1
   

IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 04:59 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Let's get this straight; the right wants documentation and evidence from the very administration that refuses to provide congress with those "documents and evidence."

Some people's thinking borders on stupidity.

We want evidence from anyone accusing anyone of anything.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 05:00 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
There is zero evidence to support any charge that the administration had any official policy of condoning torture.


rejection of the geneva conventions. refusal to participate in the world court. not very indicative of not condoning it.

"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.."

isn't that what gets thrown around when people get upset about illegal wiretaps ?


well then.....?

Who rejected the Geneva conventions. It's my impression that the administration simply noted who qualifies for coverage.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 05:11 am
Re: IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .
Setanta wrote:
What do you think the consequences would be?

Do you think the Shrub could pull it off?

If not, why?


consequences????? Don't you mean rewards.


Pull it off??? Of course he can after all were talking about Americans here. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 06:44 am
revel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
This administration also disregard habeas corpus, the last vestige of safety for all humans. Some people are blind even with 20/20 eye site.


The military commissions act only rescinds it for foreign enemy combatants. It doesn't rescind it for citizens, or for foreigners who are legally present in the country.

Also, the Bush Administration did not request the habeas corpus thing. That was put in the bill by McCain and company. I'm sure the Bush administration is happy that they put it in there though.


'Enemy combatants' is merely another term coined by the administration where they make up the new rules and phrases as they along to fit with what ever they want to do.


That is incorrect. The term "enemy combatant" has long been used to describe "combatants" who fight on the side of the "enemy" during wartime.



revel wrote:
Besides that I don't even think your right as the second link shows.

What is the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant"

We're All Enemy Combatants Now


The Military Commissions Act is quite clear on the fact that it repeals habeas corpus only for foreign enemy combatants.

There is no way it could repeal habeas corpus for citizens, or for foreigners legally present in the country, as that habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 06:53 am
oralloy wrote:
There is no way it could repeal habeas corpus for citizens, or for foreigners legally present in the country, as that habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution.


This is a false statement. Article I, Section 9, second paragraph of the Constitution reads, in full:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Whether or not the current administration could cobble together an excuse for the suspension of habeas corpus which would satisfy a Congress controlled by the Democrats is, of course, the relevant issue. It is false, however, to suggest that the right of habeas corpus is universally and eternally granted by the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 07:43 am
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
There is no way it could repeal habeas corpus for citizens, or for foreigners legally present in the country, as that habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution.


This is a false statement. Article I, Section 9, second paragraph of the Constitution reads, in full:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Whether or not the current administration could cobble together an excuse for the suspension of habeas corpus which would satisfy a Congress controlled by the Democrats is, of course, the relevant issue. It is false, however, to suggest that the right of habeas corpus is universally and eternally granted by the Constitution.


Yes, but we are not in a state of invasion or rebellion, so the constitutional protections remain in place.

I think more significant than satisfying Congress is satisfying the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court feels that the Constitutional requirements for suspending habeas corpus have not been met, they will continue to uphold habeas corpus no mater what the legislative or executive branches say.

Also, the Military Commissions Act did not attempt to suspend habeas corpus for people covered by the Constitution. If there were an attempt to repeal Constitutional habeas corpus, it would have to come from someplace other than that act.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 08:18 am
Quote:
That is incorrect. The term "enemy combatant" has long been used to describe "combatants" who fight on the side of the "enemy" during wartime.


Show the coined label "enemy combatant" being used as a label for detainees in war (together as a label) before the Bush Administration started using it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 08:24 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
There is zero evidence to support any charge that the administration had any official policy of condoning torture.


rejection of the geneva conventions. refusal to participate in the world court. not very indicative of not condoning it.

"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.."

isn't that what gets thrown around when people get upset about illegal wiretaps ?


well then.....?

Who rejected the Geneva conventions. It's my impression that the administration simply noted who qualifies for coverage.


Without benefit of tribunals (objective ones) like the ones described in the GC.

I have provided proof that the US did and does still condone torture by any other sane peoples definition of torture so George Bush did lie when he said we don't torture; you just refuse to accept it. Your problem.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 08:25 am
oralloy wrote:
Yes, but we are not in a state of invasion or rebellion, so the constitutional protections remain in place.


We were not attacked by Iraq, nor threatened by attack from Iraq, when the Shrub invaded. You may be able to understand, whether or not you agree, why so many tens of millions of Americans do not trust the administration, in matters touching war, as well as matters touching habeas corpus.

The IVth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in full: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That did not deter this administration from attempting to gain, without warrant issued on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, the telephone records of all Americans, sought indiscriminately. Had one of the corporations so solicited not the courage to refuse, we might, in fact, never have known, or known well after the fact, that this administration was prepared to violate that constitutional right upon allegations of an executive privilege to act without warrants.

I agree that the Congress, given its present complexion, would be unlikely to acquiesce in suspension of habeas corpus. That does not alter that it were possible, Congress consenting. As for the Supremes being a bulwark against conservative impositions, i simply recall the arbitrary and constitutionally un-authorized suspension of the recount of the ballots in Florida in 2000 ordered by a court headed by a conservative, and packed by conservatives by Pappy Bush.

Your faith in the rectitude of our republican institutions is touching, but unconvincing to me.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:20 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:28 am
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 12:06 pm
Bush denies Congress access to aides

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.



The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," the letter said.

Retorted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

"Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 02:32 pm
same old obstructionist bullship..

"if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about".
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 02:36 pm
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070706/spo070705.gif
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 02:55 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
That is incorrect. The term "enemy combatant" has long been used to describe "combatants" who fight on the side of the "enemy" during wartime.


Show the coined label "enemy combatant" being used as a label for detainees in war (together as a label) before the Bush Administration started using it.


The Supreme Court used the term in this ruling:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/1.html

(They also mention lawful and unlawful combatants.)


What does detainee status have to do with anything? "Enemy combatants" are combatants who fight for the enemy whether we have captured them or not.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 03:10 am
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Yes, but we are not in a state of invasion or rebellion, so the constitutional protections remain in place.


We were not attacked by Iraq, nor threatened by attack from Iraq, when the Shrub invaded. You may be able to understand, whether or not you agree, why so many tens of millions of Americans do not trust the administration, in matters touching war, as well as matters touching habeas corpus.

The IVth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in full: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That did not deter this administration from attempting to gain, without warrant issued on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, the telephone records of all Americans, sought indiscriminately. Had one of the corporations so solicited not the courage to refuse, we might, in fact, never have known, or known well after the fact, that this administration was prepared to violate that constitutional right upon allegations of an executive privilege to act without warrants.


I'm not sure I see the violation of the Fourth Amendment. It gives some rules for warrants, but it doesn't require a warrant for every search, just that the search be reasonable. This is why the courts allow warrantless alcohol checks of every driver who passes through a checkpoint set up to catch drunk drivers.

Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated would seem to turn on the question of whether it was reasonable to get everyone's telephone records in the effort to track down terrorists after 9/11.

On the other hand, I do see how the federal statute governing such searches was violated.



Setanta wrote:
I agree that the Congress, given its present complexion, would be unlikely to acquiesce in suspension of habeas corpus. That does not alter that it were possible, Congress consenting. As for the Supremes being a bulwark against conservative impositions, i simply recall the arbitrary and constitutionally un-authorized suspension of the recount of the ballots in Florida in 2000 ordered by a court headed by a conservative, and packed by conservatives by Pappy Bush.

Your faith in the rectitude of our republican institutions is touching, but unconvincing to me.


Well, if the executive branch ever suspended all habeas corpus, and none of the other branches opposed them, I guess it would be suspended. But the language of the Military Commissions Act is not such a suspension. Any future suspension would come from somewhere other than that law.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 07:29 am
I haven't the least notion why you would think that the Military Commissions Act applies in this instance, i think you're riding your hobby horse in the wrong playground.

To recapitulate, i was pointing out that given the complexion of the current Congress, it is unlikely that habeas corpus will be suspended. However, the Congress as it was constituted before the last mid-term election, had there been no panic about re-election, might easily have been convinced that terrorist acts constitute a danger to public safety as a form of invasion. I personally don't think it likely that a Republican Congress would have suspended habeas corpus at the Shrub's behest (and i have never suggested that it would be anything but hot air if the Shrub claimed he could suspend it by virtue of executive privilege). However, the point is that given sufficient public panic, such as might arise if there were another successful September 11th type of attack, followed by other successful terrorist attacks, might create the kind of climate of fear in which an administration might attempt to get congressional approval of a suspension of habeas corpus.

So, two points. It is not unreasonable, given the behavior of this administration, that people would suspect them of wanting to suspend habeas corpus if they thought they could get away with. Two, what you think is reasonable or likely is not necessarily what the rest of the public believe is reasonable or likely, nor, necessarily, is it what the administration believes is reasonable or likely.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 08:07 am
oralloy wrote:
revel wrote:
Quote:
That is incorrect. The term "enemy combatant" has long been used to describe "combatants" who fight on the side of the "enemy" during wartime.


Show the coined label "enemy combatant" being used as a label for detainees in war (together as a label) before the Bush Administration started using it.


The Supreme Court used the term in this ruling:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/1.html

(They also mention lawful and unlawful combatants.)


What does detainee status have to do with anything? "Enemy combatants" are combatants who fight for the enemy whether we have captured them or not.


It would take me quite a while to fully comprehend the entire article. However, this is an excerpt taken:

Quote:
'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.



It still would not be strictly the same in this case because the case as is recorded in your link was people who belonged to the German military and they took off their uniforms and buried them in order to appear like ordinary citizens in our country at a time when we were at war with Germany. Militants don't really have a uniform to begin with so if they came to our country dressed like they are always are they wouldn't be changing out of uniform to appear as ordinary citizens in an enemy country.


I stand corrected, the term "enemy combatants was used before the Bush administration started using it.


Quote:
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. 8 The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. See Winthrop, Military Law, 2d Ed., pp. 1196-1197, 1219-1221; Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, approved by the President, General Order No. 100, April 24, 1863, sections IV and V


However, these cases such as described above in no way covers the situation we have with detainees either in or country now or detainees in other countries except the part about wearing no uniforms. We just pick anybody up who we think might have connections with terrorist or even just information about terrorist and since militants don't wear uniforms to begin with they are undistinguishable from all Muslims/Arabs who may not be guilty of anything but still can't get a fair trial to defend themselves.

In other words they are not disguising themselves as ordinary citizens in order to spy or carry out some other military objective since they look the same as other Muslims who are not doing anything. Yet they are all held as unlawful combatants with no way to defend themselves. It's simply not fair and no way comparable to the records in your link.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 09:25 am
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2007 12:07 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
There is zero evidence to support any charge that the administration had any official policy of condoning torture.


rejection of the geneva conventions. refusal to participate in the world court. not very indicative of not condoning it.

"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.."

isn't that what gets thrown around when people get upset about illegal wiretaps ?


well then.....?

Who rejected the Geneva conventions. It's my impression that the administration simply noted who qualifies for coverage.



and that is effectually different how ?

to unilaterally determine who does or does not qualify is a defacto rejection of any kind of accord. that is just logic.


you want america to be a world leader ? the best leaders lead by example.

you can't expect others to follow the rules if you don't observe them.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/13/2024 at 02:19:16