7 Comments

1. Poetic J  •  Oct 30, 2006 @11:08 AM
   

   People like yourself depress me. I imagine when they do start taking away the rights of bloggers, you will stand there and say “Its okay, it for my own protection, we have to stop those terrorist” What saddens me most is look in the eyes of my grandfather who fought two different wars for this country, and now just sits in front of the tv at 80′ years old trying to figure out what happened to the country he loved and took 3 bullets for.

   How can you honestly support this adminstration, I am not a democrat, but I am concerned about the course we are headed down.

   Military Commisions Acts.
   Suspension of Habeus Corpus.
   Patriot Act.
   Homeland Security.
   Warrantless wire taps.
   …

   The republican party is suppose to be for less government, now all we have is more government.

   I hope someday you learn it is better to question our leaders, than to follow blindly.

   Peace be with you.

2. James  •  Oct 30, 2006 @11:50 AM
   

   Military Commisions Acts…Suspension of Habeus Corpus

   Have you even READ the text of the Military Commisions Act? My guess is you got your information from an outside source and not the actual text.

   Section 948b of title 10 - (a) Purpose.–This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

   Section 948d of title 10 - A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

   Section 948a of title 10 - definition of an alien unlawful enemy combatant - `(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

   `(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

   Section 948a(3) of title 10 - definition of “alien” - “a person who is not a citizen of the United States”

   Go read the bill, then come back and we’ll talk about it.

   As for the Republican Party… if you’ll do a search here you will find that I am not quite the little GOP puppet you seem to think I am.

   When given the option of either side of the coin I would rather live under GOP control than the current DNC options.

   I think it’s about time the GOP lost some elections as they need a slap in the face to let them know that their “course” for America is NOT what Americans want or need.

   I am all for as little government as possible and YES, the current Republicans in charge are VERY guilty of doing the opposite of what they supposedly stand for.

   I imagine when they do start taking away the rights of bloggers, you will stand there and say “Its okay, it for my own protection, we have to stop those terrorist”

   HELLO? How many times do I have to write this… The Constitution of the USA provides me with the ability to say what I want (within reason) without fear of government intervention. Trying to use McCain Feingold to block bloggers from discussing politics is UNCONSTITUIONAL and any attempt to do so is political suicide for ANY politician in todays world.

   Take a look around… read what I have to say and THEN you can throw around accusations with a little more accuracy.

   Thanks for stopping by.

3. ken  •  Oct 30, 2006 @5:26 PM
   

   James, condescendingly telling people that *your* reading of the bill is obviously better than the entire staff of lawyers employed by the NY Times is just plain silly.

   Here is the text of the bill:

   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109EyZO0C

   Here is the New York Times analysis:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1162357200&en=f9dc8d509fc9e2c9&ei=5070

   You can use http://www.bugmenot.com/ to get a login to view the article. Unless you’ve added a jd to your existing climatology credentials, I’m inclined to believe the lawyers. The law allows the President to have infinite authority in all matters of interpreting the law itself, in interpreting the conventions, and in determining the status of “detainees”.

   Here’s how it would go down. You write a check to say — The Red Cross. The Red Cross gives aid to Taliban soldiers wounded in combat. That’s declared giving material aid to the enemy and you are stripped of your citizenship (the president has already invoked that supposed right he has). You’re shipped off go Gitmo, where you are tortured.

   Your family is prohibited from appealing to the courts because, as the law notes, Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

   And, because the President interprets the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, which his counsel refers to as “quaint”, and he has complained are “vague”, you also have no rights under that treaty.

   The issue with the law is that it’s patently fascist: all power to interpret, implement, and supervise the law is in the executive branch. It’s a carta blance, and your uneducated opinion on the matter isn’t persuasive to anyone who cares about freedom.

   Which obviously isn’t you.

4. ken  •  Oct 30, 2006 @5:29 PM
   

   Lest you think this is alarmist:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html?nav=rss_nation/special

5. James  •  Oct 31, 2006 @9:22 AM
   

   James, condescendingly telling people that *your* reading of the bill is obviously better than the entire staff of lawyers employed by the NY Times is just plain silly.

   Ken, I would like for you to copy and paste for me, where I told anyone that my analysis of the bill was better than a team of lawyers employed by an openly liberal newspaper. I’ll wait…

   What I DID say is that judging by the text of their comment it’s not to much of a guess to assume that they have not read the bill and are going of Talk Show and Editorial opinions to make their conclusions.

   Unless you’ve added a jd to your existing climatology credentials, I’m inclined to believe the lawyers.

   Ken I KNOW you think I’m stupid but I AM capable of reading, interpreting information, and drawing a conclusion based on that information. It does not take a degree for me to have an opinion. This is a blog not a law journal. Get over your high and mighty “you don’t have the credentials” bull squeeze.

   Please show me an example of your scenario actually happening. If that is such a possibility I suggest the president hunt down anyone and everyone that has purchased a Sapphire in the last 30 years, or pumped gas into their car anytime in recent history as they’re possibly pumping money into terrorist organizations.

   Citing an Editorial as hard cold evidence that the Bush Administration wanting to lock me up for a charitable donation is laughable.

   I really could care less what you have to say now as it is apparent that you’re in this for the sake of argument.

   By the way ken, might I ask what your credentials are? We wouldn’t want someone without a law degree or a degree in climatology correcting anyone now… would we.

6. ken  •  Oct 31, 2006 @2:24 PM
   

   I’m in this because I value freedom. You wouldn’t understand.

7. James  •  Oct 31, 2006 @2:28 PM
   

   Yeah, you know me… I despise Freedom.

Leave a Reply