There's a lot of things I'd like to never see.  One of them is fucking republicans.  All that doughy white flesh...

Hasn't Larry Craig and his bea . .wife suffered enough?  He was just saying hello . . . under the stall.

*Edited to add: I'm starting to feel a little punchy.

Sorry, Tom, but you forced my...er...um...hand!

Matt Reed:

You are the greatest man alive!!!!!! Fuck, Obama -- I say Reed in '08!

Oh, my good Lord, Matt! 

That's... oddly fascinating, though I doubt I'll use it as a desktop pic.

Just to say -- and I don't even think Scott will disagree -- I don't think there's even a GAY man alive who doesn't like boobies! 

It's the stuff... down there... that I find icky...

"Yes.  US borders.  I forget which state Guantanamo is in.  Can you refresh my memory?  :P"

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you needed this spelled out. By "within US borders" I meant within the borders of US states, protectorates, territories, military bases, embassies  and any other place where the US asserts jurisdiction. Which includes GITMO.

The Bush administration's claim that certain US laws don't apply because the Guantanamo base is not a part of the US proper is bullshit. If it were true, even the US personnel serving there would be without legal rights (those guaranteed by US laws.)

I'd like to see McCain make a similar claim that US bases on foreign soil don't count as "The United States" in terms of legal rights, if only for the reason that he would thereby renounce his legal right to run for president, as he was born in US controlled Panama.

(To avoid confusion, I do not think that McCain is ineligible for the presidency. I just think that if the claim that US laws don't apply on US installations on foreign soil was valid, he might be.)

Geoff, while I don't believe you're being intentionally disingenuous, the crux of Scott's point is valid.  The Court's "functionality" argument--vis a vis definition of the scope of sovereignty in a de facto vs de jure sense--is definitely a 'new view' in terms of the extension of the right to pursue the writ by enemy combatants.  Even the Majority admits this fact.

I've not yet read the decision -- just the article in the Times, but I thought I articulated that issue was the applicability of access to the Federal Civilian Courts for writs of habeas corpus for foreign combatants.  Scott articulated that the constitution does not apply to non-citizens (which as I read the term would include those who are decidely not combatants) which is just not true.  My subsequent comments weren't my "legal" analysis but more my philosophical (or ideological if your prefer) thoughts on the matter.  And I thought I defined them as such. 

This wasn't the basis for the Government's arguments, Knut.  The basis for the Government's arguments rested in the Eisentrager decision and the nature of the detainees as enemy combatants.

I agree with that.  I think the issue was muddied.  Let me see if I can clarify (to myself even).  I blame myself because I am a little out of it today.

The decision handed down today did not deal with non-citzens generally, but non citizen combatants.  Scott's initial post argued that Constitution does not apply to non-citizens.  Generally speaking the protections of the Constitution apply to citzens and non-citizens alike on US Soil.  I read that to mean Scott was saying that the prisioners, by virtue of being non-citzens did not have constitutional rights.  I clarified by saying the issue involved non-citizen combatants.  I then offered an opinion (not based in law just my own crazy ideas of fairness) that our laws should be applied equally regardless of citzenship.  The waters were muddied by the US Soil argument that I initally misunderstood and thought it was meant to apply (again) just to non-citizens.  So I thinks thats is the source of confusion.