You can practically see the sarcasm dripping off the wording in this bill US Rep. Louis Gohmert of Tyler filed last week proposing a new location for Guantanamo Bay.
In light of the US Supreme Court's recent ruling that Gitmo detainees are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s habeas corpus protections, Gohmert wants to move the controversial jail to the Supreme Court grounds, "confined by adequate fencing."
"There can be no better way for the United States Supreme Court to exercise its new self-appointed war powers than to house the prisoners whom it has taken a greater role in overseeing," Gohmert writes.
It's impossible to miss Gohmert's feelings toward the justices when he offers, "Should the detainees need the use of restroom facilities, they shall use the facilities inside the United States Supreme Court building."
The bill also allows the justices to take over guard duty whenever they want and threatens to cut the court's budget in half if they don't follow the bill's guidelines.
[Hat tip to Fark for the link]
Another Republican crackpot--
Posted by: mich098 | July 30, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Another Republican crackpot--
Posted by: mich098 | July 30, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Pretty Funny. I think a lot of these elitist judges would rule differently if their personal lives were affected by their decisions.
Posted by: The Dude | July 30, 2008 at 01:56 PM
haha..hilarious..
Giving Gitmo prisoners US lawyers and access to our court system is a travesty, though, and no laughing matter. Who knows how much it could cost? What if we go to war with Iran and 100,000 soldiers are captured? Are we to ship them all here to have their day in court?
Posted by: Anti Obama.net | July 30, 2008 at 02:50 PM
I think this is an excellent idea. All federal officials, including Congressmen, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, no part of which is more sacred than the Bill of Rights. Working to undermine the Constitution is therefore sedition (worse than killing a few thousand people at the World Trade Center or by sending them to meaningless deaths in Iraq is stripping 300 million people of natural rights) ; and there is no better fate for traitors than to undergo hard time at Gitmo, most definitely including those enhanced interrogation techniques THAT ARE NOT TORTURE (well, we didn't think that doing that to him was going to result in a slow, excruciating painful death, so we didn't torture). This being the case, it is certainly convenient to have Gitmo so conveniently located close to Congress and the White House.
Posted by: Gary | July 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I suggest the congressman be detained without habeas corpus for 7 years and see what he thinks. Maybe he can be taken away to a secret prison in Europe and never be seen again. This isn't just about those foreign prisoner's this is about a president and a government who believe they have the right to imprison anyone, including American citizens, without any due process. That Supreme Court and Constitution are the exact reasons why any ole contry boy can sing his favorite song "Proud to be an American because at least I know I'm free"
Posted by: JLM | August 01, 2008 at 09:04 AM
For Anti Obama.net comments. If we went to war with Iran and captured 100,000 prisoners they would be considered prisoner's of war, just like the Gitmo prisoners should be considered. Do you recognize the term POW? Our current president doesn't want them classified as POWS because that would prevent the use of treatment not sanctioned by the Geneva Convention. How many experts have to explain that torture (e.g. waterboarding) does not produce reliable intelligence. This administration says they have gotten this wonderful intelligence from people that have been locked up for 5 years. How good is information from someone who has been locked up for 5 years?
Posted by: JLM | August 01, 2008 at 09:11 AM