section eight

Well what if this man had joined another regular army that was engaged in hostile actions against the U.S.? Would he have been tried by a military or a civilian court for Treason? I would think the former but who knows, because at the time there really wasn't a guideline save for Ex Parte Quirin which didn't mention the words citizens or aliens.

Bottom line is that he got his Habeas Corpus, the system works.


He was being held as an unlawful enemy combatant, he knew damn well what he was being detained for.

The reason why his petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus was originally denied was not because it was asserted that he didn't have that right but because the court argued that his lawyer was not a proper "next friend".


In 2002 less than a year after 9-11 not many people would have objected had done such a thing. All in all I think the POTUS has been rather restrained in his response to the single largest attack on U.S. soil in the entire history of this republic.


I think there was sufficient evidence against him that pumping him for information to possibly avert other plots was the right course of actions, if he had known of planned attacks and they waited to interrogate him until after he was convicted then it would have been to late.

Orius

What if he turned into a purple cockatil and tried to bomb the white house with pillows?

Bottom line is that an attempt was made to deny them by POTUS. I'm right.

What he knew or didn't know is irrelevant.

Under his 6th Amendment Constitutional rights, he shouldn't have needed a writ in the first place.

What you think POTUS was justified in doing is irrelevant to the legal facts.

Well that's subjective now isn't it.

Thanks for the debate.

section eight

That would be a site.

Petitions for writs of Habeas Corpus is how the process works.

Truth Detector

You have to be getting dizzy with so much spinning.

The latest spin suggests that miraculously Barrack Hussein Obama's exit strategy is now endorsed by the Iraqi Government and makes all Barrack Hussein Obama's previous statements MOOT.

McCain stated it perfectly:

"When a further conditions-based withdrawal of US forces is possible, it will be because we and our Iraqi partners built on the successes of the surge strategy, which Senator Obama opposed, predicted would fail, voted against and campaigned against in the primary," McCain said in a statement.

It begs the question, would the Iraqi Government even be in a position to suggest a timeline for withdrawal had Barrack been in charge a year ago suggesting a "surge strategy" would fail, being against the "surge strategy" and claiming that the "surge strategy" had failed?

But of course this is all speculation. The notion that the Iraqi Government supports Barrack Hussein Obama's strategy in such a vacuum can only be spun by those who wallow in denial and hypocrisy.

Let's take a short walk back in history:

Iraqi President Foresees US Troop Withdrawal Within 2 Years

Washington
10 April 2005
Iraq's new president says U.S. and other allied forces are still needed in his country, but that he hopes a withdrawal of foreign troops will be possible within the next two years.

President Jalal Talabani dismissed the possibility of an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal, as demanded by Shi'ite militants during a recent demonstration in Baghdad. But, speaking on CNN's Late Edition program, Mr. Talabani vowed Iraq will create condition that will eventually allow foreign forces to leave. "We are in great need to have American and other allied forces in Iraq until we will be able to rebuild our military forces. I think within two years we can do it, and we will remain in full consultation and coordination with our American friends who came to liberate our country," he said.
Iraqi President Foresees US Troop Withdrawal Within 2 Years

Now it begs the question; was this also support of Barracks strategy which was against the war, against the surge and now suggests that we need a definate timeline regardless of the situation on the ground?

I think not.

Iraqi president eyes huge US troop withdrawal
Oct 7, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States could withdraw more than 100,000 troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008 but should retain three permanent bases, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Sunday.

Interviewed on CNN in Washington, Talabani also backed a US Senate plan to decentralize Iraq along ethnic lines, but the ethnic Kurd said he opposed an independent Kurdistan.

"More than 100,000 can be back by the end of the next year," he said of the US troop presence in Iraq, which would leave about 30,000 personnel once a limited withdrawal planned by US President George W. Bush is complete.

AFP: Iraqi president eyes huge US troop withdrawal

Only those wallowing in historic ignorance can even ACT like this is news from the Iraqi's who have been saying these things since 2005. But had we followed the advice of Democrats and those in the Iraqi Cabinet who did not understand the fragility of their precarious political position, it is highly unlikely Barrack Hussein Obama could have made these statements today:

"I believe that the situation in Iraq is more secure than it was a year and a half ago. I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it," Obama said at a news conference in Jordan shortly after he landed here for the next stop on an international tour that also will take him to capitals in the Middle East and Europe.

Obama, who has argued the success of the Bush administration strategy in Iraq should be judged on long-term political reconciliation, conceded signs of progress in that direction. He cited the Maliki government's offensives in Basr and Sadr City against militias from his own Shiite sect. He called those offensives "a confidence-building measure." Some Shiite militia groups have targeted Sunnis in sectarian killings.

The Swamp

Gee Barrack Hussein Obama, I am not surprised that it would be a shocker to you, you who argued for defeat, to see that the efforts of our troops and their high level of morale has resulted in allowing for more security and confidence building in the Iraqi Government.

Yes, when you have the simplistic mentality of a child, it surely would come as a surprise that the EFFORT and SACRIFICE of the troops you claimed are failures would lead to POSITIVE results.

It’s amazing that Barrack Hussein Obama's disciples now want to hijack the success they so desperately argued would NOT happen in previous months and years.

It is truly BEYOND hypocrisy; it borders on insanity.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

hrdman2luv

Iraq's largely autonomous Kurdish region passed its own oil law today, despite Iraq's parliament having failed to pass a national law after months of negotiations by the country's main political blocs.

Kurdish officials stressed that it had been drawn up in line with the national constitution and did not contradict the federal law, which Iraq's leaders agreed on 3 July but has not yet been sent to parliament.

The draft federal oil law is now in limbo while the national parliament is on its summer break for the month of August. No date has been set to debate it.
Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, which are mainly in the north and the south of the country.

The national hydrocarbon law is seen as pivotal by Washington to reconciling warring Iraqis, rebuilding Iraq's shattered economy and attracting foreign investment.

After a week-long debate, Kurdish lawmakers passed the Petroleum Law of the Kurdistan Region unanimously.

"We have freedom and now we have a law that enables us to make new projects and sign new contracts for the benefit of our people," Kurdistan's Minister for Natural Resources Ashti Hawrami told Reuters afterwards.

"There is no problem with the previous contracts that we signed already before issuing this law, but we will review them to persuade all of them that these contracts are legal."

The Kurdistan region has signed several agreements with foreign companies.

The Kurdish law provides for the establishment of the Kurdistan National Oil Company and says "the regional government shall share revenue derived from petroleum with all the people of Iraq."

Kurdistan forced renegotiation of the national hydrocarbon law, fearing that it gave the federal government too much control over oil exploration, revenue sharing and negotiating contracts with foreign companies.

__________________
"A vote for a Democrat or a Republican in 2008, is a wasted vote"