, 10 Yale Law School students came across an e-mail unlike any they had received before. The author, Neal Katyal LAW ‘95, had a favor to ask.
Help me to defend Osama Bin Laden’s former driver, he said. And spend hours every week doing so, on top of rigorous law school classes and summer internship
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32812
This is a military commission [at Guantánamo] that is literally unburdened by the laws, Constitution, and treaties of the United States. Neal Katyal, attorney for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, oral arguments before the Supreme Court, March 28, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,hentoff,72797,6.html
Attorney Neal Katyal, who represents Hamdan, told justices Tuesday
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5307418
In 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.[8][9] The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld Georgetown University Law Center
Kee-rist. The lengths you numbnuts will go to in order to avoid confronting the simple issue that you don’t know what you are talking about. You are worse than Paul(frameone), who saw “A few good men” and believes that a LCDR in the JAG Corps is going to be lead attorney to a supreme court case.
No numbnuts, just another liberal activist looking out for the rights of terrorist….move along, nothing to see here….
One would think that after over 4 years, the Bush Administration would at least “attempt” to get legislation regarding these detainees from Congress, both houses being controlled by the president’s own party, and quit trying to make stuff up. But then, they wouldn’t be able to resort to the normal excuse for their incompetence, i.e. blaming democrats.
Just a few:
Jeff Gannon
Ann Coulter
Michellle Malkin
I never even heard of Jeff Gannon — thanks for the tip!
As for the other stuff, what is that supposed to represent? People I agree with?
And I suppose I couldn’t find one liberal blogger / columnist saying what you agree with?
And I suppose I couldn t find one liberal blogger / columnist saying what you agree with?
You already know the answer to that. But a common theme in most of them is that democrats or liberals “hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy”. And, rather than provide an opinion as to whether or not one feels that the USSC ruling is right, it is easier to question someone else’s patriotism or accuse them of wanting to let the country be “overrun by some of the most intolerant people inhabiting the earth” i.e. terrorists.
btw, I cant believe you don’t remember James D. Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon. Remember, he was the phony journalist plant in the whitehouse press corp who threw softball questions to members of the administration. Until he was exposed as a fake.
BTW, while we may disagree vehemently, you don’t really believe that I, for example, hate this country, and want it to be overrun by terrorists, do you? That’s my basic point.
I am not sure you do Bush, but I think Paul and “Fact” and quaker would love it if there was some sort of terrorist action so they could point and say “see, the republicans can’t protect us! Vote for leftists….”
I honestly believe their BDS is so overpowering that they would rather be able to to declare “victory” over republicans than over terrorists.
Try again, Peedro.
Here’s what I wrote that seems to have you flummoxed:
Which branch of service is Mr. Katyal in?
No, it wasn’t. It was a liberal activist law professor who took it to the supreme court numbnuts….just like it says in my multiple sources…
“No numbnuts, just another liberal activist looking out for the rights of terrorist& .”
Unbelievable. I hate to break it to you dipshits but terrorists do indeed have rights, just like anyone else. Why is that such a difficult thing for you to understand? You talk about how the left wants to hand this coutnry over to barbarians out of tolerance. It doesn’t. The left wants to defend the laws and values of this country in the face of barbarism. You, on the other hand, seem content to get down in the mud with the animals. What should we do with the people at Guantamo pedro? Treat them humanely while assuring that they get a fair trial and just punishments or should we just summarily behead them all and broadcast the video to the world? One way requires honor, courage and constant vigilance. The other nothing but the will to savagery. Which way do you want to go?
“…so in order to be accomadating, the leftist would allow this country to be overrun by some of the most intolerant people inhabiting the earth.”
Where do you get this shit, pedro? Seriously.
I cant believe you don t remember James D. Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon.
He was barely even a glow, let alone a flash in the pan.
Yeah, he was that easy to forget. You think I get my “talking points” from a guy who made into the news for two weeks a year and a half ago?
I don’t even listen to Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Hannity.
I’d like to ask you liberals a simple question. In marital therapy, it’s called a “miracle question.”
If by some miracle tomorrow, you were to wake up and find that you were the President, who had dozed off in the Oval Office, what would be the very first thing you would want done (after the execution of Rush Limbaugh — just kidding — I hope).
Then ask yourself: Who might benefit? Who would definitely benefit?
Multiple sources? Is that what floats your boat?
Washington Times: The opening hearing of the first military commission held by the United States in nearly 60 years revolved mainly around a vigorous series of questions raised by Hamdan’s attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, regarding the legitimacy of the court and the qualifications of the five military officers appointed to preside over it.
Yahoo News:
[Photo caption]
USA Today:
More?
Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
tdzv thrmbp odazu yiba gypz lvatowdq uxsfgn