<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Internal War On Tribunals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/07/26/internal-war-on-tribunals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/07/26/internal-war-on-tribunals/</link>
	<description>Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:22:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Heretik</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/07/26/internal-war-on-tribunals/comment-page-1/#comment-53872</link>
		<dc:creator>The Heretik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/07/26/internal-war-on-tribunals/#comment-53872</guid>
		<description>[...] Big surprise? &#38;#8220;Neutral&#38;#8221; observer (and architect of the legal house of cards) John Yoo: “This draft shows that the executive branch doesn’t think the Supreme Court got the questions on the Geneva Conventions right in Hamdan.” Message? We don&#38;#8217;t care what you said. Support the troops? Yeah, the proposal is getting framed that way. The White House makes a claim about &#38;#8220;troops on the battlefield&#38;#8221; that is simply absurd and disingenuous: &#38;#8220;“the United States cannot safely require members of the armed forces to gather evidence on the battlefield as though they were police officers.&#38;#8221; Reality: it&#38;#8217;s not troops on the battlefield that are being questioned here. It&#38;#8217;s not what troops in the heat of battle do that the Supreme Court has questioned. What&#38;#8217;s questioned is what the government does quite cooly far from the battlefield. Plus a reminder: &#38;#8220;the Supreme Court has declared the President&#38;#8217;s plan illegal.&#38;#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Big surprise? &#38;#38;#8220;Neutral&#38;#38;#8221; observer (and architect of the legal house of cards) John Yoo: “This draft shows that the executive branch doesn’t think the Supreme Court got the questions on the Geneva Conventions right in Hamdan.” Message? We don&#38;#38;#8217;t care what you said. Support the troops? Yeah, the proposal is getting framed that way. The White House makes a claim about &#38;#38;#8220;troops on the battlefield&#38;#38;#8221; that is simply absurd and disingenuous: &#38;#38;#8220;“the United States cannot safely require members of the armed forces to gather evidence on the battlefield as though they were police officers.&#38;#38;#8221; Reality: it&#38;#38;#8217;s not troops on the battlefield that are being questioned here. It&#38;#38;#8217;s not what troops in the heat of battle do that the Supreme Court has questioned. What&#38;#38;#8217;s questioned is what the government does quite cooly far from the battlefield. Plus a reminder: &#38;#38;#8220;the Supreme Court has declared the President&#38;#38;#8217;s plan illegal.&#38;#38;#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

