latimes.com — "The real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda ? a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act."
Jul 2, 2006 View in Crawl 4
lengauJul 2, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.bugmenot.com/view/latimes.com">http://www.bugmenot.com/view/latimes.com</a>BugMeNot accounts.UN:if**kinghate@you.comPW:bugmenot
helix400Jul 2, 2006
What the hell are you talking about?The Supreme Court decision (where liberal court justices appointed by several previous presidents), sided against Bush. Yet this decision is a sham to you. Why? And how in the world are our elections like Saddam's. We get to vote for any candidate we wish, compared to Saddam's, where his is the only name on the ballot?And why do you call the Supreme Court's decision that states Bush's actions are not legal mean we no longer live in a fair government? Supreme Courts have ALWAYS ruled against the president and legislative branch. What makes this instance different?And how in the world can a country that speaks democratically, acts democratically, votes democratically, follows it's own laws, and has a system of checks and balances in case breaches of the law do take place...not be democratic?I swear, Digg is becoming an more and more an extension of Democratic Underground every day.
mistermachineJul 2, 2006
"I actually googled your comment to make sure it wasn't astroturf as it sounded immensely like a pre-packaged GOP mass-submitted editorial. I cannot believe anyone would believe in it."those were my immediate thoughts, too. i found out where he plagiarized it from, too (you'd think - if he wasn't plagiarizing - he would say these words were not his own, and put in a link to where he got them from): <a class="user" href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYwOTYzMWY5NGZlNDM0MTg2MDc3ZjkxYmI4ZmY4NmU=">http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYwOTYzMWY5NGZlNDM0MTg2MDc3ZjkxYmI4ZmY4NmU=</a>
mistermachineJul 3, 2006
From the Digg Terms of Service:"6. COPYRIGHT COMPLAINTSDigg respects the intellectual property of others.If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitues copyright infringement, please email abuse@digg.com."brick71 - you should be a bit more careful to attribute "your" comments to their actual owner. it's, at the very least, dishonest to post the national review's editorial as your own words.
sixlocalJul 3, 2006
replied to the wrong one
obkenobiJul 3, 2006Submitter
[quote]So the war on terror is potentially not even legal, according to international law?[/quote]I assume it's illegal to willfully submit false information to the UN Security Council, isn't it?Yeah, I know, good luck proving they willfully did it. But I think we all know that Bush (I mean his father) planned this war with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole Neocon cabal before Bush (the son) was ever elected. At least as early as 1995, when they wrote a letter to Clinton imploring him to invade Iraq.9/11 and the Anthrax letters was the excuse they've been waiting for ever since the failed coup against Saddam in 1991. Was Saddam that much of a threat? I wonder. Look at the middle-east without him.
mordechaiJul 3, 2006
Assuming Roberts would have voted as he did before, this ruling was effectively 5-4. That suggests that the issue was anything but clear cut. Part of the reason the US has the system of checks-and-balances it does (of which this is a good example) is that even with the best of intent, in the course of carring out their responsibilities, it is easy to overstep the allotted authority. Leading a civilized country during times of war and maintaining that civility in the face of the atrocities of the other side isn't an easy task.While I happen to agree that Bush did overstep, though perhaps not by as wide a margin as many others here seem to think. Living in Israel can give one an appreciation for depths of inhumanity the terrorists are capable of.reaching.
loren04Apr 29, 2009
Ok lets see if I got this right,,,, the one man who had enough guts to stand against those who want to harm us may potentially be tried,, Let me say this and be clear,,, If former President Bill Clinton had done his job as comander-n-chief and wasn't chasing women, looking after our country instead of reverting back to his college days as a womenizer, 9-11 may have been stopped. where was everyone when the great president who not only kept our country safe but said from the get go,,, we will hunt these monsters down,,, and any country who gives them safe passage is against us, that this war will outlast his presidency we will endure at all cost any sufferring etc. as well as he freed 2 nations of people, don't make me ashamed that I have served my country. My pride is with President Bush,,, HHOOORRRAAAH
rasplanetAug 4, 2009
I remember how I felt on 9/11. I wanted to shove objects up al quedas ass and torture every raghead son of a bitch on earth. I still do. I don't want to see our president prosecuted for war crimes even though I think he's a dumb ass. I'm not a republican or a democrat. I am an "American". I side with any man who wants to preserve our freedom and culture. I served my country to protect its people. I say take these ragheads out and hang them. What better place than gitmo? As long as we keep holding them, the controversy will continue. Oh! and take their sympathizers out too. Where were these damn bleeding hearts when the citizens of NY were picking up body parts. The people elected Bush, even for a second term. No one has the right to judge him even though he is a tyrant. He did what he had to do. Congress are the MFers that need to be prosecuted. If we don't stop dividing our country into two groups, we may all end up speaking arabic.