'Death of habeas Corpus' - Olberman - on at 12:50 AM EST, MSNBC

[240 is Back]

There was another clip - that was last night's initial response.  Tonight's is supposed to very clearly detail this new Military act of 2006.   Should be interesting to hear an interpretation not coming from a Bush critic, as he will not sugar-coat what powers have actually been gained by this act.

[240 is Back]

New NBC/WSJ poll - Bush Approval rating for iraq - 33%

Rove says he's confident he'll keep both houses, Barbara Bush calls it a 'terrible year'.

Hastert: "Dems would gingerly pamper the terrorists".

America's congressional preferences:
52% Dem
37% Repubs

[Mr. Intenseone]

Hastert: "Dems would gingerly pamper the terrorists".

He's right!

[Al-Gebra]

It's about time we killed habeas . . . damn thing's been around since practically the middle ages. 

[240 is Back]

Olbermann delivered quite an interesting monologue tonight.

Throughout history, Presidents have invoked these powers during war.  Each time, there were thousands of abuses.  And each time, the govt apologized to those deprived their rights (decades later) and admitted they were wrong.

This isn't a party thing at all.  It is a constution thing.

[Al-Gebra]

Damned lies.

Lincoln suspended habeas.  he was the greatest president we ever had . . . well, maybe next to Washington, who got us going.

and the republicans didn't apologize for him.

No, they kept the constitution suspended (for all intents and purposes) until 1868, and jammed the 14th amendment down the throats of the South (i can hear the bodies spinning as i type . best amendment we ever got . . .

crack a book sometime. it's good for you.

beats getting bullshit from a failed sportscaster. 

[240 is Back]

AlG, yes or no...

Does the prez have the power to pick any name and have that person held indefinitely for no reason? Denied lawyer, denied proof, denied a judge.

yes or no.

[Al-Gebra]

AlG, yes or no...

Does the prez have the power to pick any name and have that person held indefinitely for no reason? Denied lawyer, denied proof, denied a judge.

yes or no.

if the president has a good reason:  hell, yeah. 

[240 is Back]

if the president has a good reason:  hell, yeah. 

Okay.  But what if - and this is merely a hypothetical - the Pres decided based upon a bad reason, or no reason, and just said John Smith of 123 main street is gonna spend the next 2 years in Syria for no reason.

Does he have this power?

[Al-Gebra]

which part of my previous post eluded your understanding, dear 240?

[240 is Back]

which part of my previous post eluded your understanding, dear 240?

The part where you said 'if he has a good reason'.

He does not need a reason.  This is why many people are upset.  He is legally allowed to say 'everyone in the town of podunk, usa is going to spend the next 2 years at gitmo' and they will be sent there. 

I'm not saying he would.  But he could.  Seriously Al G, this is what is called 'absolute power'.  And it corrupts.  Our Constitution was designed to protect us using a system of checks and balances in this manner- if you were accused of a crime, you had access to a lawyer, to see the evidence of your crimes, etc etc.

This is gone now. 

Most people would agree that it's fine for pres to have lots of power when it comes to terrorists.  But come on, shouldn't people that live here be allwoed to see a lawyer when charged?  To see the evidence against them to argue it?

[Al-Gebra]

The part where you said 'if he has a good reason'.

He does not need a reason.  This is why many people are upset.  He is legally allowed to say 'everyone in the town of podunk, usa is going to spend the next 2 years at gitmo' and they will be sent there. 

I'm not saying he would.  But he could.  Seriously Al G, this is what is called 'absolute power'.  And it corrupts.  Our Constitution was designed to protect us using a system of checks and balances in this manner- if you were accused of a crime, you had access to a lawyer, to see the evidence of your crimes, etc etc.

This is gone now. 

Most people would agree that it's fine for pres to have lots of power when it comes to terrorists.  But come on, shouldn't people that live here be allwoed to see a lawyer when charged?  To see the evidence against them to argue it?

just b/c you're at the top of a slippery slope doesn't mean that you don't have a choice about coming down it.

Bush might not be as forthright as Lincoln was about his reasons, but that doesn't mean that his decisions are necessarily less well thought out *just playing devil's advocate here.

If the people disapprove, they can vote a new regime in.  this is america. 

[JOHN MATRIX]

alg, you should get into politics, since you know everything.

[240 is Back]

just b/c you're at the top of a slippery slope doesn't mean that you don't have a choice about coming down it.

I agree there - and I hope that Bush does not abuse this power.  We elected him to protect us, because we trusted him.  But the Constitution was written so that our nation could be "run by devils" - they weren't given the power in the first place, so we never had to "trust" anyone to do the right thing.

Bush might not be as forthright as Lincoln was about his reasons, but that doesn't mean that his decisions are necessarily less well thought out *just playing devil's advocate here.

I agree there too.  Problem is, we won't hear about the abuses

If the people disapprove, they can vote a new regime in.  this is america. 

I agree with you there - and if it survives the supreme court and the new (presumably) dem controlled house, maybe it will be overturned by the next pres.

Olbermann made a good point tho- in two years, we'll have a new president in there.  And there is nothing stopping the next guy (or girl) from abusing this power.  Scary.  Hilary could come into power and send Rush to Gitmo lol... as absolutely SILLY as this sounds, she'd be perfectly within her legal right to do so.  So I cannot see why people from EITHER side of the aisle could blindly trumpet this.

I'm not warring with you tonight, AlG.  Like many americans, I am just sad about this.

[Al-Gebra]

and if it survives the supreme court and the new (presumably) dem controlled house, maybe it will be overturned by the next pres.

you want to know what a republican congress could have done? . . . look up ex parte McCardle.  Bush and this Cong haven't scratched the surface.   

[240 is Back]

Habeas Corpwned!

Ex parte McCardle
74 U.S. 506 (1869)
Docket Number:
Abstract
 
Decided:
 April 12, 1869
 
Argued:
 March 2, 1869
 
Facts of the Case
William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities in 1867 for writing and publishing a series of editorials in his Mississippi newspaper. The editorials were sharply critical of Reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an 1867 congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction.
 
 Question Presented
May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given?
 
Conclusion
The Court, speaking through Chase, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised."
 

[Hugo Chavez]

if the president has a good reason:  hell, yeah. 

Would you please confirm your age again... LOL... Just to put your political ideas in perspective.  As we know, there's so many teens running around with it all figured out. 

[Al-Gebra]

Would you please confirm your age again... LOL... Just to put your political ideas in perspective.  As we know, there's so many teens running around with it all figured out. 

berserker dear, you think I don't know what you fantasize about as you relentlessly scour my months-old posts hoping to find some mistake?

PS. isn't it time you started another thread w my handle in the title? 

[Hugo Chavez]

berserker dear, you think I don't know what you fantasize about as you relentlessly scour my months-old posts hoping to find some mistake?

PS. isn't it time you started another thread w my handle in the title? 

I guess I'll take that as confirmation of your age.  There is not a chance in hell I would lust over a teen, especially you...  I fucking hate kids who think they know it all.  As for starting threads about you, right back at you... You're the one who has stalked me and everything I say on this board and spamed threads you don't like with crap... 

[Al-Gebra]

I guess I'll take that as confirmation of your age.  There is not a chance in hell I would lust over a teen, especially you...  I fucking hate kids who think they know it all.  As for starting threads about you, right back at you... You're the one who has stalked me and everything I say on this board and spamed threads you don't like with crap... 

1.  i never said you lusted over a teen . . . we'll chalk this one upto your diseased imagination.

2.  you do fantasize about sounding smart.

3.  that's why you keep reading my old posts, hoping to find some error you can broadcast . . . good luck. 

4.  I post in your threads for 2 reasons. a. You're a bigot who deserves the ridicule. 2. You're more fun to rile up than almost anyone else on this board.

 

[Hugo Chavez]

1.  i never said you lusted over a teen . . . we'll chalk this one upto your diseased imagination. (That's what I was talking about to begin with idiotgirl, your stupid age; if you were alluding to something else the onus is on you to specify...)

2.  you do fantasize about sounding smart.(NO, I do NOT... You do)

3.  that's why you keep reading my old posts, hoping to find some error you can broadcast . . . good luck.  (Jesus you hold a real grudge, I did the old post thing ONCE??? on the crusades and you're still bitching about it???  Sure trying to get some mileage out of it aren't you )

4.  I post in your threads for 2 reasons. a. You're a bigot who deserves the ridicule. 2. You're more fun to rile up than almost anyone else on this board. (I'm not the one who posted KKK shit everywhere... Infact, I have NEVER done that... But you have...)

 

[Dos Equis]

Note to self:  do not take lessons on constitutional and statutory interpretation from old/current sports commentators. . . .

[240 is Back]

Note to self:  do not take lessons on constitutional and statutory interpretation from old/current sports commentators. . . .

ah ya gotta be careful, BB.  You're attacking the messenger, not the message.

Was Reagan a great president?  He was just an actor, right?  People can have great talents and ideas regardless of what career they choose/originally choose.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Note to self:  do not take lessons on constitutional and statutory interpretation from old/current sports commentators. . . .

Not that I'm an Olberman fan per se but I'm curious have you ever criticized either Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, Ingraham or Coulter on this board?

[240 is Back]

many people have sets of talents and interests which let them be successful in many areas.  Olbermann was one of the most successful sports announcers in his field.  he likes sports.  I'm sure he could have been successful in sports, news, as a weatherman, as a schoolteacher, as a speechwriter, who knows...

But ya really can't judge the work of anyone based upon the job they held ten years ago.

how many of us flipped burgers or stocked shelves at one time in our lives?