The Liberty Seven case is looking more and more like entrapment, eh? Anyone surprised by that???
http://www.rawstory.com/...
They are so desperate to have something to show for their wholesale trashing of civil rights and the rule of law that I have no doubt they'd have manufactured the entire thing if it were necessary.
Now the Neocon rat pack have latched on to the SCOTUS decision on Hamdan, like you knew they would. I heard some radiopundit last night talking about how they had completely disregarded the fact that the "enemy combatants" we have "seized from the battlefields" are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection because they don't meet the GC definition of protected persons. The commentator went on to suggest that something needs to be done about a Supreme Court out of control.
There are so many things wrong with that load of manure it's mindblowing. We know that a large number of the poor bastards who've found themselves stuck in Gitmo over the years were neither "enemy combatants" nor persons "seized from the battlefields." Many of them were actually seized from their homes by bounty hunters, and something like 150 have been released without ever being charged.
Regardless of who they are and what they might be suspected of doing, anyone detained by the US in Gitmo for any reason is entitled to GC protection. A cursory examination of GC4's definition of protected persons proves it.
"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."
Reading GC4, it almost seems as if the language was created specifically to cover exactly the kind of megalomania that BushCo represent, in terms of disregard for international law and human rights.
As far as "doing something about the Supreme Court," they've already done something! They've put two of their cronies/sycophants on the Court and they still bitch about the decisions. Too bad about Roberts' recusal, but it wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't done so, eh?
You really have to wonder, especially when you can't believe a single word they (BushCo) say, what they really had to gain by locking up all those people in Gitmo and elsewhere. You can understand all the after-the-fact secrecy and denial of rights to the people incarcerated there. They can't have people finding out what they've been doing to these prisoners, or how they in fact came to be prisoners. But what did they hope to accomplish by putting them there in the first place? It doesn't appear to be a big moneymaker of any sort, like so much of the "war on terror" is. There's a little green for some contractors, I guess, including whoever's building the new Gitmo prison. About the only reason I can see is that it looks like they're actually doing something if they lock up some "bad guys." It helps to create a façade of fighting terrorism.