UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (148) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Milligram40 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1956902  
Subject: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 173
Well, that's it folks - it's over. Welcome to Amerika. Everyone thought Bill and Hillary would have done it - but George and John have done it.

You see FoxNews is reporting that in a closed door session of the Judiary Committee is was decided to hold professed "bad guy" Jose Padilla, "until the War on Terrorism is over."

There will be no civil hearing. There will be no military tribunal. No access to a lawyer. Game over. Period.

Now a couple of things before the usual suspects accuse me of being a terrorist symathizer.

1) Jose Padilla IS a bad guy. He was trained to set off a dirty nuke in Washington, D.C. - had talked about it, and talked about other terrorist acts. No doubt about it - bad guy wanting to do bad things. There is nothing wrong is locking up Jose Padilla and throwing away the key - my concern is how it was done because ---

2) Like it or not, Jose Padilla is a United States citizen born and raised in Chicago. Ya, he was a thug, his buddy stabbed some one to death, but it doesn't change the fact, he is a US citizen and he has "inalienable rights" under the Constitution and among those it includes...

3) A fair and speedy trial. The right to cross examine his accusers. Access to a lawyer. Protection under Miranda. Now, the Judiciary is claiming that they can do this to Padilla because...

4) We are at war and these steps were taken in World War II. Why one American citizen conspirator was actually executed during World War II if you dig through the history under the guise of, "enemy combatant." This would all be well and good and I would agree with it 100% without a wimper about the Constitution implications however...

5) We are NOT at war like we were in World War II. Congress did not put forth a vote that a state of hostilities exists between the United States and [fill in the blank here]. This is why the Constitution has been thrown out the window because...

6) Padilla is being held indefinitely without trial, without access to a lawyer, as an enemy combatant until the War on Terrorism is over - however the war on terrorism has a list of in some cases only vaguely defined enemies and no clear goals. Remember Padilla was talking about doing this - he did not have a dirty bomb with him, he did not have targets, dates, etc. etc. etc. If the Padilla case stands up then how far away are we from...

7) Those that question the actions of the government being held indefinitely as "enemy combatants" until the War on Terrorism is over.

The Russians had a word for it during the Cold War years. It was called a gulag.

Welcome to Amerika. All hail Bush! All hail Ashcroft! Our forefathers are spinning in their graves...

:-(

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55282,00.html
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153208 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
This is bad. The Constitution offers even less protection to the citizens which I thought.
Indefinite imprisonment without trial, as long as the President sees fit.
That without a declared state of war the state can do that to anyone - even worse to an American Citizen - should worry even the sock puppets.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: path40a Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153209 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
DVD,

you are in agreement with none other than the Talkmaster (Neal Boortz) himself. Imagine that. Don't feel too bad though, he's a libertarian (at least he's not a conservative;-)

You'll love this 'toon from his website today:

http://www.boortz.com/story.gif

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153211 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
There will be no civil hearing. There will be no military tribunal. No access to a lawyer. Game over. Period.

It's just one move within our wonderful system. There will be countermoves. Don't fret, comrade.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheExpertNovice Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153213 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 28
I read this and am actually a lot less troubled about it than I was a few days ago. Yes we are suspending his rights as an American Citizen, no doubt about it. So who and what was involved in the process of classifying this guy as an enemy combatant?

Well from the executive branch Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush all agreed after looking at the evidence that he should be classified as an enemy combatant with Bush making the final decision. I don't trust Ashcroft's judgment, but I do trust that Rumsfeld would be honest in making that evaluation. And I trust that Bush would not risk his Presidency by making this classification unnecessarily.

And then the Senate Judiciary committee held the hearing to review this matter. And again after examining the evidence they have concluded that enemy combatant is warranted in this particular case. When you see Ashcroft non-fans like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, and Diane Feinstein on this committee, I think the only possible conclusion is that this action was completely necessary.

When you see how many hoops they had to jump through to suspend this guys rights, the notion that “it could happen to anybody” is preposterous.
Still, I remain in favor of new federal “attempted murder by terrorism” laws that would be easier to prove in out regular court system, and raise far less in the way of troubling questions.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153216 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
When you see how many hoops they had to jump through to suspend this guys rights, the notion that “it could happen to anybody” is preposterous.

Kudos for clear thinking. We trust our government to kill in our name (make war), but we don't trust it to exercise this power? Nonsense.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153219 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Well from the executive branch Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush all agreed after looking at the evidence that he should be classified as an enemy combatant with Bush making the final decision. I don't trust Ashcroft's judgment, but I do trust that Rumsfeld would be honest in making that evaluation. And I trust that Bush would not risk his Presidency by making this classification unnecessarily.

And then the Senate Judiciary committee held the hearing to review this matter. And again after examining the evidence they have concluded that enemy combatant is warranted in this particular case. When you see Ashcroft non-fans like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, and Diane Feinstein on this committee, I think the only possible conclusion is that this action was completely necessary.


The problem is not this case. The problem is that we here have an instrument which is SO wide open to abuse.
There are none of the safeguards which are necessary for every instrument given to the executive.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153220 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Kudos for clear thinking. We trust our government to kill in our name (make war), but we don't trust it to exercise this power? Nonsense.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
You don`t really get the point here do you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153221 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
You don`t really get the point here do you.


I think I do, but I won't know until you tell me what you think I have missed. :)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153226 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5

I think I do, but I won't know until you tell me what you think I have missed. :)


Ok so you trust this government. I don`t.
What about the next? What about the one in twenty years?
Eventually a government comes along which abuses its powers real bad.
Perhaps it`s not even evil, it`s the circumstances.
And then perhaps the Arabs, like the Japanese get imprisoned. Or some other stuff happens, and suddenly you wake up and find that the differences between the Soviet Union and America aren`t that huge anymore.
It´s all possible, because apparently you have no constitution which is protecting you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153228 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Ok so you trust this government. I don`t.

Not this government, my government. I trust my government to do what me and my fellow Americans empower it to do. Its main duty is to protect us from "bad guys".

Or some other stuff happens, and suddenly you wake up and find that the differences between the Soviet Union and America aren`t that huge anymore.

It's happening, but not in the way you and the pseudo-patriots think.

It´s all possible, because apparently you have no constitution which is protecting you.

The Constitution protects no one. We are protected by a common understanding of what our republic should be.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ColdOneLuvr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153230 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
We trust our government to kill in our name (make war), but we don't trust it to exercise this power?

Why doesn't the State accuse Jose of a crime such as conspiracy present their evidence in a court of law? Conspiracy should be easy to prove. Jose can then refute the evidence before a jury of peers. If the jury finds there is enough evidence that the dude was conspiring to kill a bunch of people, we can put him in jail for life.

I fail to see the special circumstances in this case that require we ignore the processes we have in place. Could any of you who are pro-totalitarian dictatorship why we need to ignore due process in this case?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153232 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Why doesn't the State accuse Jose of a crime such as conspiracy present their evidence in a court of law?

Our President and Congress seem to think it's a bad idea.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153233 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Not this government, my government. I trust my government to do what me and my fellow Americans empower it to do. Its main duty is to protect us from "bad guys".

Which it defines itself. Some day, you, like the Japanese Americans, could happen to be defined "bad guy", and you`re gonna be real surprised.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153234 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Why doesn't the State accuse Jose of a crime such as conspiracy present their evidence in a court of law?

Our President and Congress seem to think it's a bad idea.

And if the Führer says so, we all follow.
I wonder, bruce, how you would have acted if you had lived in Germany 65 years ago.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153235 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
<<I think I do, but I won't know until you tell me what you think I have missed. :)

Ok so you trust this government. I don`t.
What about the next? What about the one in twenty years?
Eventually a government comes along which abuses its powers real bad.
Perhaps it`s not even evil, it`s the circumstances.
And then perhaps the Arabs, like the Japanese get imprisoned. Or some other stuff happens, and suddenly you wake up and find that the differences between the Soviet Union and America aren`t that huge anymore.
It´s all possible, because apparently you have no constitution which is protecting you. >>


In case you haven't noticed, civil liberties expand and contract over time in the United States to meet the varying needs and desires of the citizenry.

Sometimes you have alien and sedition laws, and later these are repealed when times change. At one time it may make gfood sense to intern Japanese, and later they are let out. Sometimes Communists are attacked and other times it's energy companies.

Somehow, when people are planning attacks against the United States with nuclear devices, it doesn't seem unreasonable to take extraordinary steps to intercept and prevent that action. If you want to wring your hands and declare an end to American civil liberties thoug, help yourself. I expect that that kind of hand wringing will not subject you to internment in the gulag.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153236 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Some day, you, like the Japanese Americans, could happen to be defined "bad guy", and you`re gonna be real surprised.

That's a chance I have to take. There are tradeoffs when it comes to government.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153237 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
And if the Führer says so, we all follow.
I wonder, bruce, how you would have acted if you had lived in Germany 65 years ago.


Perhaps you should take lessons from America given your history and ours.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ColdOneLuvr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153239 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The problem is not this case. The problem is that we here have an instrument which is SO wide open to abuse.

We agree that this procedure asking to be abused, but the case is also an issue. The judicial system has handled these cases in the past and gotten results that kept the bad guys off the streets. Walker got a trial, McVey got a trail, the couple who sold nuclear secrets to the Russians got a trail. I see no reason to by pass the system.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheExpertNovice Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153240 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The problem is that we here have an instrument which is SO wide open to abuse. There are none of the safeguards which are necessary for every instrument given to the executive.

Today's news makes it clear that the issue is not very open to abuse at all. Of course there were safeguards as I already mentioned; including unanimous consent of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush; and more importantly the review by Senate Judiciary committee.

Welcome to Amerika. All hail Bush! All hail Ashcroft! Our forefathers are spinning in their graves...

There will be a new President in 3 or 7 years who can release this guy at any time. How many slaves were released when John Adams became President? Tom Jefferson?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ColdOneLuvr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153242 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The Constitution protects no one. We are protected by a common understanding of what our republic should be.

Then why the f**k do we have a Constitution?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153243 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Somehow, when people are planning attacks against the United States with nuclear devices, it doesn't seem unreasonable to take extraordinary steps to intercept and prevent that action. If you want to wring your hands and declare an end to American civil liberties thoug, help yourself. I expect that that kind of hand wringing will not subject you to internment in the gulag.

Thanks, SP. I think we Americans have almost no understanding of what the American experiment was about anymore. We have reinvented our own history under a strict regime of thought policing. The founders would have had nothing to do with the ACLU and other such institutions of correct thought.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153246 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

The Constitution protects no one. We are protected by a common understanding of what our republic should be.


Then why the f**k do we have a Constitution?


You can print it on toilet paper then you`ve got something nice to read while you´re taking a dump.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153248 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Then why the f**k do we have a Constitution?

To create the perfect republic, of course. It is ours to keep and improve if we choose.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FairfaxScott Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153249 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You could, but why would you when you could get this?

http://montypythondirect.com/product_information.asp?PRODUCT=ADPY603&TYPE=Sillystuff&index=5&total=11

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ColdOneLuvr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153252 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Our President and Congress seem to think it's a bad idea.

Where in the Constitution does it say that President gets to choose who gets access to due process? Congress? All I know are some words about inalienable rights.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MSHH Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153259 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There will be no civil hearing. There will be no military tribunal. No access to a lawyer. Game over. Period.

I don't believe this is completely true. Unless Ascroft has found a way to abolish the federal judiciary there is no way for the government to preempt judicial review of both the legality of Padilla's detention and the constitutionality of the law by which the government purports to act.

The government is free to express its opinion it has the legal authority to indefinitely detain Padilla but that's all it is. The judiciary will have the final say just as it did in Quirin.

Mike



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ColdOneLuvr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153261 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Somehow, when people are planning attacks against the United States with nuclear devices, it doesn't seem unreasonable to take extraordinary steps to intercept and prevent that action

Who argued that we shouldn't intercept and prevent the attack? The argument is whether the US should be a totalitarian dictatorship similar to what Hitler and Stalin envisioned or a Republic… a "more perfect union" that Jefferson envisioned.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153263 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The argument is whether the US should be a totalitarian dictatorship similar to what Hitler and Stalin envisioned or a Republic

Is that what we're debating? Well, then, I vote for the latter.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153265 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Where in the Constitution does it say that President gets to choose who gets access to due process? Congress?

It remains to be seen whether this guy can be held. I'm hoping he can be.

All I know are some words about inalienable rights.

That would be that other document. It's a good one too.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ColdOneLuvr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153268 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 2:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It's good to see we convinced you that Padilla should have a fair trail and if found guilty, imprisoned or put to death. I was worried you'd go through life thinking that the President had the right to take away these rights.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153298 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 3:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I wonder, bruce, how you would have acted if you had lived in Germany 65 years ago.

I don't.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: patchdodd Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153305 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 3:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I wonder, bruce, how you would have acted if you had lived in Germany 65 years ago.

I don't.


It's the mandatory overreach: you're just like a Nazi.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdluckyshot Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153341 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 5:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The problem is not this case. The problem is that we here have an instrument which is SO wide open to abuse.



That's the same type of logic that necessitated restaurants to start putting "Warning: Contents are hot" labels on the sides of coffee cups.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153345 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 5:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That's the same type of logic that necessitated restaurants to start putting "Warning: Contents are hot" labels on the sides of coffee cups.

This is the type of ignorance which enables the rise of the likes of Hitler.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153360 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 6:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 25
<<
The Constitution protects no one. We are protected by a common understanding of what our republic should be.

-Bruce >>



That, I think, is very true. I like to say that our liberties are in the hands of our neighbors.


And left wingers should blush when they talk about eroding civil liberties. Our freedom of association and property rights, among many other liberties have declined substantially under enthusiatic attacks by the left. The right of mob rule under the guise of "peaceful demonstrations" such as the Seattle World Trade Organization protests have imperilled the liberties of people to meet and speak without having a whole city disrupted.


The left has A LOT to answer for when it comes to declines in American liberties.







Seattle Pioneer






Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153364 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 6:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
<<Some day, you, like the Japanese Americans, could happen to be defined "bad guy", and you`re gonna be real surprised.

That's a chance I have to take. There are tradeoffs when it comes to government. >>



Perhaps a bigger risk is that there is a group that needs to be rounded up but can't be because of civil liberties restrictions. That might cost us New York City or Los Angeles some day.

When Lincoln was confronted by the fact that such niceties as habeus corpus law might cost us half of the United States, he cheerfully tossed out these liberties for the duration. After the war was resolved, they were again respected. Just one of the thinbgs that made Lincoln a great President.



Seattle Pioneer




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153365 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 6:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<We agree that this procedure asking to be abused, but the case is also an issue. The judicial system has handled these cases in the past and gotten results that kept the bad guys off the streets. Walker got a trial, McVey got a trail, the couple who sold nuclear secrets to the Russians got a trail. I see no reason to by pass the system. >>



Public trials have revealed quite a lot about American surveilance capabilities around the world. Things like the ability of the NSA to monitor cell phone and other communications has been a windfall to enemy governments and terrorists.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153368 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 7:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<Somehow, when people are planning attacks against the United States with nuclear devices, it doesn't seem unreasonable to take extraordinary steps to intercept and prevent that action

Who argued that we shouldn't intercept and prevent the attack? The argument is whether the US should be a totalitarian dictatorship similar to what Hitler and Stalin envisioned or a Republic… a "more perfect union" that Jefferson envisioned.

>>


My, such hysteria.

When John Adam's Alien and Sedition laws chaffed American's sense of liberty, they elected Jefferson President and they were repealed.

Personally, I find the idea that the judiciary can intelligently define our liberties to be stupid. Judicial rule is rule by a narrow and isolated group of people, who make rules that are too inflexible to adapt to the changing needs of American society.


Our liberties are properly in the hands of the executive and legislative branches of government, where the constitution clearly intended that they be. The extent of civil liberties is properly a POLITICAL rather than a legal question, in my opinion.

To give just one example, blacks in the American south in had two major problems in the early years of the 20th century: 1) they were being terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan and other groups and prevented from exercising their liberties as Americans and 2) they were effectively prevented from being able to register and vote.

Now. What did the courts do to remedy those problems? They never did a thing.

What changed things was when Kennedy and Nixon used the FBI to break up the power of the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize blacks, and the Congress passed the voting rights act which allowed the executive branch to see to it that blacks obtained the right to vote. All the court decisions weren't worth spit compared to the importance of those two key uses of political, not judicial power.

Once blacks had the vote, they could settle issues through the political branches and didn't really need the judiciary.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153371 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 7:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<Where in the Constitution does it say that President gets to choose who gets access to due process? Congress?

It remains to be seen whether this guy can be held. I'm hoping he can be.
>>


Personally, it would be educational for the courts to order his release and for the President to hold him. It would be great to rebuke the courts by defying their claim to power, if the American people would support the President in that effort.

Unfortunately, when Franklin Roosevelt tried that he lost out. Andrew Jackson was the last President to really succesfully defy the Supreme Court and get away with it. It would be wonderful to be able to teach that lesson again and place the courts in their proper place.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zman49 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153375 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 7:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
When Lincoln was confronted by the fact that such niceties as habeus corpus law might cost us half of the United States, he cheerfully tossed out these liberties for the duration. After the war was resolved, they were again respected.

Actually, Lincoln tried to toss out the writ of habeus corpus but the Supreme Court ruled that he did not have that power and reinstated it on May 27, 1861, nearly four years before General Lee surrendered.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Merryman/

If you think you can make a stronger case for throwing out habeus corpus now than it was during the Civil War, please do.

Good Luck,
Z

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcbdds Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153378 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 7:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Actually, Lincoln tried to toss out the writ of habeus corpus but the Supreme Court ruled that he did not have that power and reinstated it on May 27, 1861, nearly four years before General Lee surrendered." Z

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus twice…….once in 1861 and again in 1862. Chief Justice Taney issued a writ. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. Again Lincoln and the military ignored the opinion.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

There was a de facto suspension throughout the war.

"If you think you can make a stronger case for throwing out habeus corpus now than it was during the Civil War, please do."

i would like to see this arguement also!

mcb






Print the post Back To Top
Author: bsage101 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153382 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 8:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The Russians had a word for it during the Cold War years. It was called a gulag.

I would consider Chicago the gulag. Where are they currently holding that bad boy? Perhaps in a much better place.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153384 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 8:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<When Lincoln was confronted by the fact that such niceties as habeus corpus law might cost us half of the United States, he cheerfully tossed out these liberties for the duration. After the war was resolved, they were again respected.

Actually, Lincoln tried to toss out the writ of habeus corpus but the Supreme Court ruled that he did not have that power and reinstated it on May 27, 1861, nearly four years before General Lee surrendered.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Merryman/

If you think you can make a stronger case for throwing out habeus corpus now than it was during the Civil War, please do.

Good Luck,
Z >>


Why yes, I can. If you actually read the link you cited, you will find that while Chief Justice Taney ordere the release of the person arrested and held by the military, Lincoln and the military ignored this order of the Supreme Court and continued to hold him and others who were engaged in treasonous acts against the United States.

After the war was over, the Supreme Court decided Ex Parte Milligan, in which the Supreme Court claimed to limit and control the ability to suspend habeus corpus. But as clearly demonstrated by the case and link you gave, if the President chooses to suspend habeus corpus under the grounds authorized in the constitution, there is little the Supreme Court can do about it.

In short, Ex Parte Milligan can always be ignored if the President sees good reason to do so.



I'm including another link on this subject that may make the issue clearer, since your link is so dense with complicated detail that it's hard to follow.


http://members.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html



Seattle Pioneer



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bsage101 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153385 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 8:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And if the Führer says so, we all follow.

From the mouths of babes..... from a country who would know.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: FULLERKZ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153386 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 8:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Perhaps a bigger risk is that there is a group that needs to be rounded up but can't be because of civil liberties restrictions. That might cost us New York City or Los Angeles some day."

The stark realities of Neville Chamberlain redux. There is no intellectualism with evil. No law. A classic example is the current case involving the highjack planner that wants to testify for himself. Our laws don't apply to his world. If we are to be civil and kind to him we would expedite his meeting with Allah. This would be viewed in his closed world as an honor. So what do we do?

Life in a maximum security prison is the most heinous thing possible.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: LurkerMom Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153389 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 10:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
While you all are mulling over the dammed if you do and dammed if you don't constitutionality of protecting Americans.....here is something else for you to chew on in connection with Jose Padilla.......

It's interesting, especially the similarity of the John Doe suspect sketch made by the FBI in connection with the OKC bombings in 1995 to that of Padilla.

<<<Jose Padilla's Oklahoma City Connection

Was Jose Padilla, the American citizen suspected of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the U.S., connected to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in April of 1995?

<<<Christopher Brady
Posted: Thursday June 13, 2002 06:13AM ET
Glenn Beck Program Exclusive

Jose Padilla is the focus of great speculation by Americans today. How can the U.S intelligence agencies have known that Padilla was plotting to detonate one of the most sinister types of weapons of mass destruction? Is it because these agencies had received reports, as John Ashcroft claims, that Padilla and his accomplices had been meeting and gathering information on how to build these deadly devices? Or because these agencies have known of him all along, and had chosen to simply wait for his return to the United States?

This article explores a premise that seems so unlikely, a premise that can't possibly have any basis in truth. However, further investigation reveals that this scenario, in fact, makes absolute sense, and puts all the pieces together. From the streets of Chicago to the sandy deserts of Pakistan and back to the U.S. to bring destruction to Oklahoma City, Jose "Abdullah al Muhajir" Padilla, is John Doe No. 2>>>

<<<http://glennbeck.com/news/06132002.shtml>>>

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: slipz Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153390 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 10:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Public trials have revealed quite a lot about American surveilance capabilities around the world. Things like the ability of the NSA to monitor cell phone and other communications has been a windfall to enemy governments and terrorists.

Apparently "public trials" are not a requirement...


Special Report
War On Error: Live Pictures Taken by U.S. Planes Were Freely Available

By Duncan Campbell

See the videos

(LONDON, June 12, 2002) -- The war on terrorism in Europe is being undermined by a military communications system that makes it easier for terrorists to tune in to live video of U.S. intelligence operations than to watch Disney cartoons or new-release movies.

For more than six months, live pictures from U.S. aerial spy missions have been broadcast in real time to viewers throughout Europe and the Balkans. The broadcasts are not encrypted, meaning that anyone in the region with a normal satellite TV receiver can spy on U.S. surveillance operations as they happen.
...

http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=189&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcemerson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153391 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I read this and am actually a lot less troubled about it than I was a few days ago. Yes we are suspending his rights as an American Citizen, no doubt about it. So who and what was involved in the process of classifying this guy as an enemy combatant?
Well from the executive branch Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush all agreed after looking at the evidence that he should be classified as an enemy combatant with Bush making the final decision. I don't trust Ashcroft's judgment, but I do trust that Rumsfeld would be honest in making that evaluation. And I trust that Bush would not risk his Presidency by making this classification unnecessarily.
And then the Senate Judiciary committee held the hearing to review this matter. And again after examining the evidence they have concluded that enemy combatant is warranted in this particular case. When you see Ashcroft non-fans like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, and Diane Feinstein on this committee, I think the only possible conclusion is that this action was completely necessary.
When you see how many hoops they had to jump through to suspend this guys rights, the notion that “it could happen to anybody” is preposterous.
Still, I remain in favor of new federal “attempted murder by terrorism” laws that would be easier to prove in out regular court system, and raise far less in the way of troubling questions.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm


Thank you for an insightful explanation of the facts, although lacking in the hyperbole and partisan rhetoric of the original post you did a much better job of presenting the facts.


TheExpertNovice added to your Favorite Fools list.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MSHH Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153398 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 11:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
And again after examining the evidence they have concluded that enemy combatant is warranted in this particular case. When you see Ashcroft non-fans like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, and Diane Feinstein on this committee, I think the only possible conclusion is that this action was completely necessary.

Come on! Does anyone in their right mind think these politicians are going to raise any concerns, even if they had any, so they can be tarred by their opponents as terrorist sympathizers come the next election? Jeez.

That's the whole idea behind having a review by an appointed for life federal judiciary. The courts have amply demonstrated they can be just as spineless as politicians during times of geat national stress and of inflamed political passions but at least they don't have to face re-election.

Mike


Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcemerson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153399 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 11:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Our President and Congress seem to think it's a bad idea.

Where in the Constitution does it say that President gets to choose who gets access to due process? Congress?

These rights have been suspended many times in the past most notably by Lincoln.

All I know are some words about inalienable rights.

Hehe. That's one of your problems. You don't know all the words (or even the word) and you don't know where they come from.

It goes like this;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

I guess you would have a hard time with you position on the Atheists thread if you put things in context.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153406 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/14/2002 11:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<All I know are some words about inalienable rights.

Hehe. That's one of your problems. You don't know all the words (or even the word) and you don't know where they come from.

It goes like this;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

I guess you would have a hard time with you position on the Atheists thread if you put things in context.
>>


And it's in the Declaration of Independence, a propaganda tract, not the constitution.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JEDIKNIGHT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153410 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 12:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Yes, and the Constitution was SUCH a perfect document, with slavery, no women voting, etc.

Once again, MILLIGRAM either complains that Bush is TOO lax, OR too strict.

I guess that when CERTAIN people get a hanging, they would come back from the dead to complain that the executors did not use a new rope.

Jedi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153411 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 1:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Salute, Jedi! Been busy lately and just tuned back in. Glad to see you're still holding the fort.

<<"I guess that when CERTAIN people get a hanging, they would come back from the dead to complain that the executors did not use a new rope.">>

That is "executioners," btw--the "executors" are the ones who settle your estate after you have assumed room temperature. :-)

Meanwhile, I noticed that Algore got set aside for special search twice during his recent air travel:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jun02/51090.asp

And the TSA spokesperson said they "haven't decided" about implementing the Springtex proposal the U.S. Congress approved--the airline passenger license:

<<"Meanwhile, there's been no decision on whether so-called "trusted traveler" cards will be issued to whisk good-intentioned frequent fliers through security, O'Sullivan said.">>

I'll bet Algore's advance people put in the fix to get him searched twice, just to get the publicity--and give Lieberman and Daschle cover to push TSA to give Congressmen and select VIPs a pass at the gate. Whadd'ya think, Jedi?

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Soreal Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153414 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 2:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Tell it to Al Gore.


Personally, it would be educational for the courts to order his release and for the President to hold him. It would be great to rebuke the courts by defying their claim to power, if the American people would support the President in that effort.

Unfortunately, when Franklin Roosevelt tried that he lost out. Andrew Jackson was the last President to really succesfully defy the Supreme Court and get away with it. It would be wonderful to be able to teach that lesson again and place the courts in their proper place.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153421 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 4:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7

Where in the Constitution does it say that President gets to choose who gets access to due process? Congress?

These rights have been suspended many times in the past most notably by Lincoln.


I cannot believe this.
DON`T YOU SEE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE? ARE YOU ALL BLIND?
Abuses have happened in the past, see the incarceration of the Japanese Americans during WWII.
The ease with which virtually ALL fundamental human rights can be taken away by the Executive is totally alarming.
You´d better not be an individual who happens to be the wrong ethnicity and in the wrong place at the wrong time today.
There is nothing protecting you from arbitrary incarceration for the rest of your life, is there?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153432 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 9:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
<<DON`T YOU SEE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE? ARE YOU ALL BLIND?
Abuses have happened in the past, see the incarceration of the Japanese Americans during WWII.
The ease with which virtually ALL fundamental human rights can be taken away by the Executive is totally alarming.
You´d better not be an individual who happens to be the wrong ethnicity and in the wrong place at the wrong time today.
There is nothing protecting you from arbitrary incarceration for the rest of your life, is there? >>



It's amazing that the people most zealously interested in personal liberties understand so little about them.


First, the primary and principle way to defend our liberties is political, not through the courts. If the American people REALLY oppose these efforts, their opinion will be expressed through a political opposition, and it can be stopped or limited. And when the need for this infringement of our freedoms is over, the political opposition and/or the courts will act to restrict those powers when the time is ripe, as they have many times before.


In the meantime, perhaps you are underestimating the risks and hazards of terrorists operating in the United States. We have suffered numerous attacks on our naval vessels, embassies, military headquarers and world trade headquarters, genuine acts of war. From evidence reported in the press, a concerted effort is apparently being made to find nuclear weapons that can be used against American cities.

If we lose New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Chicago or another major city to a terrorist nuclear attack, there will be a great demand to retaliate against the cities of any country that might had some involvement with nuclear weapons. It is therefore in the interest of world peace that whatever steps necessary are taken to detect and destroy these terrorist networks, and to deter those that aid them.

In the meantime some may be treated harshly. Tough.




Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tgrmn Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153434 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
According to media accounts given as a result of the court directive to the justice department, there are 147 'perps' in righteous custody in the U.S. in addition to the perp detainees in Cuba and other places.

For those not involved in the war against us, they'll get 'processed' and final dispositions after hostilities cease.

This is happening just as it did with the 'Mariel boatlift' prisoners, many the dregs of Cuban prisons, over a decade ago. Some of those, you may remember, created their own little crime waves in America, because Castro, the hand wringers and government %$#^&%$^*&$s screwed up the normal process.

Tigerman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153435 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Well from the executive branch Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush all agreed after looking at the evidence that he should be classified as an enemy combatant with Bush making the final decision. I don't trust Ashcroft's judgment, but I do trust that Rumsfeld would be honest in making that evaluation. And I trust that Bush would not risk his Presidency by making this classification unnecessarily.

And then the Senate Judiciary committee held the hearing to review this matter. And again after examining the evidence they have concluded that enemy combatant is warranted in this particular case. When you see Ashcroft non-fans like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, and Diane Feinstein on this committee, I think the only possible conclusion is that this action was completely necessary


In other words, unalienable doesn't really mean inalienable which means "incapable of being repudiated, not subject to forfeiture."

If Padilla is an enemy combatant, and a US citizen living in this country, then charge him under the espionage statutes, and if so indicated execute him.

Do it by the numbers. A suspension of habeas corpus is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to this country.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153436 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Kudos for clear thinking. We trust our government to kill in our name (make war), but we don't trust it to exercise this power? Nonsense.

So where is this declaration of war? (which we really need, BTW).

This isn't a slippery slope; either our constitutionally - guaranteed rights are "unalienable" or they aren't. There is no middle ground. If a committee of Government Officials (whoever they might be) can alienate the rights of anyone, then everyone is vulnerable by definition.

The terrorists are winning. And winning BIG.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tgrmn Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153437 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For those not involved in the war against us, they'll get 'processed' and final dispositions after hostilities cease.

Make that;

For those involved, they needn't receive any final disposition until after the hostilities, i.e. the war ceases.

For those detained and not involved in the war, they put theirselves where they are, they'll receive their processing in good time. In the meantime, they're safer than the bulk of Americans from the war.

Tigerman



Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153438 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
The Constitution protects no one. We are protected by a common understanding of what our republic should be.

Nonsense. There is no such common understanding. I don't see how you can even make such a statement, given the disparity of views that are posted on this board.

What we have is a framework, within which everyone is expected to work and outside of which anyone is an outlaw. This suspension of the Bill of Rights - for anyone, for any reason - by the government is tantamount to the government taking a chainsaw to the pillars that hold the framework up.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FULLERKZ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153439 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"You´d better not be an individual who happens to be the wrong ethnicity and in the wrong place at the wrong time today.
There is nothing protecting you from arbitrary incarceration for the rest of your life, is there? "


Herein lies the argument. It gets down to a matter of trust. My party affiliation is Independent. A poll in April conducted in Israel by Israelis showed 83% trusted Bush more than Clinton.

I am for heightened profiling especially against Arabic people and support Ashcroft in his mission to apprehend and squeeze information about terrorist and their networks. I am not worried about him trying to reverse Roe vs Wade because right or wrong, he won't pursue it. We have much more serious problems on our plate and it involves the entire civilized world.

I've seen lots or archival footage of Adolph Hitler and was mesmerized by his rabid desire to serve his people. His position was obtained not for money(gain of wages as he put it) but to serve his people. The difference and going back to his youth was his belief that all men were not created equal. He was dysfunctional long before he gained control and essentially masterminded support with murder and other evil and cleverly scapegoated Jews and other races he deemed less worthy than the Aryan white race. There is no intellectualism with evil. Often it is painted as insanity but he was far from insane. He knew exactly what he was doing. Neville Chamberlain trusted him. Big mistake.

And it needs to be crushed before it gains momentum. I trust the current administration and could care less about ratings. It's my life and humanity that I am concerned. I trust them and care nothing of somebody whose goal is to kill American and Jews. Violating their civil liberties won't transform the legal system for our citizenry.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153440 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
When Lincoln was confronted by the fact that such niceties as habeus corpus law might cost us half of the United States, he cheerfully tossed out these liberties for the duration. After the war was resolved, they were again respected. Just one of the thinbgs that made Lincoln a great President.

But we are not AT WAR. For whatever reason, we have not GONE TO WAR. Instead, we have an amorphous, ill defined "war on terrorism" which involves police actions all over the globe, diving into the last group of caves these people were in.

It is a defensive "war" almost exclusively. To this point, the terrorist enemies still have safe harbors - places we won't attack - in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria.

Continuing this way we will lose. This erosion of civil liberties is a strictly defensive act unaccompanied by any substantial offense. It will be shown to be insufficient, so there will be further suspensions of civil liberties, further erosion. We have taken the first couple of steps toward the garrison state, and the progression is inevitable until and unless we attack and destroy the source of the terrorism.

I, for one, would have a lot less to say about the suspension of habeas corpus with Padilla if we were at war and working to eliminate the enemy.

We need a declaration of war against Iraq.
We need a declaration of war against Iran.
We may need a declaration of war against Pakistan (give that one some time...)
We need to conquer Sudan. Libya. Syria. And anyone who lines up with them.

If we only defend ourselves in this "war" on terrorism, we will lose. Inevitably. So far, we are losing.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153441 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
In the meantime, perhaps you are underestimating the risks and hazards of terrorists operating in the United States. We have suffered numerous attacks on our naval vessels, embassies, military headquarers and world trade headquarters, genuine acts of war. From evidence reported in the press, a concerted effort is apparently being made to find nuclear weapons that can be used against American cities.

I am not underestimating this, but please explain to me how the denial of constitutional rights to Padilla helps the War on Terrorism.
Why couldn`t he be charged if there is any evidence against him?
I think he could have been dealt with in a normal, constitutional fashion, easily. Using arbitrary detention was just not necessary.
Bush wants to create a precedent here, however. With his first action using this instrument against an American citizen, he is already abusing it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153442 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In the meantime, perhaps you are underestimating the risks and hazards of terrorists operating in the United States. We have suffered numerous attacks on our naval vessels, embassies, military headquarers and world trade headquarters, genuine acts of war. From evidence reported in the press, a concerted effort is apparently being made to find nuclear weapons that can be used against American cities.

Then why in the holy hell don't we GO TO WAR???

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153443 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
According to media accounts given as a result of the court directive to the justice department, there are 147 'perps' in righteous custody in the U.S

Are these US citizens who live here and presumably were engaged in hostilities? Or are these foreigners here illegally under false colors to engage in hostilities? The latter group can be treated like any other group of enemy infiltrators.

For those not involved in the war against us, they'll get 'processed' and final dispositions after hostilities cease./i

In other words, a life sentence without trial.

This is happening just as it did with the 'Mariel boatlift' prisoners, many the dregs of Cuban prisons, over a decade ago

Actually more than 20 years ago. Everyone abused Carter - he was too easy. Again, those "boat people" were illegal immigrants, or infiltrators. We couldn't let them go and we had no place to send them. They shouldn't have come.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JEDIKNIGHT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153444 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Good ol' Liberals and "Centrists"!

*You have savings, a home, or a business that you worked for all your life. When you go to the grave, the gov't takes 50% of it from you and your kids. "CENTRISTS" and "LIBERALS" LOVE IT!

*Gov't can listen in on your pitiful conversation with your sweetheart with the hopes of learning about a terrorist, and LIBERALS AND CENTRISTS GO NUTS!

Tee Hee.

Jedi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153445 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 11:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Good ol' Liberals and "Centrists"!

That was a response to my post.

Jedi, are you accusing ME, of all people, of being a "liberal" or a "centrist"?

Man, what have you been smoking? Gotta tell you dude, on the subjects where you are conservative, you aren't conservative enough. From where I sit, you often look like a leftist.

I'm a Libertarian, oriented not terribly far from the anarchist end of the spectrum. I oppose government for all purposes except defense. Any time the issue is the rights of the individual vs the power of government, I'll come down for the rights of the individual. Any time at all.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153447 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 11:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<
Do it by the numbers. A suspension of habeas corpus is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to this country. >>



How would you compare it to an atomic bomb being detonated in New York?





Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153448 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Kudos for clear thinking. We trust our government to kill in our name (make war), but we don't trust it to exercise this power? Nonsense.

So where is this declaration of war? (which we really need, BTW).

This isn't a slippery slope; either our constitutionally - guaranteed rights are "unalienable" or they aren't. There is no middle ground. If a committee of Government Officials (whoever they might be) can alienate the rights of anyone, then everyone is vulnerable by definition.

The terrorists are winning. And winning BIG. >>


They aren't, and never have been.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153450 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I, for one, would have a lot less to say about the suspension of habeas corpus with Padilla if we were at war and working to eliminate the enemy.

We need a declaration of war against Iraq.
We need a declaration of war against Iran.
We may need a declaration of war against Pakistan (give that one some time...)
We need to conquer Sudan. Libya. Syria. And anyone who lines up with them.

If we only defend ourselves in this "war" on terrorism, we will lose. Inevitably. So far, we are losing. >>


Well, I agree that relying only on defense is inadequate. I had hoped that demonstrating our ability to tie a can to the Taliban would be a sufficient demonstration of power to deter others, but perhaps this isn't the case. Plan "B" appears to be a regime change in Iraq, if press reporting and speculation means anything. Were we to accomplish that, perhaps it would be clear to others that supporting terrorists isn't worth it.


We shall see what our leadership has planned in time.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153452 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 11:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

<<
Do it by the numbers. A suspension of habeas corpus is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to this country. >>



How would you compare it to an atomic bomb being detonated in New York?



Explain to me how using Stalinist detention on Padilla rather than due process helps avoid that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153454 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<<How would you compare it to an atomic bomb being detonated in New York?



Explain to me how using Stalinist detention on Padilla rather than due process helps avoid that. >>



Well, HE won't be detonating any dirty bombs while detained. Neither will others implicated in this kind of scheme. People who are questioned may have additional incentives to tell the FBI what they know, rather than clamming up or asking for a lawyer. The willingness and ability of internal security forces to take this kind of action may deter terrorists from launching attacks.

Rather than winding up as heroes in highly publicized trials at which they get access to the names of government informants and surveilance capabilities, such people can merely be held without much ability to make propaganda out of it.


Lots of reasons, really.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JEDIKNIGHT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153465 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
j8....

I only clicked "response" on your post. I was not responding to you, rather to my favorite "centrist".

I respect your Libertarianism, and im curious about it:

*Do you support Harry Browne, who wants to 100% ge rid of income tax? I assume you do, as he is the Libertarian leader twice in a row.

Also, if you DO support abolishing the income tax, am I safe in assuming you fully support Bush's tax cuts, except for being too small? Ditto for the death tax?

*Do you support gov't "intervention" in making trade agreements with foreign nations?

As far as rights of the individual, we started losing our "rights" a long time ago. Our phones, our gas, our booze is taxed. Gov't can seize our property if they feel like it. We are still the most free place, but not even close to 100% free. That being the case: If gov't wants to listen to be call my Wife, and ask her what movie to see tonite, its OKAY by me, if it also enables them to listen in on Abdullah as he plots to kill me, you, or 1000s of our citizens.

Jedi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153475 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 3:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
Do it by the numbers. A suspension of habeas corpus is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to this country. >>



How would you compare it to an atomic bomb being detonated in New York?


A suspension of Habeas Corpus probably does more serious and long lasting damage to the United States. That is how I view it.

Not only that, but in one sense the detonation of a nuclear device on our soil could be the best thing. Because perhaps that is what it will take to get us to go do what we have to do. Conquer Iraq. Iran. Sudan. Libya. Syria. Possibly Pakistan. And anyone else that aligns with them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153476 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The terrorists are winning. And winning BIG. >>


They aren't, and never have been


Oh, I don't know. They seek to destroy our way of life. What could be more efficient for them than having us do it ourselves?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153477 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We shall see what our leadership has planned in time.

And let us hope that it is adequate.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: jiml8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153480 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 3:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
*Do you support Harry Browne, who wants to 100% ge rid of income tax? I assume you do, as he is the Libertarian leader twice in a row.

Yup. Contributed money to the campaign. Voted for him.

Also, if you DO support abolishing the income tax, am I safe in assuming you fully support Bush's tax cuts, except for being too small? Ditto for the death tax?

Qualified yes. Only qualification being that, philosophy aside, we have to pay our debts. Contingent upon our ability to do that, I most certainly favor all tax cuts.

*Do you support gov't "intervention" in making trade agreements with foreign nations?

Philosophically, no. In actuality, when faced with a world where other governments intervene and make their own trade arrangements, I don't think we can realistically avoid doing it. But we should always act to minimize the need.

Actually, I wrote a bit too briefly in my earlier post; I support government for defense and for courts - since there must be impartial arbitration of disputes.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: FULLERKZ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153483 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"We need a declaration of war against Iraq.

Yep.
We need a declaration of war against Iran.

Nope.

We may need a declaration of war against Pakistan (give that one some time...)

Nope.

We need to conquer Sudan. Libya. Syria. And anyone who lines up with
them.


Just let these 3 run it their way. Revolution inside will fix things all by itself.



"If we only defend ourselves in this "war" on terrorism, we will lose. Inevitably. So far, we are losing. >>"


Nope. Victory is emminent. Only difference is rather than celebrating afterwards we won't drop that contract with Terminix.





http://aolboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15829870

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JEDIKNIGHT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153494 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/15/2002 11:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The terrorists seek to destroy OUR way of life? PLEASE!

*They DONT want OUR way of life in their backyard.

*They are pissed at us for helping the Jews.

This is a shocker for those who want America to continue striving for Empire.

Jedi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153548 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/16/2002 7:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well, HE won't be detonating any dirty bombs while detained. Neither will others implicated in this kind of scheme.

Put them on trial. Same effect.


People who are questioned may have additional incentives to tell the FBI what they know, rather than clamming up or asking for a lawyer. The willingness and ability of internal security forces to take this kind of action may deter terrorists from launching attacks.


Well being able to threaten people you can´t prove are innocent that they will be locked up indefinitively if they don`t talk is certainly effective.
It is also unacceptable. What happens to the innocent?


Rather than winding up as heroes in highly publicized trials at which they get access to the names of government informants and surveilance capabilities, such people can merely be held without much ability to make propaganda out of it.


Publicity a problem? You can have a trial from which the public is excluded. You can prohibit the defense team talking to the media.
As for the names government informants and surveillance...
Those can be kept secret to the defendant, too.(That`s the way it is handled in Germany in Mob cases etc.)

Not perfect, but better than not having a trial at all.


Lots of reasons, really.


No reasons which couldn`t be accomodated in a non-stalinist way.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: littlejabroni Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153814 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
I hate to jump in at the tail end of a thread, but I noticed a lot of people commenting that we need to declare war, or that we aren't at war. It was pointed out on another board that we actually are at war...

http://mil.org/nredo/mobilization_info/HouseJRES62.htm

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 62
Declaring a state of war between the United States and international terrorists and their sponsors.


SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF WAR.

Pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States and--

(1) any entity that committed the acts of international terrorism against the United States on September 11, 2001, or commits acts of international terrorism against the United States thereafter; and

(2) any country or entity that has provided or provides support or protection for any entity described in paragraph (1).

The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the United States Government to carry on war against such entities and countries, and the Congress hereby pledges all the resources of the United States Government in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.


-LittleJ



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: galeno Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153833 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
SeattlePioneer wrote:
The left has A LOT to answer for when it comes to declines in American liberties.

The American left is a piker compared to the American right. The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism vs socialism (in the USA, socialism of the RIGHT-WING variety) or freedom vs statism.

While I'm no friend or admirer of the American left, historically, from the Sherman Act to Herbert Hoover controls of the broadcast industry to Bush one and Bush two, it is the conservatives who have always been the major destroyers of the United States.

Americans are pissing away their freedoms to the fascists piece by piece. Thank goodness I live in a FAR FAR freer country!!

Freedom-loving people outside of the USA need to start thinking of aquiring or developing nuclear weapons because we may have to defend ourselves someday against American fascist aggression.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153839 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 62
Declaring a state of war between the United States and international terrorists and their sponsors.


Terrific.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that thre are Russian terrorists in Chechnya (and Chechen terrorists in Russia.)

So we've declared war on Russia? Please.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Milligram40 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153853 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I hate to jump in at the tail end of a thread, but I noticed a lot of people commenting that we need to declare war, or that we aren't at war. It was pointed out on another board that we actually are at war...

http://mil.org/nredo/mobilization_info/HouseJRES62.htm

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 62
Declaring a state of war between the United States and international terrorists and their sponsors.

SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF WAR.

Pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States and--

(1) any entity that committed the acts of international terrorism against the United States on September 11, 2001, or commits acts of international terrorism against the United States thereafter; and

(2) any country or entity that has provided or provides support or protection for any entity described in paragraph (1).

The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the United States Government to carry on war against such entities and countries, and the Congress hereby pledges all the resources of the United States Government in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.

-LittleJ


OK - if this is TRUE and being ENFORCED lets look at some facts:

1) Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and was a citizen up until 1992 when he was exiled

2) 15 of the 19 suicide bombers from 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia

3) Saudi Arabia had over 100 high level officials sign a document calling for the destruction of the United States

4) Hundreds of millions in Saudi money funds Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations

5) The Saudi government is paying Palestinian suicide bomber families almost $6,000 US in death benefits after attacks. They also allowed a telethon on TV to raise over $150 million in private money support.

So we're at war with Saudi Arabia? Right - I mean they are our enemies.

-------------------------------------->

Pakistani terrorists launched an attack on our Consulate in Pakistan last week killing 12. So because Pakistani terrorists attacked us - we're at a state of war with Pakistan now. Right?

-------------------------------------->

A US citizen was killed in a botched rescue attempt in the Phillipines, his wife injured after being kidnapped by Al Qaeda sympathizers over a year ago. So we're at war with the Phillipines now. Right?

-------------------------------------->

Wanted terrorists that were holed up in the Church of Nativity were sent to a variety of countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, France and one even went to Canada. Now those countries are harboring and protecting know terrorists. So we're at war with them, including Canada now. Right?

-------------------------------------->

The point is the declaration is so vague anyone can be or not be our enemy at the whim of the Administration. Take it a step further - about three months ago a plot by a Montana militia to (think right-wing extremists) was broken up. The plan, to bomb, kill and attack major government infrastruture sites in Montana including sherrif offices, police stations, courts, and the assassination of key officials. The plan then was to fire upon National Guard troops forcing federal troops to Montana and spreading chaos. Officials found an arsenal that would have had Rambo Jonesing - now none of the conspirators in this post 9/11 plot to overthrow the US government are being held as unlawful combatants. Why is that? Why does Jose Padilla get no due process (eve if he doesn't deserve it) and yet these animals, with plans equally as evil get lawyers, get a hearing, get to cross examine, get a speedy trial. Must be nice to be a Christian white guy from Montana versus a converted Muslim street thug from Chicago...even if both of you plan to overthrow the government and kill thousands by arms...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153856 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I can tell you with absolute certainty that thre are Russian terrorists in Chechnya (and Chechen terrorists in Russia.)

So we've declared war on Russia? Please.


And Arafat pretty much invented modern terrorism, and we're going to place him at the head of new country.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tonyw44 Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153879 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 2:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Let's see....if we have lost our rights, then why were you able to post that without the FBI coming in, and arresting you?

Stop the ACLU sponsored hysteria, and let the system do its job. The judiciary branch of the government will review the actions of the executive branch, just like they are supposed to.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zman49 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153897 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
littlejabroni,

Sorry to disappoint you, but House Joint Resolution 62 has not passed.

Latest Major Action: 9/13/2001 Referred to House committee. Latest Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00062:

If you want it to pass please contract the Republican leadership in the House and tell them your opinion.

It should tell you something that even the House leadership does not appear to want a state of war decalred.

<grin>
Damn obstructionists
</grin>

Good Luck,
Z


Print the post Back To Top
Author: XaosSurfer Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153920 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 5:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I have just finished reading this entire thread. I would like to congratulate all the contributors. Good work. This is an important debate on an important issue. I would like to kick my $0.03 ($0.02 US)
in.

I think that everyone is missing the forest for the trees. The debate is the point. The free debate on the issue is the check and the balance.

Personally, I think that Padilla (sic) became an enemy combatant the moment he declared affiliation with Al Qaeda. Treating him as such seems to me to be dealing with reality.

However, it does bring raise some important questions. The constitution and the Geneva convention give the president the right to hold enemy combantants for the duration of the war. This has happened during both 'declared' wars and 'undeclared' wars.

This gives the president an unchecked power to suspend a citizens rights. Unchecked power will be abused. There is not much question about that. The president is the one with a 'the bucks stops here' sign on his desk. History is his only accountability.

There is no perfect world. We all must constantly balance the dynamic forces that shape our lives. The same is so for the president. How does he best uphold and protect the constitution? If he leans a little too far one way we get attacked. If he leans a little to far the other way he abuses his power (a la japanese internmint camps). A president must weigh this balance every day.

How do we protect ourselves in this situation. Debate. Discource. Discussion. Disent. This is the only check we have and we wield it wisely when we engage in this debate. While we maintain our right to think and publically exchange ideas we have no fear of opening Gulags or becoming facists. We also have no fear of sitting idly waiting for the next attack with our fingers crossed. Neither is acceptable to the American people and the president, congressmen, senators, governors and everyone else counting on re-election know it.

We are in a very new and very dangerous situation. There are no simple questions and no easy answers. Thoughtful debate is our only protection and it is our duty.

Paul


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheExpertNovice Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153961 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 7:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

This great American Ideal that “all men are created equal” is of course not in the Constitution at all, but rather in the Declaration of Independence. And of course since we have obtained independence there is no provision for amendments to the declaration. Only the occasional footnote regarding how the definition of “all men” has changed through time. So is it really ok to treat this Padilla fellow “less equal” than most others, well check the footnotes to see.

Footnote 1 – 19thCentury – When we refer to “all men” we of course mean all landowning white men: Slaves, women, and indentured servants have a decidedly smaller list of unalienable rights.

Footnote 2 –20th Century – When we refer to “all men” we really mean all people, regardless of race or gender.

Footnote 3 –21st Century – To further clarify when we refer to “all men” we mean all good American people. Foreign terrorists, illegal immigrants, and enemy combatants specifically do not have the same rights as “all men”.

So you see, it was really all right there in the footnotes all along, and thus perfectly ok :-)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153965 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Oh that. No one really believes that.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153969 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 7:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh that. No one really believes that.

You are really confused if you think this is about equal protection. Care to reconsider?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153970 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 7:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You are really confused if you think this is about equal protection. Care to reconsider?

No. I don't consider it to be about equal protection in the first place.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wlhogan Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153983 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Jonah Goldberg makes more sense to me than this post, which sounds like something from the NY Times. I quote from his column for June 17, titled "Don't hold America hostage to civil rights."

Goldberg agrees that Padilla's civil rights are being violated. But that, he argues, is "not the relevant issue. The question should be whether or not the government is justified in violating an al-Qaida operative's rights."

There are many situations in which the government has every right to determine that civil rights can be ignored: security searches at air ports without probable cause, refusal to all rallies inside high-security locations, the military draft, etc. Such things, says Goldberg, are "perfectly legal because we recognize that we cannot hold the survival of the nation hostage to individual rights." And for that same reason, the detention of Padill is legal, too, and eminently sensible.

The argument that no war has been declared is semantic shadow-boxing. A Congressional declaration notwithstanding, we are, de facto, at war, and everyone knows it. And in wartime someone who poses a threat to the country can and should be locked up.

"As for what Padilla deserves, the short answer is nothing. Al-Qaida rejects the Geneva Convention and the rules of war because its aim is mass murder for mass-murder's sake. Its operatives are all essentially plain-clothes spies and saboteurs (who can be executed according to the Geneva convention, by the way)."

"Those who say Padilla should get a civilian trial are essentially saying that if you reject the rules of civilized nations, like those inscribed in the Geneva Convention, you therefore deserve to be treated better, not worse, than those rules require."


As for what we should expect from our government, well, I expect it to make defending the United States from further attacks its highest priority. If that means not letting the entire country be held hostage to Padilla's rights, so be it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153987 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 7:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jonah Goldberg makes more sense to me than this post, which sounds like something from the NY Times.

Anyone who quotes Goldberg can't be all bad. Welcome to the debate, wlhogan.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: geordrake Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153991 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 8:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Milligram 40 is correct. The older I get the more liberal and forgiving. Although, you can not presume I say let this fellow loose.

We have rules and regardless of how reprehensible the crime maybe we still have rules. The USA populations has been giving President Bush and the Justice Department too much freedom and the Bill of Rights is not being followed. If the prosecutors have a solid case then they should present it the way they have done for over 200 years. Sept 11 does not change anything.

Sept 11 has given our population patriotism when it was sorely lacking,ie. people are still flying flags on their Camrys. But patriotism can not short circuit the right way to do things. President Bush has sworn to uphold the constitution. Lets keep him to that promise.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: bsage101 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 153997 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 8:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Personally, I think that Padilla (sic) became an enemy combatant the moment he declared affiliation with Al Qaeda. Treating him as such seems to me to be dealing with reality.

Uh.. Liberals here may not see this the same as you.

Example: Jane Fonda in Hanoi....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: khalou Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154000 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 9:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
OK, I've read this thread.

It's entitled, "Farewell to the Constitution"

The initial post is a very powerful argument and I took it seriously. As a matter of fact, both the arguments for and the arguments against were all very powerful and worthy of pause and consideration.

But the subject was, "Farewell to the Constitution"

In reading the thread, I found really good arguments that the action against the notorious Padilla were, indeed, constitutional. I also found that there are others in custody that meet the same criteria of being a terrorist who are not being treated the same- with the reasons being racial in nature.

In other words, while the action in question is probably strictly constitutional, it seems to be randomly utilized. I suspect that it is the vague language of the War Declaration that is holding it up in Congress. (Terrorists? Any Terrorists?) That, too, has been elloquently explained in some of the posts on this thread.

I expect the Administration is fighting for the greatest freedom they can obtain in the matter, and the 'other guys' are trying to maintain as many constraints on the Administration's power as necessary.

That, IMHO, is where the checks and balances come in.

On Rants and Rambles, I complained about the media on this one. What we're debating is what the White House Public Information Office has released in the way of information. The opposing views have been released by the opposing people's Public Information Offices. Where's the independent information?

The backbone of any free society is it's press. Ours is decidedly lazy. Even the best columnists are digesting what information is spoon-fed to them by press releases and sensationalizing it to sell the news. There must be a lot more going on here than some Chicago thug that's recently been a world traveller on al Quaeda's credit card- than some internet-surfing would-be dirty bomber. The Administration isn't having a problem with the 'unconstitutional' issue. There are only two schools of thought that might explain this-

1. There is absolutely no question in the Admin's mind that this guy, and what he knows, cannot prudently stand the 'intelligence' nightmare that a trial (apparently any trial) would enable.

2. The Administration has decided that they can easily use the terroroism thing to wield even more power over the American people and consequently wrestle the country ever more toward Stalanism.

Who is in a position to discover which?

Who has constitutional access to the truth?

Let me hear some stories of the Administration unconstitutionally barring access to the press and I'll be right there!

Even on the appearance of such.

But do you seriously think that'll happen?

Not with what the American press has become.

k (fearing that the only weapon the masses have against the machine, information, is being controlled by the wrong people)









Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pismoclam One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154008 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 9:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why waste good food and lodging on Padilla. I wouldn't even give him a last meal or a cigarette before I put a bullet in his brain. All the bleeding heart liberals and fellow travelers in the world crying in the left wing press and media won't make me change my mind. We're at war sports fans. Another thing , let's put the army and guard on the border and shoot the bastards as they try to cross. If we don't, our culture and customs will disappear.Plus, pick up all the students and others with expired visas and deport them. Round up all the illegals and ship them out - men, women and children. The welfare rolls will drop by 40% and the extra money can be used to lower taxes ( he he) or provide for our qualified citizen recepients. The Constitution and the Second Ammendment will survive.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: N56629 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154018 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 10:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I wouldn't even give him a last meal or a cigarette before I put a bullet in his brain"

Hmm, sounds like the new guy is an expert killer. Probably one of those special ops guys like the Jedi.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: patchdodd Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154021 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 10:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why waste good food and lodging on Padilla. I wouldn't even give him a last meal or a cigarette before I put a bullet in his brain. All the bleeding heart liberals and fellow travelers in the world crying in the left wing press and media won't make me change my mind. We're at war sports fans.

Hmmm ...

No trial, no due process, just kneel him over in the middle of a soccer stadium and pump a bullet through the back of his head. Maybe we can charge admission.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheMotleySpy Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154025 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 10:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hmmm ...

No trial, no due process, just kneel him over in the middle of a soccer stadium and pump a bullet through the back of his head. Maybe we can charge admission.


pd,

It's hard to even respond to a post like that. I commend you on your restraint.

Spy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: N56629 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154027 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/17/2002 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"It's hard to even respond to a post like that. I commend you on your restraint."

It's difficult to write and roll on the floor laughing at the same time.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rgonsal Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154038 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 12:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
It strikes me as funny that those of you (whom I'll refer to as conspiracy theorists - or outright whiners) will balk at any action taken by conservatives to protect this country (and directly refer to the Constitution to support your point).

Yet when issues (such as the right to bear arms) are supported by the Constitution, you change the rules of the game, cry foul and proclaim that the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to todays United States.

Yes, you have the right to complain - this is one of the advantages of living in the United States. And no, I don't think think anyone wants to have many of the freedoms we've taken for granted removed from us. But the bottom line is that we are in a war (declared or not) and we have to suck it up for the cause (regardless of the political affiliation of the executive office).

Let's quit hiding behind legal jargon and make our country a safer place in which to live. Express your viewpoint at the voting booth (if you can figure out the ballet) and support your country's fight against the few who wish to harm our innocent citizens.

rick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gramp55 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154041 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 12:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Mr. P. stepped over his inalienable rights when he went to war against the country that feed him. we have a legal system that gets to many guilty people off, on tech's. We have a news media that only reports on the "guitless" sitting on death row. These guitless were not family men and community leaders drug out of Sunday morning church services and framed. So yes I will hail Bush and hail Ashcroft. We need some strength in this war. Already the Al-Q is vaporizing into the world, but they will be back and you are not going to like their return!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: billglazebrook Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154042 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 12:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
maybe I'm missing something but as a veteran of ww2 I feel we should treat
this person as a traitor guilty of treason. Plotting to harm the country you are a citizen of should be a firing squad period. As a free country I would like to see a vote on this.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: esterling Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154043 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 1:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I fail to see a reasonable connection in this analogy below. This man was caught red-handed, planning to kill innocent people with a "dirty bomb." The Japanese Americans in the internment camps, contrariwise, were innocent and wrongly imprisoned. Just because the Japanese Americans were wrongfully imprisoned, that in no way detracts from the decision by Bush and others to imprison this man. If you want to write negative things about Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld, that's fine with me, but this one makes no sense to me.

esterling

<<<holthusen wrote: "Which it defines itself. Some day, you, like the Japanese Americans, could happen to be defined "bad guy", and you`re gonna be real surprised.">>>>


Print the post Back To Top
Author: esterling Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154044 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 1:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I take exception to the comments below comparing Bush to Hitler. As a Jew who lost relatives during the Holocaust, I think that such unreasonable analogies trivialize the memory of those who were murdered by the Nazis. Hitler and other Nazis murdered six million Jews, many Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Russians, gypsies, and others. Hitler arranged for millions to be murdered because of his hatred of people because they were different. Bush, on the other hand, has decided that there will be no trial for this man planning to murder innocent people. I fail to see any possible logical connection between the two. If one wants to denigrate Bush, that person should provide reasons and support, not merely claim, without any reasonable connection, that the president reminds him of arguably the most heinous genocidal murderer of all time simply because he wants to imprison a terrorist.
esterling
<<<<<<<Why doesn't the State accuse Jose of a crime such as conspiracy present their evidence in a court of law?

Our President and Congress seem to think it's a bad idea.

And if the Führer says so, we all follow.
I wonder, bruce, how you would have acted if you had lived in Germany 65 years ago.>>>>>>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: holthusen Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154046 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 1:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

I take exception to the comments below comparing Bush to Hitler. As a Jew who lost relatives during the Holocaust, I think that such unreasonable analogies trivialize the memory of those who were murdered by the Nazis. Hitler and other Nazis murdered six million Jews, many Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Russians, gypsies, and others. Hitler arranged for millions to be murdered because of his hatred of people because they were different. Bush, on the other hand, has decided that there will be no trial for this man planning to murder innocent people. I fail to see any possible logical connection between the two. If one wants to denigrate Bush, that person should provide reasons and support, not merely claim, without any reasonable connection, that the president reminds him of arguably the most heinous genocidal murderer of all time simply because he wants to imprison a terrorist.
esterling


I am certainly not comparing Bush to Hitler.
If you read what I wrote as an answer to this:

[Why there shouldn`t be due process for Padilla]
Our President and Congress seem to think it's a bad idea.


You will find that I am critizing the people which are going along with any policy the Bush government could devise.


And if the Führer says so, we all follow.
I wonder, bruce, how you would have acted if you had lived in Germany 65 years ago.


A few weeks ago Dick Armey, senior Republican, called for the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of Palestinians.(he later retracted it, but there was really not mistaking what elaborated in an interview)
There were actually people on this board defending that idea.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsheehy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154056 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well from the executive branch Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush all agreed after looking at the evidence that he should be classified as an enemy combatant with Bush making the final decision. I don't trust Ashcroft's judgment, but I do trust that Rumsfeld would be honest in making that evaluation. And I trust that Bush would not risk his Presidency by making this classification unnecessarily.


"Who you trust" is completely beside the point. No-one should have the right to suspend the constitution. It says "All men are created equal". It should not matter whether you are an "enemy combatant" or not. The constitution is the constitution. For citizens or non-citizens. For enemy combatants or friends.

Why should anyone be able to get away with such treasonous actions as overturning the constitution?

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsheehy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154057 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not this government, my government. I trust my government to do what me and my fellow Americans empower it to do. Its main duty is to protect us from "bad guys".


That is completely incorrect. Its duty is to uphold the values of the constitution. Which part of that do you not understand?

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsheehy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154059 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
At one time it may make gfood sense to intern Japanese, and later they are let out

When did it ever make sense to intern innocent Japanese civilians without evidence?

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsheehy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154060 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't believe this is completely true. Unless Ascroft has found a way to abolish the federal judiciary there is no way for the government to preempt judicial review of both the legality of Padilla's detention and the constitutionality of the law by which the government purports to act.

The government is free to express its opinion it has the legal authority to indefinitely detain Padilla but that's all it is. The judiciary will have the final say just as it did in Quirin.


Not according to the constitution of the USA.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154063 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<<"Who you trust" is completely beside the point. No-one should have the right to suspend the constitution. It says "All men are created equal". It should not matter whether you are an "enemy combatant" or not. The constitution is the constitution. For citizens or non-citizens. For enemy combatants or friends.

Why should anyone be able to get away with such treasonous actions as overturning the constitution?

David >>


For someone who talks about the constitution, perhaps you ought to at least read it.


The "All men are created equal" line is from the Declaration of Independence, a propaganda tract.

Treason is narrowly defined as levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

The power of the government to suspend habeus corpus and hold people indefinitely without trial is spelled out in the constitution, and arguably applies to the present circumstances.



<<Why should anyone be able to get away with such treasonous actions as overturning the constitution?

David >>



I believe it was a Supreme Court Justice who said that the constitution isn't a suicide pact.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154064 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
<<At one time it may make gfood sense to intern Japanese, and later they are let out

When did it ever make sense to intern innocent Japanese civilians without evidence?

David >>


In the aftermath attacks by Japan of Pearl Harbor, Clark Field in the Phillippine Islands and the landing of troops to conquor that territory, the conquest of Singapore and Malaysia, Wake Island and such. If you read the autobiography of General Stillwell, you will find that this very professional military leader was very worried about the possibility of attacks on the west coast of the United States at that time.

While it proved to be unnecessary, it might have been important for the government to have this power, and might be important to use it again sometime.


In any case, interning the Japanese was pretty small potatoes compared to the government drafting millions of men and sending them not to a safe internment camp, but to the front lines of the war to fight and die.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsheehy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154070 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 5:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How would you compare it to an atomic bomb being detonated in New York?


OK, so where is the evidence of an atomic bomb being detonated in New York?

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: N56629 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154104 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 9:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"It strikes me as funny that those of you (whom I'll refer to as conspiracy theorists - or outright whiners) will balk at any action taken by conservatives to protect this country (and directly refer to the Constitution to support your point).

Yet when issues (such as the right to bear arms) are supported by the Constitution, you change the rules of the game, cry foul and proclaim that the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to todays United States."


Do you want to give me clue what you are babbling about and who the heck is "those of you"?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mraiello Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154107 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 9:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
We are treading in uncharted waters. Since World War 2 there have been several conflicts involving the USA but a state of war was not declared.

Now, we are in a very dangerous situation where millions of our citizens are in danger by the actions of a few terrorists.
Whom would we declare war upon? There is no country involved, only groups of individuals bent on destroying our nation. So a state of war exists between the USA and a group of terrorists. Except there are as yet no legal measures to accommodate for such a situation because I don't think such a situation has never happened in the past.

So let's stop giving such terrorists the benefit of the doubt. This is a situation our founding fathers never contemplated so amending the constitution might be inorder.

You can't by any means compare our situation to a gulag. Remember, people died in gulags because of malnutrition, extreme temperatures and overwork. Contrast those situations to the treatment of the terrorists in custody?

So let's hang in there and work for the good of the country. If this were a questionable act then the population would be protesting in great numbers....just as was done in the Viet Nam conflict. Here, the pop[ulation is behind the president...for good reasons.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheExpertNovice Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154110 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 9:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Whom would we declare war upon? There is no country involved, only groups of individuals bent on destroying our nation. So a state of war exists between the USA and a group of terrorists. Except there are as yet no legal measures to accommodate for such a situation because I don't think such a situation has never happened in the past.

There is a precedent from the past when President Thomas Jefferson had Congress authorize a formal declaration of War against the Barbary Pirates. Like Al Queda these were a group of thugs rather than a sovereign nation.

If Congress is willing to issue a formal declaration of war against the Al Queda terrorist network (and perhaps the former Taliban government as well) it would clear up a lot of troubling legal issues surrounding Padilla, John Walker and the whole group of Cuban detainees. They could all be held indefinitely without trial until death or the end of the war. It would also give the US more justification than it would otherwise have to hunt these guys down in countries that don't necessarily welcome our military troops. And more authority to stop shadowy foreign types from entering our country.
I'm in favor of Congress upgrading the conflict to a formally declared war against Al Queda.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: chrisjames Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154125 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 10:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Seattle Pioneer wrote -

<<<left wingers should blush when they talk about eroding civil liberties>>>

Last time I looked, it was a right winger who blew up 300 people
in Oklahoma City.

I wonder what you will be saying after the next right wing domestic
terrorism attack, when the government starts locking up right wing
sympathaziers without benefit of a public judicial hearing ?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: buy2win Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154145 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 11:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let's quit hiding behind legal jargon and make our country a safer place in which to live. Express your viewpoint at the voting booth (if you can figure out the ballet) and support your country's fight against the few who wish to harm our innocent citizens.

rick


Figure out Swan Lake, the Nutcracker Suite, or what ?

b2w



Print the post Back To Top
Author: buy2win Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154146 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
As a free country I would like to see a vote on this.

Which free country are you ?

Wait. Don't answer.

b2w, stamping out syntactical confusion


Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154151 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 11:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<We are treading in uncharted waters. Since World War 2 there have been several conflicts involving the USA but a state of war was not declared.

Now, we are in a very dangerous situation where millions of our citizens are in danger by the actions of a few terrorists.
Whom would we declare war upon? There is no country involved, only groups of individuals bent on destroying our nation. So a state of war exists between the USA and a group of terrorists. Except there are as yet no legal measures to accommodate for such a situation because I don't think such a situation has never happened in the past.

>>


That's a good enough point to merit a rec and adding you to my "Favorite Fools" list.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154153 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 11:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<<If Congress is willing to issue a formal declaration of war against the Al Queda terrorist network (and perhaps the former Taliban government as well) it would clear up a lot of troubling legal issues surrounding Padilla, John Walker and the whole group of Cuban detainees. They could all be held indefinitely without trial until death or the end of the war. It would also give the US more justification than it would otherwise have to hunt these guys down in countries that don't necessarily welcome our military troops. And more authority to stop shadowy foreign types from entering our country.
I'm in favor of Congress upgrading the conflict to a formally declared war against Al Queda.
>>


I have no objection to that, and perhaps it would be worthwhile. But the constitution has been stretched and changed in meaning and purpose in lots of ways. One of those is that no one in the Congress and even the courts seems very surprised when wars are carried out without declarations.

I'm sure that if a declarartion of war were actually proposed a lot of the people presently wringing their hands over the lack of a declaration would begin wringing their hands at the PROSPECT of a declaration and the "infringement" on civil liberties it wqould imply. Once passed, they would simply begin denying that a declarartion of war might permit infringements upon civil liberties.

Those who are angious to find grievances will always find reasons for complaint. The amount of process has nothing to do with the volume of complaints.




Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stricklingltd Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154221 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 1:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Unfortunately, when Franklin Roosevelt tried that he lost out. Andrew Jackson was the last President to really successfully defy the Supreme Court and get away with it. It would be wonderful to be able to teach that lesson again and place the courts in their proper place. >>

I can't believe someone on this board posted Andrew Jackson's totalitarian action of forcing the uprooting of thousands of Native Americans from their land and homes and sending them on a death march is being touted as some ideological high watermark in American history. It was one of the LOWEST points in American history, and one that has not been successfully repeated because by any other president. THIS IS A GOOD THING. The power (however narrow) of the judicial branch is one of the three counterweights of our GREAT political structure. The founding fathers created this structure specifically to prevent any one of the three branches from just the sort of unilateral action that you are describing as a good thing. I am in awe that this was posted by a 'Top Recommended Fool', and only wish that I had replied sooner.

Stricklingltd






Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154233 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Seattle Pioneer wrote -

<<<left wingers should blush when they talk about eroding civil liberties>>>

Last time I looked, it was a right winger who blew up 300 people
in Oklahoma City.

I wonder what you will be saying after the next right wing domestic
terrorism attack,>>



String 'em up.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gramp55 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154265 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 3:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When we were fighting for our constitution David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RarusAvis Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154274 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 4:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry about that, We ARE at war. This is a war. No tears for Jose
in this household. Mr. Padilla, like Mr. Lindh deserve to face a firing
squad, and the sooner the better.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: WadaPhooliam Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154277 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Mr. Padilla, like Mr. Lindh deserve to face a firing
squad, and the sooner the better.


They have to be convicted first. A small matter perhaps, but our nation was supposedly founded on the rule of law.

Wada

Print the post Back To Top
Author: magiquedarkayne Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154306 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 9:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
With all due respect, we ARE at war. It is not a war of OUR making. We were attacked in a cowardly and unprovoked way by people who would not scruple for a heartbeat to wipe out us and our families if their powermad Imams decreed it. They apparently do not value human life at all. perhaps as a means to an end. This man was caught in the process of commiting an act of treason/war against the country that nurtured his sorry excuse for a human carcass. He truly has never denied his hatred for this country, nor has he really denied that he meant to do exactly what he is accused of(not without some proof apparently). I do not think that I would be out of line to pen up a rabid animal to keep my children safe from it, until animal control got there. How many more americans will need to die at such hands before we get a clue?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154328 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/18/2002 10:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Constitution protects no one. We are protected by a common understanding of what our republic should be.

Nonsense. There is no such common understanding. I don't see how you can even make such a statement, given the disparity of views that are posted on this board.


This is a problem. Our two party system is causing us to lose this understanding that is our cultural heritage. Absent this consensus, we are in big trouble.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: anewcombe Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154374 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/19/2002 9:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
With all due respect, we ARE at war.

To magiquedarkayne and everyone who believes this, perhaps you could link to Congress's declaration of war so we could judge for ourselves.

nor has he really denied that he meant to do exactly what he is accused of

Must ... not ... mention ... Precrime ... (http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/archive/2002_06_16_bloggera.html#77891600)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: magiquedarkayne Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154696 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/19/2002 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
A formal declaration of war is not required by both combatants, only one. Ask the French how they felt about the German lack of such a declaration just prior to having the Blitzkrieg unleashed on them. Ask the British how they felt about the American Colonials sucker punching them. As I remember the British insisted on fighting along "civlized" lines as well and got THEIR heads handed to them too. War has been declared on US. OUR sovereignty was violated without a "civilized" declaration of war. Perhaps people who cant seem to see that just cant deal with the fact that America is not untouchable. American arrogance has gotten us INTO this mess. Precrime( I assume you meant prejudging) does not apply at all unless you are in a court of law where the rules of evidence apply and you have a discovery period and so on. I suspect that the many headed hydra that is Al Qaeda and the other forms of international terrorism is monstrously amused by people in the US that have trouble understanding that they ARE at war. This is indeed a war, but of a new sort. One that MANY somewhat naive people have trouble even seeing as one. The Israelis understand this far better than we do. But as a former "shooting" member of the US armed services let me tell you, it is no less a war. Whether you call it terrorist attack, guerrila insurgency, or formal war, people still die in droves. While the politically naive sit and hack logic.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154699 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/19/2002 8:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A formal declaration of war is not required by both combatants, only one... War has been declared on US.

Very good point. So we are at war with Al Qaeda. How does one expand this concept to say we are at war with terrorism in general? Are we at war with the Basque separatists as well? Why? They have not declared war on the U.S.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: magiquedarkayne Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154799 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/20/2002 8:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
YOU are the one that expanded it to include people who have done nothing to us. Nice tactic. Confuse and obfuscate the issue. Not atypical of leftist thought(I am coming to you rightists in a bit,grin) The issue IS that a certain cross segment of the terrorist population(dare I use the politically correct buzzword "community")namely Al Qaeda has declared war on a noncombatant nation. Just because Al Qaeda is a "shadowgovernment" doesnt make it any the less a very real threat. Please try very very hard to stick to the issue at hand. Al Qaeda. It is a safe bet that Israel doesnt suffer from this issue, they are well aware of who their immediate threat is. Hamas/The Fatah . It is well that we stick to the issue. If you are punched in the nose. First of all, find out whose immediate fist it was that bloodied your nose and hit him back many times harder. Ultimately that discourages any repeat visits to the neighborhood of your nose by the other fellow. If this tatic had been practiced by the Rightists during Desert Storm, Much of the problem in the middle east would not pertain due to lack of funding from Iraqi oil. But then Busch Senior was never known as a deep thinker(although apparently a very nice man on a personal level).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: trenchrat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154817 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/20/2002 9:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
it all started when the "leeberralles"..they let them gut the 2nd ammendment..where was everyone when that piece of the bill of rights got gutted???..hmmmmmm...what do you expect now?...all 10 are just as important....the chicken have come home to roost...and the leeebbeeerals started it...blah blah...tr

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jpbailey Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154933 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/20/2002 11:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm troubled by this to a certain extent as well, except that I think the "bad guy's crime" is different than most. He was targeting our country for an attack. That's different that stealing from a person or even engaging in murder since those are crimes against individuals.

When we go to war, we don't have our military read the rights to every enemy combatant and then go through a trial. This is just a harsh reality of war. This "bad guy" was planning a terrorist attack on our country and thus should be treated as an enemy combatant.

I think Bush is caught in a strange cross fire. On one side are those who are saying he didn't do enough to prevent Sept. 11. On the other are those who are saying he is doing too much to prevent another Sept. 11.

--John


Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 154938 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/20/2002 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think Bush is caught in a strange cross fire. On one side are those who are saying he didn't do enough to prevent Sept. 11. On the other are those who are saying he is doing too much to prevent another Sept. 11.

Nonsense. Catching Padillo was a good thing. No one believes otherwise. It is the administration's disregard for the constitution that is troubling.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: chb2000 Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155340 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/21/2002 10:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Duuuuhhhhh------
You both are quoting from the Declaration fo Independence....
The Constitution starts off with "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union......"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcemerson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155376 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/21/2002 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Duuuuhhhhh------
You both are quoting from the Declaration fo Independence....
The Constitution starts off with "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union......"


Well Duuuhhhh yourself, I knew that. Try reading the post. I was pointing out that the poster I was replying didn't when I wrote,

Hehe. That's one of your problems. You don't know all the words (or even the word) and you don't know where they come from.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Anigma Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155378 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/21/2002 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well Duuuhhhh yourself, I knew that. Try reading the post. I was pointing out that the poster I was replying didn't when I wrote,

Hehe. That's one of your problems. You don't know all the words (or even the word) and you don't know where they come from.


Context is everything.

Anigma - three-fifths short of a load

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GreenEyedLady Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155517 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/21/2002 9:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Public trials have revealed quite a lot about American surveilance capabilities around the world. Things like the ability of the NSA to monitor cell phone and other communications has been a windfall to enemy governments and terrorists.


Oh, please. The ability to monitor cellphone conversations has been public knowledge for at least 10-15 years already, it's within reach of lots more than just the NSA, and these facts have nothing to do with public trials. There's any number of things he could be charged with that would be enough to hold him legally without the need for setting this dangerous precedent of eliminating a system that has been shown to work just fine the way it is.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MSHH Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155522 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/21/2002 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh, please. The ability to monitor cellphone conversations has been public knowledge for at least 10-15 years already, it's within reach of lots more than just the NSA, and these facts have nothing to do with public trials.

Thankyou GreenEyedLady. That lie repeated time and again that bin Laden or other terrorists suddenly realized that their cell phone conversations could be monitored because of that "top secret" disclosure in a public trial is ridiculous.

Mike



Print the post Back To Top
Author: clearbranch Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155664 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/22/2002 7:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I love America. It stands for freedom and rights for all who were lucky enough to be born or accepted into her fold.
There is a problem though, part of the price of this freedom is to tolerate those who would spit on our constitution, use our flag as a door mat, rape our children and women, destroy us through drug addiction, robbery, murder. We lock them up, then allow our judicial system to let them go again in a vain attempt to preserve that freedom we hold so dear. What does this cost? Ask their victims, those of you that have paid the ultimate price with the lives of your loved ones, the loss of your proprty, your health, your peace of mind. There should be no repeat offenders for some crimes, plotting to commit these crimes should be viewed as no difference.
It is not hard to identify the people who are a threat to the rest of us. We should move to protect the innocent citizens who are now shouldering the price for our freedoms. That doesn't mean give the government a gestapo-type power over everyone. The justice system should be reformed to reflect our increased exposure to these threats and allow our law-abiding people to enjoy the freedoms we hold so dear. The criminals and anarchists are the ones that should feel fear.
We need to protect ourselves as a people...no one else will do it for us.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155731 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/23/2002 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Talk is cheap, and I have read a lot of hot air in this thread.

This is not directed at any individual poster here, but I want to point out that if we spent less time gabbing about how much the government sucks and more time being involved in our communities, TALKING with our kids instead of installing TVs in our cars, telling our girls they don't have to dress like whores to be noticed (That's YOU, Brittney!), maybe we wouldn't have as many John Walkers and Jose Padillas running around.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheExpertNovice Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 157310 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 6/28/2002 3:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Despite many views expressed here, there is no legal debate at all as to whether or not “enemy combatants” get the same rights and protections as accused criminals. They don't, never have and never will, period.
The real legal issue is whether or not these handful of guys designated by the Bush administration are properly classifies as enemy combatants or not. Two court proceedings should help un-muddy the water. In New York a lawyer for Padilla is seeking to have him released, while the government is arguing that this civil court has no jurisdiction over this “military” prisoner. While in Virginia, the governments “home court” judge appears highly unlikely to grant any civil rights to that other guy.
My suggestion – a regular process of civilian closed court review to examine the governments evidence, and confirm or deny each such classification as proper or improper.

The government asked a federal judge in Manhattan yesterday to reject a petition seeking the release of Jose Padilla, the former Chicago gang member accused of plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States.
The government argued that the federal court in New York lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Padilla, who is being held in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., and that the petition, for a writ of habeas corpus, "seeks to interject this court into the president's conduct of ongoing hostilities."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/national/27DIRT.html

RICHMOND, Va., June 25 — An appellate judge hearing one of the most closely watched cases pitting civil liberties against national security seemed favorable today toward the government argument that an American citizen can be held indefinitely without being charged with anything or represented by a lawyer.
The case involves Yaser Esam Hamdi, 21, who was born in Louisiana, reared in Saudi Arabia and captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Mr. Hamdi was sent to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, until officials discovered he had been born in the United States, and then moved him to the naval brig in Norfolk, Va. He has been held there since April 5, not charged with any crime or allowed to see a lawyer, although a district court has appointed a public defender to represent him.
In oral arguments here before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the chief judge, appeared incredulous today at Mr. Hamdi's lawyer's assertion that his client — captured during battle and designated an enemy combatant — had any constitutional rights….Mr. Kamens said the Constitution prohibited the indefinite detention of an American citizen, and Judge Wilkinson was quick to interrupt.
Was he suggesting that the government could not detain a citizen "who has taken up arms against America?" Judge Wilkinson asked in a voice that suggested he could not believe his ears.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/26/national/26HAMD.html




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: omronnie One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 240246 of 1956902
Subject: Re: Farewell To The Constitution Date: 1/22/2003 6:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
President Bush has sworn to uphold the constitution. Lets keep him to that promise.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So did clinton..........................

Omronnie

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (148) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement