Good Special Comment Options

[Timbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

Nice.

[Spectatrix]

Damn. Very powerful. Very nice.

[Jim]

TLDR

[impala454]

geez...

guy compares bush to internment of japanese forty years ago?

heheh also nice flair for the dramatic "we're giving bush a blank check, cashed against our freedom!!"

[Divergent Realit...]

geez...

guy compares bush to internment of japanese forty years ago?

heheh also nice flair for the dramatic "we're giving bush a blank check, cashed against our freedom!!"

shit.

i only tossed in $1.05

[Psykopath]

Damn. Very powerful. Very nice.

I agree 100%. Excellent segment.

[Trespass]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which this new legislation finds the power FROM THE SUPREME COURT to enact the law

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, a citizen-detainee and his father, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered the petition dismissed, finding that the citizen-detainee's detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. Certiorari was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in a plurality opinion (notice that this is a plurality opinion not a majority, meaning that only a larger portion of the court agreed with the decision... not over half as would be a MAJORITY opinion).

OVERVIEW: The citizen-detainee was born in the United States, detained in Afghanistan during the United States' military action against the Taliban regime, and transferred to the United States. Pursuant to a government official's declaration, the Government contended that the citizen-detainee was an enemy combatant. Aside from unspecified screening processes and military interrogations, the citizen-detainee received no due process. The Court determined that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224, authorized the detention of individuals in the citizen-detainee's circumstances and that the AUMF satisfied 18 U.S.C.S. § 4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress." However, under the Mathews analysis, the Court determined that the citizen-detainee, seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant, was entitled to receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. The Court rejected the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandated a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances.

OUTCOME: The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

CORE TERMS: detention, enemy, combatant, military, plurality, suspension, detain, detained, authorization, imprisonment, writ of habeas corpus, captured, wartime, terrorist, detainee, due process, Act of Congress, national security, authorize, prisoners of war, emergency, detaining, hostility, prisoner, capture, treason, habeas corpus, war powers, rebellion, invasion

The Actual Statute: 109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)

Despite this mans obvious passion for what he views as a horrible man doing a horrible thing, one should look at the actual language of the statute being enacted as well as the supreme court case that lead to the bill in question.

You may find the supreme court ruling wrong (which i wouldn't do lightly since the magnitude of the question fitted with the massive knowledge of the law by the justices leads me to believe they thought long an hard about it.) and thus you would find the statute wrong.

BUT you can also find the supreme court ruling CONSTITUTIONAL and still hold the statute wrong.

GOOD news is that the supreme court still gets to look at this statute and rule on its constitutionality, so if this trully is against the constitution... it can be rectified.

Anyhoo, im not gonna try to break down the statutes for you (god knows i have enough case briefs and statutes to read in law school) but here is the law in question... have fun.

.... or trust this guy is smarter than you and have him make up your mind, either way

[Testm0nkey]

i had to skim through this thread because the topic title is annoying as all hell

[pebkac]

shit.

i only tossed in $1.05

Freedom costs a buck o five.

[Timbo]

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006...hs_special.html

[The Fanatic]

Good commentary on what has happened to america since this president has taken office. He is by far one of the worst president's in U.S. History. It is semi-fascist.

[Spectatrix]

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006...hs_special.html

Reminds me of an episode of ZeFrank's The Show: http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/08/081006.html

[Trespass]

I always love the "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." quote people try to use to justify thier argument. When the argument can very well be what do you consider "liberty"? One might consider safety and well being as a liberty. One might view the pursuit of criminals before they hurt us as a liberty "we" enjoy.

Throwing a quote or hypothetical out there is one thing, proving that something is actually wrong in a sense of precedence or the constitution is a little harder to do. SAYING someone is facist is much easier than proving how a person is currently and continually acting against the rules and law of the republic he is leading.

Dont like policy, thats part of a democratic right to disagree. That democracy taking part in a policy that some of the citizens of the country simply don't like... hardly a violation of the democracy. The country is a democracy for a reason, checks and balances. If THE CONGRESS and THE EXECUTIVE branch enact something that is unconstitutional (happens many a time in our past over less than horrible things) then it is THE JUDICIAL branches job to overturn it.

To say that a BILL is facist when it has went through TWO branches of the government, and it was passed off of a previous ruling that the THIRD branch made, seems.... far fetched. Especially since it can still be reviewed... and then re-reviewed if need be... or reppealed by congress... or amended to the constitution. But by all means, hate the bill (assuming you take the time to read it), hell that is your right.

[Seeker]

The chances of being killed by terrorism are a whole hell of a lot less than being struck by lightening.

[Trespass]

The chances of being killed by terrorism are a whole hell of a lot less than being struck by lightening.

so are the chances of being killed in a school shooting...
and a plane crash..
oh oh, and in a stingray attack

I dont know if you had a point, but figured i'd help give ya some other equally useless "chances of being killed by" stuff

[The Fanatic]

Saftey is not liberty. Both of these are rights under the American system, destroying and erroding one to save the other is a dangerous proposition especially when you consider our country was founded on the credos of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The policy that bush passed when he signed the legislation erodes habias corpus, it is unconstitutional. You can not legally make laws after the fact. I can not arrest someone for doing something that was not illegal when they did it.

Today we live in a country of fear. You can not leave your house and hope to be safe. A terrorist will blow you up and then your wife will get raped by dope fiends, it is simply the ways of this world.

[Trespass]

Saftey is not liberty. Both of these are rights under the American system, destroying and erroding one to save the other is a dangerous proposition especially when you consider our country was founded on the credos of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The policy that bush passed when he signed the legislation erodes habias corpus, it is unconstitutional. You can not legally make laws after the fact. I can not arrest someone for doing something that was not illegal when they did it.

Today we live in a country of fear. You can not leave your house and hope to be safe. A terrorist will blow you up and then your wife will get raped by dope fiends, it is simply the ways of this world.

ha ha ha, see exactly my point. You defined your interpretation OF A QUOTE. My point is that you dont show any legal, constitutional, or anything else of value. When you say it erodes habias corpus what do you base that off of? I posted the supreme court decision which shows why habias corpus doesn't apply IN THE FIRST PLACE (so how can you erode it?) for certain people. Thats the supreme court, and previous rulings put together to make that point of view. Now im not saying i agree what is going on is right or wrong, but im saying that OUR LEGAL/GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM (what your saying is being eroded) finds certain people not available to habias corpus.

I take into account how many times the court has ruled a way and later found itself wrong, and the idea that maybe (like in the past) our checks and balances won't keep up with the wrongful acts of the bill, but you are merely saying you don't like that a bill was passed that does something you THINK erodes habias corpus. I hope you aren't right... if you are, i put my faith in the fact that we have a supreme court that will overturn it.

[The Fanatic]

I wish I was wrong, but I am right.

[pebkac]

I always love the "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." quote people try to use to justify thier argument. When the argument can very well be what do you consider "liberty"? One might consider safety and well being as a liberty. One might view the pursuit of criminals before they hurt us as a liberty "we" enjoy.

Throwing a quote or hypothetical out there is one thing, proving that something is actually wrong in a sense of precedence or the constitution is a little harder to do. SAYING someone is facist is much easier than proving how a person is currently and continually acting against the rules and law of the republic he is leading.

Dont like policy, thats part of a democratic right to disagree. That democracy taking part in a policy that some of the citizens of the country simply don't like... hardly a violation of the democracy. The country is a democracy for a reason, checks and balances. If THE CONGRESS and THE EXECUTIVE branch enact something that is unconstitutional (happens many a time in our past over less than horrible things) then it is THE JUDICIAL branches job to overturn it.

To say that a BILL is facist when it has went through TWO branches of the government, and it was passed off of a previous ruling that the THIRD branch made, seems.... far fetched. Especially since it can still be reviewed... and then re-reviewed if need be... or reppealed by congress... or amended to the constitution. But by all means, hate the bill (assuming you take the time to read it), hell that is your right.

I'm not sure if you're talking about a specific bill or just speaking in generalities here, but just because a bill was rubber stamped by multiple institutions doesn't make it not fascist. Germany was a democracy until Hitler took over. The Soviet Union until its death was a "democracy" where laws and acts were rubber stamped by a legislature. Yet would either of these things be called democratic?

[Trespass]

I'm not sure if you're talking about a specific bill or just speaking in generalities here, but just because a bill was rubber stamped by multiple institutions doesn't make it not fascist. Germany was a democracy until Hitler took over. The Soviet Union until its death was a "democracy" where laws and acts were rubber stamped by a legislature. Yet would either of these things be called democratic?

So you CAN show me how this was either passed fascistly (the system being currupted) or the actual bill is fascist right?!? I honestly would like to be shown how it is. There are supreme court rulings, the actual bills language, the constitution, etc. Surely if you are claiming such a high level of curruption (such as the perversion of our entire governmental system) you can show me where courts have been wrong, or SOMETHING of value other than analogies about russia somehow being democratic (no matter how illogical that statement is)

[pebkac]

So you CAN show me how this was either passed fascistly (the system being currupted) or the actual bill is fascist right?!? I honestly would like to be shown how it is. There are supreme court rulings, the actual bills language, the constitution, etc.

Just because something's Constitutional or within judicial precedent doesn't make it a good idea.

Surely if you are claiming such a high level of curruption (such as the perversion of our entire governmental system) you can show me where courts have been wrong, or SOMETHING of value other than analogies about russia somehow being democratic (no matter how illogical that statement is)

Your argument was that the bill wasn't fascist because it went through different institutions in our government. My point was that just because different houses of the government passed it doesn't mean that it was necessarily done democratically.

[Trespass]

Your argument was that the bill wasn't fascist because it went through different institutions in our government. My point was that just because different houses of the government passed it doesn't mean that it was necessarily done democratically.

So the fact that it went through OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM doesn't make it democratic.... so you dont think we have a democracy... i wont begin to get into that

[Seeker]

this is for trespass

[Trespass]

this is for trespass

Mmm hot man sex lovin...

I mean if i wasn't straight i would totally go for you in this picture lance.

[pebkac]

So the fact that it went through OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM doesn't make it democratic.... so you dont think we have a democracy... i wont begin to get into that

Nope, our system isn't democratic. Our founding fathers were totally against the idea of democracy. To quote James Madison (the father of the Constitution):

The landed interest, at present, is prevalent, but in process of time...when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small...will not the landed interests be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will become of our government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

Say what you will about our founding fathers, they were nothing more than a bunch of rich, arrogant capitalists looking to protect their own interests. And they did so by developing a system that would limit the amount of influence people have on their government.

[Trespass]

Nope, our system isn't democratic. Our founding fathers were totally against the idea of democracy. To quote James Madison (the father of the Constitution):
Say what you will about our founding fathers, they were nothing more than a bunch of rich, arrogant capitalists looking to protect their own interests. And they did so by developing a system that would limit the amount of influence people have on their government.

Well you are correct, its a republic. I was more refering to the "general" term used to describe it.

And yeah, our founding fathers were slave owning capatalists with vices, that started something they didn't think would last.

Thanks for the history lesson ... don't know if it has ANY bearing on the subject at hand though.