Post by: Manedwolf on May 25, 2008, 11:12:58 AM
Quote
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
Authoritarian much? O_o
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/25/michelle_obama_is_fair_game/
Post by: longeyes on May 25, 2008, 11:16:38 AM
"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"
Post by: El Tejon on May 25, 2008, 11:17:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQBhxOFjCn0
Manewolf, she is just awful, a screaming communists with a filthy mouth, even in front of the kids. I remember hear going on carpet chewing fits just over the first Bush child care refund (was that 2002?) and that was in public in the little park in the middle of the condo complex.
Most terrifying thing, she really believes it.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 25, 2008, 11:18:24 AM
A speech she made in California recently.
Authoritarian much? O_o
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/25/michelle_obama_is_fair_game/
What she doesn't want to realize is that many people are involved and informed. That's why they aren't voting for Obama.
Quote
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
Authoritarian much? O_o
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/25/michelle_obama_is_fair_game/
Post by: Bigjake on May 25, 2008, 11:37:27 AM
Post by: agricola on May 25, 2008, 11:45:30 AM
What she doesn't want to realize is that many people are involved and informed. That's why they aren't voting for Obama.
The full text of the speech: http://fedpapers.blogspot.com/2008/02/michelle-obamas-speech-ucla-two-weeks.html
People should definately go after her if this is what she is saying, after all she is going around making these speeches on his behalf.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 25, 2008, 02:16:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuKqWEYzhEA
Post by: Dannyboy on May 25, 2008, 05:01:17 PM
What she doesn't want to realize is that many people are involved and informed. That's why they aren't voting for Obama.
The full text of the speech: http://fedpapers.blogspot.com/2008/02/michelle-obamas-speech-ucla-two-weeks.html
People should definately go after her if this is what she is saying, after all she is going around making these speeches on his behalf.
But Barry says to lay off his wife. HE's the one running for President.
Post by: longeyes on May 25, 2008, 05:20:21 PM
Post by: 209 on May 25, 2008, 06:37:52 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 25, 2008, 07:04:01 PM
Apparently, she thinks so.
And thankfully, the pundits have picked up this one, and are disturbed.
Post by: De Selby on May 25, 2008, 08:08:56 PM
How safe do you feel with the powers that come with "enemy combatant" classification in the hands of the next executive?
Is this a power you want Obama, whose wife is saying things like this already, to have?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 25, 2008, 09:05:06 PM
How do you all feel, reading this, about the fact that George Bush has fought hard to establish the principle that the President may detain American citizens and bar access to civilian courts at will so long as the president alleges that it is part of the "war on terror"?
How safe do you feel with the powers that come with "enemy combatant" classification in the hands of the next executive?
Is this a power you want Obama, whose wife is saying things like this already, to have?
How safe do you feel with the powers that come with "enemy combatant" classification in the hands of the next executive?
Is this a power you want Obama, whose wife is saying things like this already, to have?
Only you could turn a Michelle Obama quote into lame Bush-bashing.
Post by: taurusowner on May 25, 2008, 09:10:55 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 25, 2008, 09:20:23 PM
They all got the point with 8 years of George Bush.
Now we're all going to get the point starting in 2008....ignoring abuses of power and unchecked executive authority when your man is in office will ultimately turn on you. It's a simple rule that 50 percent of the population is happy to ignore during any given term, to the detriment of the entire country in the long run.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2008, 10:22:47 PM
How do you all feel, reading this, about the fact that George Bush has fought hard to establish the principle that the President may detain American citizens and bar access to civilian courts at will so long as the president alleges that it is part of the "war on terror"?
How safe do you feel with the powers that come with "enemy combatant" classification in the hands of the next executive?
Is this a power you want Obama, whose wife is saying things like this already, to have?
How safe do you feel with the powers that come with "enemy combatant" classification in the hands of the next executive?
Is this a power you want Obama, whose wife is saying things like this already, to have?
Only you could turn a Michelle Obama quote into lame Bush-bashing.
Additional executive powers have been introduced, to be used in the case of emergencies. They have been introduced by Bush, but will now be in the hands of a leftist who hates everything America stands for.
How could anything possibly go wrong with this?
Post by: roo_ster on May 26, 2008, 03:57:47 AM
From Woodrow Wilson through FDR to GWB, such authority has been claimed and used...and in most cases, upheld by SCOTUS when challenged.
Post by: Bigjake on May 26, 2008, 04:47:03 AM
? 
Post by: Dannyboy on May 26, 2008, 04:56:54 AM
Only you could turn a Michelle Obama quote into lame Bush-bashing.
Be that as it may, he has a valid point. President Bush has fought tooth and nail for 8 years to give the President all kinds of powers the President shouldn't have. Unfortunately, every President afterwards is going to have those same powers.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 08:56:34 AM
I hate to pee in anyone's cheerios, but GWB has done and proposed no powers not exercised by his predecessors.
From Woodrow Wilson through FDR to GWB, such authority has been claimed and used...and in most cases, upheld by SCOTUS when challenged.
From Woodrow Wilson through FDR to GWB, such authority has been claimed and used...and in most cases, upheld by SCOTUS when challenged.
Which means, what?
Of course Bush is not OMG HITLER. Anybody who thinks that is an idiot, or not reading a history book.
But Presidential authority in particular, and executive authority in general, has been expanding continuously at least from FDR, and possibly from Wilson, dovetailing nicely with the general growth of Federal power.
Post by: agricola on May 26, 2008, 09:05:39 AM
Only you could turn a Michelle Obama quote into lame Bush-bashing.
Be that as it may, he has a valid point. President Bush has fought tooth and nail for 8 years to give the President all kinds of powers the President shouldn't have. Unfortunately, every President afterwards is going to have those same powers.I know this is something of a heresy here, but this is why I like McCain's notion that you should have a similar, weekly event like our Prime Ministers Questions. It is damnedly good fun to see the likes of Blair and Brown have to defend themselves against verbal attacks, or be made to look complete fools. Either way, it usually contributes to pricking their ego-bubbles.
a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=related (this is when the Tory comeback began)
Post by: Tallpine on May 26, 2008, 10:17:49 AM
Quote
GWB has done and proposed no powers not exercised by his predecessors.
Like Lincoln, for instance ...
Post by: roo_ster on May 26, 2008, 10:27:19 AM
I hate to pee in anyone's cheerios, but GWB has done and proposed no powers not exercised by his predecessors.
From Woodrow Wilson through FDR to GWB, such authority has been claimed and used...and in most cases, upheld by SCOTUS when challenged.
From Woodrow Wilson through FDR to GWB, such authority has been claimed and used...and in most cases, upheld by SCOTUS when challenged.
Which means, what?
Of course Bush is not OMG HITLER. Anybody who thinks that is an idiot, or not reading a history book.
But Presidential authority in particular, and executive authority in general, has been expanding continuously at least from FDR, and possibly from Wilson, dovetailing nicely with the general growth of Federal power.
First off, such powers have been in the power of the opposition, before. GWB did not, as you implied and others have stated outright, all the sudden come up with a raft of new powers to exercise and use to beat up on pore, starvin' Johnny Wannabe Jihadis. For the love of Pete, Wilson's administration arrested, prosecuted, & jailed American citizens for protesting America's involvement in WWI. "Sedition" it was called. FDR jailed thousands of Americans of Japanese and German and Italian heritage during WWII.
Yet, WW & FDR are icons of the left and what goes for the elites in this country, and GWB is "Bushitler." Gimme a break.
Second, I totally agree with your last sentence. It has been a process completed over time to expand fed.gov authority and shrink all other possible challengers to that authority.
Quote
GWB has done and proposed no powers not exercised by his predecessors.
Like Lincoln, for instance ...
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 10:55:47 AM
Quote
Yet, WW & FDR are icons of the left and what goes for the elites in this country, and GWB is "Bushitler." Gimme a break.
What do you want with me? Am I a leftist? Am I a wealthy American media magnate?
My problem with Bushis only as follows:
He had a Republican opportunity unprecedented in 40 years. He had unbelievable political capital. He had a majority in both Houses.
He chose to use it to expand the size of government, and to avoid introducing any kind of serious change.
But now, anything that went wrong, will be attributed by the media to 'conservatism', and people will buy it, even though a lot of these failures are due to him being insufficiently conservative, or aren't failures at all. This will make things worse for all conservatives and their political allies.
And Obama will be in charge.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 26, 2008, 12:35:56 PM
Post by: Balog on May 26, 2008, 01:13:05 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 26, 2008, 02:18:00 PM
If you search THR from around the time of the passing of the "Patriot" act you'll see my objection to it was "What would Hillary do with that power." Bush didn't start the expansion of federal powers, but he sure didn't help matters.
Is that thread derailment too?
Somehow, it just seemed to me that a discussion of executive powers was totally appropriate to a comment about Obama showing fascist tendencies.
Post by: roo_ster on May 26, 2008, 03:49:47 PM
Quote
Yet, WW & FDR are icons of the left and what goes for the elites in this country, and GWB is "Bushitler." Gimme a break.
What do you want with me? Am I a leftist? Am I a wealthy American media magnate?
My problem with Bushis only as follows:
He had a Republican opportunity unprecedented in 40 years. He had unbelievable political capital. He had a majority in both Houses.
He chose to use it to expand the size of government, and to avoid introducing any kind of serious change.
But now, anything that went wrong, will be attributed by the media to 'conservatism', and people will buy it, even though a lot of these failures are due to him being insufficiently conservative, or aren't failures at all. This will make things worse for all conservatives and their political allies.
And Obama will be in charge.
MB:
There is nothing in your post above that I disagree with.
What I did disagree with was your earlier post implying that GWB is using some sort of up-till-then unprecedented powers and that now the Obamites will get to play with them. GWB did not start the ball rolling. GWB did not even move the ball forward any perceptible degree. Yet, he is "The guy who left all those powerful, liberty-enervating tools in the hands of a Post-American POTUS."
GWB has enough warts* that we don't need to go 'round repeating the deranged leftists' fever dreams and half-sane caterwauling.
* Your list is, sadly, not exhaustive and complete. If it was, you'd exceed the max character limit for a post. GWB has been a disappointment in so many ways.
Post by: roo_ster on May 26, 2008, 03:57:56 PM
A speech she made in California recently.
Authoritarian much? O_o
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/25/michelle_obama_is_fair_game/
Quote
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
Authoritarian much? O_o
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/25/michelle_obama_is_fair_game/
Is anyone who is familiar with 20th Century history surprised? The progressive project is a fascist project.
"It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity."
----Benito Mussolini
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
----Benito Mussolini
Post by: Dannyboy on May 26, 2008, 04:57:33 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- If his cell were at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the prisoner would be just one of hundreds of suspected terrorists detained offshore, where the U.S. says the Constitution does not apply.
art.enemy.combatant.ap.jpg
Ali al-Marri, seen in a file photo, is the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil.
But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.
Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al Qaeda sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.
To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a resident and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
There is little middle ground between the two sides in al-Marri's case, which is before a federal appeals court in Virginia. The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri's lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.
A Qatari national, al-Marri came to the U.S. with his wife and five children on September 10, 2001. He arrived on a student visa seeking a master's degree in computer science from Bradley University, a small private school in Peoria, Illinois.
The government says he had other plans.
According to court documents citing multiple intelligence sources, al-Marri spent months in al Qaeda training camps during the late 1990s and was schooled in the science of poisons.
The summer before al-Marri left for the United States, he allegedly met with Osama bin Laden and September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The two al Qaeda leaders decided that al-Marri would make a perfect sleeper agent and rushed him into the U.S., the government says.
A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al Qaeda operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the September 11 attacks.
A week after the attacks, Congress unanimously passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It gave President Bush the power to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the attacks.
The FBI interviewed al-Marri that October and arrested him in December as part of the September 11 investigation. He rarely had been attending classes and was failing in school, the government said.
Don't Miss
* Judge OKs charges in 9/11 mastermind case
* Pentagon: Some released Gitmo prisoners going back to fight
When investigators looked through his computer files, they said, they found information on industrial chemical suppliers, sermons by bin Laden, how-to guides for making hydrogen cyanide and information about chemicals labeled "immediately dangerous to life or health," according to Rapp's court filing. Phone calls and e-mails linked al-Marri to senior al Qaeda leaders.
In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the United States, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.
On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, Illinois, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.
A military jail allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay is for.
But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.
"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today, it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow, it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al Qaeda safe house in a U.S. suburb?
Sulmasy says no. That is how Congress wrote the bill, and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.
That would require the politically risky move of pushing legislation to make it harder for the president to detain suspected terrorists inside the U.S.
Al-Marri is not the first prisoner who did not fit neatly into the definition of enemy combatant.
Two U.S. citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, were held at the same brig as al-Marri. But there are differences. Hamdi was captured on an Afghanistan battlefield. Padilla, too, fought alongside the Taliban before his capture in the United States.
By comparison, al-Marri had not been on the battlefield. He was lawfully living in the U.S. That raises new questions.
Did Congress really intend to give the president the authority to lock up suspected terrorists overseas but not those living here?
If another September 11-like plot was discovered, could the military imprison the would-be hijackers before they stepped onto the planes?
Is a foreign battlefield really necessary in a conflict that turned downtown Manhattan into ground zero?
Also, if enemy combatants can be detained in the U.S., how long can they be held without charge? Without lawyers? Without access to the outside world? Forever?
These questions play to two of the biggest fears that have dominated public policy debate since September 11: the fear of another terrorist attack and the fear the government will use that threat to crack down on civil liberties.
"If he is taken to a civilian court in the United States and it's been proved he is guilty and it's been proved there's evidence to show that he's guilty, you know, he deserves what he gets," his brother, Mohammed al-Marri, said Friday from his home in Saudi Arabia. "But he's just been taken there with no court, no nothing. That's shame on the United States."
Courts have gone back and forth on al-Marri's case as it worked its way through the system. The last decision, a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would "alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic," the judges said.
The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.
"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.
"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
The court seemed torn.
One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.
Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.
Whatever the decision, the case seems destined for the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the first military trials are set to begin soon against detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Marri may get one, too. Or he may get put back into the civilian court system. For now, he waits.
I don't remember any other President saying anything like that. The highlighted part, that is.
Post by: De Selby on May 26, 2008, 05:03:40 PM
Quote
Yet, WW & FDR are icons of the left and what goes for the elites in this country, and GWB is "Bushitler." Gimme a break.
What do you want with me? Am I a leftist? Am I a wealthy American media magnate?
My problem with Bushis only as follows:
He had a Republican opportunity unprecedented in 40 years. He had unbelievable political capital. He had a majority in both Houses.
He chose to use it to expand the size of government, and to avoid introducing any kind of serious change.
But now, anything that went wrong, will be attributed by the media to 'conservatism', and people will buy it, even though a lot of these failures are due to him being insufficiently conservative, or aren't failures at all. This will make things worse for all conservatives and their political allies.
And Obama will be in charge.
MB:
There is nothing in your post above that I disagree with.
What I did disagree with was your earlier post implying that GWB is using some sort of up-till-then unprecedented powers and that now the Obamites will get to play with them. GWB did not start the ball rolling. GWB did not even move the ball forward any perceptible degree. Yet, he is "The guy who left all those powerful, liberty-enervating tools in the hands of a Post-American POTUS."
GWB has enough warts* that we don't need to go 'round repeating the deranged leftists' fever dreams and half-sane caterwauling.
* Your list is, sadly, not exhaustive and complete. If it was, you'd exceed the max character limit for a post. GWB has been a disappointment in so many ways.
GWB did most certainly move the ball-
Previous administrations tried people on bunko sedition laws, and interned thousands on the grounds of racism-but those administrations did provide trials where criminal punishment was an issue, and at least as a matter of law treated the racist internment program like a POW situation: there was no criminal punishment, no claim they could be held forever (just until the end of the formal conflict with Japan), and they had the basic rights of POWs.
GWB is the first president to allege that he can imprison people without trial, yet punish them by life imprisonment without access to any POW protections whatosever. That has not yet been done-in America.
It's common in Latin America; GWB is the first president to institute the Peruvian model of prosecuting terrorism, for example. In that respect he is most certainly moving the bar of executive power.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 26, 2008, 05:44:55 PM
If I remember correctly, Bush tried to get military tribunals going for the Guantanamo guys, but was blocked by court action.
jfuser's right, Bush has so far attempted nothing more than was done previously. He has just had a great deal more resistance in Congress and the courts than previous Presidents not to mention non-stop bad press for 8 years. We have all these discussion forums and blogs where people can trade and pass on unsubstantiated BS. You can look at a lot of different things to see that stuff. Look at the 911 conspiracy stuff or the AGW stuff. I find it strange to see people I thought were smart people regurgitate the worst of the GW disaster predictions (personal contact, not here).
I do agree with that one story on the guy arrested in the US, but his case is at least being heard in court.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 26, 2008, 05:46:49 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 26, 2008, 05:51:05 PM
Quote
What happened to US citizens who returned to Germany to fight for the Nazi's. There were a few. Did they get returned to the US to be tried in civilian court?
Courts martial, sometimes even captured in the U.S.
Quote
If I remember correctly, Bush tried to get military tribunals going for the Guantanamo guys, but was blocked by court action.
Actually it was the opposite-he tried to not have military tribunals, but was forced to by the Court. If he'd just wanted military tribunals, there would've been no purpose to storing them at Guantanamo versus other locations. The selection of Guantanamo was an attempt to keep the prisoners beyond the reach of any judicial review whatsoever.
Then there was the Padilla category of prisoner, and the one cited in the article from CNN here, for whom Bush claimed no protections of any kind applied.
Again, no president previous to George Bush has claimed that a U.S. citizen may be detained, on U.S. soil, and then held without any sort of trial or given any rights whatsoever. That has never happened before this Presidency. There have been presidents who tried U.S. citizens in military courts for offenses committed in America, and there have been Presidents who held U.S. citizens in a state akin to P.O.W. status. But there has never in history been a President who claimed the authority to lock someone up forever, with no access to any review of any kind, based on the Executive assertion that the person was an "enemy combatant."
Post by: lacoochee on May 26, 2008, 06:32:10 PM
Quote
Again, no president previous to George Bush has claimed that a U.S. citizen may be detained, on U.S. soil, and then held without any sort of trial or given any rights whatsoever. That has never happened before this Presidency.
Not true.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction
On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order.
On March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863. This bill suspended Habeas Corpus across the nation and was passed to rectify Taney's objections in Ex Parte Merryman, that Congress and not the President has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.
In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were functioning. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed, and if the area is within a theater of active military operations. This was one of the key Supreme Court cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law.
In the early 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus during World War II and its aftermath
In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Quirin that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. The 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager denied access to habeas corpus for nonresident aliens captured and imprisoned abroad in a US-administered foreign court.
-- Wikipedia
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 26, 2008, 06:56:38 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 26, 2008, 06:58:46 PM
Yes, true. Take a look at your examples, which even based on the summaries you posted, illustrate the point:
Quote
Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause.
Quote
In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were functioning.
Lincoln was taking people to military court and trying them there-without civilian protections. That's still a trial; GWB wanted no trial, military or civilian, for certain "enemy combatants."
Suspension of Habeas means you don't get into federal court; it doesn't mean you get no trial.
Quote
In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Quirin that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. The 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager denied access to habeas corpus for nonresident aliens captured and imprisoned abroad in a US-administered foreign court.
I bolded the parts that distinguish the current position held by the administration from those executive powers to capture and try during wartime that were previously alleged.
Again, there have been presidents before who claimed the power to prevent access to civilian courts, and to substitute trial in military courts.
There has never been a president who claimed the power to hold someone with no judicial review, no military trial, or any sort of ability to challenge detention and punishment whatsoever.....until George Bush, who claimed exactly that power with respect to Jose Padilla and some other select U.S. citizen detainees.
Post by: De Selby on May 26, 2008, 07:00:06 PM
But you're citing Wikipedia, so you must be WRONG.
Wikipedia actually did a decent job on this one, if I might say so-it's just that the actual text quoted doesn't support the posted claim. These are not examples of the claim of executive authority made by Bush; these are examples of trying to substitute military for civilian jurisdiction, which is not what what the Bush administration has tried to do.
Post by: lacoochee on May 26, 2008, 07:31:40 PM
That's what you get when you try and defend Bush, should have known better, I stand corrected.
Post by: Scout26 on May 27, 2008, 07:18:08 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 27, 2008, 07:25:32 AM
How come I click on a thread about Michelle Obama and the discussion is all about GWB ??
Because SS snuck in and yanked the track switch.
Post by: K Frame on May 27, 2008, 07:40:57 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on May 27, 2008, 10:55:53 AM
Obama is catching a little heat online again today. See bolded area. I think he got the camp wrong.
Quote
Obama Talks of Family's Military Service
Posted by Maria Gavrilovic| 78
(CBS)
From CBS News Maria Gavrilovic:
LAS CRUCES, N.M. -- Despite not having served in the military himself, Barack Obama used his Memorial Day remarks to speak about his familys service. My grandfather marched in Pattons army, but I cannot know what it is to walk into battle like so many of you, he told a small group of veterans here. My grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, but I cannot know what it is for a family to sacrifice like so many of yours have.
Obama said he supports the new GI Bill because of his grandfathers experience in the program after World War II. We should make sure that todays veterans get the same benefit that my grandfather got when he came back from World War II, Obama said. It was a good investment not only for him, but it was a good investment for the country, built our middle class. So we're going to make sure that that gets passed.
He said President Bush may veto the bill, but he vowed to try and override it if it comes back to the House and Senate.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just werent the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain, Obama said. Thats why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need thats why its so important.
Posted by Maria Gavrilovic| 78
(CBS)
From CBS News Maria Gavrilovic:
LAS CRUCES, N.M. -- Despite not having served in the military himself, Barack Obama used his Memorial Day remarks to speak about his familys service. My grandfather marched in Pattons army, but I cannot know what it is to walk into battle like so many of you, he told a small group of veterans here. My grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, but I cannot know what it is for a family to sacrifice like so many of yours have.
Obama said he supports the new GI Bill because of his grandfathers experience in the program after World War II. We should make sure that todays veterans get the same benefit that my grandfather got when he came back from World War II, Obama said. It was a good investment not only for him, but it was a good investment for the country, built our middle class. So we're going to make sure that that gets passed.
He said President Bush may veto the bill, but he vowed to try and override it if it comes back to the House and Senate.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just werent the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain, Obama said. Thats why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need thats why its so important.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 27, 2008, 10:56:47 AM
Post by: agricola on May 27, 2008, 11:27:12 AM
Obama is catching a little heat online again today. See bolded area. I think he got the camp wrong.
He did, Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army and (as anyone can see on a map) is in Poland. However, it also transpires that his American mother is an only child, so "he got it wrong" is perhaps letting him off too lightly.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 27, 2008, 11:33:52 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 27, 2008, 11:39:18 AM
Obama is catching a little heat online again today. See bolded area. I think he got the camp wrong.
He did, Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army and (as anyone can see on a map) is in Poland. However, it also transpires that his American mother is an only child, so "he got it wrong" is perhaps letting him off too lightly.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/
Post by: agricola on May 27, 2008, 11:41:32 AM
Obama is catching a little heat online again today. See bolded area. I think he got the camp wrong.
He did, Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army and (as anyone can see on a map) is in Poland. However, it also transpires that his American mother is an only child, so "he got it wrong" is perhaps letting him off too lightly.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/
indeed, but he actually said "american brigade", so they cant even spin it that way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mqvA
Post by: MechAg94 on May 27, 2008, 01:41:50 PM
Still the wrong camp and or completely made up. Patton did overrun some camps as did a lot of the armies pushing into Germany.
Post by: Dannyboy on May 27, 2008, 02:17:46 PM
Back to the original topic, I fail to see how SS caused a derailment. Same subject, different person.
Post by: agricola on May 27, 2008, 02:27:45 PM
He could have meant what I would call a great uncle or his grandfather's brother.
Still the wrong camp and or completely made up. Patton did overrun some camps as did a lot of the armies pushing into Germany.
Still the wrong camp and or completely made up. Patton did overrun some camps as did a lot of the armies pushing into Germany.
thats what they are now saying, except the blogosphere has found out he has said similar things before:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/05/its_nothing_new.html
edit: no doubt hordes of journalists are descending on this charlie payne and his service records right now
edit: he also says "i had an uncle...", which (at the risk of being pedantic) you would think should be "i have" - the "uncle" is still alive after all. this really does not ring true.
Post by: taurusowner on May 27, 2008, 03:37:22 PM
Now we've got Mr. 57 states bumbling things left and farther left.
How come they aren't saying the things about Barrack Gaffe-Machine Obama?
Post by: roo_ster on May 27, 2008, 04:55:37 PM
If he says it, it must be true. [Please pass me another cup of that de-licious kool-aid.]
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 27, 2008, 10:09:42 PM
McCain doesn't need Republican money, he can just sit there.
In fact, the Republicans could have run a drooling, paraplegic, blind and deaf cripple, and he would have still beat Obama.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 28, 2008, 04:46:14 AM
Republicans in Congress are a different matter all together. I hear everyone predicting them to lose big.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 28, 2008, 04:59:15 AM
Republicans in Congress are a different matter all together. I hear everyone predicting them to lose big.
That's what worries me. If there's a Democrat majority and Obama as president, they could care less about what people think. They would crow victory and pass their wildest dreams, from government seizure of oil companies to total bans on the sale of semiautomatic firearms, and Obama would sign them.
Post by: longeyes on May 28, 2008, 05:02:07 AM
But win he may.
This Election will be a referendum on American sanity and maturity. It will tell us compellingly how far wrong we have gone with a culture that exacts too little for citizenship and, especially, suffrage.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 28, 2008, 05:03:35 AM
Going to happen fast if that comes to play out.
Post by: longeyes on May 28, 2008, 05:14:20 AM
Quote
That's what worries me. If there's a Democrat majority and Obama as president, they could care less about what people think. They would crow victory and pass their wildest dreams, from government seizure of oil companies to total bans on the sale of semiautomatic firearms, and Obama would sign them.
This is a time of Unreason, and Obama is surfing this wave. He is the darling of "the kids," some of whom are sexagenarians who should know better, and the eternally young Left. He is the Utopian who inevitably brings The Terror. An Obama Presidency, backed by a Democratic Congressional majority, will put into bold relief everything we have been talking about, mostly on a theoretical level, on this and other forums for a long time. We should have seen it coming; you can't ignore the responsibilities of good citizenship and imbue your youth with corrupt ideas and not realize you are deconstructing your own nation. Was blind but now we see.
Post by: De Selby on May 28, 2008, 11:50:45 AM
Considering that these policies are terribly unpopular, it would be odd for McCain to steamroll Obama on those grounds alone.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 28, 2008, 11:53:06 AM
Before we get too carried away with calling Americans insane for supporting Obama, it's important to remember that McCain is basically promising to continue the Bush policies.
Considering that these policies are terribly unpopular, it would be odd for McCain to steamroll Obama on those grounds alone.
Considering that these policies are terribly unpopular, it would be odd for McCain to steamroll Obama on those grounds alone.
Frying pan, fire.
Post by: De Selby on May 28, 2008, 11:56:18 AM
Before we get too carried away with calling Americans insane for supporting Obama, it's important to remember that McCain is basically promising to continue the Bush policies.
Considering that these policies are terribly unpopular, it would be odd for McCain to steamroll Obama on those grounds alone.
Considering that these policies are terribly unpopular, it would be odd for McCain to steamroll Obama on those grounds alone.
Frying pan, fire.
While I think that's true, it's by no means an obvious conclusion.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 28, 2008, 12:00:24 PM
I haven't seen statistics, but I heard that Obama hasn't won a majority of the white vote in his primaries since the Wright stuff came out. If true, that is significant since we are talking about Dem primaries.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 28, 2008, 12:02:46 PM
McCain has his warts, but some of Obama's negatives such as the Rev. Wright mess are major to many Americans. I don't think McCain will run away with this one, but I can't see Obama winning unless McCain just does something really dumb.
I haven't seen statistics, but I heard that Obama hasn't won a majority of the white vote in his primaries since the Wright stuff came out. If true, that is significant since we are talking about Dem primaries.
I haven't seen statistics, but I heard that Obama hasn't won a majority of the white vote in his primaries since the Wright stuff came out. If true, that is significant since we are talking about Dem primaries.
Wright is but a footnote. Obama has said scarier things on his own recently, a whole lot of collectivist talk that's right out of Marx. It scares the crap out of me. He's not even "American", he's an internationalist.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 28, 2008, 01:54:08 PM
I agree on the communist talking points. I am just not sure most Americans still see it as scary. I guess more older voters would and those are the ones more likely to vote.
Post by: longeyes on May 28, 2008, 03:18:12 PM