Most Ridiculous Headline Of All Time
on 06/30/2006 at 10:36 AM
And they wonder why we call them Moonbats!
Bollocks, ive never heard of this news paper, whats your problem? you have a major news paper NEW YORK TIMES giving away tons of shit and now you turn on some Brit news paper that i havent heard off, and what the fuck have football thugs got to do with anything? (me sounding like you), all yanks are mass murderers, they read the new york times,give me a breake yo n yo, get your own shit news papers, oh you have got one, the nyt, fucking hell i thought you where better than that skip.
rickved your the fucking MOONBAT, go take a look at the shit in your own country, then come back to me, you fool.
Careful Bulldog or I’ll start quoting Cherie Blair and The Guardian. Or perhaps the Lord High Mayor Of Londonistan? Or MP George Galloway?
Talk about MOONBATS! Yours are in a class by themselves!
BTW, the Krauts just nipped Argentina to move into the semi-finals. Are your chaps up to Portugal tomorrow? Can Beckham manage to score another goal at the last minute?
This is what i dont like, we where right next to you guys when the shit hit the fan, now all Brits are moonbat football scum, why dont you go read some french or german newspapers, they slag you yanks off every day, fucking right get ower boys out of there, Iraq n afgan, and let you yanks get on with it
its 66 all over againe, if we get there
Churchill great leader in the UK, the one in the US im not so sure about, so all you yanks are like him right? moonbat leader.
Tsk, tsk, tsk! I say, Bulldog! Who shat in yer tea this morning, old chum?
Cheer up, old man. You know I’ll be rooting for your football team tomorrow. Have another pint on me. Tell the bartender I said to send the bill to the American Embassy there.
its LONDON fucker
ive tryed that
some bird called china rose beat me to it, i think she was from Ny
Hey? Do I hafta, hafta read anything today? Especially anything irritating and depressing....You CANT give reading assignments on Friday. I’m too busy.
I think this article is a bit over excited and was written in the rather punchy way that some tabloids use. It’s actually pretty funny in it’s own way. Yes, they’re so far on the left that they’re over the horizon, but, stripped of the overzealousness, does what they say have any merit?
I’ve had a chance to wade through some of that SCOTUS’ decision document, and done some rereading of the Geneva Conventions ... and I think this may have been a proper decision. Not totally sure; it’s a lot of reading and it will take some thinking through, but I can sort of see where the 5 Supremes are coming from. But Thomas’s and Scalia’s dissents seem reasonable too. Confusing!
It also looks like these captured fighters are genuine POWs, under Geneva’s Article 4.a.6 :"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”, though the “spontaneously” and “respect the laws and customs” part could be deal breakers. So, if they are POWs, then what this article writes heatedly about is mostly correct. This guy Hamdan would be a POW under 4.a.4 or 4.a.5 definitions. Ok, fine, but POW status was not part of this case. More confusion!
I’m not a lawyer, so this whole pudding is a lot to contemplate. Why are some of these guys on trial anyway? Why are lefties in our country pushing that they even be tried? If they are POWs we can just keep them corralled pretty much forever, as long as they’re fed and clothed. What’s the problem with that?
its not in London so it must be crap,the retard news paper that is.just look at pictures then Beccayinn, page 3 allways makes my day http://www.thesun.co.uk/
The problem is Drew 458 the war could be over by the time youve Finished
Alright, Bulldog. Enough giving folks in the US a hard time for one day. We can kid each other and have a back and forth but let’s keep it friendly. Please.
Man, skipper, when I first read your line about “...makes the NY Times sound like Rush Limbaugh...” I thought you had be exagerating. Surely nobody could be THAT insane.
I was wrong.
RH
come on skip what goes around comes around, sorry guys, but not all us Brits are moonbats,football thugs, left wing ect ect,
ps im sorry but i do like the goat on a pole thing, 
SEE! Goat on a pole is PERFECT for Friday! ;)
Why is my first post clear down on the bottom now? It was closer to the top when I posted it?
Have I been demoted? Now.....where is that ‘tears in my beer’ smiley?
Becca hon, the posts are all time-stamped. Perhaps your comment went through a wormhole and disappeared into the future? If so, tell me how ya did it!
No prob, BD. We know not all Brits are loons. Not all Americans are Moonbats either. That’s why we, the sane, the rational, the good-looking people come here to play.
Speaking of which ....
Everyone have a safe and happy weekend! Be sure to root for the Brits in tomorrow’s World Cup game against the Portu-GEESE. Honk! Honk!
Goat On a Pole! (GOP
??) I needed that one!
Ok, I’ve been thinking some more ... and learning a bit. I did not know that there could be laws made that are beyond the reach of the Supreme Court, but this is the case. Section III of the Constitution, in part says “In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."*** Which means that Congress can pass regulations that have the exception of not being subject to SCOTUS oversight. Which is exactly what the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) did. To quote Scalia, ‘It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee.’
Ok, I’m a little slow sometimes, but this really is Occam’s Razor: Congress has the power to place certain laws/acts beyond SCOTUS’ review. The DTA is one of these laws. Thus the Supremes has no business whatsoever making this ruling; they should never have even heard the case. Thus everything they opined here is meaningless. Son of a bleach. As usual, this is exactly what Scalia wrote.
Having worked things out, let me join the crowd : Get these stinking leftist geriatric hippies off the bench! oh, and also ... That newspaper article is totally full of it!
*** = hmmm, since the legistlative branch actually is empowered to limit the power of the judicial branch in this way, then the judicial branch really can’t be said to be of equal power can it?
Ok, I feel much better now.
yeah, but Drew, if the Supreme Court could undo anything that the other two branches do, it doesn’t make them equal either.
and apparently the Legislative Branch DOESN’T have power over the court, because it appears that the Supreme Court just ‘ignored it’. I think that makes things weighted in favor of the court, no?
Yep Becca. That’s what had Scalia so fired up. If this were Italy and the home of the Medici (Machiaveli) where Scalia is from, the Liberal Supremes would have poison in their wine tonight. End of story. The court overstepped their bounds on this one.
What I’m going to enjoy is what happens when Congress actually does what the Supreme Court said it had to and makes a ‘law’ that can’t be touched, reconsidered, ignored, avoided, voided by them. . . The Liberals just don’t get it, they keep insisting that this is wrong, that is evil and see I’m right and than BAM the truth comes out, the law is passed or the election is lost. I expect that repercussions from this to be mindboggling - coming on the heels of the NYT debacle - I think America is going to say enough. We’ve had it with illegals telling us that they want their rights, the Supremes telling us that terrorists have Constitutional rights (and oh by the way International law says) and the NYTs and others just aiding and abetting these killers. The fall out isn’t going to be pretty and I think that it will help our Troops finally understand that contrary to Rep Murtha - America supports the War and is willing to do what it takes to Finish It. . .
GO ENGLAND - Wow the Brits and Deutchland - should be interesting . . .
Becca, there’s one thing I’ve never quite understood. In the whole Checks and Balances thing, who can tell the court they’re wrong, and how? Aside from yet another ammendment?
Would it be better if they could be overruled somehow? It’s all well and good to have these folks as the supreme arbiters of the law, but when they themselves come to the job with an agenda, BDS, or start playing politics then the system is busted and their decisions will be highly suspect. Should those then be ignored?OTOH, if it’s Ok for them to ignore silly little things like laws and certain parts of the Constitution, then the other two can too, and things just dissolve into anarchy right quick. But I can’t say that this decision shows the courts in a superior power position; they don’t get more power because they broke the rules by ignoring them. Now, how do We The Sheeple bring them to task over this? Heck, how do WT(sh)P bring them to task over any of the bass-ackwards decisions they’ve made lately?
(insert famous latin quote here about who will guard the guardians)
Drew we are on the same place this evening. I mean, sure, there is this little pesky law that says they have no right to hear the case and they ignore it. Okay. Now what do we do? Your point is valid, simply because they ‘assumed’ this power does not mean it is actually theirs....but what do we do?
There is no check or balance (whichever is appropriate here, depending on how ya go) to stop the court from doing this. We can’t appeal it. I suppose we can’t ignore it. I guess I am feeling pretty nervous about the state/future of a country whose highest court in the land can just make whatever ruling it feels like. That can’t be good.
As to the hypothetical argument about 3 co or un equal branches, I am thinking if anything, that last check needs to be tipped in favor of congress (as is under the constitution) There is slightly less chance of all of them (or the few hundred needed to pass these ‘untouchable’ laws catching BDS than a majority of the Supreme Court..
This British Moonbat says:
“All of these activities are expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Denying trials is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Note the key phrase “no person,” as opposed to “no citizen.” The right to trial is not something that the Constitution grants in a conditional manner. It is not conditional upon anything, including citizenship. It is, rather, a hard restriction on government authority. Denying due process is something that the government simply cannot do legitimately. Period.”
Now the 5th Amendment says, and I quote:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Now, the way I read this is that the tribunals apply because “...when in actual service in time of War or public danger...”. Which seems to foot the bill. Convene the tribunals, GWB, it fits.
To quote Misha…
F.E.T.E.
The Hobo
06/30/2006 at 01:08 PM
