Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:59:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2972 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial.
| |
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.
|
This term wasn’t invented or coined by President Bush, so don’t blame him or
Gonzo.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Is your rant against the classification of “enemy combatant” and its legal
status? Or are you focusing on the case of Padilla?
| |
| |
| |
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 think that is a matter of opinion, not law. Otherwise, the dems would have
impeached President Bush long ago.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Agreed. Your initial cognitive assessments don’t impress me much, Dave!
| |
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?
|
See below.
| |
| |
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.
|
This is the crux of the issue IMO-- how does a free society effectively
protect itself against those who have access to WMDs and are bent on its
destruction.
| |
| |
Compare to the use of “privacy” in Roe vs Wade.
|
Well, start a new thread if you want to go there.
|
Hmmm. Maybe if I had the time, and the inclination. I think I’ll save that
topic for when it becomes more relevant if/when it gets challenged in court.
| |
| |
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.)
|
Most of these are bad guys captured on a battlefield. Logistically we can’t put
them all on trial. And I’m guessing that that practice is against the Geneva
Convention, in order to protect the combatants against summary execution. And
it protects our captive soldiers as well.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) But they are entitled to certain protections that, by design, are denied to this latest batch. For example, prisoners of war are to be released at the war's end, but Dubya has pretty clearly stated that the War on Terror will never be over. So (...) (18 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???
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 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
|
|
|
|
