Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:22:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2867 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/18/15219/0788
k, it’s a lefty sight, but it has this excerpt from the Gonzales affair--
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t
take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean
you have the right of habeas corpus?
Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that
every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the
right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
Hmmmm, founding fathers being exclusionary? The literal text really does say
what Gonzales says it does.
But then again, the literal text of the 2nd really does say that the guns are
for the ‘well oiled militia’
Interpretations be damned, I say. Let’s go for the literal text!!!
|
Gonzo suffers from the delusion that the Prez is his client, when in fact he
should be serving the interests of the citizenry. Instead of a champion of
law, the Attorney General is acting as the primary enabler of and passionate
advocate for whatever disastrous policies Cheney et al can come up with.
|
I wouldn’t call incarcerating enemy combatants a disastrous policy.
| |
The AG mentioned his view that “activist judges” aren’t qualified to rule on
matters of national security and therefore should be ignored at the President
whim. Well, he might be half right, but that’s it: judges *may* not be
qualified to rule on national security issues, but they certainly *are*
qualified to rule on the propriety of law and its application (or subversion).
So when Dubya decides, for example, in his fascist mania to imprison a US
citizen permanently without charge or trial, it is indeed up to the judiciary
to rein him in, regardless of how urgently Dubya insists that he’s above all
considerations of law.
|
I’d feel more comfortable discussing a specific example rather than addressing
spurious, blanket attacks.
| |
So let’s see: Bush claims authority to issue “signing statements” whereby, in
effect, he creates new and binding legislation all by himself, and he also
declares (through his puppet Gonzales) that no judge has the power to rule
against him. Someone tell me again when we stopped being a nominal democracy?
|
Every branch works the system to their advantage. It has always been thusly,
and since the invention of the fillibuster.
| |
I can think of at least one stalwart defender of the Bush administration who
might post a reply condoning Bush’s tactics, but it’s worth nothing that
Dubya’s supporters account for around 28% of the population at the moment.
Clearly *somebody* must have decided that Bush is going about things the wrong
way...
|
How do you solve a problem like Sharia? How do you catch a thug and pin it down?
This kind of war is new and traditional rules don’t necessarily apply without
some heavy “interpretation”. Compare to the use of “privacy” in Roe vs Wade.
What should we do with militants bent on our destruction? Let them go? How
does that make sense?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Sure it is, if these individuals are stripped of all rights to trial. Bush is declaring "they're guilty because I say so, so we don't need a trial to hold them indefinitely." Sorry, but that's a pretty abominable statement for the leader of (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Gonzo suffers from the delusion that the Prez is his client, when in fact he should be serving the interests of the citizenry. Instead of a champion of law, the Attorney General is acting as the primary enabler of and passionate advocate for (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
