truely a sad day for the 'grand experiment' known as American Democracy...
Who knows why?
Are you referring to the prez's hacking at habeas corpus?
Maybe the fact that the 300,000,000th citizen born in the US was an illegal alien...
Or the fact that a US lawyer was complicit in passing information to terrorist on behalf of another terrorist...
Or maybe that Democrats abdicated their job of representing their constituents by failing to debate the detainee bill because they didn't want to piss off the American people before an election and display their true spineless nature...gutless wonders.
Yep, democracy as we know it is over because terrorists will not get to petition a federal court for habeas relief. I feel as if the walls of this country are absolutely collapsing around me.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Yep, democracy as we know it is over because terrorists will not get to petition a federal court for habeas relief. I feel as if the walls of this country are absolutely collapsing around me.
I'll ask you what no other neocon has even attempted to answer. Without due process, how do you know who is and who isn't a terrorist? As a self admitted Bush apologist, I'm sure you're willing to trust George Bush not to abuse the power, but are you willing to trust all future presidents--including--GASP--DEMOCRAT presidents?
Are you really so naive that you don't think the government would abuse its power if there were no checks and balances in place? Do you think for a second that Tricky Dick wouldn't have loved to have to power to just say, "That person is a terrorist. Lock him up!"
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Maybe the fact that the 300,000,000th citizen born in the US was an illegal alien...
Not so counselor. A citizen is not an illegal alien, now are they?
Sounds like iplaw needs to go back to school and finish that civics class.
[}:)]
Very good to all those so far who have responded objectively that I can now be deemed a terror suspect for threatening 'regime change' .....
BTW, the democrats advocated to cooperating with these masquerade americans/republicans who in reality represent nothing but a breach in all that was previously considered ethical.
For lying he should be removed.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=130530
But now, he is a ruler unto himself.
From America's Number one honest blog....
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/17/13225/011
http://www.alternet.org/stories/42884/
"We need to ask ourselves, however, what sowing the winds of war abroad will reap at home. They are not Arabs who are painting Aryan Nations graffiti on the shattered walls of Baghdad. "
"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." – Lyle Myhr
"Ain't dark yet but it's getting there..."
Dylan
Today (actually yesterday --- why am I up so late?? IDK) is not a "sad day" for American Democracy, but rather a sad day for American Democrats.
All the President is trying to do is keep you safe -- you probably don't know but keeping liberals safe is a hard task. His actions will in no way affect your life except for the fact that it will still exist.
P.S. All this talk (not necessarily on TulsaNow)about the Republican Party's demise is foolishness. It is quite possible that the Dems will take over for a few years, but this will reenergize the Christian Republican base. However, if the Dems choose that whack-job Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in '08, that reenergizing of the Republicans will come so fast, it will be like that unbelievable Bears-Cardinals game this past Monday - the Republicans being the Bears of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Today (actually yesterday --- why am I up so late?? IDK) is not a "sad day" for American Democracy, but rather a sad day for American Democrats.
All the President is trying to do is keep you safe -- you probably don't know but keeping liberals safe is a hard task. His actions will in no way affect your life except for the fact that it will still exist.
P.S. All this talk (not necessarily on TulsaNow)about the Republican Party's demise is foolishness. It is quite possible that the Dems will take over for a few years, but this will reenergize the Christian Republican base. However, if the Dems choose that whack-job Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in '08, that reenergizing of the Republicans will come so fast, it will be like that unbelievable Bears-Cardinals game this past Monday - the Republicans being the Bears of course.
No, Cubs, if you would take your right wing blinders off for a minute or two you would see that this isn't about security. It's about expanding presidential powers far beyond what the Constitution allows. Even if it WAS about security, why are right wingers such cowards? With cowboy bravado, right wingers talk about not making a "cowardly cut and run" in Iraq (from the comfort and safety of their suburban homes) but when it comes to what they perceive as their OWN personal safety, they're ready to sell the Constitution down the river just to buy the impression that it makes them safer.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Today (actually yesterday --- why am I up so late?? IDK) is not a "sad day" for American Democracy, but rather a sad day for American Democrats.
All the President is trying to do is keep you safe -- you probably don't know but keeping liberals safe is a hard task. His actions will in no way affect your life except for the fact that it will still exist.
P.S. All this talk (not necessarily on TulsaNow)about the Republican Party's demise is foolishness. It is quite possible that the Dems will take over for a few years, but this will reenergize the Christian Republican base. However, if the Dems choose that whack-job Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in '08, that reenergizing of the Republicans will come so fast, it will be like that unbelievable Bears-Cardinals game this past Monday - the Republicans being the Bears of course.
No, all the president is trying to do is make his job easier. It's much easier to rule a country when the masses have fewer rights.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Maybe the fact that the 300,000,000th citizen born in the US was an illegal alien...
Not so counselor. A citizen is not an illegal alien, now are they?
Depends on who you ask in America today. Should have said "born TO" an illegal alien. Equally as reprehensable...
How dare those Mexican women get pregnant and give birth. Maybe if the right wingers weren't so opposed to birth control they wouldn't be able to breed.
Seems as if their religion precludes that more than our policies do. Only someone with very little respect for their country or fellow citizens would take such a callous stance towards illegal immigration.
Extrapolating outrage over the subset of "illegal" and projecting that to incorporate all mexicans is a fallacy, but I wouldn't expect most here to realize that.
Papa, unless you are a lawyer, please do not lecture me on due process rights or the purpose of habeas relief.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Maybe the fact that the 300,000,000th citizen born in the US was an illegal alien...
Not so counselor. A citizen is not an illegal alien, now are they?
Depends on who you ask in America today. Should have said "born TO" an illegal alien. Equally as reprehensable...
No, it DOESN'T depend on who you ask. YOU should know that the law is the law. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change it. I challenge you to find a law that has the word "should" in it.
Granted, they may not have habeas rights and can be kept in prison for all of eternity, which I don't think is correct, but to extend that to say that executions would take place without a trial is false and scaremongering.
Do I think that they should have habeas rights...yes, as long as the relief is sought in a military tribunal as is done in any war. To ask that our overburdened judiciary bear the burden of these trials is rediculous as well.
I think there should be TWO tests:
First, if you are a citizen of the US, even if you are found on the battlefield in another country, habeas rights should apply; BUT
Second, if you are NOT a citizen of the US and found on the battlefield either domestically or internationally you should be treated as an enemy combatant and a military tribunal would be appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Papa, unless you are a lawyer, please do not lecture me on due process rights or the purpose of habeas relief.
How did I know that you wouldn't even try to answer the question either?
Since when do you have to be a lawyer to know what the Constitution says? Maybe you think that you do and that explains why you've never read it. Well, I'm tellin' ya right now that being a lawyer is NOT a requirement for reading the Constitution. Please feel free to just go ahead and READ it. Not only will you not go to jail for it, you might even LEARN something.
Besides, this is less about law than it is about history. Or do you also have to be a historian to know anything about history?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Granted, they may not have habeas rights and can be kept in prison for all of eternity, which I don't think is correct, but to extend that to say that executions would take place without a trial is false and scaremongering.
Do I think that they should have habeas rights...yes, as long as the relief is sought in a military tribunal as is done in any war. To ask that our overburdened judiciary bear the burden of these trials is rediculous as well.
I think there should be TWO tests:
First, if you are a citizen of the US, even if you are found on the battlefield in another country, habeas rights should apply; BUT
Second, if you are NOT a citizen of the US and found on the battlefield either domestically or internationally you should be treated as an enemy combatant and a military tribunal would be appropriate.
One of the problems with your second condition is that it pretty much leaves it open to whatever the government wants to do. How is "the battlefield" defined in terms of "on the battlefield either domestically or internationally"? And what does "if you are found" mean? Are you talking about enemy combatants? What is the definition of an enemy combatant and who determines whether a person meets the definition?
The problem is...the Constitution does not cover every possible scenario and certainly does not euclidate what should be done in situations such as these.
This is why it vests Congress with the right to promulgate the laws to fill in these gaps.
Congress has acted and now it's up to the SPCT to say whether that law was constitutional or not.
Even if they find that the Constitution was violated, Congress may override the SPCT by limiting its jurisdiction.
All of what has happened up to this point has followed the Constitutionally madated procedures.
Whether we like what conclusions have been drawn is personal opinion, but Constitutional procedure has been followed. You and I can argue about it all day, but that is what the legal and political process is for. We are only spectators.
It's easy to say, "Well, just look at the Constitution" but that is an oversimplified answer. There are voluminous amounts of case law that help us interpret the Constitution. The text of the Constitiution can never be used singularly to justify any position.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's easy to say, "Well, just look at the Constitution" but that is an oversimplified answer. There are voluminous amounts of case law that help us interpret the Constitution. The text of the Constitiution can never be used singularly to justify any position.
No, iplaw, if you look at the context of the conversation, it is NOT an oversimplification. Guido implied (when taken in the context of my comment to him) that you have to be a lawyer to understand the importance of due process. I assert that that's bullcrap.
I understand what you're saying though and I agree that constitutional law involves a lot more than just the text of the Constitution. But we weren't exactly discussing the merits of a particular case or doctrine. I just asked him a question that most neocons avoid or ignore.
He ignored it, just like I expected he would.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The problem is...the Constitution does not cover every possible scenario and certainly does not euclidate what should be done in situations such as these.
This is why it vests Congress with the right to promulgate the laws to fill in these gaps.
Congress has acted and now it's up to the SPCT to say whether that law was constitutional or not.
Even if they find that the Constitution was violated, Congress may override the SPCT by limiting its jurisdiction.
All of what has happened up to this point has followed the Constitutionally madated procedures.
Whether we like what conclusions have been drawn is personal opinion, but Constitutional procedure has been followed. You and I can argue about it all day, but that is what the legal and political process is for. We are only spectators.
Yes, the process is being followed by it ain't over yet. And I was impressed that SCOTUS didn't allow Bush to try to skirt the Constitution by making last minute changes to try to prevent a case from being heard by them so that no ruling would be made and his options would have still been (in his opinion) open.
It's not what due process means you simpleton, it's who is entitled to it. Since you have read the constitution, show me where it says that persons captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled to habeas relief? The Congress and President responded to the Supreme Court's issues raised in Hamdi. What more do you want?
And also, by due process, are you referring to substantive due process or procedural? Should we give these terrorists attorneys and speedy public trials at the expense of the taxpayer? Should we give terrorists the rights to sue our soldiers in federal court for damages under § 1983? I can just see it now, G.I. Joe shot me too many times when I was trying to plant a roadside bomb. He violated my rights. Come on wise guy, give me answer not a tired, repeated sound bite.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The problem is...the Constitution does not cover every possible scenario and certainly does not euclidate what should be done in situations such as these.
This is why it vests Congress with the right to promulgate the laws to fill in these gaps.
Congress has acted and now it's up to the SPCT to say whether that law was constitutional or not.
Even if they find that the Constitution was violated, Congress may override the SPCT by limiting its jurisdiction.
All of what has happened up to this point has followed the Constitutionally madated procedures.
Whether we like what conclusions have been drawn is personal opinion, but Constitutional procedure has been followed. You and I can argue about it all day, but that is what the legal and political process is for. We are only spectators.
Yes, the process is being followed by it ain't over yet. And I was impressed that SCOTUS didn't allow Bush to try to skirt the Constitution by making last minute changes to try to prevent a case from being heard by them so that no ruling would be made and his options would have still been (in his opinion) open.
None of what was stated in the Hamdan case matters now that we have the Detainee Bill and it allows military tribunals for these individuals.
Until the Detainee Bill is challenged and/or ruled unconstitutional by the high court, which it WILL NOT be, we will have tribunals for Hamdan and any other enemy combatant found prancing around on theater of operations.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
It's not what due process means you simpleton, it's who is entitled to it. Since you have read the constitution, show me where it says that persons captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled to habeas relief? The Congress and President responded to the Supreme Court's issues raised in Hamdi. What more do you want?
And also, by due process, are you referring to substantive due process or procedural? Should we give these terrorists attorneys and speedy public trials at the expense of the taxpayer? Should we give terrorists the rights to sue our soldiers in federal court for damages under § 1983? I can just see it now, G.I. Joe shot me too many times when I was trying to plant a roadside bomb. He violated my rights. Come on wise guy, give me answer not a tired, repeated sound bite.
Be nice guido, we don't want them shutting down this thread do we?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
It's not what due process means you simpleton
Typical of someone of your mentality to resort so quickly to name calling. I guess it means you've run out of intelligent things to say. THAT sure didn't take very long.
quote:
it's who is entitled to it. Since you have read the constitution, show me where it says that persons captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled to habeas relief?
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I don't know if it's possible to make this simple enough for you to understand but "any person" includes all living human beings.
quote:
The Congress and President responded to the Supreme Court's issues raised in Hamdi. What more do you want?
And also, by due process, are you referring to substantive due process or procedural? Should we give these terrorists attorneys and speedy public trials at the expense of the taxpayer? Should we give terrorists the rights to sue our soldiers in federal court for damages under § 1983? I can just see it now, G.I. Joe shot me too many times when I was trying to plant a roadside bomb. He violated my rights. Come on wise guy, give me answer not a tired, repeated sound bite.
For someone who can't answer a simple question, you're pretty quick to demand answers yourself. Maybe you didn't understand the question. To tell ya the truth, I don't know how to simplify it any more. Without due process, how do you know who is and isn't a terrorist? Is it by the color of their skin? Is it by their nationality? Is it by their religious belief? Is the question confusing to you? Maybe someone else can explain it in terms you can understand. I'm at a loss as to how to make it any simpler.
quote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
You ignore the entire phrase that comes before "any person." Anyways, the term "any person" has been adjudicated NOT to include war criminals which is why we have military tribunals. If everyone were entitled to indictment by a grand jury then military tribunals wouldn't exist.
Also, to be a stickler, what you highlighted says that every person has the right to be protected from double jeopardy. You should have emboldened the term persons in the first sentence...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
You ignore the entire phrase that comes before "any person." Anyways, the term "any person" has been adjudicated NOT to include war criminals which is why we have military tribunals. If everyone were entitled to indictment by a grand jury then military tribunals wouldn't exist.
No, I didn't ignore it. There is more than one thing addressed in that amendment.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger..."
The first part addresses being held for capital or infamous crimes and exempts certain people. The second and subsequent parts address other matters and don't state any exemptions.
quote:
Also, to be a stickler, what you highlighted says that every person has the right to be protected from double jeopardy. You should have emboldened the term persons in the first sentence...
Sorry, iplaw but I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
Keith Olbermann will be giving a special commentary tonight on President Bush's destruction of habeas corpus. It should be a doozy.
Let's drive O'Reilly nuts! Watch Keith.
This isn't the B.O. thread. Take it to the proper place please.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This isn't the B.O. thread. Take it to the proper place please.
Wrong. Like so often.....
What do you think this thread is all about?
Papa:
Obviously not ALL are entitled to habeas protection under the Constitution, as we currently have, and have always had military tribunals in a time of war.
You cannot read the Constitution by itself, lest you be called a "Strict Constructionist" which is a term reserved only for radical neo-cons.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This isn't the B.O. thread. Take it to the proper place please.
Wrong. Like so often.....
What do you think this thread is all about?
Not about B.O. and his Sub 50 IQ brain slop that's for d@mn sure. Take it to the B.O. thread.
Sorry iplaw and you are right. I get so frustrated when people think that the war on terror should be fought as if it were a law enforcement matter. People forget that nearly 2.5 million people voted in support of the WAR on terror (Bush/Rumsfeld) and not COPS on terror (Kerry/Randi Rhodes) during the 2004 election. The scum detained at Gitmo--including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who masterminded 9/11 and was personally involved in Daniel Pearl brutal murder--have no business benefitting from our constitutional protections. I cannot believe even the most ardent civil libertarian would be that anti-American.
I think its important that before anyone takes a position on habeas and its applicability to terrorists/war criminals, you need to read the entire Hamdi opinion--including the Scalia dissent if you want a history to support the detention system before the new law was signed. The Bush administration's policy had historical precedent--notwithstanding the nature of this very new form of warfare and enemy. Since the opinion predates the Roberts court, it is likely that the new law will easily survive a constitutional challenge.
Indeed, Papa & RW and others, you apparently have not thought at all (or you simply do not know) about what impact full habeas rights would have on the war on terror if terrorists were granted such? Do you really want terrorists to have the right to petition a federal court on a writ and demand that a criminal proceeding be brought promptly or otherwise demand to be released? Is that how you would fight the war on terror?
It does not matter what the facts or the law is on this issue, the left HATES Bush and HATES Rumsfeld so much that it will be against him regardless of the consequences.
<guido wrote:
People forget that nearly 2.5 million people voted in support of the WAR on terror (Bush/Rumsfeld) and not COPS on terror (Kerry/Randi Rhodes) during the 2004 election.
<end clip>
People weren't voting for a war. They were voting for presidential candidates. And even if you were using a metaphor, your numbers are way off.
<guido wrote:
Indeed, Papa & RW and others, you apparently have not thought at all (or you simply do not know) about what impact full habeas rights would have on the war on terror if terrorists were granted such? Do you really want terrorists to have the right to petition a federal court on a writ and demand that a criminal proceeding be brought promptly or otherwise demand to be released? Is that how you would fight the war on terror?
<end clip>
Well, gee, since charged terrorists would already be captured, why wouldn't there be a trial? It certainly worked well with the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center the first time who were tried, convicted and now sit in a prison cell for the rest of their miserable lives.
And you can still charge terrorists in absentia if you wish.
Please, please note that having courts of law does not preclude the military from using force and other means to subdue and kill terrorists. Legal procedure and military operations are different things.
What's wrong with charging and trying terrorists if they're captured? It's certainly worked well enough before.
What do you have against our exemplary legal system, guido? What are you so afraid of? Why do you hate our American legal system?
Why do you hate America? [;)]
I love America.....until those Diebold rackateers step in.
Oct. 18, 2006
Public support for Republicans' control of Congress has eroded to its lowest point since the party took over 12 years ago, a new WSJ/NBC News poll finds, as scandals have taken a toll. With just 19 days until the midterm elections, both President Bush and his party are in worse shape with voters than Democrats were in the October before they lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994.
For more information:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116120412623296795.html?mod=djemalert
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Papa:
Obviously not ALL are entitled to habeas protection under the Constitution, as we currently have, and have always had military tribunals in a time of war.
You cannot read the Constitution by itself, lest you be called a "Strict Constructionist" which is a term reserved only for radical neo-cons.
Uhhhhh...I dunno why you're telling me THAT, iplaw. I've already agreed with you on that part.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Sorry iplaw and you are right. I get so frustrated when people think that the war on terror should be fought as if it were a law enforcement matter. People forget that nearly 2.5 million people voted in support of the WAR on terror (Bush/Rumsfeld) and not COPS on terror (Kerry/Randi Rhodes) during the 2004 election. The scum detained at Gitmo--including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who masterminded 9/11 and was personally involved in Daniel Pearl brutal murder--have no business benefitting from our constitutional protections. I cannot believe even the most ardent civil libertarian would be that anti-American.
I think its important that before anyone takes a position on habeas and its applicability to terrorists/war criminals, you need to read the entire Hamdi opinion--including the Scalia dissent if you want a history to support the detention system before the new law was signed. The Bush administration's policy had historical precedent--notwithstanding the nature of this very new form of warfare and enemy. Since the opinion predates the Roberts court, it is likely that the new law will easily survive a constitutional challenge.
Indeed, Papa & RW and others, you apparently have not thought at all (or you simply do not know) about what impact full habeas rights would have on the war on terror if terrorists were granted such?
There's another possibility and that's that some of us aren't taken in by the fear mongering from the right wing.
quote:
Do you really want terrorists to have the right to petition a federal court on a writ and demand that a criminal proceeding be brought promptly or otherwise demand to be released? Is that how you would fight the war on terror?
I dunno. Let me suggest this.
Why don't you answer my question about how you know who is and isn't a terrorist and we'll start from there? Whadya think?
quote:
It does not matter what the facts or the law is on this issue, the left HATES Bush and HATES Rumsfeld so much that it will be against him regardless of the consequences.
People like you thrive on assumptions. You assume that if I disagree with you on ANYTHING I must be a lefty. You assume that anyone that doesn't support Bush is a lefy. 'Course I guess from where YOU sit, about 95% of the country must look like lefties as far as you're concerned.
Not that you'll have the guts to even try to answer it but I'll ask you another couple of question. If you DID have the guts to answer them honestly, we'd see just how far YOU have or haven't) thought this out. What makes this "war on terrorism" a war? Who is the enemy? Terrorists? That's pretty freakin' vague. How will we know when it's over? Or is this just an open ended thing to allow the president (god only hope for YOUR sake that they're all Republicans) to just make up the rules? Are you ready to give full POW status to the detainees at Guantanamo? You say they're not criminals because this is "war" so that must mean that they're prisoners of war. Or do ya really think you can have it both ways?
Now let's see just exactly how long it takes you to dodge these questions.
STOP CHANGING THE G.D. SUBJECT!!! It is clear that you have not read the Hamdi opinion or not. If you had, you would know that your questions about "who is a terorist" and what is the war on terror is absolutely irrelevant. The persons detained on these battlefields are as a matter of law not entitled to the same "due process" or habeas protections as you and I are. If you want to be a globalist and want to treat all persons on this planet as if they are subject to the U.S. constitution--that is your choice.
I am tired of arguing with you. You will not take the time to read the law or even educate yourself as to the complex legal questions that are issue. Instead, you want to take the simplistic approach and extend constitutional rights to persons that do not exist.
As for the "guts" argument, I do not need to prove anything to the likes of you.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
STOP CHANGING THE G.D. SUBJECT!!! It is clear that you have not read the Hamdi opinion or not. If you had, you would know that your questions about "who is a terorist" and what is the war on terror is absolutely irrelevant. The persons detained on these battlefields are as a matter of law not entitled to the same "due process" or habeas protections as you and I are. If you want to be a globalist and want to treat all persons on this planet as if they are subject to the U.S. constitution--that is your choice.
I am tired of arguing with you. You will not take the time to read the law or even educate yourself as to the complex legal questions that are issue. Instead, you want to take the simplistic approach and extend constitutional rights to persons that do not exist.
As for the "guts" argument, I do not need to prove anything to the likes of you.
I think it's pretty obvious why you keep dodging questions. Your arguments are made of wet paper and even YOU are smart enough to know how fast they go down the toilet when you try to answer a couple of simple questions. The fact that you can't (or WON'T) answer them is pretty solid proof that you haven't given any thought of your own to this. You just say what Rush tells ya to say. Good little Republican! Here's a biscuit for you.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Papa:
Obviously not ALL are entitled to habeas protection under the Constitution, as we currently have, and have always had military tribunals in a time of war.
You cannot read the Constitution by itself, lest you be called a "Strict Constructionist" which is a term reserved only for radical neo-cons.
Uhhhhh...I dunno why you're telling me THAT, iplaw. I've already agreed with you on that part.
Obviously not because YOU keep telling us that ALL PERSONS have the right to habeas corpus which is INCORRECT.
I can't figure out what exactly it is that you are complaining about. Constitutional procedures are being followed...
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
STOP CHANGING THE G.D. SUBJECT!!! It is clear that you have not read the Hamdi opinion or not. If you had, you would know that your questions about "who is a terorist" and what is the war on terror is absolutely irrelevant. The persons detained on these battlefields are as a matter of law not entitled to the same "due process" or habeas protections as you and I are. If you want to be a globalist and want to treat all persons on this planet as if they are subject to the U.S. constitution--that is your choice.
I am tired of arguing with you. You will not take the time to read the law or even educate yourself as to the complex legal questions that are issue. Instead, you want to take the simplistic approach and extend constitutional rights to persons that do not exist.
As for the "guts" argument, I do not need to prove anything to the likes of you.
I think it's pretty obvious why you keep dodging questions. Your arguments are made of wet paper and even YOU are smart enough to know how fast they go down the toilet when you try to answer a couple of simple questions. The fact that you can't (or WON'T) answer them is pretty solid proof that you haven't given any thought of your own to this. You just say what Rush tells ya to say. Good little Republican! Here's a biscuit for you.
This is a dodge too...
The simple answer is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to determine who terrorists are, that is the exclusive job of the executive who enforces our policies.
You claim that the Right is scaremongering about the war on terror but you fail to see that the Left is scaremongering by manufacturing theories about how citizens are having their rights violated. Both are hyperbole and abject garbage.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
STOP CHANGING THE G.D. SUBJECT!!! It is clear that you have not read the Hamdi opinion or not. If you had, you would know that your questions about "who is a terorist" and what is the war on terror is absolutely irrelevant. The persons detained on these battlefields are as a matter of law not entitled to the same "due process" or habeas protections as you and I are. If you want to be a globalist and want to treat all persons on this planet as if they are subject to the U.S. constitution--that is your choice.
I am tired of arguing with you. You will not take the time to read the law or even educate yourself as to the complex legal questions that are issue. Instead, you want to take the simplistic approach and extend constitutional rights to persons that do not exist.
As for the "guts" argument, I do not need to prove anything to the likes of you.
I think it's pretty obvious why you keep dodging questions. Your arguments are made of wet paper and even YOU are smart enough to know how fast they go down the toilet when you try to answer a couple of simple questions. The fact that you can't (or WON'T) answer them is pretty solid proof that you haven't given any thought of your own to this. You just say what Rush tells ya to say. Good little Republican! Here's a biscuit for you.
This is a dodge too...
The simple answer is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to determine who terrorists are, that is the exclusive job of the executive who enforces our policies.
You claim that the Right is scaremongering about the war on terror but you fail to see that the Left is scaremongering by manufacturing theories about how citizens are having their rights violated. Both are hyperbole and abject garbage.
Unlike you, I'm not willing to blindly TRUST the government to not abuse any power that it has the chance to abuse. I wonder if you'll still be as blindly trusting when a Republican is not in office.
And you didn't answer the question either. You just danced around it. What are the safeguards to prevent abuse? What are the criteria for determining who is and isn't a terrorist? What prevents Bush from tucking away political enemies and calling them terrorists?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Papa:
Obviously not ALL are entitled to habeas protection under the Constitution, as we currently have, and have always had military tribunals in a time of war.
You cannot read the Constitution by itself, lest you be called a "Strict Constructionist" which is a term reserved only for radical neo-cons.
Uhhhhh...I dunno why you're telling me THAT, iplaw. I've already agreed with you on that part.
Obviously not because YOU keep telling us that ALL PERSONS have the right to habeas corpus which is INCORRECT.
I know you've made your prediction and stated it like it was a given fact but the jury isn't in on this one yet.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Papa:
Obviously not ALL are entitled to habeas protection under the Constitution, as we currently have, and have always had military tribunals in a time of war.
You cannot read the Constitution by itself, lest you be called a "Strict Constructionist" which is a term reserved only for radical neo-cons.
Uhhhhh...I dunno why you're telling me THAT, iplaw. I've already agreed with you on that part.
Obviously not because YOU keep telling us that ALL PERSONS have the right to habeas corpus which is INCORRECT.
I know you've made your prediction and stated it like it was a given fact but the jury isn't in on this one yet.
You're missing the point. We already deny prisoners of war typical habeas rights because they are entitled to military tribunals only. We have NEVER given habeas rights to enemy combatants. WWI, WWI, Vietnam and so on. We have already established that some individuals are not entitled to habeas corpus. Yet you told us all that "ALL PERSONS" are entitled to habeas rights.
quote:
Unlike you, I'm not willing to blindly TRUST the government to not abuse any power that it has the chance to abuse. I wonder if you'll still be as blindly trusting when a Republican is not in office.
Can we get past the Dem/Rep thing for one day? I often wonder if you'll be as PARANOID when a Dem is in the office?
That being said, I don't blindly DISTRUST my government either. Constitutional procedures are being followed and until it's adjudicated that Bush has comitted the atrocities you aledge it's just personal opinion on your part.
quote:
And you didn't answer the question either. You just danced around it. What are the safeguards to prevent abuse?
Congress and the Judiciary
quote:
What are the criteria for determining who is and isn't a terrorist?
The Military and the Executive checked by Congress and the Judiciary
quote:
What prevents Bush from tucking away political enemies and calling them terrorists?
Congress and the Judiciary
I don't have to answer the questions because I don't have a say in the process and my personal opinion on these matters means as much as your's does...zilch.
IP. It will always be a repub/dem thing (mostly Bush's fault) on this issue--even though numerous democratic sens voted for the military tribunal act:
Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
By the way, anyone watch that self-serving, sanctimony speech by KO yesterday on Countdown (to fourth place)? I thought that whiny candy*ss was going to cry.
He, along with many, have flat forgotten those photographs of COMPLETELY INNOCENT people who were deprived any due process leaping to their deaths from the towers on 9/11, or the sounds made by the bodies of these COMPLETELY INNOCENT people who were deprived due process when they slammed into the ground (as reported by our fireman who charged into those buildings), or the fragmentation of the bodies of these COMPLETELY INNOCENT people who were deprived due process caused by the impact on the ground. We lost 3000 innocent people on that day-many of whom spent their last moments on earth (because they were I guess lucky enough to not have been incinerated) screaming, crying, worrying about who is going to take care of their children or their loved ones, trying to make peace with God, or doing whatever else I dare say I could never know, while they fell to a certain and known death in full view of the world.
You will excuse me that I am not overly sympathetic with the habeas rights of persons that American soldiers captured in fighting this war trying to prevent what happened on 9/11 from ever happening again. And don't give me this "we need to show the world we are not barbaric" or "we should not act like the terrorsts" crap. That mentality is exactly what led to 9/11. We need to protect Americans first. If that means that terrorists do not get to file petitions for writs in federal court to achieve that end, so be it.
<<<<----- This is exactly how I like to think of my new hero, J.O.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Papa:
Obviously not ALL are entitled to habeas protection under the Constitution, as we currently have, and have always had military tribunals in a time of war.
You cannot read the Constitution by itself, lest you be called a "Strict Constructionist" which is a term reserved only for radical neo-cons.
Uhhhhh...I dunno why you're telling me THAT, iplaw. I've already agreed with you on that part.
Obviously not because YOU keep telling us that ALL PERSONS have the right to habeas corpus which is INCORRECT.
I know you've made your prediction and stated it like it was a given fact but the jury isn't in on this one yet.
You're missing the point. We already deny prisoners of war typical habeas rights because they are entitled to military tribunals only. We have NEVER given habeas rights to enemy combatants. WWI, WWI, Vietnam and so on. We have already established that some individuals are not entitled to habeas corpus. Yet you told us all that "ALL PERSONS" are entitled to habeas rights.
As far as WWII, etc. there is one glaringly obvious difference. THOSE people were given full POW status--something that the Bush Administration has fought at every turn. Like guido, Bush wants to have it both ways.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Unlike you, I'm not willing to blindly TRUST the government to not abuse any power that it has the chance to abuse. I wonder if you'll still be as blindly trusting when a Republican is not in office.
Can we get past the Dem/Rep thing for one day? I often wonder if you'll be as PARANOID when a Dem is in the office?
Democrats are not distinguishable from Republicans.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
One of the many problems with your rush to trust the government not to abuse power is that, by the time you realized that you've screwed up it's too late.
quote:
That being said, I don't blindly DISTRUST my government either. Constitutional procedures are being followed and until it's adjudicated that Bush has comitted the atrocities you aledge it's just personal opinion on your part.
Bullcrap. Torture at U.S. prisons has been very well documented. The existence of secret prisons has been very well documented. If it was left up to Bush, Guantanamo prisoners (and others) wouldn't even be getting military tribunals.
quote:
Congress and the Judiciary
ROFL!! You're joking, right?
quote:
The Military and the Executive checked by Congress and the Judiciary
With a skill for such vague non-answers, you should go into politics yourself.
quote:
Congress and the Judiciary
Another vague non-answer.
quote:
I don't have to answer the questions because I don't have a say in the process and my personal opinion on these matters means as much as your's does...zilch.
So when did that stop you or me either from giving our opinions? You don't answer the questions because you don't like what your answers would have to be.
We don't grant POW status to terrorists because they don't comply with Geneva Conventions and wear uniforms.
Would it hurt to grant them POW status? No, but would it functionally make a difference in this case? Again, no. Both POWs and these goons get military tribunals.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP. It will always be a repub/dem thing (mostly Bush's fault) on this issue--even though numerous democratic sens voted for the military tribunal act:
Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
That's exactly right. And it proves iplaw's assertion to be pure bullcrap.
quote:
He, along with many, have flat forgotten those photographs of COMPLETELY INNOCENT people who were deprived any due process leaping to their deaths from the towers on 9/11, or the sounds made by the bodies of these COMPLETELY INNOCENT people who were deprived due process when they slammed into the ground (as reported by our fireman who charged into those buildings), or the fragmentation of the bodies of these COMPLETELY INNOCENT people who were deprived due process caused by the impact on the ground. We lost 3000 innocent people on that day-many of whom spent their last moments on earth (because they were I guess lucky enough to not have been incinerated) screaming, crying, worrying about who is going to take care of their children or their loved ones, trying to make peace with God, or doing whatever else I dare say I could never know, while they fell to a certain and known death in full view of the world.
Well, that's some real nice grandstanding but it's irrelevant. Punishing other innocent people cannot be justified by the deaths that you now so shamelessly exploit for political purposes.
quote:
You will excuse me that I am not overly sympathetic with the habeas rights of persons that American soldiers captured in fighting this war trying to prevent what happened on 9/11 from ever happening again. And don't give me this "we need to show the world we are not barbaric" or "we should not act like the terrorsts" crap. That mentality is exactly what led to 9/11. We need to protect Americans first. If that means that terrorists do not get to file petitions for writs in federal court to achieve that end, so be it.
Problem is that you're also not "overly sympathetic" to the people who just happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't know that they're all terrorists but you keep saying that for the sake of spin. Even the army has admitted that there are almost certainly people at Guantanamo that are completely innocent. But why should YOU care? They're not Americans. Hell, they're not even WHITE.
quote:
Democrats are not distinguishable from Republicans.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
One of the many problems with your rush to trust the government not to abuse power is that, by the time you realized that you've screwed up it's too late.
And I argue that you are rushing to DISTRUST the gubment. We are at an impass.quote:
Bullcrap. Torture at U.S. prisons has been very well documented. The existence of secret prisons has been very well documented. If it was left up to Bush, Guantanamo prisoners (and others) wouldn't even be getting military tribunals.
Yeah, but that's not the issue. You're deflecting. The issue you raised was that there are NO CHECKS on his power and we're all gonna have our rights taken away. Bollocks!
Your point is blown out of the water by your very mentioning of the fact that we know these things happened. If he has comitted crimes, he will be prosecuted, just like every other executive in our history who has been convictedquote:
quote:
Congress and the Judiciary
ROFL!! You're joking, right?
quote:
The Military and the Executive checked by Congress and the Judiciary
With a skill for such vague non-answers, you should go into politics yourself.
quote:
Congress and the Judiciary
Another vague non-answer.
You seem to have issues with our system of checks and balances. That's your problem, not anyone elses. Are you aledging that everyone is Bush's patsie, and they're all in it together to kill them-there AArabs. Get real...quote:
So when did that stop you or me either from giving our opinions? You don't answer the questions because you don't like what your answers would have to be.
What does it matter what I think?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
We don't grant POW status to terrorists because they don't comply with Geneva Conventions and wear uniforms.
Doesn't matter. They're POWs or they're not. Japan hadn't ratified the Geneva Conventions in WWII, yet they were given POW status.
quote:
Would it hurt to grant them POW status? No, but would it functionally make a difference in this case? Again, no. Both POWs and these goons get military tribunals.
No thanks to your buddy Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Democrats are not distinguishable from Republicans.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
One of the many problems with your rush to trust the government not to abuse power is that, by the time you realized that you've screwed up it's too late.
And I argue that you are rushing to DISTRUST the gubment. We are at an impass.
quote:
Bullcrap. Torture at U.S. prisons has been very well documented. The existence of secret prisons has been very well documented. If it was left up to Bush, Guantanamo prisoners (and others) wouldn't even be getting military tribunals.
Yeah, but that's not the issue. You're deflecting. The issue you raised was that there are NO CHECKS on his power and we're all gonna have our rights taken away. Bollocks!
Your point is blown out of the water by your very mentioning of the fact that we know these things happened. If he has comitted crimes, he will be prosecuted, just like every other executive in our history who has been convicted
quote:
quote:
Congress and the Judiciary
ROFL!! You're joking, right?
quote:
The Military and the Executive checked by Congress and the Judiciary
With a skill for such vague non-answers, you should go into politics yourself.
quote:
Congress and the Judiciary
Another vague non-answer.
You seem to have issues with our system of checks and balances. That's your problem, not anyone elses. Are you aledging that everyone is Bush's patsie, and they're all in it together to kill them-there AArabs. Get real...
quote:
So when did that stop you or me either from giving our opinions? You don't answer the questions because you don't like what your answers would have to be.
What does it matter what I think?
Take a valium, iplaw before you have a stroke.
I agree.
I think it's time for all of us to take a deep breath and remember that WE ARE NOT AN ARISTOCRACY.
As much as you hate Bush for whatever reasons, you need to step back and realize that he does not control every aspect of US policy.
It has been admitted, more than once now, that ALL constitutional procedures are being followed.
Every detainee will be given a military tribunal just like every other POW in history. Congress has approved this, and the high court will have it's say if they think it's unconstitutional.
Despite what you THINK GWB wants or desires, everything is being done under the perview of the other branches, period.
The boogey man will NOT come and take away your civil liberties, I promise.
Why would I hate Bush? Hell, I've never even MET him. You can try as hard as you want to turn this into an emotional thing but it's all politics as far as I'm concerned.
And I appreciate your assurances that we can just turn the government loose and they'll do the right thing every time but I'm not assured. The government will at some point abuse any power that it can and history has proven it over and over. I know that people like you don't like for people like me to criticize on of YOUR presidents but it ain't gonna stop if I can help it. The only way it ever WILL stop if if people allow the government to consolidate enough power to silence the citizenry. Bush has done everything that he can think of to consolidate his power and a lot of people don't have any problem with that. I do.
My point is...that we haven't just turned the government loose. Our founding fathers created a fantastic system that is quite self-policing. We have an odd-numbered system of checks and balances and rarely do the three coincide with ideology.
The system DOESN'T allow for a president to consolidate power. Even if Bush did consolidate some measure of power, he's only there for 8 years. Why would he take so much time to build a system that he will control for less than a decade? Is he setting it up for the next guy?
I hardly believe that judiciary is on the payroll so to speak, and hell, half the Congress can't stand Bush and would love to use any and everything they can get their hands on to knock him down.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
My point is...that we haven't just turned the government loose. Our founding fathers created a fantastic system that is quite self-policing. We have an odd-numbered system of checks and balances.
But it will only continue to work as long as people demand that it continue to work.
quote:
The system DOESN'T allow for a president to consolidate power.
I don't know what you'd call Congress abandoning its Constitutional responsibility and giving Bush a blank check to wage war.
quote:
Even if Bush did consolidate some measure of power, he's only there for 8 years. Why would he take so much time to build a system that he will control for less than a decade? Is he setting it up for the next guy?
Yep. That would be my guess.
quote:
I hardly believe that judiciary is on the payroll so to speak, and hell, half the Congress can't stand Bush and would love to use any and everything they can get their hands on to knock him down.
And that's just how I like it. Say what you want about gridlock, I'm REAL uncomfortable with the White House and both Houses of Congress being controlled by the same party.
quote:
But it will only continue to work as long as people demand that it continue to work.
The system has redundancy built in. We don't really need to demand it.
quote:
I don't know what you'd call Congress abandoning its Constitutional responsibility and giving Bush a blank check to wage war.
That's your opinion. Congress seems to think that it was the proper response. If the American people don't like it, they can elect new numbskulls to change the policies that the old ones created.
quote:
Yep. That would be my guess.
I think you're getting a bit conspiratorial.
quote:
And that's just how I like it. Say what you want about gridlock, I'm REAL uncomfortable with the White House and both Houses of Congress being controlled by the same party.
Again, if we don't like it we change the players. Several times in our history the same party has controled two branches, rarely even three, and we all survived.
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton over a hummer and now it's no holds barred. And you'd better believe that if Congress was controlled by the Democrats, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
http://www.buckfush.com/Cartoon.php?pic=George_Bush_Hitler_Signing.jpg
http://pabloonpolitics.com/habeus.htm
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=358
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton over a hummer and now it's no holds barred. And you'd better believe that if Congress was controlled by the Democrats, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Uh. BC got impeached for "lying".
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing.
A wise man once said that nothing is new under the sun. There are no new ideas, just old ones rehashed by new people. We've seen it all before and we've survived and grown for the better.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton over a hummer and now it's no holds barred. And you'd better believe that if Congress was controlled by the Democrats, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Uh. BC got impeached for "lying".
Yeah, that's the b!tch of perjuring yourself before a grand jury. I thought you Dems wanted the president to obey the laws?
Papa:
"But why should YOU care? They're not Americans. Hell, they're not even WHITE."
Scr#w you! Where do you get off accusing me of being a racist. Typical liberal wuss. Lose an argument, resort to name-calling.
Okay moderator, let me have it...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton over a hummer and now it's no holds barred. And you'd better believe that if Congress was controlled by the Democrats, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Uh. BC got impeached for "lying".
Yeah, that's the b!tch of perjuring yourself before a grand jury. I thought you Dems wanted the president to obey the laws?
Yeah, that was the cover story. Clinton was impeached for being a popular Democratic president during a New Age Republican Congress. You're a lawyer, tell us why after fifty or sixty million bucks and a long witch hunt Clinton was never charged with perjury? Oh, what they hey, I'll tell us why. Political whore that he was, even Ken Starr knew that they didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting a conviction. Since there's no shortage of people that believe that a bj isn't "sex" (if you don't believe it, just take an anonymous survey among young ladies at a Christian university that claim to be virgins), it would have been damn tough to prove intent. There's even have a saying in the U.S. that "eatin' ain't cheatin'".
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Papa:
"But why should YOU care? They're not Americans. Hell, they're not even WHITE."
Scr#w you! Where do you get off accusing me of being a racist. Typical liberal wuss. Lose an argument, resort to name-calling.
Okay moderator, let me have it...
Does your mommy know you're playing on the computer?
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton over a hummer and now it's no holds barred. And you'd better believe that if Congress was controlled by the Democrats, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Uh. BC got impeached for "lying".
Yeah, that's the b!tch of perjuring yourself before a grand jury. I thought you Dems wanted the president to obey the laws?
Yeah, that was the cover story. Clinton was impeached for being a popular Democratic president during a New Age Republican Congress. You're a lawyer, tell us why after fifty or sixty million bucks and a long witch hunt Clinton was never charged with perjury? Oh, what they hey, I'll tell us why. Political whore that he was, even Ken Starr knew that they didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting a conviction. Since there's no shortage of people that believe that a bj isn't "sex" (if you don't believe it, just take an anonymous survey among young ladies at a Christian university that claim to be virgins), it would have been damn tough to prove intent. There's even have a saying in the U.S. that "eatin' ain't cheatin'".
Tell that to your wife; I bet she'll buy that line...
Talk about spin...bottom line is that he perjured himself before a grand jury, period. The state bar and supreme court don't take it lightly either which is why he was summarily suspended by one and disbarred by the other.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
"don't be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that "somehow" was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites. "
Heroes. What do they know. Probably has a fith grade education....
aox:
In just the last 150 years, our country has had legalized slavery, prohibited women from voting, segregated white and black children in schools, destroyed the lives and culture of numerous indigenous peoples of this country, interned innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese descent. Yes, only now will future generations believe ours is traitorous because foreign-born terrorists are not entitled to habeas rights.
Let's wait and see how the Busheviks abuse their totalitarian rules....
aox. As much as I disagree with RWARN. Listen to him.
BTW, can you please be original? Busheviks?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
There are a few things that are different now than how things were in the past. For one thing, politicians will stop at nothing. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton over a hummer and now it's no holds barred. And you'd better believe that if Congress was controlled by the Democrats, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Uh. BC got impeached for "lying".
Yeah, that's the b!tch of perjuring yourself before a grand jury. I thought you Dems wanted the president to obey the laws?
Yeah, that was the cover story. Clinton was impeached for being a popular Democratic president during a New Age Republican Congress. You're a lawyer, tell us why after fifty or sixty million bucks and a long witch hunt Clinton was never charged with perjury? Oh, what they hey, I'll tell us why. Political whore that he was, even Ken Starr knew that they didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting a conviction. Since there's no shortage of people that believe that a bj isn't "sex" (if you don't believe it, just take an anonymous survey among young ladies at a Christian university that claim to be virgins), it would have been damn tough to prove intent. There's even have a saying in the U.S. that "eatin' ain't cheatin'".
Tell that to your wife; I bet she'll buy that line...
Talk about spin...bottom line is that he perjured himself before a grand jury, period. The state bar and supreme court don't take it lightly either which is why he was summarily suspended by one and disbarred by the other.
You're an attorney, s'pose YOU tell us why after all that effort to hang him he was never tried for perjury if it wasn't for the fact that they knew they couldn't get a conviction. And, as you WELL KNOW, the burden of proof is much lighter for action by a bar than it is for a criminal conviction.
And you'll be very wise to leave my wife out of any discussions here. Talk about SPIN, try not to be such a damn hypocrite. NOWHERE did I even IMPLY that I thought it was all right. That was pretty chickensh*t even for a right wing lawyer.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
aox. As much as I disagree with RWARN. Listen to him.
BTW, can you please be original? Busheviks?
I do not listen to rWARn because he thinks that a terrorist is in every starbucks waiting to unload. He thinks we hate America and it's legal system. Sorry, that's way extreme and over the top.
Go take the test in the forum chat.
I do? So you're clairvoyant, too. [}:)]
That's so inaccurate, it's funny.
IPLAW,
Be wise and leave Papa's wife out of it. If you are going to mention a poster's family, target someone's "mommy" instead.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IPLAW,
Be wise and leave Papa's wife out of it. If you are going to mention a poster's family, target someone's "mommy" instead.
Did I say anything about a sexual relationship between you and your mother?
If you were a little bit smarter than a donkey you'd be able to see the difference. If people like you and iplaw wanna spin things that's fine. But when he tried to spin what I said to try to make it look like I said that infidelity was okay, that crossed the line. 'Course I wouldn't expect a simpleton like you to be able to get that.
Oh, I guess I was mistaken when you referred to me as a racist in this thread, eh? Maybe I was just spinning. In any case, thank God we have someone smarter out there to educate us. Altogether now everyone, "Thanks PAPA".
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, I guess I was mistaken when you referred to me as a racist in this thread, eh? Maybe I was just spinning. In any case, thank God we have someone smarter out there to educate us. Altogether now everyone, "Thanks PAPA".
You have a lot of trouble understanding even simple things, don't you?
I think you're beyond educating. In order to be educated, you've got to want to learn. Since you think you already know all the answers, it's not very likely that you'll ever learn anything that you don't already "know". I expect that's why you're a Bush apologist. He tells you what you already "know" and you don't have to waste your time thinking for yourself. Don't worry though, you're not alone. Mental laziness is pretty common among neocons.
Try to stay on the topic of the far overeaching changes to our bill of rights and the setup of the current regime to protect themselves from the coming hearings on Bush and what he has done to get impeached....and perhaps jailed for war crimes and the deaths of hundreds of thousands on his hands.....
quote:
Try to stay on the topic of the far overeaching changes to our bill of rights
Really??? What exactly would those be? The last time I checked it took a vote of the people to change the bill of rights.
quote:
And you'll be very wise to leave my wife out of any discussions here. Talk about SPIN, try not to be such a damn hypocrite. NOWHERE did I even IMPLY that I thought it was all right. That was pretty chickensh*t even for a right wing lawyer.
I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. I think you need to take some of your own advice and count to 10.
IP, I have had it with your incessant and unrelenting spinning. Would you please just admit you are an unintelligent neocon or Bushevik. Confession is good for the soul.
Nice try, guido but I'm not takin' the bait.