Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:02:35 AM
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 10:10:57 AM
Quote
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:13:12 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 10:18:55 AM
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:23:19 AM
And yours indicates reasoning of the sort that comes from someone who didn't take their medication. Seriously, did you even read that nonsense before copypasta here?
And then when all else fails we can resort to petty insults. NO NO NO, don't debate the topic, debate the person.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 10:26:10 AM
Post by: Bogie on February 21, 2008, 10:30:15 AM
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:30:45 AM
I'm talking about the loon that wrote it. Your reposting it just shows poor judgment.
Really? "And yours indicates reasoning of the sort that comes from someone who didn't take their medication. "
Fine, whatever.
What is so off about the article. The laws are there. The contracts are there. Can you tell me why the Federal Government feels the need to house millions of people in detention centers, complete with railways to and from?
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 21, 2008, 10:36:39 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 10:38:56 AM
What is so off about the article. The laws are there. The contracts are there. Can you tell me why the Federal Government feels the need to house millions of people in detention centers, complete with railways to and from?
Psst.
THEY MADE THAT UP.
You see, in bookstores and on TV, there's things called "fiction", and "nonfiction". And when people can't tell one from the other, it's time for them to go into a special padded room with a huggy jacket and happy pills...not for them to write published "news" articles.
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:46:28 AM
Psst.
THEY MADE THAT UP.
THEY MADE THAT UP.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198456,00.html - Can't dispute that, it's Fox News.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/national/04halliburton.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 21, 2008, 02:38:41 PM
Post by: Paddy on February 21, 2008, 03:24:53 PM
Quote
It takes a special sort of someone to believe that the Al Qaida isn't a threat to the US, and that the US government is planning to arrest and imprison millions of its own citizens on a whim.
The question is, who is the bigger threat, Al Queda, or our own government armed with their self delegated powers?
I notice no one has countered the raw facts stated in the article, only the conclusions drawn from those facts.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 03:31:03 PM
Quote
It takes a special sort of someone to believe that the Al Qaida isn't a threat to the US, and that the US government is planning to arrest and imprison millions of its own citizens on a whim.
The question is, who is the bigger threat, Al Queda, or our own government armed with their self delegated powers?
I notice no one has countered the raw facts stated in the article, only the conclusions drawn from those facts.
I'd say it's the people with the bombs and dull machetes, really. That's a little more drastic than pesky lawyers with ideas that can be challenged right back in courts.
You can't file an appeal when someone runs up on you with a suicide vest, screaming about allah.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 21, 2008, 03:40:55 PM
I notice no one has countered the raw facts stated in the article, only the conclusions drawn from those facts.
Raw facts?Howsabout the raw fact that not one single camp has been built. Howsabout the raw fact that none are going to be built, unless an emergency situation makes it necessary.
The contract states that KBR must be ready to build facilities just in case of an emergency. It's nothing more than a sensible element of reasonable disaster preparation.
Reading the article quoted in the original post would give you the impression that these camps are being built right now. The "journalists" do their darndest to make it sound like Big Brother is spending money on camps that we don't need. Then they use this (false) information as evidence for their own delusional tinfoil hattery. "The only explanation for these camps is that They want to round up innocent people in the middle of the night and then lock them up forever for no reason."
It's atrocious journalism, limited understanding, and a serious case of paranoia. It really is fiction, although a good novel would probably be more entertaining.
How many times did we hear about how George Bush failed to provide enough disaster assistance in New Orleans? Now the gov is being criticised for too much disaster preparation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Post by: Paddy on February 21, 2008, 03:54:07 PM
{{shrug}} We'll see if you sing the same tune when these self delegated powers are in the hands of a Democrat president and Congress.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 21, 2008, 03:59:23 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 21, 2008, 04:17:12 PM
Post by: seeker_two on February 21, 2008, 04:21:46 PM
Children, you can both relax. Mine is bigger.
Let's not bring your wife's bank account into this....
Post by: Bogie on February 21, 2008, 04:23:46 PM
Quote
ridicule for a change
That's sounding like Obama's campaign...
Post by: Paddy on February 21, 2008, 04:31:42 PM
I make no conspiratorial claim that imminent plans exist to carry out such confinement of American citizens. Only that in this country, government does not need, should not have, and in fact is prohibited from possessing such power.
If someone is guilty of criminal activity, arrest them, try them publically by a jury of their peers, and impose sentence if found guilty. If you can't do that, you have no business detaining/confining/torturing them. Not here. Take that worldview to some totalitarian dictatorship.
Post by: De Selby on February 21, 2008, 04:42:27 PM
It makes me sad to see this, because it is a sign that America is falling into the third world trap of "just do it how the man in charge today wants it and don't worry about the rules...they're flexible."
One of the greatest things about this place is that it is a nation of professionals-people who set standards and do things the right way, so that we don't have bass-ackwards decisions on a regular basis or a series of bizarre and unpredictable acts taken by those in power. That is what the rule of law is all about, and the relative lack of "eh, ignore the rules we spent a few hundred years building and just half-ass it your own way" attitude is the main reason that this country is without parallel in personal freedoms.
Strict adherence to the rules gives you predictable law enforcement, and a set of rules that emphasize personal freedom gives you predictable recognition of your rights. You start toying with the idea that the rules mean anything, and give the .gov the power to do things "the way it wants as it sees fit for the moment", and you are well on your way to destroying both predictability and freedoms.
You can't expect freedom to be recognized by a government that doesn't follow its own rules, because the government will answer to its own perceived needs at the moment, not anything else. Without a clear, rule based system of laws to restrain the government, you have no mechanism of enforcing your rights against whoever happens to hold the reigns on this day or the next.
Post by: Bogie on February 21, 2008, 04:57:16 PM
Altho the current generation seems to think that if it's a rule or a policy or a law, that it is somehow engraved in stone.
Post by: De Selby on February 21, 2008, 05:12:11 PM
Ah, but rules, at least in the history of this country, are meant to be somewhat flexible...
Altho the current generation seems to think that if it's a rule or a policy or a law, that it is somehow engraved in stone.
Altho the current generation seems to think that if it's a rule or a policy or a law, that it is somehow engraved in stone.
Yeah, but the ability to imprison people without any accountability at all isn't one of those flexibilities.
Note that the constant refrain of "it's a piece of paper, not stone!" is something you hear almost every anti-gunner saying about the constitution. That is where "flexibility" will take you on these subjects...
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 06:33:06 PM
Ah, but rules, at least in the history of this country, are meant to be somewhat flexible...
Altho the current generation seems to think that if it's a rule or a policy or a law, that it is somehow engraved in stone.
Altho the current generation seems to think that if it's a rule or a policy or a law, that it is somehow engraved in stone.
So by that logic, the right to bear arms can be limited to say...unscoped bolt action .22's? I mean, it's not engraved in stone right?
This forum really needs one of those banghead icons. I'll settle for this
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 21, 2008, 06:54:33 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2008, 10:44:37 AM
So, constitutional violations and usurpation of powers are ok with you as long as the government doesn't abuse it? IOW, the rule of law no longer matters because Al Queda hit us on 9/11?
{{shrug}} We'll see if you sing the same tune when these self delegated powers are in the hands of a Democrat president and Congress.
What constitutional violation and usurpation of powers are you talking about?{{shrug}} We'll see if you sing the same tune when these self delegated powers are in the hands of a Democrat president and Congress.
People scream about Bush violating the constitution but they have yet to find one such thing.
Post by: vernal45 on February 23, 2008, 10:01:17 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 25, 2008, 09:23:21 AM
Children, you can both relax. Mine is bigger.
And mine is bigger. Sorry it is just genetics...Seriously though Finch does make a good point. What does the government need concentration camps for? Why are they just putting everyone who protests them on lists and labeling them terrorists? If you ignore it now, it will be much harder to fight it later.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 25, 2008, 09:29:10 AM
Post by: GeoJAP on February 26, 2008, 06:13:32 AM
Have you noticed that we aren't even looking for and trying to find Bin Ladin? The US government now spends more money to spy on its own citizens (domestic spying) than it does for all foreign spy programs combined!
Post by: GeoJAP on February 26, 2008, 06:17:04 AM
What constitutional violation and usurpation of powers are you talking about?
People scream about Bush violating the constitution but they have yet to find one such thing.
People scream about Bush violating the constitution but they have yet to find one such thing.
The suspension of Habeas Corpus should be obvious enough for anyone to see. This is one of the things that got us riled up at King George III so many years ago. How soon we forget. Life must be pretty good when you can ignore or be ignorant of such obvious threats to Liberty.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 26, 2008, 09:02:44 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 26, 2008, 11:06:10 AM
What constitutional violation and usurpation of powers are you talking about?
People scream about Bush violating the constitution but they have yet to find one such thing.
People scream about Bush violating the constitution but they have yet to find one such thing.
The suspension of Habeas Corpus should be obvious enough for anyone to see. This is one of the things that got us riled up at King George III so many years ago. How soon we forget. Life must be pretty good when you can ignore or be ignorant of such obvious threats to Liberty.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, you mean like Lincoln did in the Civil War?
No, there is no suspension of habeas corpus, except in the minds of liberal Bush-haters.
If this is the best "violation of the Constitution" you can come up with, your argument needs tuning.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 26, 2008, 01:00:12 PM
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, you mean like Lincoln did in the Civil War?
No, there is no suspension of habeas corpus, except in the minds of liberal Bush-haters.
If this is the best "violation of the Constitution" you can come up with, your argument needs tuning.
No, there is no suspension of habeas corpus, except in the minds of liberal Bush-haters.
If this is the best "violation of the Constitution" you can come up with, your argument needs tuning.
Jeez, you must not read the news.
1. By labeling an American citizen an "enemy combatant", they can be imprisoned without trial indefinitely. No more due process in the courts.
2. If you speak out against the government to advocate change, the government can take all your possessions.
3. The Bush administration conspired with telecom companies to illegally wiretap American citizens' domestic communication without a warrant.
4. The Bush administration (Cheney) revealed the identity of a US spy, which is TREASON.
5. They created National Security letters, which when a person is served with one, that person cannot even discuss that the search ever even took place, or they will be charged with a crime.
6. Bush stated that he will not obey legislation if he doesn't want to. WTF???
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
Do you want me to continue? You Bush-lovers seem to ignore reality and keep your heads in the sand. I call it like I see it, and our country and Constitution has been shat on by our leadership for and their corporate buddies for quite a few years now.
Like Ben Franklin said, "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."
Post by: Manedwolf on February 26, 2008, 01:10:42 PM
2. If you speak out against the government to advocate change, the government can take all your possessions.
Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 26, 2008, 01:20:25 PM
Edit: see below
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 26, 2008, 01:38:30 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 26, 2008, 01:41:28 PM
2. If you speak out against the government to advocate change, the government can take all your possessions.
Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
"All of your vases are belong to us."
I am sure all of this can be substantiated. On TheOnion.com
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 26, 2008, 01:50:19 PM
Quote
1. By labeling an American citizen an "enemy combatant", they can be imprisoned without trial indefinitely. No more due process in the courts.
But people are still being charged, tried, and convicted, as per usual. How does one go about getting "labeled" as an enemy combatant? Does this require a judge's order, or what? If this is going on, why haven't the courts struck it down, as they have gone against Bush on a number of other related issues with terrorist detainees? How else would you like to deal with members of the enemy force, that happen to be American citizens?
Quote
2. If you speak out against the government to advocate change, the government can take all your possessions.
That sounds like something you just made up.
Quote
3. The Bush administration conspired with telecom companies to illegally wiretap American citizens' domestic communication without a warrant.
Please cite specific cases.
Quote
4. The Bush administration (Cheney) revealed the identity of a US spy, which is TREASON.
What U.S. spy?
Quote
5. They created National Security letters, which when a person is served with one, that person cannot even discuss that the search ever even took place, or they will be charged with a crime.
I've never heard of that one, so I won't dispute it.
Quote
6. Bush stated that he will not obey legislation if he doesn't want to. WTF???
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
Please substantiate.
Quote
our country and Constitution has been shat on by our leadership for and their corporate buddies for quite a few years now.
How is this different from the past two hundred years, the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc?
Post by: Paddy on February 26, 2008, 02:16:29 PM
Quote
1. By labeling an American citizen an "enemy combatant", they can be imprisoned without trial indefinitely. No more due process in the courts.
See Brief for United States, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,
542 U.S. 507 (2004). See also Brief for United
States, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).
See Timothy Lynch, Affront to Civil Liberties,
Quote
2. If you speak out against the government to advocate change, the government can take all your possessions.
Section 215 of PAI, which sunseted in 2005. I don't know whether it was renewed or not.
Quote
3. The Bush administration conspired with telecom companies to illegally wiretap American citizens' domestic communication without a warrant.
It's current news. Bush is seeking complete immunity for telecom companies who gave the Administration who knows how much of what on who knows who. I think he also wants immunity for him and his cronies for the illegal surveillance.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080225/D8V1F1H00.html
Quote
4. The Bush administration (Cheney) revealed the identity of a US spy, which is TREASON.
Scooter Libby took the fall for Cheney, was convicted and sentenced to prison. Bush commuted his sentence and will no doubt pardon him during his last few days in office.Quote
5. They created National Security letters, which when a person is served with one, that person cannot even discuss that the search ever even took place, or they will be charged with a crime.
Excerpt from the Cato Institute investigation entitled "Power Surge":
The Bush administration has also championed the use of national security letters (NSLs). An NSL is another subpoena-like device that empowers federal agents to demand certain records from businesspeople.
Unlike search warrants, executive branch agents do not need to apply to judges for these devices. These letters also threaten citizens with jail should they tell anyone about the governments demand. When a constitutional challenge was brought against NSLs, Bushs lawyers argued that they were fully consistent with the Bill of Rights. The federal court was not persuaded. Federal Judge Victor Maerrero ruled that NSLs violated both the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment.
NSLs violate the Fourth Amendment because they are written in tones sounding virtually as biblical commandments, thus making it highly unlikely that an NSL recipient reasonablywould know that he may have a right to contest the NSL, and that a process to do so may exist through a judicial proceeding.
NSLs violate the First Amendment becausethey operate as an unconstitutional priorrestraint on speech.
Quote
6. Bush stated that he will not obey legislation if he doesn't want to. WTF???
He included that statement in an addendum when he signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
Quote
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
Apparently unsubstantiated
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 26, 2008, 08:17:05 PM
Quote
4. The Bush administration (Cheney) revealed the identity of a US spy, which is TREASON.
Scooter Libby took the fall for Cheney, was convicted and sentenced to prison. Bush commuted his sentence and will no doubt pardon him during his last few days in office.Oh, he meant the Plame case? Well, that wasn't a treason case, nor was she a spy, that I recall. And if any classified information was revealed (and if so, why was no one convicted of this?) we now know that it was Richard Armitage who did the alleged revealing, not Dick Cheney. Speaking of which, how could Libby take the fall for Cheney? Libby was never convicted of anything Cheney might have done - he was convicted of perjury.
Quote
Quote
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
Apparently unsubstantiated
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html
I'm shocked.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:33:00 AM
Fistful, don't play semantics. Spy, covert operative, CIA overseas employee, whatever, labeling it a different way does not change what actually happened. Plame was a "spy" and she was outed by Cheney and Co. That is treason.
What I actually meant in #2, "If you speak out against the government to advocate change, the government can take all your possessions", was a combination of these two things:
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act which defines violent radicalization as, "The process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system ... to advance political, religious, or social change." So Martin Luther King would have been a terrorist, basically. Under current laws in the Patriot Act he could be labeled an 'enemy combatant' and imprisoned without trial indefinitely.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
...and this executive order, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html, which allows the government to take your property if you even POSE A RISK (you don't have to actually do anything) of threatening to destabilize Iraq. The point here is that you don't get a trial. If you even post a risk of violating this executive order, they can seize all your possessions. This is EXACTLY what the Constitution's framers worked so hard to prevent.
Wake up, people. I can't believe some of you do not know enough about current events so that you thought I was making these points up, and that you had not yet heard of them. I'm especially surprised since all of you profess to guard and protect the RKBA. In order for a democracy to function well, the electorate has to be well-informed so that they make good choices when voting. It is your DUTY as citizens in a democracy to know these things.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 04:40:27 AM
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:51:59 AM
I read many news sources (online and print media) quite a bit. I find that many of the best sources for the most important news are these independent blogs and online news aggregators like Digg, Fark and others.
Also, I really don't like to fault Bush so much, because I actually thought he was a terrific governor of Texas. I loved him as governor; he is exactly what we like in a governor here. But I don't like what his administration (and congress) has done since he has been president. In my opinion, since he has become president, his administration has basically written corporations a blank check which has not been a positive thing for us overall. Chipping away at the Constitution that his administration and congress (including the democrats) have done especially bothers me. Like I said, I just call it like I see it, I don't play favorites. I really wish we had leaders who believed in the Constitution and will work to accomplish their goals within the limits it places on government. Those limits are there for very good reasons.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 04:53:26 AM
I read many news sources (online and print media) quite a bit. I find that many of the best sources for the most important news are these
FTFY.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:59:08 AM
I read many news sources (online and print media) quite a bit. I find that many of the best sources for the most important news are these
FTFY.
Excuse me? RileyMC and I substantiated all my points. Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true.
Like I said, it is amazing to me that my fellow citizens will purposefully ignore and discount facts which show our government is passing laws and executive orders which are neutering the constitution piece by piece.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 05:00:16 AM
I read many news sources (online and print media) quite a bit. I find that many of the best sources for the most important news are these
FTFY.
Excuse me? RileyMC and I substantiated all my points.
Like I said, it is amazing to me that my fellow citizens will purposefully ignore and discount facts which show our government is passing laws and executive orders which are neutering the constitution piece by piece.
Hey, look! There's a black helicopter behind you!
Made ya look.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 05:05:26 AM
Hey, look! There's a black helicopter behind you!
Made ya look.
Congrats. I've had more intelligent conversations with my girlfriend's five year old niece.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 05:09:43 AM
I dealt with that enough when the wild-eyed Paulistinians were here screaming that "9/11 was an inside job" on the street across where I was going to eat. I watched them embarrass my state by defending and supplying some violent "tax protesters". My patience for them is beyond exhausted.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 05:18:14 AM
Like I said, it is very frustrating to me that citizens of this country would even allow them to be passed, when they obviously contradict everything about how we in the USA claim that we conduct our business.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 05:24:49 AM
fixed it
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 05:42:28 AM
"Like I said, it is very frustrating to me that citizens of this country would even allow them to be passed, when they obviously contradict everything diagree with me about how we in the USA claim that we conduct our business"
fixed it
fixed it
Since you excel at fixing and improving the meaning of others' misguided statements, please fix this man's foolish statement, as you seem to disagree with him: "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 05:46:37 AM
"Like I said, it is very frustrating to me that citizens of this country would even allow them to be passed, when they obviously contradict everything diagree with me about how we in the USA claim that we conduct our business"
fixed it
fixed it
Since you excel at fixing and improving the meaning of others' misguided statements, please fix this man's foolish statement, as you seem to disagree with him: "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin
Sure. Because FRANKLIN DID NOT SAY THAT in that manner or context. Especially not with that grammatical style, which has nothing to do with 18th century grammar forms. See below for what he might have actually said in the Poor Richard's Almanack.
If he in fact wrote anything similar, it was "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Quote
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
* This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
* This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 06:47:15 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 07:52:21 AM
Alrighty, duly noted. I'm sure we're all on the same team here and I respect any differences we have. I think I've said enough on the subject. I've been shown to know zilch-nada about what I'm posting.
Fixed it for ya.
Post by: Paddy on February 27, 2008, 09:51:45 AM
And you wonder why your failed political philosophy is passing into the ash heap of history?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 01:37:21 PM
Fistful, don't play semantics. Spy, covert operative, CIA overseas employee, whatever, labeling it a different way does not change what actually happened. Plame was a "spy" and she was outed by Cheney and Co. That is treason.
Wow. Your word-games are quite obvious. An "overseas employee" is not a spy. And if treason was committed, was anyone even charged with treason? Not that I recall. Certainly no one was convicted of treason. The prosecutor did not manage to even charge anyone (and that's charge, not convict) with revealing classified information, or with any law relating to national security secrets. The only indictments were on matters like perjury and obstruction of justice. And these only happened in the course of the investigation, long after the "leak."
Get your facts straight.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 02:02:00 PM
Just one more example of the hyperventilating "Bush=Hitler" crowd's tenuous grasp on reality. Just like saying habeas corpus has been suspended. Or any of the other illiteracies posted.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 02:25:27 PM
Wow. Your word-games are quite obvious. An "overseas employee" is not a spy. And if treason was committed, was anyone even charged with treason? Not that I recall. Certainly no one was convicted of treason. The prosecutor did not manage to even charge anyone (and that's charge, not convict) with revealing classified information, or with any law relating to national security secrets. The only indictments were on matters like perjury and obstruction of justice. And these only happened in the course of the investigation, long after the "leak."
Get your facts straight.
Get your facts straight.
Get your logic straight. Having committed a crime is not reflexive with being charged with a crime. In fact, when you are really powerful in this country, it is almost never the same.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 02:31:57 PM
Actually the Constitution defines treason. And whatever anyone in the Admin did, it sure didnt meet that standard.
Just one more example of the hyperventilating "Bush=Hitler" crowd's tenuous grasp on reality. Just like saying habeas corpus has been suspended. Or any of the other illiteracies posted.
Just one more example of the hyperventilating "Bush=Hitler" crowd's tenuous grasp on reality. Just like saying habeas corpus has been suspended. Or any of the other illiteracies posted.
I've often wondered how unthinking automatons who habitually spout unthinking rhetoric manage with modern life. But I see now it's possible somehow. Amazing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 02:51:47 PM
Get your logic straight. Having committed a crime is not reflexive with being charged with a crime. In fact, when you are really powerful in this country, it is almost never the same.
So "logic" means that you believe in things for which no evidence has presented itself?
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 03:23:40 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 03:33:19 PM
Actually the Constitution defines treason. And whatever anyone in the Admin did, it sure didnt meet that standard.
Just one more example of the hyperventilating "Bush=Hitler" crowd's tenuous grasp on reality. Just like saying habeas corpus has been suspended. Or any of the other illiteracies posted.
Just one more example of the hyperventilating "Bush=Hitler" crowd's tenuous grasp on reality. Just like saying habeas corpus has been suspended. Or any of the other illiteracies posted.
I've often wondered how unthinking automatons who habitually spout unthinking rhetoric manage with modern life. But I see now it's possible somehow. Amazing.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 03:34:39 PM
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. And yes, he (and many others in this thread) used "points" (if you can call it that) which are absurd.
So I'm supposedly a Scientologist now? In debate that is called demonization and name-calling; it's what 4th graders do on the play ground. It's juvenile.
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?
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?
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 03:36:20 PM
They typically get jobs in either higher ed or with the Democratic Party.
<RefereeBlowsWhistle />
Generalization, trivialization and stereotyping. -3 points.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 03:51:40 PM
They typically get jobs in either higher ed or with the Democratic Party.
<RefereeBlowsWhistle />
Generalization, trivialization and stereotyping. -3 points.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 03:56:45 PM
"Quote
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
Apparently unsubstantiated
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html"
and then you owned up to it kinda a few posts later but i guess you just forgot
and then there is this priceless couple bits that bolster your credibility even more
I've often wondered how unthinking automatons who habitually spout unthinking rhetoric manage with modern life. But I see now it's possible somehow. Amazing.
followed by the simpering
" In debate that is called demonization and name-calling; it's what 4th graders do on the play ground. It's juvenile."
where i come from thats known as pussilanimous although we sometimes abreviate it
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:03:43 PM
substantiation for every single one of your claims? does the word credibility mean anything to you?
"Quote
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
"Quote
7. Finally, Bush's famous quote, "What is it with you people? The Constitution is just A PIECE OF PAPER."
You didn't read what I wrote above, did you? I retracted that. What about the other six? Are you ignoring them? Pretty shoddy work on your part, wouldn't you say?
where i come from thats known as pussilanimous although we sometimes abreviate it
That's a pretty big word for someone who is challenged by capital letters, periods, commas and the word "abbreviate".
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:10:12 PM
Either that or they are unemployed and go on websites and spouted unsupported generalities until they are chased off by the coherent.
More assumptions, and an unwarranted superiority complex.
Who exactly are you saying is unemployed here? And what does that have to do with facts as presented? That is called misdirection. And what is coherent about your obviously atrocious debate skills?
Seriously, you guys are like the Three Stooges of debate.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 04:18:33 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 04:21:09 PM
Either that or they are unemployed and go on websites and spouted unsupported generalities until they are chased off by the coherent.
More assumptions, and an unwarranted superiority complex.
Who exactly are you saying is unemployed here? And what does that have to do with facts as presented? That is called misdirection. And what is coherent about your obviously atrocious debate skills?
Seriously, you guys are like the Three Stooges of debate.
You have taken one plus one and gotten eleven.
The writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended. Can you find one presidential directive, one congressional action, one anything that suspends the writ of habeas corpus? Do you even know what it is?
Do you know where treason is defined in the Constitution? What possible action on anyone's part in this admin rises to that level?
What evidence do you have that Scooter Libby was the "fall guy" for Cheney? What do you know that the special prosecutor did not?
You take one fact out of context and proceed to twist it into unrecognizability. And then you claim that your arguments are based on fact.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:21:19 PM
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.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 04:23:07 PM
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.
Now get out.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 04:28:09 PM
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.
i think you are mistaken even more than usual. but you are correct in guessing about my racism..... but i strongly suspect you misintepret my meaning when i used "real white of ya" but thats good if nothing else you can claim consistency
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 04:58:11 PM
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?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 05:13:06 PM
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
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 05:15:57 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 05:18:20 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 06:25:32 PM
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 06:30:38 PM
Post by: GeoJAP on February 27, 2008, 06:59:23 PM
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.
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 07:03:15 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 07:33:52 PM
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
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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. Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 07:43:18 PM
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
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 12:21:08 AM
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.
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.
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.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 28, 2008, 02:28:12 AM
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.
Post by: GeoJAP on February 28, 2008, 02:29:20 AM
We have shown that Cheney did not commit treason.
Where?
Post by: GeoJAP on February 28, 2008, 02:33:07 AM
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 04:01:03 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 04:44:46 AM
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.
Post by: roo_ster on February 28, 2008, 07:09:08 AM
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.
Now get out.
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 08:49:47 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 28, 2008, 02:18:54 PM
What does being charged with treason have to do anything?
Forgive me. I was trying to connect your comments to the real world.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Post by: Paddy on February 28, 2008, 04:09:01 PM
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.
Post by: De Selby on February 28, 2008, 04:46:35 PM
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.
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.
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.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 05:01:54 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 05:14:06 PM
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
Post by: roo_ster on February 28, 2008, 06:17:34 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 06:39:48 PM
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
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 28, 2008, 07:03:40 PM
He and his cronies have already done their damage.
I like how you can make anyone sound extra-super-evil, by calling their associates "cronies." Riley and his cronies enjoy that tactic.
Post by: Finch on February 28, 2008, 07:26:38 PM
whats that say about the american peoples feelings?
Well, you posted the statistics. A 30% approval rating means that a majority of the country thinks he sucks. Pretty basic.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 07:29:12 PM
Post by: Finch on February 28, 2008, 07:32:05 PM
aaah but they are even less enamored of congress.
I know. This is why I am amazed that people here think that voting for the lesser of two evils is a logical option. This is what we will get when we do that. This is all we will get when we do that.
Post by: De Selby on February 28, 2008, 07:52:16 PM
How many German & Japanese combatants, lawful or otherwise, were held for the duration of WWII without access to any tribunal of any kind?
Lots-they were called POW's. They also got care packages from home, games, and large yards to exercise in. And they were guaranteed released at the end of the war, since they weren't liable for any crime. A prisoner of war cannot be punished.
But the unlawful ones faced military tribunals-as in the case above.
Post by: De Selby on February 28, 2008, 07:52:50 PM
Quote
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.
Uh, I just did cite a supreme court case.
Ex Parte Quirin-try reading it. It's the German saboteur case that you were referring to earlier.
Again-Supreme Court case saying exactly what I just said above. And I said what I did because....I had already read the decision, and thereby knew what the law was on the subject. That is how we figure out what the laws are in this country, not by vague references to past practice.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 29, 2008, 02:38:30 AM
But it wasn't.
Because their legal experts understood what you do not.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 29, 2008, 03:44:14 AM
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.
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.
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 issue was whether the president could suspend the writ of habeas corpus for enemy combatants.
Ex parte Quirin establishes this conclusively.
Quote
Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order, and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody, and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied.
The court was firm that the president, as commander in chief, has wide latitude to do whatever he feels is necessary. This is traced in excruciating detail in the opinion. I'd suggest going back to read it, but I dont think that would help.
Post by: cordex on February 29, 2008, 11:05:35 AM
Quote
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
I knew someone who was active in one of the forums that discusses this sort of thing. I always told him I thought it was lunacy. One day we were near one of the facilities that was reportedly being converted into a prisoner-handling facility and he suggested we go take a look. Sure enough, it was a mostly mothballed rail repair yard. Most of the buildings were open and ... empty. Totally devoid of the cages, shackles and other Gulag-style amenities that other posters on this friend's forum claimed to have seen there. Color me utterly unsurprised.Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 29, 2008, 12:53:41 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 29, 2008, 01:02:42 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 29, 2008, 04:30:09 PM
Then it should have been obvious to the Administration that they couldn't do what they did.
But it wasn't.
Because their legal experts understood what you do not.
But it wasn't.
Because their legal experts understood what you do not.
Wrong-their legal experts wrote classified memos and then went about engaging in practices that most of the DOJ regarded as blatantly illegal. At least, that's what the ranking counter-terrorism attorney in America has to say about the subject.
Your problem is that you're presuming the executive came up with a decent legal cover for what it did. I have no idea why you presume this, but this isn't the first time in history that a government has tried to do something blatantly illegal. It happens-and the law is pretty clear on this subject, as you can read for yourself.
Post by: De Selby on February 29, 2008, 04:31:50 PM
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.
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.
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 issue was whether the president could suspend the writ of habeas corpus for enemy combatants.
Ex parte Quirin establishes this conclusively.
Quote
Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order, and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody, and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied.
The court was firm that the president, as commander in chief, has wide latitude to do whatever he feels is necessary. This is traced in excruciating detail in the opinion. I'd suggest going back to read it, but I dont think that would help.Yeah, except that it was a Habeas Corpus appeal that led to the decision-no right to habeas would've meant no decision.
Ex Parte Quirin says you don't get a civilian trial as an enemy combatant; what you do get is the right to challenge the procedure set up for your military trials...the mechanism for the challenge being habeas corpus, which as you can see in the first page of the decision, is how the appeal reached the Supreme Court in the first place.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 01, 2008, 02:59:01 PM
So the legislation merely codified long-standing legal precedent.
So "Bush suspended habeas corpus" is not merely a shorthand for what happened or a legitimate opinion. It is so far from reality that one must question the sanity of whoever posted it.
Post by: De Selby on March 01, 2008, 03:09:05 PM
And the appeal for habeas corpus was denied. Because they had no right to habeas corpus, being enemy combatants. Just like now.
So the legislation merely codified long-standing legal precedent.
So "Bush suspended habeas corpus" is not merely a shorthand for what happened or a legitimate opinion. It is so far from reality that one must question the sanity of whoever posted it.
So the legislation merely codified long-standing legal precedent.
So "Bush suspended habeas corpus" is not merely a shorthand for what happened or a legitimate opinion. It is so far from reality that one must question the sanity of whoever posted it.
I think I see what the misunderstanding is. "Habeas corpus" doesn't mean "let him go". It just means "bring his case before the court."
Having your case heard by the supreme court on habeas grounds means the writ was granted; otherwise the case couldn't be heard in cases like these. It would be tossed for lack of jurisdiction.
The court reviewed the detention practice and military tribunals, as is proper under the writ, and determined they were constitutional.
What the Bush administration tried to do was say "the Court has no right to review this detention, and the detainee has no right whatsoever to challenge it, and the executive does not have to answer to anyone, even an executive tribunal, to justify the detention."
I think you can see from the case that this was obviously not what the supremes sanctioned.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 01, 2008, 05:25:58 PM
Post by: De Selby on March 01, 2008, 08:51:47 PM
I think you need to make a thorough review of every point you have made here and determine where you went wrong because every single one of them is incorrect.
If you don't like the Supreme court's decision, donate to a fund that fights to reverse it. Contribute to candidates who will amend the constitution to deny the Court the right to review the executive's military detention practices.
Pretending that the law doesn't exist or that anyone who actually reads it must be wrong is not the answer.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 01, 2008, 09:15:50 PM
"We cannot say that Congress, in preparing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, intended to extend trial by jury to the cases of alien or citizen offenders against the law of war otherwise triable by military commission, while withholding it from members of our own armed forces charged with infractions of the Articles of War punishable by death. It is equally inadmissible to construe the Amendments -- [p45] whose primary purpose was to continue unimpaired presentment by grand jury and trial by petit jury in all those cases in which they had been customary -- as either abolishing all trials by military tribunals, save those of the personnel of our own armed forces, or, what in effect comes to the same thing, as imposing on all such tribunals the necessity of proceeding against unlawful enemy belligerents only on presentment and trial by jury. We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.
Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement of this Court in the Milligan case, supra, p. 121, that the law of war
can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open, and their process unobstructed.
Elsewhere in its opinion, at pp. 118, 121-122 and 131, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan, a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts before it. From them, the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a nonbelligerent, not subject to the law of war save as -- in circumstances found not there to be present, and not involved here -- martial law might be constitutionally established.
The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record. We have no occasion now to define [p46] with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered, or after entry remained in, our territory without uniform -- an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission.
Since the first specification of Charge I sets forth a violation of the law of war, we have no occasion to pass on the adequacy of the second specification of Charge I, or to construe the 81st and 82nd Articles of War for the purpose of ascertaining whether the specifications under Charges II and III allege violations of those Articles, or whether, if so construed, they are constitutional. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131.
There remains the contention that the President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, are in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. Petitioners argue that their trial by the Commission, for offenses against the law of war and the 81st and 82nd Articles of War, by a procedure which Congress has prohibited would invalidate any conviction which could be obtained against them, and renders their detention for trial likewise unlawful (see McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49; United States v. Brown, 206 U.S. 240, 244; Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543, 555-556; Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65, 80-81); that the President's Order prescribes such an unlawful [p47] procedure, and that the secrecy surrounding the trial and all proceedings before the Commission, as well as any review of its decision, will preclude a later opportunity to test the lawfulness of the detention.
Petitioners do not argue, and we do not consider, the question whether the President is compelled by the Articles of War to afford unlawful enemy belligerents a trial before subjecting them to disciplinary measures. Their contention is that, if Congress has authorized their trial by military commission upon the charges preferred -- violations of the law of war and the 81st and 82nd Articles of War -- it has by the Articles of War prescribed the procedure by which the trial is to be conducted, and that, since the President has ordered their trial for such offenses by military commission, they are entitled to claim the protection of the procedure which Congress has commanded shall be controlling.
We need not inquire whether Congress may restrict the power of the Commander in Chief to deal with enemy belligerents. For the Court is unanimous in its conclusion that the Articles in question could not at any stage of the proceedings afford any basis for issuing the writ. But a majority of the full Court are not agreed on the appropriate grounds for decision. Some members of the Court are of opinion that Congress did not intend the Articles of War to govern a Presidential military commission convened for the determination of questions relating to admitted enemy invaders, and that the context of the Articles makes clear that they should not be construed to apply in that class of cases. Others are of the view that -- even though this trial is subject to whatever provisions of the Articles of War Congress has in terms made applicable to "commissions" -- the particular Articles in question, rightly construed, do not foreclose the procedure prescribed by the President or that shown to have been employed [p48] by the Commission, in a trial of offenses against the law of war and the 81st and 82nd Articles of War, by a military commission appointed by the President.
Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order, and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody, and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied.
the last sentence in particular? or were you hoping we wouldn't?
Post by: De Selby on March 01, 2008, 09:28:20 PM
Yes.
You need to read the whole case-not just the last line, to get the point.
They challenged detention-the Supreme Court took the challenge, and reviewed the laws pertaining to military tribunals. Found constitutional. Hence, you stay in the military system if you are an enemy combatant.
Note the scope of the review by the Court:
Quote
The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, [p19] on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.
The present administration claimed that the Supreme court has no power to review detention practices for "enemy combatants" whatsoever. This is not the law-you either have to give a military tribunal, which must meet some standard (what that standard is does not get fleshed out in Quirin) or you have to put them in civilian courts.
What you cannot do, and is not supported by the law, is holding someone with no process whatsoever.
Here's another quote from the case:
Quote
Presentation of the petition for judicial action is the institution of a suit. Hence, denial by the district court of leave to file the petitions in these causes was the judicial determination of a case or controversy, reviewable on appeal to the Court of Appeals and reviewable here by certiorari.
Which is what I was trying to say-and said inaccurately. The Supreme Court reviewed the circumstances of detention, as it properly would do in these cases....(and did do in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush).
That's the law, folks. What the Bush admin did was flatly illegal, which is why it lost in Hamdi and Rasul
Post by: The Rabbi on March 02, 2008, 03:58:19 AM
Quote
The present administration claimed that the Supreme court has no power to review detention practices for "enemy combatants" whatsoever. This is not the law-you either have to give a military tribunal, which must meet some standard (what that standard is does not get fleshed out in Quirin) or you have to put them in civilian courts.
Your inability to read and comprehend is getting boring. First you write this. Then you write:Quote
Which is what I was trying to say-and said inaccurately. The Supreme Court reviewed the circumstances of detention, as it properly would do in these cases....(and did do in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush).
If what you said in the first paragraph was at all accurate, there would be no second paragraph. The very fact that the administration argued in the Supreme Court in the cases you mention belies what you write first.
In any case, your reading of ex parte Quirin remains woefully inaccurate. The Supremes (to rehash this yet again) held the president as commander in chief has the ultimate say so over enemy prisoners. They upheld Roosevelt's rules because he was CinC, not because the rules otherwise passed muster.
The Bush administrations actions were not "flatly illegal." If they had been, there wouldn't have been any case. They were in the gray area (because this war is occurring in a gray area). The case went to trial and adjudication and there was a decision.
Sorry, the image of Bush and his minions sitting gleefully plotting how to subvert the Constitution just doesn't wash.
Post by: Bogie on March 02, 2008, 07:24:43 AM
"Hey, Colonel? See that grinning SOB sitting in the corner? He says that he knows some fellows who are gonna nerve gas the New York Subways, but that we can't do anything about it."
"Yeah? Lemme get on the phone."
-15 minutes-
"Okay, sergeant... Abduhl there is about to take a shower..."
-2 days later, no-knock raid on a New Jersey motel turns up evidence of a "meth lab" and three induhviduals.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 02, 2008, 09:24:55 AM
How many German & Japanese combatants, lawful or otherwise, were held for the duration of WWII without access to any tribunal of any kind?
Lots-they were called POW's. They also got care packages from home, games, and large yards to exercise in. And they were guaranteed released at the end of the war, since they weren't liable for any crime. A prisoner of war cannot be punished.
But the unlawful ones faced military tribunals-as in the case above.
your research ignore the thousands of internees who interestingly enough were draftable if citizens. and who aquitted themselves quite well in the european theatre. had something to prove i think and they dida decent job of demonstating their loyalty to the usa. i still wait for an example of that from the muslim community
Post by: De Selby on March 04, 2008, 01:04:00 AM
How many German & Japanese combatants, lawful or otherwise, were held for the duration of WWII without access to any tribunal of any kind?
Lots-they were called POW's. They also got care packages from home, games, and large yards to exercise in. And they were guaranteed released at the end of the war, since they weren't liable for any crime. A prisoner of war cannot be punished.
But the unlawful ones faced military tribunals-as in the case above.
your research ignore the thousands of internees who interestingly enough were draftable if citizens. and who aquitted themselves quite well in the european theatre. had something to prove i think and they dida decent job of demonstating their loyalty to the usa. i still wait for an example of that from the muslim community
No it does not-the Internees were covered by Korematsu, which has long since gone down with Dred Scott as one of the worst decisions ever put out by the Supremes.
The hteory in Korematsu was internment, like POW's, until the end of hostilities-not criminal punishment or lifetime imprisonment with no allegations of guilt.
Post by: De Selby on March 04, 2008, 01:08:47 AM
Quote
The present administration claimed that the Supreme court has no power to review detention practices for "enemy combatants" whatsoever. This is not the law-you either have to give a military tribunal, which must meet some standard (what that standard is does not get fleshed out in Quirin) or you have to put them in civilian courts.
Your inability to read and comprehend is getting boring. First you write this. Then you write:Quote
Which is what I was trying to say-and said inaccurately. The Supreme Court reviewed the circumstances of detention, as it properly would do in these cases....(and did do in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush).
If what you said in the first paragraph was at all accurate, there would be no second paragraph. The very fact that the administration argued in the Supreme Court in the cases you mention belies what you write first.
In any case, your reading of ex parte Quirin remains woefully inaccurate. The Supremes (to rehash this yet again) held the president as commander in chief has the ultimate say so over enemy prisoners. They upheld Roosevelt's rules because he was CinC, not because the rules otherwise passed muster.
The Bush administrations actions were not "flatly illegal." If they had been, there wouldn't have been any case. They were in the gray area (because this war is occurring in a gray area). The case went to trial and adjudication and there was a decision.
Sorry, the image of Bush and his minions sitting gleefully plotting how to subvert the Constitution just doesn't wash.
Rabbi, Reading is essential, as you point out. I quote from the case:
Quote
We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.
Then:
Quote
Petitioners do not argue, and we do not consider, the question whether the President is compelled by the Articles of War to afford unlawful enemy belligerents a trial before subjecting them to disciplinary measures.
This is why the Bush administration lost Rasul and Hamdi-because the "german saboteur case" which you apparently still have no read does not provide legal grounds for indefinite detention without any sort of trial or process.