Here's another victory:
Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine By JOANN LOVIGLIO, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago
PHILADELPHIA - A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $550,000 indecency fine against CBS Corp. for the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show that ended with Janet Jackson's breast-baring "wardrobe malfunction."
The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in issuing the fine for the fleeting image of nudity.
The 90 million people watching the Super Bowl, many of them children, heard Justin Timberlake sing, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," as he reached for Jackson's bustier.
The court found that the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so "pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience."
"Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing," the court said. "But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure."
Victory for the Constitution
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
See, folks, here's another textbook example of how criddic can't think as a real person thinks--illustration of precisely how certain wise observers of our world have admonished us about the debilitating impact on the mind that the mass media have had.
"Usage of our tax dollars" to line the pockets of contractors while we destroy (sorry, "liberate" and "develop") two nations and set up our gulag archipelago doesn't bother criddic, obviously.
We would "clog up civilian court systems" if we let Gitmo prisoners have the same rights as all prisoners of war have been granted (oh sorry, we have to be politically correct so as not to hurt poor criddic's feelings: "unlawful enemy combatants").
Criddic, as one can see, dumbfuckly adheres to two assumptions. These are very important and are the sort of thing that must be reproduced just enough times in our populace to keep in an "issue," a "debate," so that Bush & Co. can stall and do as they like. Assumption 1: everyone or almost everyone in Guantanamo is legitimately guilty of such heinous crimes against the US that they are divorced them from all prior conceptualizations of humane treatment in wartime. Here is where criddic or people like him would say: "Yes, they were heinous. Remember a little thing called 9/11?" But the vast majority of these, er, "unlawful enemy combatants" surely had nothing to do with 9/11 and were just these so-called insurgents in their wartorn country. Assumption 2: if we adhere to humane precedent in treatment of prisoners of war, these eeevil, heinous individuals are just bound to get off scott-free on technicalities (due to sleazy lawyers with slicked-back hair, natch). Because, of course, you see ... this is what happens in movies. So criddic fucking buys it.
Oh, and there's this gem:
But it's apolitical to do as you're suggesting!? :laugh: You are a monstrous human being, buddy. Cheers.
I also think that precedence can be helpful. The whole southern discrimination/Jim Crow analogy is a cheap shot. Obviously we don't want to repeat bad precedent, but I think that Lincoln was justified in a time of war. However, I think even this situation is different. Usage of our tax dollars to clog up the civilian court systems to get out on techincalities so these dangerous people can go back and kill our troops is simply without conscience.
"Usage of our tax dollars" to line the pockets of contractors while we destroy (sorry, "liberate" and "develop") two nations and set up our gulag archipelago doesn't bother criddic, obviously.
We would "clog up civilian court systems" if we let Gitmo prisoners have the same rights as all prisoners of war have been granted (oh sorry, we have to be politically correct so as not to hurt poor criddic's feelings: "unlawful enemy combatants").
Criddic, as one can see, dumbfuckly adheres to two assumptions. These are very important and are the sort of thing that must be reproduced just enough times in our populace to keep in an "issue," a "debate," so that Bush & Co. can stall and do as they like. Assumption 1: everyone or almost everyone in Guantanamo is legitimately guilty of such heinous crimes against the US that they are divorced them from all prior conceptualizations of humane treatment in wartime. Here is where criddic or people like him would say: "Yes, they were heinous. Remember a little thing called 9/11?" But the vast majority of these, er, "unlawful enemy combatants" surely had nothing to do with 9/11 and were just these so-called insurgents in their wartorn country. Assumption 2: if we adhere to humane precedent in treatment of prisoners of war, these eeevil, heinous individuals are just bound to get off scott-free on technicalities (due to sleazy lawyers with slicked-back hair, natch). Because, of course, you see ... this is what happens in movies. So criddic fucking buys it.
Oh, and there's this gem:
I just don't think our courts should be used this way. It is political to do so.
But it's apolitical to do as you're suggesting!? :laugh: You are a monstrous human being, buddy. Cheers.
I disagree with that interpretation. All I was saying was that, while they certainly should have been tried by now, they should not have access to our civilian courts. They are not civilians. They are enemy combatants.
I also think that precedence can be helpful. The whole southern discrimination/Jim Crow analogy is a cheap shot. Obviously we don't want to repeat bad precedent, but I think that Lincoln was justified in a time of war. However, I think even this situation is different. Usage of our tax dollars to clog up the civilian court systems to get out on techincalities so these dangerous people can go back and kill our troops is simply without conscience. You care more about the supposed rights of mass killers than you do the troops who are going to die as a result. You cannot any longer claim that their deaths matter to you if you are willing to let that happen.
By the way, yes I know that 9/11 happened on our soil, but many of those at Guantanamo were caught on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't think our courts should be used this way. It is political to do so.
I also think that precedence can be helpful. The whole southern discrimination/Jim Crow analogy is a cheap shot. Obviously we don't want to repeat bad precedent, but I think that Lincoln was justified in a time of war. However, I think even this situation is different. Usage of our tax dollars to clog up the civilian court systems to get out on techincalities so these dangerous people can go back and kill our troops is simply without conscience. You care more about the supposed rights of mass killers than you do the troops who are going to die as a result. You cannot any longer claim that their deaths matter to you if you are willing to let that happen.
By the way, yes I know that 9/11 happened on our soil, but many of those at Guantanamo were caught on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't think our courts should be used this way. It is political to do so.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
criddic, I don't think you know the basic tenets of the Constitution well enough in order to argue any of your points. You also seem to drop "from what I've heard" a lot in your posts which, to me, essentially translates into "what Fox News told me last night".
And, just to echo what kaytodd stated below, the Founders specifically earmarked our Constitution with fail-safes in order to prevent such despotic actions as interminable and unlawful imprisonment and suspension of habeus corpus. This Administration's disregard for our nation's most important document has filtered down to people like you to the point of almost total disregard.
Citing historical precedence is also a slippery slope to me. On the one hand, you might mention that Abraham Lincoln did a similar thing during the Civil War; on the other, one might cite segregated water fountains as precedence for excluding gay men from donating blood.
And, just to echo what kaytodd stated below, the Founders specifically earmarked our Constitution with fail-safes in order to prevent such despotic actions as interminable and unlawful imprisonment and suspension of habeus corpus. This Administration's disregard for our nation's most important document has filtered down to people like you to the point of almost total disregard.
Citing historical precedence is also a slippery slope to me. On the one hand, you might mention that Abraham Lincoln did a similar thing during the Civil War; on the other, one might cite segregated water fountains as precedence for excluding gay men from donating blood.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
By the way it says "the accused ... by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The crimes accused at Guantanamo were not committed in a state or district of the United States.
Hmmm...last I seem to recall, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were in New York and Virginia, respectively...oh, wait, it must be that New York that doesn't border Canada....
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Penelope wrote:Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Note that it does not specify that "the accused" must be an American citizen; additionally, since "the accused" in this case are not part of a governmental army--in which case their internment would be valid--the court must determine whether they were indeed plotting against the United States.
The situation we had prior to this decision reminds one of the lettres de caché, a power exercised by the kings of France prior to the Revolution that allowed them to intern an individual without any stated reason and for however long they wanted to. Right now, the only "evidence" we have of any of these individuals' "wrong-doing" is being in a particular place at a particular time. These individuals have the right to petition the government--even if it isn't their own--to present just cause for their internment.
I can partially accept that explanation, except that there are trials-in-waiting to determine the guilt or innocence of those accused of being enemy combatants. We will recall that Lincoln did not give habeus corpus to deemed enemies of the government during the Civil War and that those tried in the Nuremberg Trials were not afforded all the same rights deemed guaranteed in the recent decision.
My problem with the ruling is the idea that the civilian courts of the United States can now be flooded with hundreds of these claims, where they can apparently set the bar for evidence at a different level than you would need in a military trial. From what I have heard and what the dissenting judges wrote, this could lead to dangerous people being freed on technicalities. People in favor of this ruling seem to be under the impression that detainees at Guantamo are just unlucky fellows who were locked up for no reason. The alternative thought-process would assume unpatriotic motives or willfull ignorance.
I don't think our civilian courts should be used for people taken into custody on foreign soil. It is a military operation, not a civilian case. But i reiterate that I agree with the idea that the Bush administration should have acted more quickly to put more of these detainees on trial to avoid this kind of thing from happening.
By the way it says "the accused ... by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The crimes accused at Guantanamo were not committed in a state or district of the United States.
Edited By criddic3 on 1214205918
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Note that it does not specify that "the accused" must be an American citizen; additionally, since "the accused" in this case are not part of a governmental army--in which case their internment would be valid--the court must determine whether they were indeed plotting against the United States.
The situation we had prior to this decision reminds one of the lettres de caché, a power exercised by the kings of France prior to the Revolution that allowed them to intern an individual without any stated reason and for however long they wanted to. Right now, the only "evidence" we have of any of these individuals' "wrong-doing" is being in a particular place at a particular time. These individuals have the right to petition the government--even if it isn't their own--to present just cause for their internment.
Note that it does not specify that "the accused" must be an American citizen; additionally, since "the accused" in this case are not part of a governmental army--in which case their internment would be valid--the court must determine whether they were indeed plotting against the United States.
The situation we had prior to this decision reminds one of the lettres de caché, a power exercised by the kings of France prior to the Revolution that allowed them to intern an individual without any stated reason and for however long they wanted to. Right now, the only "evidence" we have of any of these individuals' "wrong-doing" is being in a particular place at a particular time. These individuals have the right to petition the government--even if it isn't their own--to present just cause for their internment.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
What in the constitution gives enemy combatants and foreign detainees the right to our federal court system?rain Bard wrote:All that may be true enough, criddic (I'm staying out of the question of whether it is or not), but it's a political argument or a practical argument, not a constitutional one. The fact is, unless our constitution is amended there's nothing in it to prevent the detainees from the right to receive a fair and speedy trial under the law. OscarGuy's point that Scalia and other dissenters were trying to "legislate from the bench" in this case still stands, and nothing you've said contradicts it.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
No matter the circumstances, it is wrong to hold people as prisoners for long periods without providing an explanation. I know the US suffered a terrible tragedy on 9/11 but there are people who have been held for almost seven years with no charges being made against them and without benefit of habeas corpus. That is just plain wrong, and one does not have to be a bleeding heart to feel that way.
In seven years the government should either release them or have a military tribunal listen to an explanation of why they should continue to be held. The American Founding Fathers specifically listed the British habit of holding people without benefit of habeas corpus as one of the reasons they demanded separation. Treating people like this is bad for our nation's soul.
In seven years the government should either release them or have a military tribunal listen to an explanation of why they should continue to be held. The American Founding Fathers specifically listed the British habit of holding people without benefit of habeas corpus as one of the reasons they demanded separation. Treating people like this is bad for our nation's soul.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8789
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
You do understand that the decision does no such thing -- that all it does is allow for those who just might have been wrongly accused to have some access to a system whereby they can establish this...rather than being thrown into a black hole from which they have liitle hope of release. (At least for a very long time. Are you aware that some people were, after years of captivity, let go because we had nothing on them? The "vast majority" thing is meaningless if you're the innocent guy who's prevented from proving or even claiming his innocence)criddic3 wrote:But most of these people, the VAST MAJORITY, are murderers and were caught in battle zones and/or with evidence of plots to do harm.
A good question is Would we allow Bin Laden to challenge his detention in an American federal court with taxpayer money?
...
It is simply arrogance to allow dangerous people like these, enemy combatants, to possibly go free on technicalities. They will, as Scalia said, probably go back out and kill more American and Iraqi soldiers all while recruiting more with the knowledge that getting caught just means a finite period of time challenging their status to plan their return.
Righties like yourself apparently have little faith in the Justice Department, if you think bin Laden couldn't be convicted anywhere but in a kangaroo court.
This has been my quarterly vent against criddic's idiocy, which I normally just ignore.
If you've read Naomi Wolf's chilling treatise, The End of America, you'll find that there exists no society in the known history of the world that has set up a series of off-campus secret prisons and NOT devolved into some form of dictatorship later on down the line.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Leave it to you, Johnny to turn up a blog of a monarchist from Westchester.Johnny Guitar wrote:Of course, OG. One of the benefits of civilization has been the development, and entrenchment, of civil law which keeps human dignity as the baseline for all civil and governmental affairs. Bush & Co. are simply the manifestations of our own most barbaric and savage tendencies. They bend rules for specific ends. To whine like a little punk, as criddic does, about "taxpayer's money"--all the while the government is channeling billions upon billions into the coffers of incompetent and corrupt contractors!--is merely pathetic.
One does not have to be a communist, a progressive, or a liberal to adhere to the humane treatment under law of enemy prisoners--here is an article written by Andrew Cusack, a young, arch-conservative, Roman Catholic from Westchester with monarchist (!) leanings: http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/06/02/dehumanizing-the-enemy/
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Of course, OG. One of the benefits of civilization has been the development, and entrenchment, of civil law which keeps human dignity as the baseline for all civil and governmental affairs. Bush & Co. are simply the manifestations of our own most barbaric and savage tendencies. They bend rules for specific ends. To whine like a little punk, as criddic does, about "taxpayer's money"--all the while the government is channeling billions upon billions into the coffers of incompetent and corrupt contractors!--is merely pathetic.
One does not have to be a communist, a progressive, or a liberal to adhere to the humane treatment under law of enemy prisoners--here is an article written by Andrew Cusack, a young, arch-conservative, Roman Catholic from Westchester with monarchist (!) leanings: http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/06/02/dehumanizing-the-enemy/
One does not have to be a communist, a progressive, or a liberal to adhere to the humane treatment under law of enemy prisoners--here is an article written by Andrew Cusack, a young, arch-conservative, Roman Catholic from Westchester with monarchist (!) leanings: http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/06/02/dehumanizing-the-enemy/
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Joking aside, Johnny, there was another article I didn't post about abuses going on in Guantanamo and in prisons like Abu Ghraib. There are people who eventually get out after being tortured, but they have spent months or years there without due process.
And believe me, with American sentiment as it is, they will take, with a grain of salt, any plea for release and it will take good, solid proof before they will let anyone out of these "secret" military prisons.
Of course Criddic doesn't want American taxpayer dollars to be used to try these "scum" because they're all evil and they're all there because they did something bad, not because they wer "suspected" of being bad. But he doesn't mind the waste of taxpayer dollars to HOLD these prisoners, pay the military guards to watch them, feed them, give them medicine and treat them for months or years, or for the money to pay for the military tribunals, which aren't free (but in Criddic's world, they are).
Instead, we want to give them access to the right to question their imprisonment and earn their freedom if they ARE being held and yet have done nothing wrong. Heaven forbid someone be in there by mistake! In Criddic's world, that person will spend months or years there before getting his military tribunal and if the government says he should stay, he will whether he's guilty or not because the military tribunals take orders and can be ordered not to release someone. The Federal court system can't be ordered to retain someone if the evidence says otherwise (though, by cherry picking, they can be fired or removed from the bench if they don't adhere to the tenets of the Bush administration, which has been done before).
I would rather men who are innocent be freed from torture and captivity than be held against their wills just because someone framed them or had a stick up their ass or saw them do something "suspicious" even if they were just feeding their family. And if you doubt that can happen, then you do live in a fantasy world.
And believe me, with American sentiment as it is, they will take, with a grain of salt, any plea for release and it will take good, solid proof before they will let anyone out of these "secret" military prisons.
Of course Criddic doesn't want American taxpayer dollars to be used to try these "scum" because they're all evil and they're all there because they did something bad, not because they wer "suspected" of being bad. But he doesn't mind the waste of taxpayer dollars to HOLD these prisoners, pay the military guards to watch them, feed them, give them medicine and treat them for months or years, or for the money to pay for the military tribunals, which aren't free (but in Criddic's world, they are).
Instead, we want to give them access to the right to question their imprisonment and earn their freedom if they ARE being held and yet have done nothing wrong. Heaven forbid someone be in there by mistake! In Criddic's world, that person will spend months or years there before getting his military tribunal and if the government says he should stay, he will whether he's guilty or not because the military tribunals take orders and can be ordered not to release someone. The Federal court system can't be ordered to retain someone if the evidence says otherwise (though, by cherry picking, they can be fired or removed from the bench if they don't adhere to the tenets of the Bush administration, which has been done before).
I would rather men who are innocent be freed from torture and captivity than be held against their wills just because someone framed them or had a stick up their ass or saw them do something "suspicious" even if they were just feeding their family. And if you doubt that can happen, then you do live in a fantasy world.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
But rB, look at this from criddic's perspective. (And we should pay attention to him--I heard he graduated with honors from the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good, and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.)
By far the vast majority of these prisoners are evil. They no doubt have slicked-back ponytails and swarthy beards, and strut around Guantanamo with toothpicks in their mouths. They were laughing and high-fiving back in the Middle East as they shot down Americans, pro-American Iraqis, and puppies. (Because we all know US forces don't kill puppies, riiiight?) It's all our corn-fed Christian boys can do to guard them honorably and keep the peace.
Well along comes Mr. Ay-rab lawyer, with slicked back hair but sans beard (he wears a suit), and he'll totally laugh as he racks up the bill for taxpayers as he defends all the prisoners .
Fortunately, there is indeed one wrongfully accused Iraqi prisoner in Guantanamo--bureaucracy and paperwork (the stuff liberals push on everyone) accidentally put him there, and though he is pro-freedom and just wants to get back to Baghdad with his small business and new family, he can't get any help from the corrupt lawyer. Well, the honest but rigid American guards don't believe him when he says he's on their side (it's understandable from their POV). So this guy manages to send an email to the one federal agent he knows can help him--Joe Hammer, diplomat/ninja and former Navy SEAL, who looks suspiciously like Kiefer Sutherland. Joe Hammer comes down to Gitmo and talks with the innocent Iraqi. But just as they have a plan to fix everything through paperwork and due process, the lawyers and swarthy prisoners stage an insurrection. In a world where up is down, and everything you hold dear is under fire, two men need to fight for their lives to save something worth fighting for. (And the hidden moral of this plot development: sometimes, liberal procedure just doesn't friggin' work and you gotta be MEN. American men.)
For a while Guantanamo is a temporary war zone--probably the terrorists got secret help from the Cuban government. But Joe Hammer manages to get to the communications center where he has a very stirring speech to the liberal weenie in charge there, explaining to him how arrogant he is for lacking the balls to not be harsh on the prisoners before they got their high-powered, lawyer. Then he sends a message to the President: "Don't worry about back-up, Sir. I'm gonna take care of this with a little bit of elbow grease. And a lot of downhome pride." He proceeds to run through the prison yards (which are on fire and being patrolled by packs of swarthy brown Muslims, who are laughing and beating up stray injured American guards). Joe Hammer picks up some machine guns from the arsenal, which was unlocked by our pro-American Iraqi friend's ingenuity while Joe was making his speech. Joe Hammer and the pro-American Iraqi take out the guns and kick some ass reclaiming Gitmo in the process.
The best part of the conclusiion, right as the Prez is landing down in Air Force One, is when Joe Hammer grabs the Ay-rab lawyer by the collar and says, "You make me sick!" And then he makes like he's going to punch him, but the pro-American Iraqi says, "Wait! Let me!" And he knocks the lawyer out.
It's how it would work on a bad primetime TV miniseries, so it must be how it would work in real life.
By far the vast majority of these prisoners are evil. They no doubt have slicked-back ponytails and swarthy beards, and strut around Guantanamo with toothpicks in their mouths. They were laughing and high-fiving back in the Middle East as they shot down Americans, pro-American Iraqis, and puppies. (Because we all know US forces don't kill puppies, riiiight?) It's all our corn-fed Christian boys can do to guard them honorably and keep the peace.
Well along comes Mr. Ay-rab lawyer, with slicked back hair but sans beard (he wears a suit), and he'll totally laugh as he racks up the bill for taxpayers as he defends all the prisoners .
Fortunately, there is indeed one wrongfully accused Iraqi prisoner in Guantanamo--bureaucracy and paperwork (the stuff liberals push on everyone) accidentally put him there, and though he is pro-freedom and just wants to get back to Baghdad with his small business and new family, he can't get any help from the corrupt lawyer. Well, the honest but rigid American guards don't believe him when he says he's on their side (it's understandable from their POV). So this guy manages to send an email to the one federal agent he knows can help him--Joe Hammer, diplomat/ninja and former Navy SEAL, who looks suspiciously like Kiefer Sutherland. Joe Hammer comes down to Gitmo and talks with the innocent Iraqi. But just as they have a plan to fix everything through paperwork and due process, the lawyers and swarthy prisoners stage an insurrection. In a world where up is down, and everything you hold dear is under fire, two men need to fight for their lives to save something worth fighting for. (And the hidden moral of this plot development: sometimes, liberal procedure just doesn't friggin' work and you gotta be MEN. American men.)
For a while Guantanamo is a temporary war zone--probably the terrorists got secret help from the Cuban government. But Joe Hammer manages to get to the communications center where he has a very stirring speech to the liberal weenie in charge there, explaining to him how arrogant he is for lacking the balls to not be harsh on the prisoners before they got their high-powered, lawyer. Then he sends a message to the President: "Don't worry about back-up, Sir. I'm gonna take care of this with a little bit of elbow grease. And a lot of downhome pride." He proceeds to run through the prison yards (which are on fire and being patrolled by packs of swarthy brown Muslims, who are laughing and beating up stray injured American guards). Joe Hammer picks up some machine guns from the arsenal, which was unlocked by our pro-American Iraqi friend's ingenuity while Joe was making his speech. Joe Hammer and the pro-American Iraqi take out the guns and kick some ass reclaiming Gitmo in the process.
The best part of the conclusiion, right as the Prez is landing down in Air Force One, is when Joe Hammer grabs the Ay-rab lawyer by the collar and says, "You make me sick!" And then he makes like he's going to punch him, but the pro-American Iraqi says, "Wait! Let me!" And he knocks the lawyer out.
It's how it would work on a bad primetime TV miniseries, so it must be how it would work in real life.