Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 18, 2006, 08:58:51 PM
-
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.
-
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
-
Hastert: "Dems would gingerly pamper the terrorists".
He's right!
-
It's about time we killed habeas . . . damn thing's been around since practically the middle ages.
-
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.
-
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 ;D. best amendment we ever got . . .
crack a book sometime. it's good for you.
beats getting bullshit from a failed sportscaster.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
which part of my previous post eluded your understanding, dear 240?
-
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?
-
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.
-
alg, you should get into politics, since you know everything.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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. ::)
-
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? :-*
-
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...
-
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.
:-*
-
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...)
:-*
-
Note to self: do not take lessons on constitutional and statutory interpretation from old/current sports commentators. . . .
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Instead of getting defensive could you perhaps just answer the question.
Oh, and your above post fits perfectly with my point.
You first.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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
-
You first.
You win, I'll leave you to your subtle liberal bashing while seemingly never acknowledging the faults of the Republicans.
-
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. :)
-
Deep breaths everyone Deep breaths............... :P
-
;D
-
::) 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.
-
Curious considering you keep responding to my posts. As I've pointed out in another thread logic isn't really your strong suit.
lol. ;D I respond to you because it's entertaining. When I get bored with you I'll simply ignore you.
-
lol. ;D 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.