Who cares...

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.)

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.  

[Conan71]

<<<<----- This is exactly how I like to think of my new hero, J.O.

[papaspot]

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.

[papaspot]

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.

[iplaw]

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.

[papaspot]

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.

[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?

[papaspot]

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.

[papaspot]

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.

[iplaw]

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.

[papaspot]

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.

[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 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.

[papaspot]

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.