Comments (18) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   fennec said, 1 day ago

   Exactly. And we’ve already done it once with Moussaoui.

2. 

   ahab said, 1 day ago

   Clearly and concisely correct!

3. 

   tpenna said, 1 day ago

   Nicely done, Davies!

4. 

   Ken Warren said, 1 day ago

   Great cartoon.

   The Far Right has to remember that this is America (which it is my impression that they hate America) and one of the things this makes us different (and better) then many other countries is THE RULE OF LAW!

   If you don’t have Justice For All then you really don’t have justice for any.

5. 

   ANandy said, 1 day ago

   It is interesting that “THE RULE OF LAW” is drug out to justify the outrage du jour, but “that old thing, the Constitution” is just so inconvenient when the libs pet project is floated.

6. 

   tpenna said, 1 day ago

   ANandy, the only case you’ve got for liberal “pet projects” ignoring the Constitution is related to your distaste for the General Welfare Clause. And that’s fine. But your side has had remarkably little luck overturning federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Good luck with the whole 10th Amendment attack on the current reform package.

   Meanwhile, your indignation would seem a little more sincere if it were matched with similar concern over the last administration’s wanton abridgments of the 4th Amendment.

7. 

   BOB HASTY said, 1 day ago

   ANandy,
   Can you read and understand the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution? If so, what is it about “The Rule of Law” that offends you so much?

   Have you stopped taking your meds again?

8. 

   charliekane said, 1 day ago

   I’ve said it before.

   The entire matter should have been treated as a criminal investigation/prosecution. The “war on terror” has been a misguided project.

9. 

   churchillwasright said, 1 day ago

   At what point did military tribunals in matters of war become unconstitutional?

10. 

    motivemagus said, about 21 hours ago

    And yet the right wing seemed to have no problem with Bush eviscerating the Constitution.

11. 

    person918 said, about 21 hours ago

    wait… wasn’t the reason that these detainees weren’t subject to the rules of the Geneva convention precisely because they weren’t prisoners of war?

12. 

    DrCanuck said, about 18 hours ago

    person: you are correct. Bush/Cheney stated they were NOT prisoners of war so Geneva would not apply and they were NOT lawbreakers so the Constitution would not apply. So they made up a new category: enemy combatant detainees,” that had no rights whatsoever. And they were imprisoned entirely on the basis of having been given that name. And in foreign countries so they could be held indefinitely. Pretty smooth, huh?

13. 

    NoFearPup said, about 18 hours ago

    Who cares where they get coddled and kissed? America is going downhill because of people like the Lib-freak-a-zoids that post here. That’s right, I said, “Lib Freak-a-zoids!”

14. 

    Ken Warren said, about 15 hours ago

    Conservatives love the flag, hate everything it stands for.

15. 

    NoFearPup said, about 14 hours ago

    Oooh, we’re going to try the Gitmo detainees in New York. I feel so much better now ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE GOING TO HELL…

16. 

    churchillwasright said, about 12 hours ago

    Listen you liberal freaks… The Supreme Court did NOT say that these people had to be tried in civilian courts. Holder is doing so at his DISCRESSION. At the same time he is trying others in military courts. Care to explain WHY?

17. 

    motivemagus said, about 5 hours ago

    churchill, take a chill pill. The question in my mind is why the previous administration took people completely out of ANY justice system. Then we can talk about what we should be doing here. I’m fine with putting them through the courts; I’m fine with putting them through military tribunals as long as they follow the proper procedure, but first we have to decide if they are prisoners of war or not!

18. 

    tpenna said, about 4 hours ago

    Wow. Getting a lot of name-calling from the conservatives here. From NoFearPup I expect it. He’s nowhere near as bad as scottfreitas, but his posts frequently reek of bitterness nonetheless.

    But churchillwasright is turning into a bit of a disappointment. A petty taunt and a misspelling (made more obvious by the screaming capital letters)?

    Instead of trusting the sound constraints of our Constitution (which stipulates that we our bound by the international treaties we ratify), I only see Holder’s opponents arguing for expedience. Essentially their argument boils down to the notion that rules and principles are all well and good in theory. But please don’t expect us to follow them in practice.

    The argument is typically accompanied by nice phrases like “tough on terror” and “kid’s gloves are off”. But we all know that these are little more than platitudes meant to soothe us even as the very ideals we demand our public servants must defend are betrayed. It’s well intentioned, no doubt. But it is no less a betrayal.