Rule by fear or rule by law?

[GeoJAP]

If I misinterpreted that remark, then I apologize.  I grew up in a US military community overseas where my friends were all colors, and also mixes of white/black parents, American/German, black/Korean, black/Japanese, white/Japanese, white/Korean, you name it.  I don't roll like that and that kind of comment or characterization would not have been interpreted kindly where I came from (ie. someone would have gotten an ass kicking, that's just how it was).

Rabbi, if you want more documentation, I'll get it for you.  Just let me know.  Here is a start.  I apologize that it is from Wikipedia, which as we all know is not perfect (is anything though?), but they do have links to all their references so it can be checked if you like.

Habeas Corpus:
On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States[3][4] by a vote of 6534. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 4851.[5]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any resident, citizen or non-citizen, of the USA.

Challenges to these laws are still working themselves through the courts, although they have started to be overturned, thank God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Here is more about the Plame case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21903753/
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302095_pf.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/04leak.html

It seems pretty obvious to me that Cheney coerced Scooter Libby to do his dirty work for him regarding Valerie Plame, but loyalists to the current administration will deny any damning association until the day they die, obviously.  I'm aware of what the Constitution says, but Treason has been shown by the courts and congress to have a broader meaning, including acts which "undermine national security".  This is one which would have to go before a judge and have lawyers argue it until the cows came home, but it does have some legs.

And Fistful, Plame was a spy.  She was an undercover operative for the CIA.  What more do you want, man?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

Armitage admits leaking Plame's identity
POSTED: 2:39 a.m. EDT, September 8, 2006
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged Thursday that he was the source who first revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak back in 2003, touching off a federal investigation.

Armitage told the CBS Evening News that he did so inadvertently.

"I feel terrible," Armitage said. "Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson."

In a column published on July 14, 2003, Novak, citing two senior administration officials, noted that Plame was a CIA operative. The column was primarily about Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.

Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame. However, he has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.

Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said Fitzgerald learned who the source was independently.

Last month, sources told CNN that Armitage had revealed Plame's role at the CIA in a casual conversation with Novak.

Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. He told CBS that the special counsel investigating the leak, Patrick Fitzgerald, "asked me not to discuss this, and I honored his request."

After Novak's column ran, Wilson accused Bush administration officials of leaking his wife's name in retaliation for his criticisms about intelligence used to buttress the case for invading Iraq. (Full story)

Because deliberately revealing the identity of a CIA operative can be a crime, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed in September 2003 as a special counsel to investigate whether any laws were broken.

While no one has been indicted for actually leaking Plame's identity, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators for allegedly giving false information about his discussions with journalists about Plame.

Libby has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

Armitage, 65, was No. 2 at the State Department under former Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2005. He left his post after Powell resigned at the beginning of Bush's second term.

CNN's John King and Brian Todd

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and don't apologise the comment was a shot  but one i suspect you don't /won't understand. white guys almost never get it

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

as to your plaints about habeus corpus i think you might wanna take a look at how and upon who the laws are being apllied to.  then take a deep breath and ponder why.  get back to us with your pithy insightful observations

[The Rabbi]

GEOJap,
I dont know whether you are being disingenuous or just really don't get it.

Read the language of the bill.  Notice how far that is from "Bush suspended habeas corpus."
Now read it again.
If the difference still eludes you, take up crochet.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

now rabbi  you're not gonna get all technical and groiunded in reallity about all those men in washington voting on those bills  and all those folks all over the country voting those guys in washington in.no wonder you can't share in his grand vision! jeeez....

[GeoJAP]

GEOJap,
I dont know whether you are being disingenuous or just really don't get it.

Read the language of the bill.  Notice how far that is from "Bush suspended habeas corpus."
Now read it again.
If the difference still eludes you, take up crochet.

For the sake of brevity, "Bush suspended habeas corpus" is a very abbreviated phrase which covers the whole process of a bill becoming law.  That is just too much to describe in one sentence, you're supposed to be able to connect the dots at some point, come on.  Responsibility for that law lies with the administration and congress, like I noted above.  To me, it's like splitting hairs, but I'll give you credit and admit it's not an accurate statement as it's too brief and not descriptive of the whole process.  But still, the law does exist.  It's not fiction.  Habeas corpus does not exist for US citizens in some situations now.  The framers would be rolling over in their graves at this.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

in your study of history did you stumble across times this has happened before in the usa? let us know if you need hints.and habeus corpus has never been extended to pows. and inescence thats what the law is about. in reallity we have situations where a variety of folks are at war with us

[Perd Hapley]

Habeas corpus does not exist for US citizens in some situations now.  The framers would be rolling over in their graves at this.

The same framers that wrote the following?
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 9

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

How do you manage with modern life?  By ridiculing people with ten times the intelligence and education that you possess?  (That is, the Rabbi.)  OK, OK, I don't know your level of education, so maybe I'm going overboard.  But if you imagine that he's an unthinking automaton...  Well, let's just say that you're again believing against the evidence. 

Again, your logic is flawed.  Intelligence has nothing to do with the amount of education someone has. 

I never said it did.  Read the comment again.  I never said that.  I think Rabbi's a little kooky now and then, myself.  But he can definitely think better than most human beings, and arrives at his own conclusions.  You'll figure that out, before long. 

So "logic" means that you believe in things for which no evidence has presented itself? 

I (and RileyMC before I could post) have presented documentation for every single one of my points.  What are you still wanting?

I was talking specifically about your totally fabricated charges of treason, in the Valerie Plame affair.  That was obvious.  If you have some worthwhile documentation that shows that someone was charged with treason, I will retract the comment.  Treason is an actionable offense.  There was a full-blown investigation of this whole matter, by a special prosecutor.  If there was sufficient evidence, someone would have been charged.  Again, you don't have to show a conviction, only a charge.  Go ahead and do it. 

You guys are like a pack of jabbering hyenas.  How many people have you chased off who didn't step right into line and agree with your ideologies?

    Please, the withering assault of substance is killing me.  Oh.  No, wait, it's the whining.  And the lectures about polite debating skills from someone who has no room to talk.  To be perfectly frank, I also get tired of the low road debating from those on both sides of these issues.  (I even do it myself, sometimes.)  And now I get to see it from you, too. 

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, I forgot.  Cassandrasdaddy, aren't you like half white and half, uh, somethin'?  I forget what.  Anyway, go on and tell old GeoJAP, so he can stop steaming about the "racism." 

I've never understood, the "that's very white of you," line, anyway.  What is that supposed to mean? 

Oh, hey!  I found an interesting article on the origins of the phrase, also explaining that it is often used sarcastically.  As we have seen.   

http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=373

[The Rabbi]

GEOJap,
I dont know whether you are being disingenuous or just really don't get it.

Read the language of the bill.  Notice how far that is from "Bush suspended habeas corpus."
Now read it again.
If the difference still eludes you, take up crochet.

For the sake of brevity, "Bush suspended habeas corpus" is a very abbreviated phrase which covers the whole process of a bill becoming law.  That is just too much to describe in one sentence, you're supposed to be able to connect the dots at some point, come on.  Responsibility for that law lies with the administration and congress, like I noted above.  To me, it's like splitting hairs, but I'll give you credit and admit it's not an accurate statement as it's too brief and not descriptive of the whole process.  But still, the law does exist.  It's not fiction.  Habeas corpus does not exist for US citizens in some situations now.  The framers would be rolling over in their graves at this.

A very abbreviated phrase?  Try, a misleading distortion of what actually happened.  As is everything you have posted on this topic so far.
You are right: habeas corpus does not exist for some citizens.  Namely those citizens who are acting as enemy combatants.  Of course, as POWs they never had a right of habeas corpus.  The German saboteur case established that conclusively, and that was well before Bush.
As of now, we have shown that Bush never said the constitution was a piece of paper.  We have shown that Bush did not suspend habeas corpus.  We have shown that Cheney did not commit treason.  A little digging and I am confident we can show that nothing, nada, of what you posted on this is true.

[GeoJAP]

I was talking specifically about your totally fabricated charges of treason, in the Valerie Plame affair.  That was obvious.  If you have some worthwhile documentation that shows that someone was charged with treason, I will retract the comment.  Treason is an actionable offense.  There was a full-blown investigation of this whole matter, by a special prosecutor.  If there was sufficient evidence, someone would have been charged.  Again, you don't have to show a conviction, only a charge.

What does being charged with treason have to do anything?  It could be argued with merit that Cheney and Libby committed treason.  Like I said, committing a crime and being charged with one are not always the same.

[GeoJAP]

We have shown that Cheney did not commit treason.

Where?

[GeoJAP]

A very abbreviated phrase?  Try, a misleading distortion of what actually happened.

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.  My statements were all laid out for you in detail.  Bush's administration wanted these laws, and he got them with congress's help.  I don't see how you can say such thorough references of sources could be labeled a distortion. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the inability to see is mankinds most common failing

[The Rabbi]

A very abbreviated phrase?  Try, a misleading distortion of what actually happened.

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.  My statements were all laid out for you in detail.  Bush's administration wanted these laws, and he got them with congress's help.  I don't see how you can say such thorough references of sources could be labeled a distortion. 

If you dont see how a law passed by Congress that merely codified existing practice with regard to alien combatants who are U.S. citizens is not the same thing as "Bush suspended habeas corpus" then there really is no point in continuing.

[roo_ster]

good of you to come down to set us straight though from your depth of experience.  real white of ya....

Racism.  Now I'm beginning to understand what I'm dealing with.

Yes, we are all racists here.  And bigots.  And anti-semites.
Now get out.

I will admit to being an anti-mite.

Matter of fact, I run around the house, exhibiting my disgust with them while waving a feathered baton in the air.

I'll even admit to considering them less than human and going out of the way to ensure that many of them end their lives prematurely.

I may even take to using the phrase, "Mighty mite of you," in a sarcastic fashion.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

when i worked at the mayflower and someone did something i didn't like i'd give em the look and the sarcastic "thats real white of you"   the first couple times it shocked em and they hada think a minute before laughing  same thing at howard u only they really laughed

[Perd Hapley]

What does being charged with treason have to do anything?

Forgive me.  I was trying to connect your comments to the real world.

It could be argued with merit that Cheney and Libby committed treason. 

If it could be "argued with merit," then the prosecutor would have done so.  He apparently never even tried.  Why?  Because there is no evidence of treason. 

Like I said, committing a crime and being charged with one are not always the same.

And what does that have to do with anything?  Cheney and Libby were both under intense scrutiny for this matter.  If evidence of treason had presented itself, why were they never even charged with this?  Why do you believe something for which there is no evidence? 

[Paddy]

I think the lack of accountability and secrecy of the Bush administration, along with the arrogant defiance of both Congress and the law is what concerns the majority of Americans.  Which is why he has the lowest approval rating of any President in history.

It really doesn't matter.  Bush becomes less relevant with each passing day as his term comes to a much needed end.  He and his cronies have already done their damage.  The time is soon coming when the next President will be left with the wreckage and the cleanup will begin.

[De Selby]

GEOJap,
I dont know whether you are being disingenuous or just really don't get it.

Read the language of the bill.  Notice how far that is from "Bush suspended habeas corpus."
Now read it again.
If the difference still eludes you, take up crochet.

For the sake of brevity, "Bush suspended habeas corpus" is a very abbreviated phrase which covers the whole process of a bill becoming law.  That is just too much to describe in one sentence, you're supposed to be able to connect the dots at some point, come on.  Responsibility for that law lies with the administration and congress, like I noted above.  To me, it's like splitting hairs, but I'll give you credit and admit it's not an accurate statement as it's too brief and not descriptive of the whole process.  But still, the law does exist.  It's not fiction.  Habeas corpus does not exist for US citizens in some situations now.  The framers would be rolling over in their graves at this.

A very abbreviated phrase?  Try, a misleading distortion of what actually happened.  As is everything you have posted on this topic so far.
You are right: habeas corpus does not exist for some citizens.  Namely those citizens who are acting as enemy combatants.  Of course, as POWs they never had a right of habeas corpus.  The German saboteur case established that conclusively, and that was well before Bush.
As of now, we have shown that Bush never said the constitution was a piece of paper.  We have shown that Bush did not suspend habeas corpus.  We have shown that Cheney did not commit treason.  A little digging and I am confident we can show that nothing, nada, of what you posted on this is true.

This is a gross misreading of Quirin.  Foreign military combatants out of uniform do not get POW protection, and hence, they face military tribunals to assess their guilt and hand down sentences.  American citizens get civilian trials as long as the civilian court system is operating as usual-that's the law, anyway.

There has never, ever been a rule or law or practice of denying combatants any right to trial whatsoever.  Yet this is exactly what the Bush administration claimed was the case with Padilla-that he had no right to habeas corpus, no right to trial, no right to judicial review of any kind, no right to military tribunal, and no right to challenge his detention in any way, shape, or form.

Literally, the Government's stance on padilla was "We can hold him for any amount of time without answering to anyone or showing any party that evidence exists to justify his detention."

How on earth does that pass constitional or rational muster?

Rabbi, here's a link so you can read the law established by the "german saboteur" case for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0001_ZO.html

Oh, the irony of citing a case that was heard pursuant to the writ to prove that in some bizarre way, habeas does not apply because the executive said so.

[The Rabbi]

How on earth does that pass constitional or rational muster?

Are you qualified to pass that kind of judgement?
Is there a Supreme Court case you can point to that ruled as you say?
No.  Whether there are arguments on either side is irrelevant.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"I think the lack of accountability and secrecy of the Bush administration, along with the arrogant defiance of both Congress and the law is what concerns the majority of Americans.  Which is why he has the lowest approval rating of any President in history."

and yet his rating is higher than that of congress.  whats that say about the american peoples feelings? in your peculiar world view?

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
 2/19-20/08 22 68 10 -46
 .
 
   Diageo/Hotline RV
 2/14-17/08 28 63 9 -35
 .
 
   AP-Ipsos
 2/4-6/08 22 74 * -52
 .
 
   ABC/Washington Post
 1/30 - 2/1/08 33 59 8 -26
 .
 
   FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
 1/30-31/08 22 66 12 -44
 .
 
   NPR LV 1/29-31/08 28 65 7 -37
 .
 
   NBC/Wall Street Journal
 1/20-22/08 18 70 12 -52
 .
 
   Diageo/Hotline RV
 1/10-12/08 23 70 7 -47
 .
 
   AP-Ipsos
 1/7-9/08 26 69 * -43
 .
 
   Gallup
 1/4-6/08 23 71 6 -48




bush

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

.A. Times/Bloomberg 2/21-25/08 34 62 4 -28
 .
 
   USA Today/Gallup 2/21-24/08 32 62 5 -30
 .
 
   CBS/New York Times 2/20-24/08 30 64 6 -34
 .
 
   Pew 2/20-24/08 33 59 8 -26
 .
 
   FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/19-20/08 32 59 9 -27
 .
 
   Diageo/Hotline RV 2/14-17/08 39 57 4 -18
 .
 
   Gallup 2/11-14/08 31 65 4 -34
 .
 
   USA Today/Gallup 2/8-10/08 33 61 5 -28
 .
 
   AP-Ipsos 2/4-6/08 30 66 * -36
 .
 
   CNN/Opinion Research 2/1-3/08 32 67 1 -35
 .
 
   CBS 1/30 - 2/2/08 27 65 8 -38
 .
 
   Pew 1/30 - 2/2/08 31 62 7 -31
 .
 
   USA Today/Gallup 1/30 - 2/2/08 34 61 5 -27
 .
 
   ABC/Washington Post 1/30 - 2/1/08 33 65 2 -32
 .
 
   FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 1/30-31/08 33 60 7 -27
 .
 
   NPR LV 1/29-31/08 38 56 6 -18
 .
 
   NBC/Wall Street Journal
 1/20-22/08 31 63 6 -32
 .
 
   L.A. Times/Bloomberg RV 1/18-22/08 34 62 4 -28
 .
 
   CNN/Opinion Research 1/14-17/08 34 63 2 -29
 .
 
   USA Today/Gallup 1/10-13/08 34 60 6 -26
 .
 
   Pew 1/9-13/08 31 59 10 -28
 .
 
   Diageo/Hotline RV 1/10-12/08 36 61 3 -25
 .
 
   ABC/Washington Post 1/9-12/08 32 66 2 -34
 .
 
   CBS/New York Times 1/9-12/08 29 62 9 -33
 .
 
   CNN/Opinion Research 1/9-10/08 32 66 2 -34
 .
 
   AP-Ipsos 1/7-9/08 34 63 * -29
 .
 
   Gallup 1/4-6/08 32 64 4 -32

[roo_ster]

How many German & Japanese combatants, lawful or otherwise, were held for the duration of WWII without access to any tribunal of any kind?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

was a few  and consider that 1/3 of the kids under 5 died in the camps from a flu epidemic as well as generally poor care

however i consider the plight of the 3000 or so chinese who were sent to the camps to be worse. but they all look alike to the round eyes