tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post8238011837156162863..comments2024-03-08T07:09:46.527-07:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Habeas Corpus and Bush-bot BulimicsWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-39731311635330024892008-08-22T10:35:00.000-06:002008-08-22T10:35:00.000-06:00In fact Jefferson was, in a sense, a Dhimmi, when ...In fact Jefferson was, in a sense, a Dhimmi, when he authorized the payment of protection money to the Muslim pirates who were enslaving American traders.<BR/><BR/>However, after becoming president, he went to war (without congressional approval, BTW), commanding Robert Dale to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them."<BR/><BR/>Dale was authorized to take prisoners. He didn't, because he couldn't afford to feed them, so they were just killed. However, if he had taken prisoners, I seriously doubt that Jefferson would have granted them any habeus rights, even if they had been held in some Virginian gaol house.<BR/><BR/>Also, when Jefferson expressed his goal of invading and conquering Canada and Cuba, it's not clear exactly what he intended to do about the souls already resident in those territories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-64722800033338714702008-06-24T09:51:00.000-06:002008-06-24T09:51:00.000-06:00"But our contemporary problems are as much a creat..."But our contemporary problems are as much a creation of Washington's intervention, as a reaction to it."<BR/><BR/>I've been wrestling with this type of observation and its implications off and on now for 7 years or so; have observed many, and taken part in a few, mostly fruitless, debates --the discussions usually get heated and devolve into exchanges of insults really. Recently, the catalyst for this type of debate has been Patrick Buchanan's book. My most recent formula for trying to make your above point is to argue that while it is difficult to determine intent and motivation, or what is on someone's mind, merely from circumstances, we actually make such judgments everyday in places like trials in criminal court. Therefore, I argue, we should be able to make reasonable judgments about whether a muslim is attacking us because of normal, natural, cross-cultural, cross-religious, time-honored human motivations, or is attacking us because his errant religious views mandates such attacks. In the former category, I would put attacks motivated by our occupying of his country or homeland and offending his women, his home. In the latter I would put attacks motivated by a wrongful belief that Islam should rule the world. Of course, however, it is no easy task to tease these motivations apart, even in one man. Christian charity, however, and prudence, I imagine, would dictate we then do all we can to remove the beam from our eye, to remove the former motivating factors. Perfection, of course, will be unattainable. But Ron Paul seems to be talking sense to me when he advocates removing our troops and cutting our foreign aid. (Here I, and others who make this point, usually get accused, in the most charitable sense, of misunderstanding or misapprehending the muslim Islamic threat. Uncharitably, we get a dose of character assassination: allegations of nihilism, anti-semitism, cowardice, same-sex attraction, want of patriotism, being a traitor.)<BR/><BR/>How have you addressed any accusations of misapprehending the threat? Or any insults?Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300064299643040666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-76963169408614041842008-06-21T20:22:00.000-06:002008-06-21T20:22:00.000-06:00T2T, Mr. Fischer is well aware that his summary mi...T2T, Mr. Fischer is well aware that his summary misrepresents my views of radical Islam. Most of the people among whom he circulated his version of "my" views won't listen to the recording of our debate. Besides, they're not the kind of people who "do" nuance, as it were.<BR/><BR/>I'm at a loss as to where Mr. Fischer got the "25 years" timeline. I pointed out that Arab and Muslim hostility toward the U.S. really began in the 1950s, owing largely to Washington's intervention in the Muslim world. <BR/><BR/>To illustrate I pointed out that Washington underwrote many of the most radical, anti-Western elements in Iran to bring the Shah to power in 1953, and those same radicals supported Khomeni in 1978-79. I documented how Washington supported the Muslim Brotherhood, the KLA, the worst elements in Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, etc. <BR/><BR/>Sure, Islam and the West, as I stated in the debate, have always been antagonists. <BR/><BR/>Hatred of the "infidel" is taught with insistent clarity in the post-Haj suras of the Koran (Muhammad was much more congenial to non-Muslims prior to that period). There are plenty of Christians whose views of "heretics" and "apostates" are just as vicious, of course. But even if that weren't the case, militancy is very much a part of Muhammad's religion.<BR/><BR/>But our contemporary problems are as much a <I>creation</I> of Washington's intervention, as a <I>reaction</I>to it. <BR/><BR/>Brother Fischer didn't misunderstand or disagree with that assessment in our debate. This makes his subsequent depiction of my views all the more puzzling.William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-2703306660577947752008-06-21T19:10:00.000-06:002008-06-21T19:10:00.000-06:00Will, I did a search for your name on the website ...Will, I did a search for your name on the website of Idaho Values Alliance. I found the quote below from Bryan Fischer. <BR/><BR/>"I argue that the roots of Islamic <A HREF="http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=658" REL="nofollow">hatred of Christian infidels such as ourselves does not go back 25 years as Will argues</A>, but 1400 years to the teaching of Muhammad himself, and that Will’s position represents a dangerous illusion that will make American citizens vulnerable to more 9/11 attacks."<BR/><BR/>Have you really argued for the illusion that Islamic hatred of Christians goes back only 25 years? <BR/><BR/>Is this a fair assessment of what you believe?<BR/><BR/>He doesn't provide any quotes from you as a basis for his assessment. But does link to the audio of debate that you took part in the fall of 2007.<BR/><BR/> <A HREF="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=44" REL="nofollow">Here is Ron Paul commenting on the fact that the US has prisoners all over the world</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-59515055534834334032008-06-21T03:29:00.000-06:002008-06-21T03:29:00.000-06:00Anonymous writes: "Hopefully sermons in a Christi...Anonymous writes: "Hopefully sermons in a Christian church are not based on John Locke, Jefferson, the War for Independence, or the Magna Carta."<BR/><BR/>This is the reflexive response of most Christians when you suggest that pastors: (1) get up to speed on political philosophy and history, and; (2) employ this knowledge to teach discernment of biblical truth versus modern state propaganda. It virtually equates the above mentioned intellectual competence with ungodliness and rationalism. Why?<BR/><BR/>Let us agree that all Christian sermons must be Bible based. Better yet, let's stipulate an expository, "line by line, precept upon precept" teaching method. Do you still see a spiritual problem with pastors discoursing on the documents, events, and leading personalities of Anglo-American constitutional thinking? If so, please explain and provide scriptural support for your position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-82095109077775026382008-06-19T18:15:00.000-06:002008-06-19T18:15:00.000-06:00To robin 5:26Listening to the typical sermon on go...To robin 5:26<BR/><BR/>Listening to the typical sermon on government today you would never know there was a......Bible!<BR/><BR/>Hopefully sermons in a Christian church are not based on John Locke, Jefferson, the War for Independence, or the Magna Carta.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-41280835072368910192008-06-19T06:26:00.000-06:002008-06-19T06:26:00.000-06:00Most Christians in America are intellectually inco...Most Christians in America are intellectually incompetent when it comes to defending, or even understanding, republican institutions. Our Revolutionary forefathers would be staggered at the crude, childish authoritarianism that passes for political reasoning in the typical church. Listening to the typical sermon on government today, you would never know there was a Magna Carta, an American Revolution, a John Locke, or a Thomas Jefferson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-22657916040811567832008-06-18T15:27:00.000-06:002008-06-18T15:27:00.000-06:00Anonymous @ 4:33AM: Seems to me that the reason th...Anonymous @ 4:33AM: Seems to me that the reason the U.S. warmakers and the courts are performing legal gymnastics is because they don't want to admit what's really going on... we're invading foreign lands and capturing civilians. What we're calling "enemy combatants" are people who might otherwise be simply called <I>criminals</I> (at least presumably). But if they're criminals, then they should be tried in their home courts. If they've committed crimes against <I>our</I> citizens, and if their homeland refuses to put them on trial for those acts, then we should declare war on that nation. (Which in a way we have, but won't admit to as much.) But what we're doing is invading sovereign borders to capture individuals and, in doing so, disregarding the sovereign nature of their homeland. <BR/><BR/>For example, if Johnny Taliban is caught setting an IED along a roadway in Afghanistan, he should be tried by the courts of Afghanistan for his crime. If Afghanistan refuses to try him, our gripe is with the government, even more than with Johnny. And if there <I>is</I> no government of Afghanistan, we hold Johnny while a new government is formed and then turn him over for his crimes. Of course, if the new government is unfriendly to the U.S., we won't get our way. But too bad... that was also the case after WW II when we turned over captured prisoners to the Russians. <BR/><BR/>The only difference today, with the current "enemy combantants," is that we now have an empire in which the citizens of other lands are now under the U.S. rule of law. <BR/><BR/>And the instant Supreme Court decisions says so. <BR/><BR/>Of course, in the end, when all is finished, this will have been simply one more brick in the contruction of the "bigness" of the empire that will ultimately have led to its doom. So we have that going for us too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-19695533108233820352008-06-18T05:33:00.000-06:002008-06-18T05:33:00.000-06:001957human -- sovereign-to-sovereign procedures are...1957human -- sovereign-to-sovereign procedures are exactly what is provided in the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war. That is one legal way this could have been handled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-82065598523478673202008-06-16T09:22:00.000-06:002008-06-16T09:22:00.000-06:00The fact that J. Scalia dissented, whereby those w...The fact that J. Scalia dissented, whereby those who generally ignore individual rights were in the majority, gives me great pause as to the correctness of the ruling. (I've been a legal analyst for 25 years and this has generally proven to be an excellent guidepost.) With that in mind, isn't it generally true that any government's relation to foreign citizens invokes principles of sovereign-to-sovereign, rather than sovereign-to-subject, relations? <BR/><BR/>I'm firmly opposed to the ways of the Neo-con/third-way-liberal fascists now in power, but when we begin extending our sovereignty in protection of those outside our borders then another step in the erasure of those borders has occurred. And haven't we seen enough of that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-79307741013808849652008-06-16T07:43:00.000-06:002008-06-16T07:43:00.000-06:00According to Wikipedia, "Using this authorization ...According to Wikipedia, "Using this authorization [of the use of military force against terrorists] granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism." The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants."<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant<BR/><BR/>Then in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on a trio of 'enemy combatant' cases [Padilla, Hamdi and Rasul]. The Court essentially accepted the 'enemy combatant' designation, and started parsing the details of what habeas corpus rights the 'enemy combatants' were entitled to.<BR/><BR/>Thus is revealed the sequence of Congress authorizing military force, Bush proposing the 'enemy combatant' designation (eerily, well before many of the Guantánamo detainees were captured), and then the Supreme Court rubber-stamping the 'enemy combatant' designation, while disputing the level and quality of legal review to which they are entitled.<BR/><BR/>The squabbling continues to this day. That is, unless it's all kabuki theater, designed to run out the clock until new players can take the floor. Under the 'living constitution,' anything can happen. Your guess is as good as mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-57803187675754404672008-06-15T23:25:00.000-06:002008-06-15T23:25:00.000-06:00If we want a constitution that actually means some...If we want a constitution that actually means something, we have to be willing to shed the blood of our own countrymen to restore it. <BR/><BR/>There are those amongst us who would stoop to any atrocity in service to Leviathan, and - unfortunately - history shows only one one way to resolve the issue. We haven't evolved as a species to the point were reason rules.<BR/><BR/>Feed at the tax trough . . .<BR/><BR/>Sic Semper TyrannisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-91403818759818042282008-06-15T19:10:00.000-06:002008-06-15T19:10:00.000-06:00The inherent difficulty with a three-ring circus i...The inherent difficulty with a three-ring circus is keeping track of events in each ring all at the same time.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080605-8.html" REL="nofollow">june7presdirctive</A><BR/><BR/>Farmers are being pressured (extorted) by USDA to 'Premise Register' their land thus forming a strange legal partnership with the state. In addition, every animal will eventually be mandated to don an rfid tag or embedded chip. Advances in the rfid industry make possible the tracking of every sheep, cow, or horse in the field by way of satellite. Better yet, the device described in the following USDA research page has the capability of creating 'annoying sounds' and even somewhat painful 'shocks' in order to eliminate the burden of bringing the cows home the old fashioned way.<BR/><BR/>The following link to recent USDA research is sometimes fitful. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2008/080606.htm" REL="nofollow">usdacowboy</A><BR/><BR/>One can almost imagine where this technology could go given a backlog of 'enemy combatants' and 'homegrown terrorists' awaiting a habeas corpus hearing.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959" REL="nofollow">S1959homegrown</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-17435719486826230452008-06-15T15:29:00.001-06:002008-06-15T15:29:00.001-06:00Oh, Will, another thing, isn't it sad that kindly ...Oh, Will, another thing, isn't it sad that kindly faced people, like Mr. Fischer, should spew the sort of ignorant clap trap propaganda without nary a hiccup or pause to reflect on just what they "regurgitated"? <BR/><BR/>I can't even begin to count how many folks I've crossed paths with who never put gray cells to work when it comes to the hypocrisy they support. They never once think that the powers they fitfully and fearfully hand over to their overlords will inevitably be used against themselves. It has always been this way and because it has always worked you can see the playbook from miles off... if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. <BR/><BR/>There, again, so called Christians, have been to a large degree silenced. Its that deafening non-outcry from this wing of society that proves just how dead they really are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-38770987853239016082008-06-15T15:29:00.000-06:002008-06-15T15:29:00.000-06:00Doc Ellis,With the SCOTUS operating under "living ...Doc Ellis,<BR/><BR/>With the SCOTUS operating under "living document" jurisprudence, they can reinterpret the Constitution to mean anything they want or ignore it altogether (as they currently do with the 10th amendment). The only catch is they have no provisions for enforcement without the complicity of the other two branches of government.<BR/>That's a long way of answering your question with a "yes, unfortunately."billyjoeallenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09914373991418683644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-49148363778069278332008-06-15T15:15:00.000-06:002008-06-15T15:15:00.000-06:00Interesting that the Junta would seek to redefine ...Interesting that the Junta would seek to redefine US military outposts of the empire as being somehow outside of the "law" of the land. At least where and when it could get THEM in trouble. Where would that put embassies and the like? They would all, essentially, be illegal entities operating under some sort of fiction. Doubly ironic that the empire deigns anyone and anyplace it sets its sights or boots on as being under its "control". If that control is argued "legally" then it sets my head to spinning! Lies upon lies upon lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-14699473262865257522008-06-15T12:46:00.000-06:002008-06-15T12:46:00.000-06:00Anon at 5:21 AM,Thank you for your comments alerti...Anon at 5:21 AM,<BR/>Thank you for your comments alerting me to the more fundamental problem of this "'sui generis' approach in which those captured on the battlefield are neither treated as P.O.W.'s, nor tried in local courts, nor brought to U.S. justice." Here here!<BR/> <BR/>At first blush, I guess neither of the two litigants put, or even could put, this issue before the court, so it probably wasn't addressed. I further guess that even if raised by the parties, the court would have dismissed those points for the parties' lack of standing and the court's lack of jurisdiction over such "political" questions. <BR/><BR/>Re Bush, I believe I am in vehement agreement with your points and Mr. Griggs' post (as well as his past posts). But your comment, and Mr. Griggs' post here, focuses on Bush and leaves Congress out of the equation. <BR/><BR/>Error was piled on error; what was the court to do?<BR/><BR/>I now wonder if the court might have done better to raise and dismiss those principles of standing and the court's jurisdiction to issue a broader, more explicit decision addressing the fundamental issues you raise. I should like to read more.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300064299643040666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-87336984876272739902008-06-15T10:49:00.000-06:002008-06-15T10:49:00.000-06:00billyjoeallen 11.33 am & anon 1.23 pm:If McCain is...billyjoeallen 11.33 am & anon 1.23 pm:<BR/>If McCain is in fact elected and sworn in, why couldn't the supreme court justices declare that he cannot be president because he was born in Panama, thereby elevating his VP?<BR/><BR/>Who would Republicrat president makers want as President? So, why not push McCain and their real choice in the hope that McCain is evicted from the position after being sworn in? The new guy could then pick his VP. <BR/> <BR/>If the justices rule before McCain is sworn in, could Obama become president?<BR/><BR/>Doc Ellis 124Doc Ellis 124https://www.blogger.com/profile/08543939658083915285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-15891151310207573012008-06-15T06:21:00.000-06:002008-06-15T06:21:00.000-06:00christopher has cited some thoughtful references w...christopher has cited some thoughtful references within the decision. None address why we got into this legal lacuna in the first place -- namely, the Bush administration sought to avoid calling the detainees "prisoners of war," in which case the Geneva Convention would have dictated their treatment.<BR/><BR/>If, on the other hand, the detainees are regarded as common criminals (the direction the Court seems to be edging), then they are entitled to trial in civilian courts. U.S. courts routinely try, convict and incarcerate criminal aliens.<BR/><BR/>But instead, Bush sought to create a new, unprecedented category of "enemy combatant," denied P.O.W. status for being "subnational" and not wearing a uniform.<BR/><BR/>Does this category really make sense? If military forces overseas are taking prisoners, usually it is a war. Bush has called it a war. If it's not a war, then the first course of action should be to try the "enemy combatants" under local law. Bush was content to try Saddam Hussein under local law, for instance.<BR/><BR/>The fundamental problem here is that Bush has tried to carve out a 'sui generis' approach in which those captured on the battlefield are neither treated as P.O.W.'s, nor tried in local courts, nor brought to U.S. justice. Taking them to an offshore military base and trying to fashion a military trial procedure from whole cloth is clearly a massive, risk-fraught enterprise. Three rebuffs from the Supreme Court show that it has been done badly.<BR/><BR/>So error is piled upon error: Bush wants to call it a war, but refuses to declare war. Bush says he wants to democratize Iraq and Afghanistan, but refuses to submit prisoners to local justice. Bush uses the unique territorial status of Guantánamo to muddy the waters of applicable law.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line, the U.S. founding documents proclaimed universal rights; special provisions applied to captured enemies during wartime. Numerous options existed for treating the detainees within this existing framework. But the fundamental illegality of the U.S. invasion and occupation forced Bush into a paroxysm of legal dodging and weaving which got him into his current, richly-deserved predicament. His treatment of Jose Padilla, an American held without charge on American soil, constitutes proof positive of bad faith and calculated attacks on the principle of habeas corpus.<BR/><BR/>If Bush exiled himself to Paraguay to evade war crimes prosecution and got kidnapped by a guerrilla group, what legal rights would detainee Bush have? WHO GIVES A SH*T?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-80842451869914118432008-06-15T01:25:00.000-06:002008-06-15T01:25:00.000-06:00Probable future DECIDER McCain wasn't happy with t...Probable future DECIDER McCain wasn't happy with the majority decision either. Although Bush has publicly stated that he intends to bow to the ruling, the neocons are infamous for doing end runs around constitutional clear intent and getting away with it. My guess is that in the future those accused of being enemy combatants or terrorists will be held only in foreign countries that can't be regarded as American territory. To some extent this is already being done through extraordinary rendition or "torture" flights to other nations whose regimes are skilled at "advanced" interrogation techniques. If prisoners should ever receive trials I doubt that they would be fair. Out of site, out of mind as the saying goes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-7347138339272125472008-06-14T18:26:00.000-06:002008-06-14T18:26:00.000-06:00Doc Ellis -- Thanks for the correction!Doc Ellis -- Thanks for the correction!William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-23035459107234541622008-06-14T18:24:00.000-06:002008-06-14T18:24:00.000-06:00What's interesting is that the totalitarian morons...What's interesting is that the totalitarian morons are totally ignorant of one of the lessons of history: the repression machines they create always consume their creators first in the orgy of power-grabbing subsequent to making that power available for grabs.<BR/><BR/>I would say that it would be right and good to feed them to their own Moloch, but, alas, it does not stop with eating his own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-52883396650231732262008-06-14T18:17:00.000-06:002008-06-14T18:17:00.000-06:00um....July 12? Did you mean June 12?Doc Ellis 124...um....July 12? Did you mean June 12?<BR/><BR/>Doc Ellis 124Doc Ellis 124https://www.blogger.com/profile/08543939658083915285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-71842795548394236042008-06-14T14:23:00.000-06:002008-06-14T14:23:00.000-06:00billyjoeallen - Bingo! How Clintonian of McCain, t...billyjoeallen - Bingo! How Clintonian of McCain, to want Guantánano inmates treated as offshore, while his Panamanian-hatched good self is considered 'natural-born.' [Does this prohibit those who emerged by C-section from serving? Just asking.] The NY Times wrote about it in February, and conceded that it's a serious issue:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/36a5wf<BR/><BR/>As to whether it will make any difference, consider the case of Bush and Cheney, both of whom reportedly held Texas drivers licenses in 2000, although Cheney claimed to be from Wyoming. But Cheney was living in Dallas and working at Halliburton. <BR/><BR/>Amendment XII specifies that "the Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." <BR/><BR/>Practically, this has been interpreted to mean that the two nominees should be from different states (as Bush and Cheney claimed to be). But if they were both Texans, then there was a constitutional problem. For sure, the electoral votes of Texas would be disqualified, and then the election result would have changed.<BR/><BR/>Yet, this issue was never litigated. Probably because of the "professional courtesy" which exists among the Depublicrats. The Bush administration didn't prosecute the Clintons' "bribes for pardons" scandal; the Democrats didn't challenge Bush/Cheney's same-state residency vulnerability.<BR/><BR/>So McCain will brazen it out. And if necessary, he'll get a retroactive dispensation from Congress or the Court that the Canal Zone was in the good-ol' USA. Whatever it takes. The cake is already baking; don't try to mess with the ingredients now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-75204461124120738882008-06-14T12:33:00.000-06:002008-06-14T12:33:00.000-06:00If a foreign military base should not be recognize...If a foreign military base should not be recognized as American soil for jurisdictional purposes, then it stands to reason that Senator John McCain, who was born on a military base in Panama, is foreign born and therefor not eligible to be President.billyjoeallenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09914373991418683644noreply@blogger.com