 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) LOL I think they're a bit like a wedge of vintage cheddar: They seem solid, but the edges always crumble a bit, and someone is always going to be lactose intolerant and not want any part of it. Cheers Richie Dulin (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) It's pretty sketchy. You could define "rebellion" as a group of citizens who take action against the government. But does that action necessarily require that it's an armed action, or a physically destructive one? What if they were hacking in (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) John, with due respect, you don't know that. Many of these detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they were mistaken for someone else, or they were coerced into fighting against invading US forces. We have only the word (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Excellent question. I don't know. But I do know that if they are released, they will attack us again. (...) No, I think it was in response to a new category of enemy who isn't represented by a nation-state. They don't deserve a trial by jury. (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Do you think the war on "terrah" is a joke? Who knows upon what information the US government is acting upon. I don't, so I can't comment. (...) "Demogoguery"? (...) Let me count the ways: They aren't even a real country anyway. Their hockey (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) And if you leave the US justice system to sort things out regarding this 'war on terrah', they deport Canadians to Syria (URL) glad *some* senators are calling it what it is-- (URL) "We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I have no idea. All I'm saying is that if you hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution (as Dave initially suggested), you can get absurd conclusions, as both Specter and Gonzales have illustrated. And so the game goes on. (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Are you saying that you think Gonzales was joking? Or that he genuinely ought to "fight stupidity with even greater stupidity"? DaveE (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Agreed. By being literal. But I think he did so to counter Specter's obtuse literalism. JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Only because no other scenario was imagined. So it would be your opinion that, if a scenario of terrorist attacks like 9-11 were somehow proposed to the FF, they wouldn't include that form of violence in their "invasion or rebellion" (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I guess the distinction I'm trying to make here is that if Gonzales's assertion is accurate, there's no definitions anywhere of what constitutes someone with the right to habeas corpus and someone who doesn't. In effect, it invalidates Article (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Of course not--RW radio mentions it daily, every time they blame Clinton for 9/11. (...) Okay, so two attacks in a decade constitute an invasion? Sorry, but "invasion" implies the insertion of a substantial military presence into the target (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) "Single attack"? Do you forget (among many others) the first bombing at the WTC, Dave!? Maybe this debate needs to begin with the idea of whether or not we are at war. Are we? JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Well, not considering 9-11 an invasion would be a literal interpretation, no? (...) The Constitution directs that habeas corpus can be suspended in certain circumstances; it is not an "inalienable" right, unless you believe that individuals (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) A single attack can make a rebellion if it is by a citizen of the country. I can't remember if any of the Sept 11 bombers were US citizens but if so I would argue it indeed was a part of a rebellion. Tim (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) One problem there (among many) is that there has been no invasion and no rebellion. A single attack does not an invasion make, so there is literally no justification for suspension of habeas corpus. Dave! (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I'm not up on this one apparently-- where did Specter take a literal interpretation where he ought not to have? In this case, it seems utterly plain. If the interpretation is that no right is expressly granted to anyone, but only that when it (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
