Who cares...

[iplaw]

This isn't the B.O. thread.  Take it to the proper place please.

[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?

[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.

[iplaw]

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.

[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? 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.

[rwarn17588]

<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? []

[aoxamaxoa]

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

[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.

[papaspot]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 can't figure out what exactly it is that you are complaining about.  Constitutional procedures are being followed...

[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.

[papaspot]

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?

[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.