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

[240 is Back]

Nobody touched this point:

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

I typically agree that you shouldn't shoot the messenger, but I do like making fun of people like Olbermann who ought to be talking football instead of politics on national television.  And as I've said before, the credibility of the messenger can affect how the message is received and whether it should be accepted at face value.

[Dos Equis]

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?

You tell me.  You've probably read all my posts.  Why do you want to know?

[Dos Equis]

Nobody touched this point:

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.

You mean other than the plain language of the Act itself, the interpretation of the Act by the courts, the media, and a plethora of watchdog groups?  He needs to go talk about the World Series or something.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You tell me.  You've probably read all my posts.  Why do you want to know?

Instead of getting defensive could you perhaps just answer the question.

And as I've said before, the credibility of the messenger can affect how the message is received and whether it should be accepted at face value.

Oh, and your above post fits perfectly with my point.

[240 is Back]

You mean other than the plain language of the Act itself, the interpretation of the Act by the courts, the media, and a plethora of watchdog groups?  He needs to go talk about the World Series or something.

The pres can choose any of the 300 Mil americans abd hold them with no trial, no lawyer, no evidence, and no charged.

This is a fact - not some interpretation or some analysis.  This is a fact.  Neocons will try to justify it, liberals will try to talk about potential abuses. 

But there is nothing for the courts to decide.  The law is passed.  They can try to get it overturned in the bush-selected supreme court.  They can try to get it revoked or pulled by a new congress.

But these is zero interpretation to discuss, BB.  The prez can imprison any american with no charge.  He now has that power.  There is no debate, my friend.  This is law now.

[OzmO]

Imprisoning an american citizen for aiding Al Queda without due process is my worry here. 

I understand the wording of the act in the terms it applies to "aliens"

But doesn't it say if you are aiding a terrorist group you can be detained and tortured? 

Or am i wrong here?


Because that to me means they can detained and torture American citizens based on suspicion.

BB or 240 or Jeff or Beserker or Mr. I or anyone can we explain this?

[Dos Equis]

Instead of getting defensive could you perhaps just answer the question.

Oh, and your above post fits perfectly with my point.

You first.

[Dos Equis]

The pres can choose any of the 300 Mil americans abd hold them with no trial, no lawyer, no evidence, and no charged.

This is a fact - not some interpretation or some analysis.  This is a fact.  Neocons will try to justify it, liberals will try to talk about potential abuses. 

But there is nothing for the courts to decide.  The law is passed.  They can try to get it overturned in the bush-selected supreme court.  They can try to get it revoked or pulled by a new congress.

But these is zero interpretation to discuss, BB.  The prez can imprison any american with no charge.  He now has that power.  There is no debate, my friend.  This is law now.

If the Act says it allows the military to try alien terrorists, and "alien" expressly excludes American citizens, how does this Act permit the president, not the military, to "choose any of the 300 Mil americans abd hold them with no trial, no lawyer, no evidence, and no charged"?

[Dos Equis]

Imprisoning an american citizen for aiding Al Queda without due process is my worry here. 

I understand the wording of the act in the terms it applies to "aliens"

But doesn't it say if you are aiding a terrorist group you can be detained and tortured? 

Or am i wrong here?


Because that to me means they can detained and torture American citizens based on suspicion.

BB or 240 or Jeff or Beserker or Mr. I or anyone can we explain this?

The language I read is pretty clear:  it doesn't apply to American citizens.  It also says nothing about "torture."  Some of you guys are being paranoid.  Read the Act.  This isn't China.  The military will not be dragging internet bloggers off to Fort Leavenworth and torturing them.

You ought to be just as concerned with stopping terrorists from attacking us on our soil again.  Haven't heard anyone talk about that.         

[OzmO]

The text of the law states that it's "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Any Court interpreting this law should observe the word "alien." and therefor not apply this law to a U.S. citizen.

This law would also be unconstitutional, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, if applied to a citizen. However, the Fifth Amendment does not apply to aliens. See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784.

OK

[ieffinhatecardio]

You first.

You win, I'll leave you to your subtle liberal bashing while seemingly never acknowledging the faults of the Republicans.

[Dos Equis]

You win, I'll leave you to your subtle liberal bashing while seemingly never acknowledging the faults of the Republicans.

   I don't subtly bash liberals.  It's actually quite explicit (when warranted).  But ask me if I care what you think.  I'll gladly answer that question.   

[OzmO]

Deep breaths everyone Deep breaths...............

[Dos Equis]

 

[ieffinhatecardio]

  I don't subtly bash liberals.  It's actually quite explicit (when warranted).  But ask me if I care what you think.  I'll gladly answer that question.   

Curious considering you keep responding to my posts. As I've pointed out in another thread logic isn't really your strong suit.

[Dos Equis]

Curious considering you keep responding to my posts. As I've pointed out in another thread logic isn't really your strong suit.

lol.     I respond to you because it's entertaining.  When I get bored with you I'll simply ignore you. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

lol.     I respond to you because it's entertaining.  When I get bored with you I'll simply ignore you. 

Since you've answered everyone of my posts so far that bored threshold must not have been reached yet.