No go on Gitmo

In a decision sure to infuriate conservative politicians and lawyers even as it receives praise abroad and from civil libertarians, a surprisginly fiesty U.S. Supreme Court this morning rejected the Bush Administration's use of military tribunals to process the Guantanamo Bay detainees. In a 5 to 3 vote, the Court's majority declared that both the Constitution and the mandate of the Geneva Convention outlawed the planned military tribunals that executive branch officials had come up to prosecute the men. So it's now back to the drawing board, for the second time, for an Administration that has come under ever-increasing political pressure to do something about the foreign nationals held captive in Cuba.

The ruling is long. I will have more in a bit.

By Andrew Cohen |  June 29, 2006; 8:47 AM ET
Previous: The Story of Life and Death | Next: Back to the Drawing Board


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Thank god for Justice Stevens et al. The Bush Administration will not be allowed to turn the president into an emperor.

Posted by: Adrian | June 29, 2006 10:58 AM

I wonder who the three justices against this decision might be -- anyone care to hazard a guess? Poor Alito, apparently five justices still don't buy the unitary executive garbage.

Posted by: spellchecker | June 29, 2006 11:01 AM

Very interesting. But Bush's lawyers have argued that, under their broad interpretation of the power of the executive in wartime, the President can pick and choose what laws he wants to obey. Hence the notorious signing statements. Why can't he treat this judgment similarly?

Posted by: David Pugh | June 29, 2006 11:02 AM

I am glad that the Supreme Court decided to end the reign of King George and his abhorrent misuse of executive power.

If we are to be a nation of laws how can we accept the presumptive argument of, if I'm President I can do what I want.?

Posted by: Ruth L Wexler | June 29, 2006 11:08 AM

As the Bush administration continues to peck away at our civil liberties it is comforting to know that we do have at least 5 clear heads in the Supreme Court. Many Americans might think that this is a bad decision and is letting terrorists off the hook but they need to realize what a slippery slope we have been on since this administration came to power and POWER is what is really all about isn't it?

Posted by: Amy Levey | June 29, 2006 11:14 AM

Remember that Roberts was interviewing for the SCOTUS bench (associate justice) when he was hearing this case without defense counsel knowing it. It was an unconscionable non-recusal and not notifying Hamadan's lawyer was borderline illegal.

Posted by: trblmkr | June 29, 2006 11:23 AM

The decision of the Supreme Court gives me hope and may help change the horrid reputation that America has under King George.

Long Live Democracy!!!

Posted by: kat356h | June 29, 2006 11:27 AM

Now, after five of nine Justices have found the Separation of Powers still exists, will we find at least there are more members of the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party," other than Feingold, Kennedy, and Durbin, who will recover their voices and speak for their constituents rather than succomb to Karl Rove's tyranny? Me thinks the Emporer may yet be seen to wear no clothes!

Posted by: Richard Bailly | June 29, 2006 11:36 AM

Here's hoping this is the first of many cases where Justice Kennedy moves his vote to the center. It has been disturbing for some time to watch as Justices Scalia and Thomas goose-step their way from decision to decision. Now that Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts have joined their uber-conservative regiment it is more important than ever that Justice Kennedy exercise his swing vote muscle. The alternative is frightening.

Posted by: Shawn Abele | June 29, 2006 11:39 AM

For once a Supreme Court decision which recognizes that they don't have to kow tow to every power grab by the administration. Nothing should be more offensive to Americans than the practice of locking up people without trial, without the right to confront witnesses, without the right to review by a civilian court. Our country was founded on the principle that the accused should have the right to examine the evidence against them and to present their side of the story. If we are not going to give the Gitmo prisoners the rights of prisoners of war, then we have to come up with something which will allow them the ability to question the often flimsy bases for their detention. So many of those held at Gitmo are there because someone pointed them out to our forces and called them terrorists in exchange for a $5,000 or better reward. How can we presume that all who are there deserve to be there on such paltry evidence?

Posted by: Carla | June 29, 2006 11:40 AM

Major portions of the ruling:

The Military Commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional act .... Contrary to the government's assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognised that Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution and the common laws of war, the President already had to convene military commissions - with the express condition that he and those under his command comply with the laws of war.

Neither the AUMF (Authorization for Military Force - September 18, 2001) nor the DTA (Detainee Treatment Act 2005) can be read to provide specific, overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan ....

Assuming that the AUMF acivated the President's war powers ... there is nothing in the AUMF's text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21. Likewise, the DTA cannot be read to authorize this commission. Although the DTA ... was enacted after the President convened Hamdan's commission, it contains no language auuthorizing that tribunal or any other at Guantanamo Bay. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution and laws, including the laws of war.

The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949 .....

Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan's Commission Trial are illegal ....

There is no suggestion, e.g., of any logistical difficulty in securing properly sworn and authenticated evidence or in applying the usual principles of relevance and admissibility. It is not evident why the danger posed by international terrorism, considerable though it is, should require ... any variance from the courts-martial rules. The absence of any showing of impracticability is particularly disturbing when considered in the light of the clear and admitted failure to apply one of the most fundamental protections afforded not just by the Manual for Courts-Martial but also by the UCMJ itself : The right to be present....

While Common Article 3 (Geneva Convention) does not define its "regularly constituted court" phrase, other sources define the words to mean an "ordinary military court" that is "established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country." The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statute ....

Even assuming that Hamden is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment....

Posted by: David Phillips | June 29, 2006 12:06 PM

"Remember that Roberts was interviewing for the SCOTUS bench (associate justice) when he was hearing this case without defense counsel knowing it. It was an unconscionable non-recusal and not notifying Hamadan's lawyer was borderline illegal."

Posted by: trblmkr | June 29, 2006 11:23 AM

You may have learned this by now, but the ruling was 5-3. Apparently Roberts did recuse himself.

The three against were Scalia, Thomas, & Alito.

Posted by: MarkusB | June 29, 2006 12:11 PM

"Very interesting. But Bush's lawyers have argued that, under their broad interpretation of the power of the executive in wartime, the President can pick and choose what laws he wants to obey. Hence the notorious signing statements. Why can't he treat this judgment similarly?

Posted by: David Pugh | June 29, 2006 11:02 AM"

Most of the signing statements that I have seen described in the press have said that he will comply with the law to the extent that it does not infringe on his Constitutional powers as President/Commander in Chief. They have not said that he will simply ignore the law. It should be difficult for him to use his signing statements as authority to ignore a Supreme Court decision.

Posted by: wally | June 29, 2006 12:26 PM

Finally, we are coming to our senses. I thank the 5 Supreme Court judges for their clarity and moral judgements. What I hope this does is stop other countries from doing the same thing this administration has done with impunity. My fear all along is to have a rogue nation copycat this administration's "Gitmo" where they would round-up, arrest and detain our soldiers indeterminately without due process.

We must continue to lead by example and not lead by "do as I say" but "not as I do".

Posted by: Lydia N | June 29, 2006 12:34 PM

I applaud the 5 Justices who have stood for American Values today. One of those values is the human right to a fair trial before being deprived of one's freedom. This human right is recognized by Americans to exist even when one's nation does not recognize it. It appears in our Constitution, not because we wanted to create a right out of thin air, but because we perceived that such a right exists whether we specifically say it does. Since the right is intrinsic, noone who upholds American Values would want to run the risk that innocent people are being held at Guantanamo, and would be unwilling to simply accept Adminstration assurances of detainee guilt.

Bravo to the 5 moral Justices.

Posted by: Matthew G. Leeds | June 29, 2006 01:35 PM

Why does the U. S.Constitution apply to those pieces of garbage held at Guantanamo? They are not U. S. citizens.

Posted by: Darrell Cox | June 29, 2006 02:22 PM

Darrel, how would you know that they are "garbage". Most of the information about what they have done or suspected of doing is kept secret. Many of them could be innocent. As for the ones who have committed terrorist acts, or helped others do so, it shouldn't be hard for this to be established in a fair trial.

Posted by: James Green-Armytage | June 29, 2006 03:25 PM

"Remember that Roberts was interviewing for the SCOTUS bench (associate justice) when he was hearing this case without defense counsel knowing it. It was an unconscionable non-recusal and not notifying Hamadan's lawyer was borderline illegal."

Posted by: trblmkr | June 29, 2006 11:23 AM

You may have learned this by now, but the ruling was 5-3. Apparently Roberts did recuse himself.

The three against were Scalia, Thomas, & Alito.

Posted by: MarkusB | June 29, 2006 12:11 PM

If you read my post carefully, you'll see I'm talking about when Roberts was still on the District bench. I'm referring to his non-recusal when he was simultaneously hearing the Hamadan case AND interviewing for SCOTUS.

Posted by: trblmkr | June 29, 2006 03:34 PM

PLEASE don't let one of the five reasonable remaining members of the SCOTUS die in the next few months. And, then, PLEASE let the democrats gain control of the Senate so that King George can't get another goose-stepping conservative through nomination if, God forbid, one dies or retires in the coming two years.

Posted by: JJ | June 29, 2006 04:30 PM

Darrell Cox asks: Why does the U. S.Constitution apply to those pieces of garbage held at Guantanamo? They are not U. S. citizens. Because, dear Darrell, the United States continually parades itself around the world as the gurdian angel of justice, democracy and freedom. That's why, Darrell. And the very presence of the legal fiction surrounding Guantanamo is one reason why the United States is seen as a bully and hyporicrite around the world. But of course, I guess in your view anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen is just some piece of garbage. Phew!

Posted by: Milo | June 29, 2006 05:11 PM

You folks need to read the opinion. Breyer sketches out how the executive can go about getting the outcome it wants. Which, as the GOP runs both houses, it may do forthwith. For the WH, this is a bump in the road. And how were any of OUR (ie, US citizens)civil liberties at risk? The folks at GITMO are foreign citizens. I understand many of you deeply distrust this President, but today's decision says only that the military tribunals may not stand - until Congress passes a law that authorizes them. Which it may do. Then what, folks?

Posted by: William b | June 29, 2006 05:12 PM

While on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel that rejected all of Hamdan's legal challenges, new Chief Justice John Roberts joined the lead opinion which (incredibly!) held that when Congress voted to authorize the use of military force in Afghanistan, Congress also "implicitly authorized" the President to set up military tribunals with evidentiary standards and procedures that fell far below even the minimal Constitutional due process guarantees applied in military court martials. This whacko piece of historical revisionism was revisited last December in the context of the NSA domestic wiretap scandal. President Bush's PR people and the Justice Department claimed with a straight face that Congress also "implicitly authorized" warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in this same 2001 AUMF vote, a measure rushed through with bi-partisan near hysteria in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Hopefully, today's Supreme Court decision will put to rest the neo-cons' resort to so blatant a re-writing of real world legislative history that is recent enough to remain fresh in the minds of more than a few sentient folks inside and outside the Beltway parliamentary process. But had Chief Justice Roberts not recused himself, this certainly would have been a 5-4 ruling.

So don't forget. The Bill of Rights hangs just ONE shifting Supreme Court vote short of plunging us all into a brave new world of so-called "unitary executive branch" jurisprudence. Also don't forget that George Bush rewarded Judge Roberts by publicly naming him to a Supreme Court vacancy a mere 72 hours after he ruled -against Hamdan, and in favor of unbridled executive authority - in the DC Circuit phase of this case.

Bush and Rove may well turn to Congress before the November elections to seek the formal legislative authority the Supeme Court has now ruled the White House needs in order to incarcerate people indefinitely in military custody without charges, without legal counsel, without credible evidence, and without meaningful access to judicial relief.

In response, will the Dems, or will maybe Arlen Specter and/or John McCain, rise to the occasion?

Will there perhaps actually be a grown up national discussion about the pros and cons of torture and the importance of the Geneva Conventions?

Might this dialogue extend to talking about the brazen imperialist arrogance of housing these suspected enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of all places - an infamous piece of soil, tenaciously clung to for over a century by Uncle Sam as colonial booty from the Spanish-American War, now also an enduring reminder of Cold War conflicts supposedly past?

To put the matter in fair and balanced political context, will the media recall and critically reexamine an actual pronouncement of former Joint Chief Chairman Richard Myers, who declared when Gitmo first opened as an interrogation center (with great Pentagon PR fanfare) that the shackles and the hoods were needed to prevent the suicidal detainee evil doers from chewing through their transport plane's hydraulic cables to cause a crash?

Today was a proud moment in the history of the United States Supreme Court. In perilous times, it is a fragile check and balance indeed, but still it lives.

There is some limit in some wise minds upon just how far the inmates can go in running the asylum.

Posted by: william t street | June 29, 2006 06:17 PM

The Declaration of Independence does not read "All men who are lucky enough to be born in the confines of the United States are created equal." It simply says that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain rights and then goes on to provide examples of what we would now refer to as human rights.

Regardless of how dangerous, mean, nasty or misguided some of the detainees may be I imagine even under Bush Administration definitions they are still considered to be human beings. So the debate is about human rights not American rights.

The difference between what the United States preaches and what it is doing to the people it is holding is such an obvious hypocrisy we cannot avoid the condemnation of the rest of the world.

Thank God for the XXII amendment.


Posted by: Steve Blake | June 29, 2006 06:23 PM

Finally the Supreme Court put King George and Crown Prince Dick in check. Granted, those held in Gitmo may be some of the world's dangerous criminals- but they are still afforded due process in a transparent setting.

Posted by: Ashe | June 29, 2006 07:10 PM

Do you folks agree with any of the following?

"...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

"...disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind..."

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights..."

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs..."

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law..."

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him"

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence"


Posted by: ivangri | June 29, 2006 10:45 PM

the solution is so simple and obvious, there must be something wrong with it:
Open the doors, open the gates, tell the inmates "Cuba is that way, start walking"
Oh, there will be a hulabaloo for some weeks.Fidel CAstro will be filmed shaking hands . Publishers and ghost writers will descend on Cuba.We will be flooded with "My Prison Years" books. Then something else will come along. Paris Hilton will have a baby. George W will have a baby.
Now, consider rhe consequences:
Fidel Castro will inherit the whole sorry mess.
The inmates will find themselves in a distinctly non moslem country. I can safely predict that a good number will find themselves shortly back in jail. A Cuban jail, that is.
Some will knock on Guantanamo's gates, crying to be readmitted. Some will try to reach Florida on tractor tyres.

Posted by: Bodiansky | June 30, 2006 04:29 AM

These people have been locked away for four year! That's 1,460 days.
It took all of that four years just to get this one preliminary decision out of our courts. Bush and his people are happy to let this drag out. They are setting there saying, "So what, at this rate, those 460 men will be dead by the time our system of justice gets around to actually doing something with them."

Posted by: Dave | June 30, 2006 03:26 PM

Pres Bush made an interesting reference, featured in Michael Moore's 2004 film "Fahrenheit 9/11", that a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier (to run). The Administration's plans for detainees at Gitmo appear to support Bush's remark. Perhaps the Supreme Court just sent a reminder to Bush - your position is managerial and not dictorial.

Posted by: david struder | June 30, 2006 09:26 PM

I received this a a little over a year ago, and I wondered at the validity of's about Afghanistan and GITMO

From Karl W. B. SchwarzPresident, Chief Executive Officer
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC

By Email, By Facsimile to White House

Mr. President,

I am a Conservative Christian Republican that has no intentions of voting for you in this year's election and many other Conservative Republicans are following me.

America demands the TRUTH and not after the elections; this nation demands the truth from you RIGHT NOW! This letter and an identical email will be going out to hundreds of thousands by me, millions by others. The
following content was sent to the White House by facsimile earlier today from Ground Zero in New York City.

1. I demand as an American citizen that you lift the "gag order" on Sibel D. Edmonds and let Americans know what foreign names and what AMERICAN NAMES she uncovered in her FBI translations that were involved in drug trafficking, money laundering and the financing of 9-11.Her facts and your "official story" lies do not add up. Americans demand the truth on that matter before the election.

2. I demand to know what energy companies were in that Cheney Energy Task Force meeting and what discussions there were as to the steps that would be taken to remove the Taliban and Bridas Corporation as the last remaining obstacle to the United States controlling the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. I met that company in 1999 and have known since then about the Bridas v Unocal, $15 billion interference of contract lawsuit in US District Court, Southern District of Texas. I also know about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on September 9, 2003 that upheld the Bridas $500 million arbitration settlement and the March 22, 2004 denial of Writ of Certiorari at the United States Supreme Court, Case 03-1018, Turkmenneft v Bridas.

3. I demand to know how many prisoners are being held at GITMO and other places that are either BRIDAS EMPLOYEES or are persons that know all about Bridas Corporation and what your administration did to get control of that Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.

4. I demand to know how many board meetings Condoleezza Rice and Thomas Kean sat in on at Chevron and Amerada Hess where it was discussed how they were going to deal with making the billions in "Big Oil"
investments into a land locked Caspian Basin and how to get rid of the Taliban and Bridas so they could turn those investments into cash flow. How many times did Big Oil ask for military force to complete a commercial transaction
they could not get under their control, and on what exact date did you agree to provide such military force - prior to 9-11? Isn't it true Mr. Bush that the Cheney Energy Task Force discussed that attack on Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban / Bridas obstacle once and for all - and did so well in advance of 9-11?
5. I demand to know why you appointed 10 persons to the 9-11 Commission, 8 of which are directly benefiting by the Taliban / Bridas "contract" obstacle being removed - breached with military force, and the big Caspian Oil deals that are now coming to market. No, America does not 'thank you' for that nor do we hold such despicable conduct up high.

6. I demand to know what US Oil Company stepped up as the sponsor of that OPIC and Asia Development Bank funded Trans-Afghanistan pipeline and what US company is constructing that pipeline right now, and what US firms are supplying the key components and their relationship to your administration.

7. I demand that you identify the company and persons who were going around Bridas to be "natural gas suppliers" to the US owned natural gas electrical generation plants in Pakistan (Dynegy - Illinova /Tenaska, El Paso (2 OPIC financed transactions) and others.

8. I demand to know why you have not been truthful with the American public that your GWOT and military policy are protecting the Caspian Basin Oil and Gas deals for many of your Bush Pioneers, some $9.6 trillion in oil and about $3 trillion in natural gas, now mostly in the hands of your elite wealthy contributors and some elite Liberals to keep this all quiet.

9. I demand to know what role the post-bankruptcy ENRON (Prisma Energy International, Cayman Islands) is playing in the Caspian Basin area, the same Enron that uses the law firm of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw [Richard Ben Veniste, 9-11 Commission] that established the offshore SPE's for assets that were never under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

10. I demand to know why you appointed Richard Ben Veniste to the 9-11 Commission when it was his law firm that was stalling Bridas Corporation at the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals in the matter of Bridas Corporation v.Turkmenneft and his law firm is directly involved in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and your administration.

11. I demand to know the exact date of the order that had our military practicing in early 2001 the invasion of Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Bridas Corporation and make that pipeline under control of US interests, many of your Bush Pioneers, and the exact date that our military started practicing and preparing for that invasion.

12. I demand to know who Remington Holdings Ltd is, and Western Acquisitions, Inc, both Baker & Botts clients and the lucky recipients of OPIC financing to acquire oil and gas deposits in Pakistan.

Who are the parties involved in those entities by name and benefited from such governmental magnanimity? Is this transaction a payoff? Since American taxpayers are footing the bill, we have the right to know - right now.

13. I demand to know why you could not find 10 people to sit on the 9-11 Commission that are not directly benefiting from the actions you have taken and the lives you have cost or otherwise ruined. Why would you select people not motivated to find the truth for that would impact "their bottomline"?

14. I demand a full disclosure from your administration as to the Citibank / IFTRIC / OPIC / Export-Import Bank financing of American /Israeli based deals in Islamic nations on behalf of your major campaign contributors. "IFTRIC and Citibank have an agreement allowing Citibank to finance approved IFTRIC-backed transactions. Citibank Israel CEO Nandan Mar said: 'The Citibank branch, and the Structured Trade Finance Group, view IFTRIC's program as a basic product for the bank's domestic activities.' " I see distinct differences between "terrorism" and "outrage"
(Shurtan II) at your policies.

15. I demand to know why you wanted an entire new division of the CIA for Argentina. As an American citizen I take umbrage to your belligerence towards a nation that is not an enemy of the United States by any stretch of the imagination, except possibly yours. It is abundantly clear that your intentions were solely to intimidate Argentina and
Argentinabased Bridas Corporation into silence and that is NOT AMERICA. That has every appearance of the United States acting as the terrorist and a state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, you are wrapped in a flag but I clearly see that it is not the one you purport it to be.

16. I demand to know why your administration has never disclosedthat DynPort Vaccine, LLC, owned by DynCorp and now owned by Computer Sciences Corporation, a Bush Pioneer, is a possible source for where the weaponized Ames Strain of anthrax came from that was used against this nation. How did your administration manage to miss one of your campaigncontributors and a company doing large volumes of business with your administration and even being known euphemistically (DynCorp) as The Mercenary Company? Who put that Contract on America?

17. I demand to know how you can claim a pretense of being a Christian while sponsoring and condoning the torture of prisoners, including sodomizing children, at Abu Ghraib prison.

18. I demand to know how your administration can send firms overseas as "representatives of this nation" that were convicted of running a flesh trade in little girls in Bosnia, specifically one DynCorp. Convicted in Texas and the United Kingdom according to reports I have seen and apparently detested in Afghanistan. You do recall that DynCorp is the company providing security to protect your puppet Karzai in Afghanistan and your other puppet Zalmay Khalilzad is deterring anyone from running for President in that bogus "free" democracy?

19. I demand to know why your administration keeps running the name and photos of Adnan G. El Shukrijumah as the"dirty bomb boogeyman" and on March 25, 2003 the FBI knew exactly where to find him and did not go after him.
That telephone call was made from my telephone by a Canadian friend that was in Little Rock on that date, Mr. Bush, so do not pretend "national security" with me.
I am "first person" on this matter and all of America deserves to know the extent that your administration has been and is lying to us all - and someone that is not Al Qaeda is probably "dropping a suspect name" as they set up a dirty bomb attack. Sure have pushed up the oil and gas prices with your strategy though, guess we can consider that another "Mission Accomplished".

20. I demand to know why your administration keeps referring to Adnan G. El Shukrijumah as a "Saudi" when the FBI knows full well he is not Saudi. His family is from Guyana in South America and they have lived in Florida since 1986 without incident. His grandparents were from Yemen, moved long ago to South America and his mother is from Trinidad & Tobago.

21. I demand to know why you alerted India, Pakistan and "Axis of Evil" member Iran of your intentions to attack the Taliban / Bridas well before 9-11, and not notify the citizens of this nation. That matter was reported on June 26, 2001 in India newspapers.
22. I demand to know the exact date that the first meeting, first page of the Patriot Act was started by your administration.
23. I demand to know why it is you, your backers, certain Democrats that apparently "hate our freedoms" more than these purported GWOT Islamic fundamentalists, hence the Patriot Act that treats all Americans with the same degree of contempt and disdain you treat all non-wealthy Americans.

24. I demand to know why Homeland Security is protecting this government and not protecting this nation.

25. I demand to know why any dissent or objections to your Orwellian, imperialistic, pro-corporate agenda is referred to the Homeland Security Counter-Terrorism Division.

26. I demand to know why you defile everything you touch and try to twist it into something that is pro-Bush Backers and anti-American citizens and then try to alter our rights as Americans via Patriot Act measures
that are designed to force America into submission and does nothing to protect this nation, only this government.

27. I demand to know why your administration is planning a "pro-Bush Pioneers pharmaceutical program" derived from TMAP (Texas Medical Algorithm Project) and PENNMAP (Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania) to have Americans tested under guidelines prepared by your Bush Pioneers and force psychotropic drugs on Americans.

28. I demand to know why your administration keeps injecting our troops with an anthrax vaccine known to be deadly and harmful to the health of our soldiers and now apparently wish to inject that into all Americans under Project BioShield and martial law. Is that why you have no concern whatsoever for the 3 million jobs lost, for between your TMAP lunacy and Project BioShield lunacy, well over 3 million Americans could perish if the same statistical rates hit the general population as has hit our military? Can you explain away Holocaust with "brilliant strategy policy" driven by unmitigated greed?

29. I demand to know why Li Ka-shing was denied Global Crossing on national security grounds (very public) yet allow him in the back door in Savi Technology (not disclosed), the RFID technology company that is purportedly protecting our ports from insertion of a nuclear bomb into this nation via "ocean going containers". How many doors are left wide open by your administration in this GWOT Fable?

30. I demand to know why you search the world for mythical terrorists and cannot find robber barons and financial terrorist right under your nose. That many of them are Bush Pioneers and even backers of the Democratic Party, and have plundered the investors, workers and citizens of this nation, is very apparent to Americans and not very pro-family on your part.

Christians do not lie, Mr. Bush, for that is an affront to God. A Christian would not willfully mislead this nation, nor send our troops into Harm's Way for a lie while your wealthy contributors take over a $9.6 trillion oil, $3.0 trillion natural gas deal and already maneuvering for Africa. You are proving to the world that you are terrified of the truth and have impeded every investigation into the truth.

Your actions prove that you are not an upstanding Christian, nor are you a Conservative Republican worthy of that designation.

Your position as President does not make you unaccountable to the citizens of this nation, nor does it entitle you to act as a tyrant, an emperor, or serving only those Americans that dole out money for your political ambitions and agendas. I see no "stewardship" in your conduct whatsoever.

You have "Mission Accomplished" three times - the removal of Taliban / Bridas to control that pipeline, radically escalated the price of oil and gas for some of your major backers, and the death and maiming of many due
to your lies. Your "Iraq Strategery" makes perfect sense to me, since all of you needed a diversion away from Afghanistan, the Caspian Basin and what you did to Bridas Corporation to get control of that $9.6 trillion in oil, $3
trillion in natural gas.

Go back home and wrap yourself in the flag of Texas and the shame you alone are responsible for creating. Your resume is your doing and yours alone.
If you were running against me this year, you would not have the guts to stay on the stage in a debate with me.

Shame on all of you, both sides of the aisle that have lied to America and gotten so many killed and maimed for a lie, and no, I am not an antiwar person. Just adamantly opposed to what you stand for, for that is lower than Clinton on his worst day.


Karl W. B. Schwarz
President, Chief Executive Officer
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC

just curious. Wondering if you could shed some light shed on the subject...the validity of it...
you know complicit congress and all, murder for oil, that kind of thing, thanks.

Posted by: help me out here... | July 2, 2006 11:30 PM

a lot of _true_ patriots here.


Posted by: I can see that there's | July 3, 2006 03:55 PM

the point of the posted email from Schwarz is that he sayz:

3. I demand to know how many prisoners are being held at GITMO and other places that are either BRIDAS EMPLOYEES or are persons that know all about Bridas Corporation and what your administration did to get control of that Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.

the litigants to the Trans Afghanistan Pipleline deal, may be in prison in GITMO because the president doesn't want them talking...

just like the President deported Honduran death squad operators when Negroponte was appointed to the United Nations...he didn't want them testifying against Negroponte...

people don't believe "terrorists/prisoners of war," they'll say anything...


and george, how reliable is george?

alcoholic, drug abuser....couldn't get a clearance

how did he get to be president,
a. BIG money and favors, to be repaid in pork?
b. someone took a dive?
c. electoral fixing?
d. all of the above.

Posted by: | July 3, 2006 06:30 PM

that someone has a little courage here, it is fourth of July yah know...

dig deep...

ha haa haaaaaaaa.


Posted by: gee I hope, you know, | July 4, 2006 01:03 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company