Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:46:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2834 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
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 the free world to make.
If these people have committed crimes, let them stand trial and be sentenced.
If they have not committed crimes, then release them. It’s really that simple,
and artificial, self-serving designators like “enemy combatant,” designed to
subvert the intent of the Geneva convention, are no excuse.
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m addressing the entire policy of indefinite incarceration without trial, so
specific examples aren’t really needed (though there are many). What are you
asking, exactly?
| |
| |
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.
|
That’s a gross overstatement, and even if true, it’s still no excuse. The
various branches do not exceed their Constitutionally-granted powers, and
they certainly don’t claim blanket authority to do it. Bush, in horrifying
contrast, has done so repeatedly and with no justification beyond an obedient
Republican Congress.
| |
| |
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?
|
First of all, I initially read that as Shania, to which I say “What the heck
is the problem?!?” Then I read it again.
But anyway I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking if I’m against a
fundamentalist, totalitarian theocracy? You know that I am, both here and
abroad. So what are you asking?
| |
This kind of war is new and traditional rules don’t necessarily apply without
some heavy “interpretation”.
|
Even if that’s true, it’s still no excuse for abandoning the principles of
liberty on which this country was founded. And that’s quite a policy shift for
a President who, not long ago, claimed that our enemies hate us because they
hate our freedom.
| |
Compare to the use of “privacy” in Roe vs Wade.
|
Well, start a new thread if you want to go there.
| |
What should we do with militants bent on our destruction? Let them go?
How does that make sense?
|
I addressed this above, but the quick answer is: put them on trial. If you
simply hold them in perpetuity on the grounds that “I think that they were up to
something,” then how can you declare with confidence that you’re correct?
If they’re guilty, then punish them. If they’re not guilty, then release them.
But it is imperative that their cases be heard, otherwise the Constitution is
moot. (Or mute, if you work in my office, of course.)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial. (...) This term wasn't invented or coined by President Bush, so don't blame him or Gonzo. (...) Is your rant against the classification of "enemy combatant" and its legal status? Or are you (...) (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???
|
| (...) I wouldn't call incarcerating enemy combatants a disastrous policy. (...) I'd feel more comfortable discussing a specific example rather than addressing spurious, blanket attacks. (...) Every branch works the system to their advantage. It has (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
