As Conspirators know, El G Grande has been very outspoken about the anti-Constitutional manner in which the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted. Without a Declaration of War by Congress, the combatants captured on the battlefield have to be tried under US Code. Since this process would mean affording the "detainees" habeas corpus hearings (as is required under the US Constitution, unless Congress universally lifts the Writ, citing a time of insurrection), the Bush Administration attempted to try them in their "Military Commissions". In 2006, the Supreme Court said, "Ah, no, George. You have to give them habeas trials, and this Military Tribunal thing has not been set up by Congress (Congress has the power to create the courts that are between the state supreme courts and US Supreme Court)." Since the fawning Congress, seemingly unaware of the actual WRITING of the Constitution, thought, "Hey let's just let George try these guys in the tribunals," they voted subsequent to the 2006 Court ruling that there WOULD be military tribunals as legal courts. BUT they ALSO GAVE THE PRESIDENT THE 'POWER' TO SELECTIVELY LIFT THE WRIT OF HABEAS AT HIS DISCRETION -- WHICH IS UM... UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

So, that brings us to 2008, and the Boumedienne decision a month ago. The Court said that the "Military Tribunals" are unconstitutional because they don't afford habeas. So what is the Bush Admin doing? Proceeding with the tribunals ANYWAY. Classy, huh.

People who oppose government in the abstract are called Anarchists, and often depicted as being in favor of "chaos". How much more chaotic and destructive is it to have lawlessness on the part of the people who write and execute the laws based on their on caprice?

Here is the news: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/18/america/18detain.php