Al Gore

[local 12 proud]

. . . A lib who finally woke up . . .

Oh I've been awake for a long time ( I think it's partly due to a bed-wetting problem ).

Difference is that a republican would tell me to go out and buy some Depends ( with my own money and not taxpayer funds) whilst the dems would classify me under the disability act and I'd be allowed to piss in anybody's bed I want because it takes a village and my self esteem is more important than my neighbor's dry sheets.

Barry

Excellent and humorous analogy...

...careful, you've now entered the twilight zone of a 'vast right wing conspiracy'...

 

[Gilding the Lily]

. . . A lib who finally woke up . . .

Oh I've been awake for a long time ( I think it's partly due to a bed-wetting problem ).

Difference is that a republican would tell me to go out and buy some Depends ( with my own money and not taxpayer funds) whilst the dems would classify me under the disability act and I'd be allowed to piss in anybody's bed I want because it takes a village and my self esteem is more important than my neighbor's dry sheets.

Barry

But, the Bush-style republican would also photograph you purchasing the Depends; analyze your bed-wetting threat to the God-fearing and piss-fearing American community; review all of your bed-wetting purchase habits; put your name on a list of suspected bed-wetting terrorists; restrict your movement within the non-bed-wetting community; restrict your communication with your bed-wetting-sympathizing lawyer; and finally bypass any judicial scrutiny so that they can conduct social experiments with your your bed-wetting liberties... all in the name of making the US a safer place to live amongst all the bed-wetters that want to take away our non-bed-wetting freedoms!

Also, I am not a dem so save all the lib/dem remarks for my pal Garfield.

 

[CSAR GYRENE]

. . . A lib who finally woke up . . .

Oh I've been awake for a long time ( I think it's partly due to a bed-wetting problem ).

Difference is that a republican would tell me to go out and buy some Depends ( with my own money and not taxpayer funds) whilst the dems would classify me under the disability act and I'd be allowed to piss in anybody's bed I want because it takes a village and my self esteem is more important than my neighbor's dry sheets.

Barry

That's FUNNY AS HELL!!1

 

[jerseyfinn]

Gilding,

I'm not trying to geld you or goad you or anything else.

But when you start referring to Gitmo and terrorists, you're in a whole different realm and it's not so cut and dry of an issue no matter which side of the equation one is on.

I know that liberals run for the moral high ground on Gitmo arguing human rights and so forth whilst conservative folks invoke God and country.

Truth is, there are bad people out there and nothing speaks more to that than the WTC and the insurgency in Iraq & elsewhere. Some of the bad guys represent nations, while the bulk of them are individuals who fly no flag. How then do open and democratic societies deal with individuals whose only aim is hatred, murder and destruction of those nations by any means and whose nationality falls between the cracks of reason and law?

Mr. Bush has come up with an answer. Is it the answer? I don't rightly know. But I do know that a common criminal still has rights even when he murders, but this is because he is a citizen of a nation. Not so for these Gitmo folks who put themselves where they are because of their actions and refusal to acknowledge the larger world order.

It's a mess for all of us because it's all very implicit that We the People must step on our own laws to deal with individuals who disavow all of us. That's what all of this interrogation & detention stuff is about.

But I ask a simple question. Is the world better off with these folks under lock and key? And I think that anyone who can look beyond the politics and is simply concerned about their society and their nation can answer yes.

And that's precisely the problem with the democrats. They have refused to put the politics aside and treat some of these issues with the grave and serious respect that is required to deal with things like Gitmo which is a bottomless pit. It's been all about getting B43 and that has nothing to do with the real national interests of America which are bigger than any of us.

So I'm not pissing around here because Gitmo is indeed a serious issue. Now if only the Congress would treat it so.

Barry

 

[UAL_TECH]

. . . A lib who finally woke up . . .

Oh I've been awake for a long time ( I think it's partly due to a bed-wetting problem ).

Difference is that a republican would tell me to go out and buy some Depends ( with my own money and not taxpayer funds) whilst the dems would classify me under the disability act and I'd be allowed to piss in anybody's bed I want because it takes a vi,
B) UTllage and my self esteem is more important than my neighbor's dry sheets.

Barry

Stellar!!!

Take Care,
B) UT
-------------------
Edited by Me..........

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Gilding,

I'm not trying to geld you or goad you or anything else.

But when you start referring to Gitmo and terrorists, you're in a whole different realm and it's not so cut and dry of an issue no matter which side of the equation one is on.

.......

Barry

I understand your points and agree with some of them... but who said anything about gitmo?

And not to beat an issue that has already been discussed in previous threads, but since you brought it up... I am in favor of Gitmo and it is necessary (there just needs to be more oversight/protections). Furthermore, the detainees do have certain rights. The principles of habeas corpus, originally placed in the Magna Carta, has been one of the cornerstones of our law since this nation's founding and was enshrined in our Constitution. It gives the detainee the right to go to our courts to challenge the authority of the jail or prison warden to continue to detain him, regardless of the fact that they are not a citizen of this country.

 

[delldude]

But, the Bush-style republican would also photograph you purchasing the Depends; analyze your bed-wetting threat to the God-fearing and piss-fearing American community; review all of your bed-wetting purchase habits; put your name on a list of suspected bed-wetting terrorists; restrict your movement within the non-bed-wetting community; restrict your communication with your bed-wetting-sympathizing lawyer; and finally bypass any judicial scrutiny so that they can conduct social experiments with your your bed-wetting liberties... all in the name of making the US a safer place to live amongst all the bed-wetters that want to take away our non-bed-wetting freedoms!

Also, I am not a dem so save all the lib/dem remarks for my pal Garfield.

Wait a minute...you're starting to sound a little like Big Nance and Abscam Murtha....

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Wait a minute...you're starting to sound a little like Big Nance and Abscam Murtha....

I just find it a bit ironic that...

Bush II was determined to get rid of a 'dictator' in the Middle East... but to do it, he had to bypass many of the traditional 'checks' placed upon his power. Wait a second... what is the definition of dictator again?

I just find it a bit ironic that...

Bush II is determined to protect our freedoms from villains in our homeland and abroad... but to do it, he has to encroach and infringe on our freedoms that are deeply rooted in our history and society.


Now look, I DO NOT think that Bush is a dictator, nor do I blame him for wanting to protect our freedoms. I am concerned, however, because he has, at very least, stepped into a gray area. At worst, he has grossly overstepped the bounds of proper checks and balances and provided precedent for other Presidents, whether Dem or Rep, to continue on this slippery slope that may eventually lead to an all-powerful ruler who does not have to abide by the proper balance of power that is a main component of our Constitution.

I understand that, in time such as these, our rights may be slightly limited in order to serve the greater good and protect our way of life. Nonetheless, there MUST be proper checks on that power.

 

[local 12 proud]

Furthermore, the detainees do have certain rights. The principles of habeas corpus, originally placed in the Magna Carta, has been one of the cornerstones of our law since this nation's founding and was enshrined in our Constitution. It gives the detainee the right to go to our courts to challenge the authority of the jail or prison warden to continue to detain him, regardless of the fact that they are not a citizen of this country.

These detainees are not US Citizens who have been accused of stealing their neighbors horse, they were captured as enemies who had/have every intention of killing Americans. I really don't think they would be held just for jaywalking, do you?

You sound pretty knowledgeable concerning the Law, but please don't lay this every person has rights no matter the circumstance crappola on us like some 'slip and fall' attorney.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

These detainees are not US Citizens who have been accused of stealing their neighbors horse, they were captured as enemies who had/have every intention of killing Americans. I really don't think they would be held just for jaywalking, do you?

You sound pretty knowledgeable concerning the Law, but please don't lay this every person has rights no matter the circumstance crappola on us like some 'slip and fall' attorney.

By the way, it is not 'crapolla'... it is the analysis of our law as provided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[local 12 proud]

By the way, it is not 'crapolla'... it is the analysis of our law as provided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Oh BTW... Here is what the law says. :blink:

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(1) (Section 7)

In other words, no non-citizen held as a potential unlawful enemy combatant may seek habeas corpus relief. Such detainees must simply wait until the military sees fit to convene a detainee status review tribunal (under the procedures described in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005).

 

[delldude]

Bush II was determined to get rid of a 'dictator' in the Middle East... but to do it, he had to bypass many of the traditional 'checks' placed upon his power. Wait a second... what is the definition of dictator again?

Thought he got House and Senate approval....isn't that why Hillary and Kerry didn't vote before they voted?

Dictator?

C'mon Lily...you're reaching on this...

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Oh BTW... Here is what the law says. :blink:

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(1) (Section 7)

In other words, no non-citizen held as a potential unlawful enemy combatant may seek habeas corpus relief. Such detainees must simply wait until the military sees fit to convene a detainee status review tribunal (under the procedures described in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005).

Too funny... Local 12, you are so cute. That law was signed by the president in October... don't you remember, we had this discussion back in January. Because I don't want to repeat the discussion had back then, I will summarize: That law is unconstitutional and will be found to be unconstitutional as soon as the case from the D.C. Circuit makes its way to the Supreme Court.

How do I know this... because the last 2 Supreme Court cases analyzed this issue under constitutional principles and statutory. Needless to say, the Constitution trumps any statute!

And the Constitution provides that: "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."

The Supreme Court stated unequivocally: "Absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States." Since rebellion or invasion are not present (and have not been argued to be present by the administration) habeas corpus right are available.

I assume we will never agree on this... so, until the Supreme Court decides this issue... we will just have to disagree over whether the Constitution grants that right to the detainees.

 

[local 12 proud]

I assume we will never agree on this... so, until the Supreme Court decides this issue... we will just have to disagree over whether the Constitution grants that right to the detainees.

Now see there, we can agree on something.

 

[jerseyfinn]

Gilding,

Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree that we're on a slippery slope, as the nature of this terrorism paradigm confronts societies and nations with challenges that they never ever conceived of. In that regard, it's very much like our Founding Fathers who leave a lot of things unsaid/unwritten in the Constitution for future generations to deal with as present becomes future.

But we are where we are not because of one man, Mr. Bush and a specific decision(s) that he makes. This entire thing is part of the larger process of history in motion. It's all very dynamic, interconnected with all sorts of other events/trends/issues and not so surprisingly, unpredictable & not within any one man or nation's grasp.

Terrorism itself, goes way back in history ( and history often appears to repeat itself ). So in some respects, todays Islamist bad-guys are replaying the past but in different times and garb.

Although their rhetoric is quite predictable in terms of history, their methodology is new and frighteningly evil. These Islamists are playing ( or want to play ) the terror game with the "toys" of nation states -- ie. nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. And yet they stand with no nation and hence will not negotiate with nations or other world bodies recognized by the rest of "civilized" society. This does not mean that we need abandon conventional force response. It does mean that we must see the big picture.

Forgetting issues of ideology, this presents a series of problems and dangers for politicans of any political ilk as the state is in essence the voice and the sword of its People when times so require. Yet if we are perfectly honest about today's terror threat, there is no way at all that any politician, general, or committee can assure the complete safety of a nation or a group of nations given the sort of technology and determination to kill that these folks have. Throw in the coincidence of history, that all of this occurs shortly after the collapse of the USSR, leaving America the only standing superpower ( and remember, little guys always like to hate the big guy on the block ) and one can better comprehend some of the bluster and banter of blaming Bush or blaming America which cloaks the real threat and dangers of today's terrorism.

. . .And the Constitution provides that: "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." . . .

So I agree that one should cite the Constitution when framing strategy and accounting for decisions and actions in this fight against Islamist extremists. And in these times of an unstable Russia ( which is from where I personally believe the bad guys will obtain their stolen fissionable bomb materials ) and the Internet/wireless technology with lightning fast speed, all democratic nations need to review their laws to adapt to the reality of the modernity in which we live. In other words, detaining combatants indefinitely as this ugly game plays out, and being able to surveil wireless communications sans warrants when necessary, because history and the bad guys, will not stand still.

It's a much more paradoxical and nuanced argument than simply dropping it upon the shoulders of one man who just happens to be doing his job as the Executive of the United States of America at this given moment.

Guys like Mr. Gore are out of their depth on this one. Other than the ostracized Senator Leiberman, I'm fearful of all of the dems running for office, especially those who run with the millions collected from Holleywood moguls who think they create and define our society's reality. ( yes, I know that Mr. L is not running for president, but you see the idea).

Well, just a few thoughts.

regards,

Barry