"Impeachment is simply the proper, lawful and constitutional solution. You would prefer what? (and please don't even bother us with your reality and history defying fantasies about what "more and better" democrats might do sometime down the road, in the future)"

Of course impeachment is the proper solution but, in reality (sorry if that concept bothers you) it isn't going to happen. That is a certainty.

Of course I would prefer that it was a realistic solution but it isn't. The votes, neither Republican or Democrat, are not there and they won't be there in this Congress. That's just fact. Hell, we can't even get so-called Democrats to vote against the administration on less important bills. I don't see how anyone in their right mind thinks that getting a 2/3rds majority in today's Senate is even remotely possible.

You seem to doubt that future a Congress will do anything different but seem to be denying the reality that the current Congress won't do what you prefer.

The solution will be to work to get more and better Congressmen and Congresswomen into office and then roll-back the excesses of this administration. You seem to have given up on that happening and with your attitude it won't.

There is, for example, the possibility that an honest Justice Department will open the books on this administration and file criminal charges where applicable. There's also the possibility that an international court will take matters into their hands and do whatever is necessary to being these clowns to justice. Hopefully, once the books are open, the American public can/will be convinced that it's proper and whatever administration is in power will be pressured into cooperating with the international court.

What I do know, is that by following through on impeachment activity that has no chance of succeeding will cause such a public uproar that any chance of justice prevailing will surely be lost and might even cost the opportunity for future action.

Frankly, I'd like to see the major players in this administration hauled before the International Court at the Hague and tried for war crimes. Cooperation in that effort would go a long way towards re-establishing this country's reputation, which a failed impeachment proceeding would not even come close to doing. It's likely that the world's perception of us as a lawless state would be bolstered by an impeachment fiasco. We'd be seen as putting the stamp of approval on Bush's activities.

But that's just reality.

Niters.

"As a member of academia, you would be among the first to see Gitmo from the inside."

That would certainly put him there before the defense lawyers who are charged with defending those "terrists" who are currently awaiting trial there.

I am gratified that you're finally begining to see the light, Shooter. There may be hope for you after all.

Thank you for your service. I do have a question for you about Naval slang though.

Now, I know what a gedunk is. I also know what "Sweepers Man Your Brooms" means. Things like bulkhead, topside, deck, "birdfarm", and "pogeybait" are easy.

I'm having trouble with the meaning of the term "wet start". Can you help?

Thanks in advance.

* This is NOT about Americans relinquishing a fundamental right. That hasn't happened.

* This is NOT about Americans relinquishing 200 years of law. That hasn't happened.

* This IS about extending those things to aliens, outside the US, in our custody.

* Casually equating the death of 3000 souls with a fraudulent premise is just vulgar pathology.

* Denigrating their existence even as human beings, with the expression of detached satisfaction of "crisped" is obscene.

* In short, not only is he wrong, he's willing to use depraved verbal imagery to shock and offend.

* This was standard fare around Bush, but he's not running. Two other people are, and having libs transfer BDS to this election is wrong, inappropriate, and self-destructive. (As others have noted).

Since the Military Commissions Act gives the President (and his designaee) the sole power to declare who is and who is not an illegal enemy combatant, subject to the military commisions the Supreme Court ruled on today, there is nothing holding back a president from declaring your sorry ass as an illegal enemy combatant and confine you in some hellhole. Absent habeus rights, you, even as a US citizen, wouldn't be able to legally object to said confinement and would possibly waste away to a pile of odeous dust before anyone knew where you were. THAT's why this decision is important. It even protects you.

Now, Shooter, if you people want this decision overruled by some future case, then you people should by all means vote for President who will appoint judges who will vote along side Scalia and Thomas and then you'll be eligible for Gitmo too!

"I believe this 2004 decision says STFU. Heh.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of United States citizens to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants.

"

Actually, no, Shithead242. If it were not for this decision, how would you prove that you were a US citizen who must be afforded the right of habeas? Without that priviledge, your sorry ass could be sitting in Gitmo moaning and groaning about how "they can't do this to me" while your Marine guards stick broom handles up your ass to get you to STFU.

All this, when all you were asking for is an attorney to present your birth certificate or passport to the Warden along with that writ you seem to rely on.

Heh.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking NASCAR.

Pull my finger.

Do you think I am a "surly lurker".

Personally, I don't believe I am either a lurker or surly. As a matter of fact, my demeanor here is positively loaded with jocularity, don't you think?