Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>What is the comparative use of the word destroy here meant to mean, I wonder?<<<
Probably depends on how much beer he's had while babysitting.
but I'm typing at a party while drinking beer...........Family BBQ type with lots of little kids. Believe me....it's more like babysitting.
>>>but from our civilian prospective he's a civilian now himself<<<
And earlier.......
I'd offer you 10 to 1 odds that I'd destroy any of your liberal loons in both an IQ test and a polygraph.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20713300
LOL....you brag about your superior IQ but don't know the difference between "prospective" and "perspective". Credit where it's due though. You spelled it right which means you may have the vocabulary of a fourth grader but the spelling skills of an eight grader.
>>>You can't answer that question I have asked you several times.<<<
What question is that now? Probably one I've answered repeatedly but you just don't like the answer.
>>>The increased number of troops, the changed dynamic politically and the different tactics all show how the surge is different.<<<
Some military voices. You know something they don't?
"Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who in 2003 was among the first to call public attention to the relatively small size of the U.S. invasion force, said that the new operation shows how outnumbered U.S. troops remain. "Why would we think that a temporary presence of 30,000 additional combat troops in a giant city would change the dynamics of a bitter civil war?" he said in an interview yesterday. "It's a fool's errand."
An officer working in Arrowhead Ripper, the subsidiary offensive in Diyala province, said wearily, "We just do not have the forces in country right now to have the appropriate level of presence across the country."
Many counterinsurgency experts agree. Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., the director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a national security think tank, said flatly that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, does not have enough troops. "I suspect General Petraeus is taking a risk here, but that's what commanders do," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062202013.html
>>>All along they have said that they won't be bale to evaluate the effectiveness until September.<<<
Oh, hello.......what's this? Heard something like that before? Like once a month for 4 years? Truthfully, I don't think anyone gifted enough to turn on a computer and find this thread can be stupid enough to believe everything you say you believe in. I think you see what everyone else is seeing but can't bring yourself to admitting you've been rolled and then some.
What you've kept doing here for 4 years is what Bush has been doing for 4 years. Trying to rationalize horrendously poor judgement and stupidity with transparent bullshit that only 26% of the people clap hands at anymore.
You understand that for an audience, both you and Bush are down to the population group that buy 99% of the tabloids you're forced to stare at while checking out at the grocery store? The "I'm just a worker so they surely know more than I do" crowd.
Anyone you know? I think that's a John Deere hat....
>>>The surge- which has showed great signs of military progress<<<
You were saying....?
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.
The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.
In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?ei=5090&en=74ef0f56c565678a&...
>>>The US administration and its hawks are stuck in a 'state-centric perspective, cold war idea that deterrence is about overwhelming power and offense. But that has nothing to do with the overwhelming reality of this threat.<<<
Looks like everyone except Dick Cheney is saying the same thing. The bipartisan Iraq study group, Bush's own generals and his closest allies. So naturally Cheney must be the one who's right says Bush after 4 years that have led to this:
"Two new studies, one by the Saudi government and one by an Israeli think tank, which "painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States" have found that most foreign fighters in Iraq were not terrorists before the Iraq war, but were "radicalized by the war itself."
Bush/Cheney understand this full well and yet they keep pouring more soldiers into this slaughter house. Anyone still supporting this duo is either a traitor or clinically retarded imo.
>>>Assuming that you do actually consider AlQada a threat, how would you deal with that threat??<<<
Time for something new eddy. This "you obviously don't understand the threat" routine to anyone questioning Bush's war was stupid to begin with and.......well, you figure out how it comes across 4 years later.
As for your question, seems like you ask it every other month and I've been stupid enough to answered it every other month. Why do you keep asking it when you obviously don't care to hear the answer? You don't want alternatives to Bush's strategy. You want national, unconditional support for it so just cut the charade crap and find a better way of selling your product instead.
>>>So you think the violence in Iraq is creating more terrorists.<<<
I do and it seems like it's more than just my imagination.
Is Iraq A Terrorist "University?"
LONDON, June 22, 2007
(CBS) With U.S. forces putting the pressure on al Qaeda strongholds and the military admitting top leaders have escaped, intelligence agencies have come to an ominous conclusion: Al Qaeda fighters who slip away are ready to expand their fight to Europe and the Gulf, CBS News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reports.
A letter from al Qaeda's No. 2, intercepted last month, urged foreign fighters to take their campaign of terror beyond Iraq's borders.
The jihadi veterans of Iraq are battled-hardened survivors of the world's toughest urban guerilla fighting, against some of the world's best soldiers.
"If you survive that, you're able to do anything, essentially," said Thomas Sanderson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Sanderson, an expert in global terror threats, is preparing to publish a year-long study tracking foreign fighters. CBS News took a look at the report.
"You have that impact that says 'I survived that all of those factor, all of those groups that were arrayed against me,' and that gives you a sense of infallibility and lethality," Sanderson said.
In an audiotape posted on the Internet, one insurgent leader describes it this way: If Afghanistan was a school, says Abu Omar al Baghdadi, Iraq is a university of terrorism.
"They've been able to learn how to miniaturize bombs, how to surveil, how to countersurveil, how to snipe, how to escape," Sanderson said. "How to use safe houses, how to disguise themselves."
And how to move around the region with ease. Intelligence sources tell CBS News that under pressure from the United States, the route in through Syria is now largely closed. In some cases jihadists are using European airports with direct flights to northern Iraq.
The trip out now takes survivors to neighboring Arab states, North Africa and Europe.
The impact is spreading.
In Lebanon, al Qaeda veterans from Iraq held off U.S.-equipped Lebanese special forces for a month.
In Algeria, a bombing campaign carried out by local Islamists allied with al Qaeda used techniques imported from Iraq. Intelligence agencies call Algeria the "gateway" to Europe.
French intelligence acknowledges tracking about 30 people they know have left France for Iraq. A dozen are dead, a dozen more in custody. The rest have vanished, and the French admit they do not know where they are.
But they do know they're part of a new generation of terrorists. In the words of one analyst, they are "rock stars" to their followers — trained in war, committed to destruction … and some of them may be headed our way.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/22/eveningnews/main2969562.shtml
Well done George.
>>>Why are you saying you have military generals, strategists and such on your side when you don't agree with any military engagments?<<<
Howe many repeats does it normally take before you catch on? Just asking since I'm getting tired of typing the same things over. Again........I'm not against military engagements period. I'm against invading and occupying entire nations for the purpose of destroying isolated terrorist cells, Afghanistan excepted. If it feels like you've read that before it's because you have. And as I also said......that's becoming the popular opinion among a lot of military strategists and generals too.
>>>but we should not speak of these events because they don't matter<<<
Would you stop it already? Speak about it all day long if you wish but also recognize that it's still a US occupation and still a civil war where droves of civilians are slaughtered along with suspected terrorists, creating more terrorists in the process. So I think I can disagree with your "victory" description of these inner city bloodbaths without marginalizing the heroism of the troops.
>>>You clearly don't understand that this is an idelogical struggle if you are thinking in terms of standard warfare.<<<
I assume by "standard warfare" you refer to military force. You submit that I think in those terms more than you do in fighting terrorism? Wanna compare posts from days past?
As for the ideological struggle you describe........did you do the math? One billion muslims on earth with an estimated 1% being extremist material, equalling about 10,000,000 heads. And you think US troops can root them out, one "operation arrowhead" at a time?
>>>You were marginalizing our victories on the battle field<<<
Only someone desperate for good news from Iraq would say that. You can't see we're talking about two different things? The old "winning the battle but losing the war" thing? It's great that al Qaeda scum is taken out in a small Iraqi town but unlike you I don't see it as much of a victory viewed through a broader scope. And as you should know, I have more military generals, strategists and spokesmen on my side than you do.
Are you big enough to admit you're in denial about this whole thing? You and about 28%....
>>>What is an al Qaeda country?<<<
Please. Obviously a country believed to have al Qaeda presence which last I heard includes about 120 countries on earth.
>>>No, you were saying no military operations are needed.<<<
No I didn't. I said military invasions and occupations of nations where al Qaeda members may be hiding seems counter productive (Afghanistan excepted).
>>>you're a defeatist for refusing to face the reality of the situation<<<
What reality am I refusing to face?
>>>Our battle with this radical and violent ideology will be measured in decades and is not strictly a military operation<<<
Isn't that what I was saying which is what made me a defeatist? Btw..........how do you choose which al Qaeda countries should be attacked militarily? So far it seems like only those who can't defend themselves are selected.
>>>In the "big scheme of things" this is a war of ideologies<<<
Exactly......and you think I'm a "defeatist" for having doubts about eliminating a global ideology with bombs, machine guns and occupation.
>>>Sheesh, the libs are pathetic when they can't even bring themselves to celebrate victories against our enemies.<<<
If you owned a warehouse in NY city and you caught 6 rats in traps overnight, would you declare victory over rats in NY city? Dead al Qaeda members is a good thing but I'm not convinced the current approach solves anything in the long run. Indications are that for each one that's killed by an occupying military force, two new members pop up somewhere else.
>>>So, we should just stop fighting AlQada as they plan to slaughter us??<<<
Same old moronic logic. "If you're not with Bush you're with the enemy". I'm only saying that the strategy of invading and occupying entire nations, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just because there are suspected Al Qaeda members within their borders won't produce less terrorists in the long run but more. Do you actually disagree with this?
>>>Well, since "The headquarters of al-Qaeda are not known anymore.
", wouldn't it be a good idea to attack them wherever we find them??<<<
See above.
>>>but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered<<<
Sounds great but what does it really mean in the big scheme of things?
Al-Qaida is a multi-national network possessing a global reach and has supported through financing, training and logistics, Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eritrea, Kosovo, the Philippines, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Yemen, and now Kosovo. Additionally, al-Qaida has been linked to conflicts and attacks in Africa, Asia, Europe, the former Soviet Republics, the Middle East, as well as North and South America.
The headquarters of al-Qaeda are not known anymore.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
>>>Fanatic Islamists want to kill Americans and you will never understand that until it's to late<<<
Let's say I don't understand how the Iraq war is fixing that, can I ask you some questions about it? I'll do one at a time. I'm asking you before asking the actual questions since you have a lousy record of responding to these things.
Bloomberg Abandons Republican Party
LOS ANGELES, June 19, 2007
Bloomberg Abandons Republican Party
(AP) New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg left the Republican Party on Tuesday and switched to unaffiliated, WCBS-TV reports, a move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.
The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican Party in 2001 for his first mayoral run, said the change in his voter registration does not mean he is running for president
"Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city," Bloomberg said in a statement.
The 65-year-old mayor has increasingly been the subject of speculation that he will run as an independent in 2008, despite his repeated promises to leave politics after the end of his term in 2009.
He has fueled the buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism for the way the country is run by partisan politics.
On Monday, Bloomberg refused to rule out a campaign for president while telling questioners he planned to serve out his term at City Hall through 2009.
Bloomberg declined to debunk a published report by conservative columnist Robert Novak that he had discussed a possible independent presidential campaign with former Sen. David Boren, D-Okla. He acknowledged the conversation, but deadpanned that a Boren run for the White House had not come up. Then Bloomberg hastily cut off a reporter's follow-up inquiry by going to his next questioner during an appearance at Google Inc.'s campus.
Asked directly by another journalist to rule out the possibility of a presidential run, the Republican mayor pointed to another reporter.
Bloomberg's very presence at Google raised more questions than he answered. His pilgrimage followed in the footsteps of four announced presidential candidates who have addressed employees. But the explanations of his official purpose shifted several times.
His aides said Bloomberg came as part of a series of speakers on technology. Google officials said the appearance was part of a book author series. But Bloomberg's book, "Bloomberg by Bloomberg," was published in 2001 — a fact easily Googled by the staff members tapping at their laptops during his remarks.
A copy of the book propped up between Bloomberg and his questioner underscored its age. It showed him with a full head of dark hair, while the actual man was more salt than pepper.
Bloomberg deflected questions about his trip's agenda and his "book promotion" with a wry smile.
"I think if you call Amazon, they'll still be able to deliver it within 24 hours," he said. "I think it is one of the seminal pieces of literature. I take great pride, it is the only book I have ever written and probably ever will write."
Bloomberg addressed more than 1,000 Google employees on the same campus that has recently hosted official candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, John Edwards and Bill Richardson. His on-stage questioner, Sheryl Sandberg, vice president of online sales and operations, said she would not bother asking him about the presidency, since Bloomberg had repeated his intention to enter philanthropy after leaving office.
But when she asked him about a hypothetical independent candidate deciding to enter the race, Bloomberg launched into a broad critique of the Bush administration and Congress — without naming names — and a lament on the empty theatrics of the presidential debates to date.
"I think the country is in trouble," Bloomberg said, listing the war in Iraq and America's declining standing globally as two principal examples.
"Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years," he said. "We've had a go-it-alone mentality in a world where because of communications and transportation, you should be going exactly in the other direction."
He also faulted the U.S. government's failure to halt genocide "and protect freedom elsewhere in the world."
In a speech later in Los Angeles, Bloomberg revisted the theme, saying partisan gridock in Washington had paralyzed government and left "our future in jeopardy." He said the nation's "wrong-headed course" could be changed if there is a commitment to shared values and solving problems without regard to party label.
"It all begins with independence," he said, opening a University of Southern California conference examining ways to build consensus in a divided government. Progress, he added, "means embracing pragmatism over partisanship, ideas over ideology."
In Mountain View, Bloomberg seemed to side with President Bush when he decried "an anti-immigration policy that is a disgrace" and called for a more open migration policy. And he dismissed the notion of deporting illegal immigrants as part of immigration reform.
"We need to recognize we're not going to deport 12 million people already here," he said. "Let's get serious, we don't have an army big enough to do that, it would be devastating to our economy, it would be the biggest mass deportation of people in the world."
The mayor said there had been too little discussion of health care and education on the campaign trail, and later blamed journalists for not asking hard enough questions of the candidates.
In one of his harshest comments, Bloomberg dismissed creationism — the theory that the universe was created by intelligent design — mistakenly calling it "creationalism." The remark made plain that Bloomberg has no interest in running in the Republican presidential primary, where outreach to Christian conservatives is critical.
"It's scary in this country, it's probably because of our bad educational system, but the percentage of people that believe in Creationalism is really scary for a country that's going to have to compete in the world where science and medicine require a better understanding," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/19/politics/main2947967.shtml
I'm impressed too but I'll become unimpressed soon unless some of these miracles can be explained in some kind of rational fashion. Faith based stuff doesn't do it for me.
What hasn't been explained yet is what happened to AA 77 if it didn't crash into the pentagon. It was tracked by radar from the moment it took off till the moment it disappeared near the pentagon. What happened at that point if it didn't hit the building?
That's the immigration bill Bush has been bragging about night and day while laughing at those who use the word amnesty? Just goes to show.......again that Bush supporters - what's left of them - are neither conservatives or republicans but confused idiots who call you and me unpatriotic liberals while they support open borders, full blown amnesty and US taxpayer funded attorneys for 12 million illegal US immigrants.
Still got his 30% though. At this point you have to think they'll be with him no matter what he does. Hard to say what goes on in their heads but at least we know they have a high tolerance level for self humiliation as they keep trying to rationalize the indefensible.
>>>It's not Bush's war. It wouldn't have happened without the support of congress<<<
Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Would congress have approved the war if Bush hadn't spent a year and a half talking about Iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons that would soon hit a neighborhood near you? Delivered by remote controlled balsa airplanes no less.
Not in defense of fox news but since I never watch it, how much worse than this does it get?
>>>What amazes me is CT Dems seem surprised;<<<
It's the american way.......vote for name and fame rather than substance. Look at GW Bush. He wasn't any less retarded in 1999 but a lot of voters didn't look past his last name. Or look at the mid-term last fall. Congress had a 23% approval rating and yet only 7 senate races were competitive. Why were 93 senators considered "safe" when 77% of the voters disapproved of their performance?
>>>Not only that, he told the Connecticut people that he would still lean Democratic in policies if he was elected as an Independent,<<<
He did.....but he also told the anti Iraq war Connecticut people that he not only supported Bush's Iraq policy but favored escalation in the region as necessary. And these anti war north easterners still gave him a landslide victory last year. Stupidest vote by smart people in a long time.
IRAQ WAR: Connecticut voters opposed the Iraq war by more than 2 to 1, with about the same margin saying they want the U.S. to withdraw some or all of the troops. Yet one of every three who voted for Lieberman said they disapproved of the Iraq War -- a conflict that Lieberman has supported.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/11/08/key_findings_from_exit_polls_in_tue...
Satirical to you maybe but perfectly reasoned to some here. Why shouldn't Bush get credit for any terrorist who dies for any reason anywhere on earth?
>>>Bin Laden is dead. Since we're in a democracy I guess he's dead. We got him. Gotta give Bush credit I guess.<<<
We don't know for sure if he's dead and we sure as hell don't know how he died IF he's dead. But let's give Bush credit for it....
>>>I use Factiva, a subscription based news archiving service to give me access to a vast array of news sources globally.<<<
So how do you know the global news sources aren't subjective in a world where GW Bush typically has an 80% disapproval rating? I think you can get a pretty good idea of where the truth lies in america by combining the subjective trash from Fox, CNN, MSNBC and Tony Snow and then split the difference. Especially if you do it on the same subject over time.
>>>he does have backbone. Misguided perhaps, but he does stand up for what he believes in<<<
That's not backbone. That's a retarded simpleton who thinks being stubborn makes him look tough. Backbone would be to admit miscalculating or at least accept responsibility instead of pointing fingers. I expect a long wait before coming across a bigger wimp than GW Bush again.
>>>If you are going to jump in the middle of a discussion, it is generally considered polite or at least make you look less like a fool if you understood what the topic was to begin with.<<<
This is what I responded to and what I quoted you on:
Riiiiight. The NY Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post are all pro-war.
Uh huh.
Sure.
Wow! LOL!!!
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20370656
Maybe you were talking election but you were also talking war coverage by certain newspapers. No?
Mind telling me what you're babbling about? "False audit of the votes"? What's that got to do with the newspaper's pre-war coverage?
>>>First random article from February 2003 in the NY Times with search "War" and "Iraq" in headline is an anti-war piece.<<<
You can produce anything you want with "random". I'll do objective if you don't mind which reveals that both the NYT and the Washington Post drummed up so much support for Bush going to war they actually had to apologize in public later.
"The Washington Post on Thursday joined the venerable New York Times in conceding that it got taken in by the Bush administration's rationale for the war in Iraq without challenging the case, especially on the weapons of mass destruction issue.
In a page one story by its own media correspondent Howard Kurtz, the paper's executive editor Leonard Downie said, "We were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."
In an astonishing insider account, Kurtz quoted fellow reporter and Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks as saying, "There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/812615.cms
"But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1400990400&en=94c1...
>>>Riiiiight. The NY Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post are all pro-war.<<<
Doesn't matter what they are now when all but Fox is anti war. But you're saying NY Times and Washington Post were anti-war when it mattered.....i.e. gathering public support for Bush pre-invasion?
>>>Biblically, capital punishment should be pursued only in cases where there is no real question as to guilt or innocence. Scripture says there must be at least 2 witnesses, and that would preclude capital punishment in cases based on circumstantial evidence.<<<
Makes a lot of sense and I wish it worked but human witnesses make mistakes too or malfunction under emotional stress. Especially those who have witnessed a murder of a family member, spouse or close friend. Some of them want closure and revenge at any cost.
Why is america the only western democracy still executing its citizens? I think it's because all the others have concluded that in order to kill one of your own you need to be 100% sure he/she is guilty and in too many cases you'll never get that guarantee even with witnesses or DNA.
It's still a young country. What do you think the odds are for the death penalty to survive another 10 years in america? My guess is less than 20%.
"The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. In the past 30 years, 123 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row."
http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/10521res20040409.html
(Just to clarify........this doesn't prove that the system works but begs the question how many innocents were executed before proven innocent.)
Court Rebuffs Bush On Enemy Combatants
Gets confusing with all the court rulings against Bush's little dictator experiment but didn't they tell him to stop this once already? But then........would someone with real dictator material obey the courts?
RICHMOND, Va. , June 11, 2007
Court Rebuffs Bush On Enemy Combatants
(CBS/AP) The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it deems an al Qaeda sleeper agent without charge and must allow him to be released from military detention, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would have "disastrous consequences for the constitution and the country."
In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel also ruled that the federal Military Commissions Act does not strip Qatari national Ali al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. He is the only person being held as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil.
"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," the court said in its opinion.
Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy jail in Charleston, South Carolina, since June 2003. He has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Illinois, where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree.
His lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall, does not repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.
"This ruling actually could – emphasis on could – do to the new Military Commissions Act what the Democratically controlled Congress has been thinking about doing for a few months now," says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen, "which is to change the impact of the law to preclude it from taking away from resident aliens here in this country the right to challenge their detention or confinement in court."
Cohen added that the ruling doesn't mean the suspect will be freed.
"Like former enemy combatant Jose Padilla, al-Marri now likely is to be charged in federal court with various terror related charges and then we'll likely see a replay of the sorts of issues that only now are coming to light at Padilla's trial in Miami, mainly the difficultly in transferring a military case into a civilian one," said Cohen.
Federal investigators first charged him with credit card fraud, but the U.S. government says agents later found evidence al-Marri had links to al Qaeda terrorists and he posed a threat to national security.
They claimed he trained at an al Qaeda camp and met with Osama bin Laden and suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/terror/main2913398.shtml
Moreover...........what Romney said was not just a lie but the exact opposite of what actually happened.
.....and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction............we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
They WERE in Iraq and they WERE in the process of declaring Iraq WMD free.......which is why they were kicked out by Bush.
"He said Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations and that four Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private.
"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said,"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/