0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 06:32 am
blatham wrote:
This really is another instance of the charge many of us have been making for a long time about this administration...that it is greatly and dangerously over-reaching in its desire to accrete unilateral power to the presidency.

Quote:
Court Refuses U.S. Bid to Shift Terror Suspect

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: December 22, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - A federal appeals court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration Wednesday, refusing to allow the transfer of Jose Padilla from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities to face terrorism charges.


U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Opinion (pdf)
In denying the administration's request, the three-judge panel unanimously issued a strongly worded opinion that said the Justice Department's effort to transfer Mr. Padilla gave the appearance that the government was trying to manipulate the court system to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the case. The judges warned that the administration's behavior in the Padilla case could jeopardize its credibility before the courts in other terrorism cases.

What made the action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., so startling, lawyers and others said, was that it came from a panel of judges who in September had provided the administration with a sweeping court victory, saying President Bush had the authority to detain Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, indefinitely without trial as an enemy combatant.

But the judges were clearly angered when the administration suddenly shifted course on Nov. 22, saying it no longer needed that authority because it now wanted to try Mr. Padilla in a civilian court. The move came just days before the government was to file legal papers in Mr. Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court. The government said that as a result of the shift, the court no longer needed to take up the case. Many legal analysts speculated at the time that the administration's sudden change in approach was an effort to avoid Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit ruling.
full article


Why are you applauding this?
I thought that all the civil rights activists and criminal apologists WANTED him transfered to civilian authority.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 06:34 am
full article, including some internal links I didn't add
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 06:37 am
GWB Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005, on the reception of American forces in Iraq

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 06:49 am
It wasnt a peaceful welcome when we invaded France either,but it was the right thing to do.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 06:50 am
mysteryman wrote:
It wasnt a peaceful welcome when we invaded France either,but it was the right thing to do.


You mean, the French were fighting the allied forces - if you refer to WWII - ?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 07:16 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
It wasnt a peaceful welcome when we invaded France either,but it was the right thing to do.


You mean, the French were fighting the allied forces - if you refer to WWII - ?


And the allied forces were successful in their attack because the French, being French, missed with every bullet.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 07:20 am
And they stink, the females don't shave ...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 07:25 am
Now here's something that just frosts my cookies...the predictable spill-over of the notion of 'terrorism', because of its vagueness, into other usages...

Richard Perle labelling a reporter as "a terrorist"
Ken Lay of Enron describing prosecution of him and other principles as "prosecutorial terrorism"

And yesterday's remark from Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission that the Dover court finding is "is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror". But which, he added, is "coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito,"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:36 am
It is true that designations like Perle uses can trivialize the real thing. But you won't rethink your definition of torture to avoid trivializing the real thing huh Bernie?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 08:59 am
And the beat goes on. . . .

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.

In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.

One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.

In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
More HERE
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:55 am
Foxfyre wrote:
It is true that designations like Perle uses can trivialize the real thing. But you won't rethink your definition of torture to avoid trivializing the real thing huh Bernie?


Good point, Foxy.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 10:06 am
FWIW, one counterindication on the Q: "A swing back in support for Bush's policies?"

Quote:
Americans: Iraq War a Mistake, Bush has No Victory Plan

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - More adults in the United States believe their federal administration was wrong in launching the coalition effort, according to a poll by Gallup released by CNN and USA Today. 52 per cent of respondents think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, up four points in a week.

[..]

Polling Data

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

Yes, a mistake
52% Dec. 18
48% Dec. 11

No, not a mistake
46% Dec. 18
50% Dec. 11

No opinion
2% Dec. 18
2% Dec. 11

[..]

Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:22 pm
nimh wrote:
FWIW, one counterindication on the Q: "A swing back in support for Bush's policies?"

Quote:
Americans: Iraq War a Mistake, Bush has No Victory Plan

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - More adults in the United States believe their federal administration was wrong in launching the coalition effort, according to a poll by Gallup released by CNN and USA Today. 52 per cent of respondents think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, up four points in a week.

[..]

Polling Data

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

Yes, a mistake
52% Dec. 18
48% Dec. 11

No, not a mistake
46% Dec. 18
50% Dec. 11

No opinion
2% Dec. 18
2% Dec. 11

[..]

Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today


With almost nothing in the media except doom and gloom re Iraq, with the Democrats using their bully pulpits every day to condemn the effort, with almost none of the plentiful good news reported, it is no wonder that the American people were tricked into believing it was a lost cause.

Since President Bush has been making a steady string of responses to all this, however, these numbers have significantly swung back into more support for both the effort and more optimism in the prospects for success. If the President keeps it up, I think we will see that trend continue.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:27 pm
Two things, quickly. One, it's not nice to imply that the American people are stupid enough to be "tricked into believing it was a lost cause". (Still wondering what exactly a bully pulpit is, too, but no bother.) Two, I could be wrong, but I think the president got an uptick in the polls due to the Iraqi election but that the subsequent news about spying combined with the wearing off of the election effect will put him right back where he was before, if not further.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:42 pm
Naw. The talk shows are all abuzz today with reports of media frustration that all their efforts to smear the president over the 'spying' thing isn't getting the American people all riled up and mad. The thing, is I think most, probably not all, but most thinking Americans WANT the president to be sure we are safe and support him in that effort.

But I'm sure glad you think the American people can't be fooled by a media blitz FD. So you realize that Americans were smart enough to elect the right guy for President and the right Congress after all. That's good to hear. Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:50 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And they stink, the females don't shave ...


LOL...yes, that too.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:51 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing, is I think most, probably not all, but most thinking Americans WANT the president to be sure we are safe and support him in that effort.


I'm just going to let that one sit out for all eyes to see.

Quote:
But I'm sure glad you think the American people can't be fooled by a media blitz FD. So you realize that Americans were smart enough to elect the right guy for President and the right Congress after all. That's good to hear. Smile


That's exactly where I was going with that, how'd you guess. If you believe that they can be tricked by "Democrats" in "bully pulpits" then you have to acknowledge that they can be tricked by a clever campaign of fear. As my little niece would say, you do or you don't or you do or you don't.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:51 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It is true that designations like Perle uses can trivialize the real thing. But you won't rethink your definition of torture to avoid trivializing the real thing huh Bernie?


What is the real thing? Please define for me.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:57 pm
foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
With almost nothing in the media except doom and gloom re Iraq,


You know, I'd grant this notion rather more credibility IF the media actually carried a single picture of a blown-up Iraqi kid or showed a picture of the mangled guts of some poor American soldier. You know, if you want to talk about reality and all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:13 pm
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It is true that designations like Perle uses can trivialize the real thing. But you won't rethink your definition of torture to avoid trivializing the real thing huh Bernie?


What is the real thing? Please define for me.


I have defined it many times on multiple threads. I know you noticed because you took great pains to develop intricate insults in response. As a reminder, rap music, scary suggestions, and embarrassment is not what most people define as torture. I know you disagree, but that's what makes you you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 03:09:54