You know, maybe we do need to join the Republican Party to influence their rebirth. We can join up with honest conservatives and moderates to reform the Party. It might also scare the hell out of the lawless, corporate Democrats.

Sadly, this is a perfect cartoon.

I had no idea you were coming to Salon. Fantastic! I noticed that poor little Dougie Feith didn't make the list (yet). Ah, poor Dougie. I'm sure if we actually have an investigation we may just have to add to your solid list of 13. And if we don't have an investigation we may have to start a new list of those who made torture an option for future administrations to use with Obama and Holder at the top of the list.

LOL. I think our politicians and establishment media personalities must own stock in Comedy Central. Why else would they consistently provide such absurdly funny material for comics all across the country?

A federal judge has ruled that the US government can detain terror suspects indefinitely, if they helped plan or carry out the 9/11 attacks.

In his opinion, Judge Bates ruled that the president "has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorised, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 11 September 2001, and persons who harboured those responsible for those attacks".

"The president also has the authority to detain persons who are or were part of Taliban or al-Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a belligerent act in aid of such enemy armed forces," he added.

But he could "find no authority in domestic law or the law of war, nor can the government point to any, to justify the concept of 'support' as a valid ground for detention".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8060069.stm

Here's more info on the Bates ruling. Looks like Obama didn't get EVERYTHING he wanted.

Judge John D. Bates (D.D.C.) ruled today that the government lacks authority to detain individuals in the global struggle against terrorism based merely upon their "substantial support" of Taliban, al Qaida, or associated forces or merely upon their "direct support" in aid of such forces.

Bates's ruling comes in response to the Obama administration's refined position on detainable individuals, filed with the court on March 13. Under the Obama administration's preferred definition, the government would have had authority to detain not only those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" of 9/11 and anyone who harbored them, but also those who "substantially supported" Taliban, al Qaida, or associated forces and those who "directly supported hostilities" in aid of those forces.

In a separate case, Judge Walton (D.D.C.) previously approved the administration's preferred approach in its entirety.

Bates concluded that the government had authority under the AUMF and the laws of war to detain those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" for the same reasons that Walton so concluded.

But Bates broke with Walton on the "substantial support" component and ruled that the government lacked authority under the AUMF and the laws of war to detain those who merely "substantially supported" Taliban, al Qaida, or associated forces, or those who "directly supported" hostilities in aid of such forces. Bates suggested that allowing the administration to detain these individuals may run afoul of separation-of-powers principles (because the President would be operating beyond Congressional authorization and outside the laws of war) and nondelegation principles (because the administration's preferred interpretation would have meant that the AUMF was too vague and left the administration to make law).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/05/judge-bates-no-detention-based-merely-on-substantial-support.html

Pdf file

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1236-116

Thanks for the links, ej.

Am I correct in thinking that now that there are two different rulings on whether Obama can indefinitely detain those who provided "support" that this will probably go to the Supreme Court for a final determination?

Thanks Ondelette. That article was much better than the one I found. LOL

Will this now go to the Supreme Court because of the two different rulings?

On Hardball tonight Chris Matthews was talking with Saxby Chambliss and Ben Nelson about Guantanamo prisoners. Out of nowhere Matthews says something to the effect of ...Why don't we just execute them and be done with it. And this man was going to run for the Senate. Gawd - he is so pathetic but all we could do was to change the channel. My fiance said..we voted the Republicans out now how can we vote to remove these A-holes from our establishment media?

Julian Epstein told TV viewers before Hardball came on that all of the issues we care about here, like Guantanamo, state secrets, torture, etc. are "B" list issues for Obama. Isn't THAT special.

Thank you. By the way you shouldn't feel a twinge of guilt for making your statement. You were right to state what should have been obvious to the person you responded to in your post.

Sorry T.H. I didn't know you made the comment earlier in the thread. I'm with you, I was appalled by his statement. I didn't stick around to find out how Chambliss and Nelson responded to that comment. I certainly hope they didn't agree with him. Did you hear their response?

daka101, you evidently credit him with more intelligence than I do. I don't think he was just being provocative, I think that's how he thinks. They have the video up on this at MSNBC already. It's some 6 plus minutes into the video.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30853424