Mr. Obama, please weigh in on the imminent (?) FISA cave in.

Yesterday C&L posted:
Mukasey Says Despite Supreme Court Decision, Gitmo Trials Will Continue

And in the comments many expressed the opinion that "nothing would change."

The Center for Constitutional Rights has led all three suits for the Detainees for their Habeas Corpus Rights.

Yesterday they released their analysis of this recent decision:
Legal Analysis: Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States

In it they state:

..
We hope that the lower courts will quickly move to hold hearings in the 200-odd pending individual habeas corpus cases where detainees are challenging their indefinite detention without charges. Already, today, the Chief Judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia has called for a meeting of the judges to determine how to proceed. Numerous lawyers filed notices and motions today in pending habeas cases to move them forward immediately. We anticipate that many of these cases will be decided swiftly because the government lacks any factual or legal basis for imprisoning the men. Without today’s decision these men might have remained in detention forever without ever having a real chance to argue for their release before an impartial court. With habeas these men – so many of whom have been officially cleared for release by the military – would never have been locked up and abused because no court was watching. We believe the majority of them will be released once the executive is forced to show up in front of a federal judge and justify their detention with hard evidence.

The decision’s impact upon the pending military commission cases is indirect. It is likely those trials will continue to progress at their current halting pace. Today’s opinion only means that the defendants in those commissions proceedings – less than 20 men are currently charged – may commence parallel proceedings arguing that they should not have ever been detained in the first place.

Other significant issues may be litigated as well: most detainees are being held in solitary confinement, including dozens who are cleared for release; most are losing their minds as a result. In habeas proceedings, petitioners should be able to argue for more humane conditions of confinement. Many detainees are also cleared for release to countries where they may face torture; these men are basically in the position of refugees and countries that can offer them asylum will have to be found before they can be released. A significant issue for the habeas cases will also be challenges to the government’s reliance upon information obtained through torture or unlawful coercion to justify the detentions.
..

So this decision definitely makes a big difference for over 200 detainees - against whom no charges have been filed - and may prove equally momentous for the fewer than 20 against whom charges have been filed.

And today the NY Times says:
Detainee Lawyers to Use Ruling for New Attacks

A day after the Supreme Court’s ruling granting detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention in federal court, military defense lawyers said they planned to use the decision to mount new attacks on the government’s war crimes prosecutions that could stall or stop trials.

The new attack on the military commission system at Guantánamo will directly challenge a public declaration by the Justice Department after the ruling Thursday. The department said that detainees have numerous legal protections and that “military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward.”
..
The military lawyers said they would use the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling to argue that if detainees have habeas rights they are also entitled to other constitutional protections. They say the Constitution would bar the planned trials, asserting that legal procedures at Guantánamo violate basic legal protections. The lawyers cited commission rules that permit hearsay and evidence derived by coercion as examples of commission procedures that they argued would not be permitted by the Constitution.
...

Check out the Hoffmania link and be sure to watch the video. It's over 7 minutes long, but well worth seeing. McCain blocks the release of information that might have led to the discovery of more POW's or the fate of MIAs because it might also show him singing like a canary to his captors! I don't care that he sang like a canary, but I do care that he cared more about that than the fate of fellow soldiers.

xoites defends Constitution @ 6:

Fred Hobbs who is a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member in Tennessee said:

"I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him,” Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. “He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be.”

An open letter to Fred Hobbs

Dear Fred Hobbs,

I would like to applaud your recent statement implying Barack Obama is a terrorist. We here at Bigots United for McCain know that John can not possibly win on the issues. We need fine upstanding Americans like you to muddy the waters and cast doubt on the character and frankly the citizenship of the presumptive Democratic Nominee. We simply do not need a black man in office. Do we want our grade school children pointing to Africa on the map thinking it is where they live? No Sir!

If Obama gets in we will not be able to privatize Social Security and the country may very well spend a lot of money on health care for its populous instead of fighting wars in far off exotic lands. By the way, did you know Obama is Exotic? He is! And you can call him that on TV and not have to apologize!

John McCain can’t say so but he appreciates your support so I will say it for him. We love your strong commitment to your race and to the Presidential race being won by a real American who is not black.

Remember! Race, Party and then Country!

Michael Meehan

Executive Director
Bigots United for McCain

2 thumbs up!

The Manchurian Candidate. Ever wonder why McVietCong hates America?

Xoites, you should visit Jesus General and have a beer or three. I think the two of you are kindred spirits. ;)

Cannot link from this computer. John Dean is always worth reading

Bananaphone @ 11:

Xoites, you should visit Jesus General and have a beer or three. I think the two of you are kindred spirits. ;)

Thanks. I rushed him off a copy of my letter. :)

RE: Bananaphone

John McCain: War Hero or North Vietnam's Go-To Collaborator?

http://www.counterpunch.com/valentine06132008.html

Radio talk show host Michael Reagan has recently called for the murder of Mark Dice and other individuals in the 9/11 truth movement on his syndicated radio show.

Reagan: Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead.

Reagan is soliciting a contract for murder on Dice and others who provide information on the 9/11 attacks and other instances of government sponsored terrorism to U.S. military personnel in Iraq by offering to pay for the bullets. This is a felony and he should be immediately taken off the air and arrested.

I’ll pay for the bullets"

Paul @ 19:

Re: FISA.
What does Steny Hoyer get for betraying the Constitution? I don't get it. But, damn if he doesn't seem committed to doing it. That asshole need to be put on the streets, because he is screwing the country. Is he on the take from the telecoms?

Jim Webb voted for telecom immunity in the senate. And yet many Dems want Obama to select him for VP. Go figure.

Claire McCaskill voted for telecom immunity in the senate. And yet she is supported as Obama's running mate, too. Go figure.

Bill Nelson (Florida) also voted for immunity. Likewise in his support for VP.

We can't expect our Dem congresscritters to do the right thing if we reward them when they do the wrong thing. And in this case, support an unconstitutional law.

I find the foreclosure map interesting. Sure can't be jobs (can it?), why are North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi and West Virginia so low? "Old fashioned moral and fiscal values?" So where did Tennessee go wrong? Why isn't New York in the situation of Nevada and Arizona?