Slashdot Mirror
US Attorney General Questions Habeas Corpus
spiedrazer writes "In yet another attempt to create legitimacy for the Bush Administration's many questionable legal practices, US attorney General Alberto Gonzales actually had the audacity to argue before a Congressional committee that the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens. In his view it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted. The Attorney General was being questioned by Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18. THe MSM are not covering this story but Colbert is (click on the fourth video down, 'Exact Words')." From the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel commentary: "While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative. It boggles the mind the lengths this administration will go to to systematically erode the rights and privileges we have all counted on and held up as the granite pillars of our society since our nation was founded."
"Nothing to see here, please move along."
First time I've ever seen that. Couldn't be more descriptive of what the administration would like everyone to do... for everything.
And, btw, this load of crap from the same party who ridiculed "That depends what 'is' is."
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
How can you suspend something that doesn't exist then?
This story is about a week old, but still very disturbing. Do these people not respect our freedoms at all? Is our next war going to be "The War on Politicians?"
I don't have anything else to say.
Or more appropriately, executed for treason?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
seriously, how can you tolerate a US Attorney General who questions such a fundamental right?
This whole "how much damage can he possibly cause in 4 years?" attitude is appalling.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Fuck just saying that The Constitution does not explicitly grant that Right ... I want to know SPECIFICALLY who does NOT have that Right.
And how in the fuck he gets that from our Constitution.
And why Bush has not fired him for that comment.
I've been thinking for years, that this country is turning into a police state. When 9/11 happened, many people, including myself, saw a clear case of Reichstag burning. Whenener I posted this opinion on this here forum, I was modded as a troll.
This country is slowly turning into Nazi America. History repeats itself... Still think I'm trolling?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Is a favorite pastime of both parties. The feds have been ignoring the constitution since at least FDR's new deal, and some would say the civil war.
If you shout and cheer for the limitless power given by g readings of the interstate commerce clause and the 'general welfare' clause (quip), you're part of the problem. If you think that the constitution wasn't designed to cuff the federal government into a very limited role it's now outgrown, you're part of the problem.
If you have no clue what the 9th and 10th amendments are, and you think the 2nd amendment is outdated or a 'states right' (*snicker), YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
The constitution isn't a salad bar. You don't get to pick and choose. You either respect it, or you don't. If you don't you'll get some programs you like (SS, medicare, HUD, etc) and you'll get some you hate, losing your freedoms all the way.
The government pisses all over the constitution every day because we let it and we elect people who make and deliver on promises that are not within the assigned powers of the federal government.
The constitution isn't a living document. It means what it says, with the meaning that the orginal writers intended. If it's a living document then it can mean anything, and so it basically means nothing. The original intent of the founding fathers is not an arcane secret difficult to divine- they were quite prolific writers and record keepers- go find what else they wrote and their intent will be clear.
You can blame Gonzalez, you can blame Bush, but you really should blame FDR, blame Lincoln, and most of all blame yourself.
If you really want to get picky on the constitution, then the following goes away:
Every state and local gun ban
The department of education, the Department of the Interior, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole lot of others I don't remember.
You can argue that some of those functions are proper for the federal government to have and in some cases I might agree with you. The fact remains that all of them exist only because 'interstate commerce' now means anything that can conceivably happen in more than one state, and 'general welfare' now means 'welfare for the individual.' We can change the constitution if we think the feds should have more power. We just don't bother.
You bought and paid for this administration's abuses with a million other trespasses you let slide because they made you feel good.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Do you need it spelled out to you even more plainly than that?
They are the most vile, unamerican, undemocratic power grabbing swine in the nation. More than happy to subvert the constitution for themselves and thier corporate friends. Some of them were even saying how Mossolini wasn't such a bad guy after all. They are more than happy to expend a few trillion dollars and thousands of deaths to prove thier grand geopolitical theorys.
Oh, and I'll be the first to say it: Godwin's Law!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Where's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about? How come no-one puts a bullet in people like this? Is it just the shoot terms in the US that cause such apathy in the redneck population? Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Does the public have any way to "recall" an Attorney General short of canning the president (which would probably be much harder)? I think I've hit my limit of tolerance for rights erosion.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice 1928 Source:dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
"Men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law."
Justice Robert H. Jackson Source:Sam Ervin, The Whole Truth
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/David.Davis.Quote.5879 [liberty-tree.ca]
Yeah. I'll burn the Karma.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Here's a great article that explains some of the hypocrisy concerning Senator Arlen Spector and habeas corpus.
In his view it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted.
Of course they're not granted, the government doesn't grant any rights. It can protect or violate them, but not decide that they were not granted to someone.
Remember grandpa Bush helped support the Nazis during WWII. Grandpa was even convicted on it!
So how can one claim to be fighting for freedom and "The American Way", while at the same time taking away that very freedom and desecrating all those men that gave up their lives war after war for freedom and keep from giving a maniacal laugh at the same time?
This administration has to be either the most dishonest or mentally challenged administration in history!
If this kind of stuff was covered by the mainstream media, I think we'd see a sharp uptick in the sales of ammunition in this county.
I don't respond to AC's.
You can't say they haven't tried
...
Oh, wait. Georgia the country. Curse my American geography education!
Demented But Determined.
Wow, his statement is troubling.
Interestingly enough, it was a Republican, Sen Specter, that challenged him on this. As the article comntinues "Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering."
So, if both parties don't want this, let's hope this guy gets canned, quickly.
Have you read my journal today?
We're fucked.
Except these people pander to gun nuts. The people with the means to exercise the second amendment are on their side.
It's unfortunate that most gun nuts are all backwater hick libertarians willing to vote against their own interests, and sit on their firearms against their own interests, instead of more rational people capable of fomenting revolution and bringing about a post-state, post-capitalist society.
...the Constitution? They claim to do that. And if you strictly do that, you realize that the government only has the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution. All other rights and powers go to the people and/or the states. Thus, unless the government is specifically given the power to suspend habeas corpus (which it *is* in limited circumstances), it cannot infringe upon on that right. That right, as specifically protected in the 9th amendment, is not disparaged merely by not being listed.
Now, if one wants to "liberally" interpret the Constitution (e.g., not use a "strict" interpretation), then you could make the argument that Gonzales is making. Of course, no neocon would do that for political gain, nosiree. Yep, they'd strictly interpret the Constitution in all cases.....
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
We tried to impeach a president for questionable moral and sexual acts in the oval office. Yet we do nothing with this kind of crap going on?
;)
The world is quickly becoming a place I dont want to bring a child into.
Then again, im posting on slashdot. I dout i'll get the chance.
I'm standing over Mr. Gonzales with a stick in one hand and a copy of the Constitution in the other. And I look at the document and say "Nothing in here says not to whack you, Al."
WHACK!
Then I look at the Constitution again. And I say "Nothing in here says not to whack you again, Al."
WHACK!
This repeats until I wake up.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
uhm, lincoln suspended habeas corpus. What Gonzales said may be outrageous, but it's not unprecedented.
The Attorney General argues a position that advances the interests of the executive. I by no means support his dumbassed argument, but that's his prerogative. The issue here is what will Congress - that other branch of government we all forget about - do about it? Cut funding to certain programs, refuse to confirm any executive nominees, etc. until the executive renounces its position? Our system breaks down not when one branch takes an outlandish position, but when the other branch fails to call them on it. Presidents and cabinet members will be making dumb decisions for decades to come. What troubles me is that future Congresses will continue the inaction established by the past few Congresses. I'm merely pointing out that our government is failing us in other ways. Please don't misconstrue this as support of the idiotic administration. Hell, the Democrats still won't end the Iraq War because they're afraid a "spin machine" will make them look anti-soldier. Instead they're debating worthless non-binding proclamations - proclamations directed at a president who doesn't care about public or congressional opinion.
While I believe the views expressed by the above poster are extreme (that's not a comment on their correctness, simply a comment on how they compare to the popular mode of thinking), in no way do I think that the "troll" moderation is fair -- it's a valid opinion, even if you don't agree with it. If I had the mod points...
A few years later, a different president tells lies about so-called weapons of mass destruction, fabricates connections between Saddam and terror groups, and uses those lies as a means to justify a war that get tens of thousands of people killed. But y'all cool with that?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=etsQsR9kMl0 Ain't it sad? I didn't even believe it was real until after I actually checked for footage of the hearing outside of O' Reilly Factor.
AMEN.
So ammend the Constitution to ensure that we do have the right to habeus corpus, and spell it out in positive language. That's why they're ammendments. Has noone thought of this?
You know, who ever declared that Alberto Gonzales has the right to live? Anyone?
Quite the contrary. The penalty for treason is hanging. Don't they swear them in with an oath to protect the Constitution?
Fascism?
Colbert nailed it with his Brady Bunch allusion:
"But you only said I was grounded from driving your car. You didn't say anything else about someone else's car!"
People are really strange. My conservative parents will complain for hours about the mere possibility of the government wasting money on universal health care, but throwing billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq and this kind of nonsense and they will only grudgingly admit "mistakes were made". My theory is that people just like killin' the bad guys so much that they don't see how easy it is for us mistake who the "bad guys" are.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I know this one is going to get me flamed into oblivion, and may even result in a rather authoritative knock on my door tomorrow morning, but I'll not be labeled as an anonymous coward either, so here goes...
Through everything that's gone on, from the constant erosion of our rights, to the outright lies that got us involved in what will be a never-ending war, to the fact that the entire administration has shown time and time again that they couldn't give two shits about what the American people at large think, to the complete and utter disregard Bush has for separation of powers ("signing statements," anyone) the one thing I keep hearing is "support the troops."
Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops.
My question is, why are the troops supporting this government? If anyone, anyone has the power to put an end to all of this, it is they. Why hasn't the military staged a coup d'état? Why haven't the troops themselves simply said "enough is enough?"
The part that angers me the most is that these are the people who put this administration in office. Twice! They are the very same people who are getting completely shafted by this government. And they are the blue-collar workers of America. They are the ones whose sons and husbands and uncles (and daughters and wives and aunts) are being sent off to die in a country that doesn't give a fuck about us.
Was it so important that their neighbors, both of whom happen to be named Jim, shouldn't be allowed to fuck in the privacy of their own home, let alone consider themselves married (which, by the way, is just a word -- just a word) that they're willing to die for it? That they're willing to lose their social security for it? That they're willing force an absolutely abominable national debt on their children, and their children's children, and so on and so forth?
Was it worth it, to make sure that everyone says "the theory of evolution," but simply refers to the opposing viewpoint as "creationism" (shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
And if not, why the hell haven't our troops done something about it?
Ack!
He said: "Any society that gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserve neither." Just thought that might have something to do with what the writers of the constitition had in mind.
Gonzo is a smirking fool. His only concern is protecting the administration and its policies. Constitutional rights and justice mean nothing to him. America will be much better off after he is gone.
"Nazi" is a particular group with particular views. Bush doesn't hate Jews. He is not a Nazi.
Bush hates the rule of law. He hates having to share power with the other two branches of government.
Bush is a proto-Fascist. He does not care about the Rights of the People if they get in his way of performing his "job" the way he sees fit. To him, the Presidency is above the Law. Fascism is seductive. It promises "safety" and "order". And all it asks is that some people you probably didn't like anyway lose their Rights.
In a Democracy, the President is constrained by the Law. He must choose the courses which achieve the objects WITHOUT violating the Rights of the People. Any of the People. Any of their Rights.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government is more important than the Rights of the People.
It's unfortunate that most gun nuts are all backwater hick libertarians willing to vote against their own interests, and sit on their firearms against their own interests, instead of more rational people capable of fomenting revolution and bringing about a post-state, post-capitalist society.
Hmm. You must mean the kind of society where whoever has the most guns, makes the rules.
Oh, wait, we already have that.
Any more brilliant ideas?
Please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Come on, *somebody* in power should be outraged at this continuing theft of our rights. Make a statement!
Because Americans are full of ignorant people who don't really care. The majority of Americans really just don't care and it is sad. America just be called The new Rome. Supply the people with entertainment and people could care less about what is happening at the top.
Using Gonzales' logic, we can safely say that there is no right to bear arms (the second amendment is also written in the negative). So now the government can come and collect all those pesky weapons that people have.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Isn't _EVERY_ _SINGE_ member of the armed services individually sworn to "protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Or is it just the president?
Shouldn't _someone_ be arresting these people by now...? Who does the arresting when the person who is _supposed_ to be doing the arresting is the one that should be arrested?
Yea, I know, slippery slope and all that, but damn, this is sounding a _lot_ like treason (by "pun" or by "confabulation" or some such perversion of the language and with some deliberate mendacity apparent, since nobody can be _THAT_ stupid can they?) executed by or on the behalf of our "elected" leaders.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Really. Is there a better example of "enemy of the state"? These people are doing more damage by undermining the government than any "enemy combatant".
Developers: We can use your help.
freedom to peacably assemble went out when they started requiring permits to protest.
if it were a freedom or right you wouldnt have to get permission to do it.
freedom of speech went down the tubes first.. god knows exactly when, but if you say the wrong thing to or in front of a cop youre gone for at least 24 hours. Say the wrong thing on the internet and the isp will pull your site on bogus TOS issues simply to avoid the headache of defending those rights.
Freedom of religion is also ancient history.. people have been burned at the stake for not being good christians..(christians being the operative word)
somehow.. in all of this.. nazi propaganda is still protected..
is it me or is something seriously wrong here?
what's worse.. the presence of now fallacious words on a 250 or so year old document serves as ammunition to discredit claims to the above.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Yes, because military coups always work out so well....
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Seriously, politics should never be discussed on Slashdot as anyone who does not cling to a hard-left viewpoint on EVERY issue is labeled a troll automatically. Seen it too many times here to think otherwise. If you want to discuss politics, goto Fark, as at least there you can't be modded down because you don't have a left-leaning viewpoint/opinion.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
The Constitution grants no rights. Our rights are granted by our Creator, or, if you prefer, by the fact of our humanity.
That isn't wild theorizing. It is solid constitutional law.
For instance, the Constitution provides no right of procreation. Most of us would concede it a right of people. So did the Court when the question arose.
The Consitution does prohibit government from infringing on some of our rights, and it gives Congress some powers to protect others, but it grants no rights by itself.
Habeas corpus additionally is not a "right". It is a procedure to enforce a fundamental right --not to be unjustly imprisoned.
As a procedure it is not self effectuating,. It requires statutory implementation. Over the years Congress has both limited and expanded the procedures governing granting a writ of habeas corpus. So have the courts.
Gonzales could have phrased his answer in a form more pleasing to the public. But he is not just "technically right". He is fundamentally right, and the principle underlying his answer is a greater defense of our liberty than a position that the Constitution is the fount of our rights.
At what point do we, as "the people", finally stand up and do something. We have voted. Things may or may not be changing. But where is the public outrage? Where are the public demonstrations? How do we get people motivated to show their outrage in a meaningful, tangible way?
See his comments for yourself. This first video shows the conversation between Sen. Spector and Mr. Gonzales leading up to the comment, this video shows the reaction from Sen. Spector and Sen. Leahy.
Truly scary stuff. This administration isn't even sticking to conservative values. They've gone off the neo-con deep end.
I was completely shocked at this, but after some digging I still cannot find a RELIABLE source. As far as I can tell, the reason it has not hit the Mainstream Media is because it appears to be false. Please check your sources (The transcript of Gonzales' testimony is HERE: http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2473& wit_id=3936) There is nothing even close to the "quotes" from the article linked. If someone has an actual source, please inform me. If not, this is nothing more than propaganda by someone with an agenda.
The rest of the world says..... "DUH"
Most of the planet knew that the US was "fucked" for decades. we were admired for a long time and then slowly we became the global assholes that everyone hates.
Cripes, people like North Korea and China way more than the USA. Canada and Mexico are trying to figure how to get the hell away from us when the big shit hit's the fan.
What went wrong? US citizens. If you are not willing tobe a part of an angry mob, then you deserve to lose all your rights.
Kids risked their lives and LOST their lives protesting the Vietnam war at Ohio State. Today the war protests are no further than a handful listening to a anti-war podcast on their ipods.
America deserves what they get because the people are spineless idiots that like being opressed.
The guns are for protection and to take shots at idiot know-it-alls that like to talk down to us based on where we may live and the fact that we may want to have a firearm in our possesion at all times......
Son, your not gonna win any supporters with your attitude. Also even us "backwater hick libertarians" can read and have access to 'Puters and the Net.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
the people who are "autotrolled" consider the people in office.. who are actually center-right.. to be "liberals"..
the truth is if you held republicans like ike or even nixon up to scrutiny today, so called "right wingers" would be screaming bloody pinko liberal murder.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Some of the legal analysis I've read during the last few years had been really dumb. For example, how is it possible that people captured on the battlefield have any standing in our civilian courts? If they should not in GITMO then let their country ask for their release. This has happened and we have released people from GITMO to their government. Hasn't anyone ever played Capture the Flag?
The reporting on the NSA wiretapping has been horrible. Since when does the NSA need to get a warrant to tap foreign communications? Anyone calling or receiving a call from a *primary* tap target will get their communication listening in on. The NSA will not and should not hang up if the call terminates inside the US.
The reporting on the above examples has been horrible, why should I trust that this article is any better? I would agree that suspending habeas corpus is not a good idea. But the president does have the power to do it. It seems to me that foreign enemies on US soil do not have any right to habeas corpus. Why should they?
The issue seems to be that a recent law was passed that may have opened up the possibility of US Citizens not having the right to habeas corpus. This may or may not be true, but it wasn't the President that was responsible for passing the law, it was both congress and the president!
Fairly sure that noone's going to knock on your door tomorrow. 'cept maybe some Jehovah's witnesses. /. people have gotten sent off to Gitmo for talking about hypothetical coups.
:P
Very few
Anyway, IANAA(I Am Not An American) but my best guess is that the people who'd organize such a rebellion(generals and such) really aren't getting shafted as badly as you feel you are. They apparently don't feel the noose tightening around their necks, and it probably isn't. Plus even a military coup requires some support from the General Public to be successful. The US citizenry has a boatload of guns, and a fair number of those gun owners really like Bush. It might be sad but based off of my interactions with some of them, and watching your TV it's true.
If They kill off/imprison/whatever Dubya and all the rest of the morons in Washington they're going to worry alot of people that they're losing freedoms. Ignorant though they may generally be, people would probably notice if the government changed hands so drastically down there. They're not noticing these sorts of statements by Gonzales effecting any meaningful changes in the way they live their lives. Now if Gonzales successfully removed the right to eat McDonalds and watch "wrassling" then you might be more likely to see a few hundred thousand nutjobs with a rifle go out for some blood. That sort of shit would be too much
1. "The president can order prisoners to be tortured" is not in conflict with the law against torture (geneva conventions)
2. "The president can not be helt responsible for anything he does"
3. It is not torture unless "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions" occurred
I think The administration can ask for anything they want, and Mr. Gonsales will find that it is perfectly legal.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Thailand seems to be doing OK so far, as does Fiji...
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Sounds pretty clear to me. Maybe the Framers didn't think anybody would be stupid enough to say "it doesn't say I have to do this, just that I don't have to not do it", so they didn't explicitly word it out. They'd probably not even conceive of a world in which basic common law is questioned...
Also, it's pretty much irrelevant. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." The power to have habeas corpus?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I'll pause for a moment and admit that yes, I'm an evangelical Christian, so here is how I view the statement:
In short, I don't agree with Gonzales' assessment because, from what I understand the constitution is a legal and historical document that is predicated upon the earlier work of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration contains the famous central truth statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This central truth statement does a number of things but here are a few bullet points:
1. Individual people and their governments are both under the authority of the Creator.
2. This creator has endowed people with "certain unalienable Rights", the use of the word certain is curious because it bolsters the central truth statement (i.e. "I'm certain that this is true") and it limits the number of rights (i.e. "I get paid on a certain day"). The latter is necessary so that we have rule of law, and not rule of might, or money, or power, or intelligence, or whatever is popular at the time.
3. Being unalienable, it is impossible for these rights to be transferred to another either willingly or unwillingly.
4. The undertone to the sentence is confidently foreboding that "if you attempt to take away these rights you are not messing with just men, but with God".
I'm curious what everyone else's take is on these events.
"The Second Amendment is starting to look better and better all the time."
Look at how well it's working in Iraq.
It's more than an American issue if it happens. Why? In the article it said, "Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant" and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals "kangaroo courts" because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution." Who is more of a non-citizen than everyone from outside the USA? Guantanamo Bay II anyone? This bound to send shudders of disbelief and dismay around the world. It's not like the USA has much popularity lately even amongst its allies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6286755. stm
Very few /. people have gotten sent off to Gitmo for talking about hypothetical coups.
And you know this because they come back to slashdot telling you all about their trip?
Maybe because they publish a list of people that are in Gitmo, and you found a few slashdotters on it?
Or is it just the way you think things are in happy rainbow land?
Why? because every single one of them up there is in on it.
If they started killing the traitors, every one of them would start sweating bullets as the would be found out as traitors as well.
There is no pride, honor nor honesty in the halls of the capitol or federal government anymore. Those traits died long, long ago.
There is truth to the 200 year old joke, "you can tell when a politician is lying.... their lips are moving."
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
How about the government imposed concepts of...
limited liability
and...
incorporation..
I'm all fine and good with dispensing with social security, medicare, and hud, as long as we dispense with the government's backing of huge centralized and responsibility-immune financial exploiters who make them necessary.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
For 70 plus years, the liberal swine in this country have also argued that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one. Why should anyone get bunged over the same thinking being applied to Habeus Corpus? I mean, you really wouldn't get upset over having to go to your local politician to get a permit to buy a book, would you?
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Nobody seemed to care about Americans who have a middle eastern background, since those dark boys are the "bad guys" these days. Nope, not the Jews, or blacks, or gays... this time it's those dirty muslims! Nobody raises much of a fuss when they're harassed by the government and police, suspected as terrorists because in this post-9/11 world you gotta... I mean they wear turbans. Or something.
Then people start to get a bit nervous about how the government is wiretapping everything. Or how ISPs are served warrants (secret warrants) for handing over private data, which can not be publicly disclosed. But hey they're probably just after those scary brown islamic people right, I am safe ... right? I'm a white christian, I'm probably safe.
Oops what's this, the military/government is saying detained prisoners can not question the court process or raise objections. No habeas corpus for them? Well that's ok, we should detain them forever without trial! In this post 9/11 world you gotta...
But wait a second. The US Attorney General tells the nation that US citizens do not have the right to question the legal process or authority of courts. That's citizens, as in YOU, not the brown muslim in gitmo. YOU don't have such a right. Now this doesn't sound cool... it's one of the foundations of western law. Could have sworn that US citizens were guaranteed that right. It seemed obvious.
We should have started worrying when those brown boys began losing their rights. Now they are coming after YOU. Wow just like in the historical warning.
The only crime that I know of that the Constitution expressly spells out is the crime of Treason. It's definition wouldn't include the holding to idiotic interpretations of the Constitution itself, alas.
C//
I for one firmly believe one should err on the side of...good? freedom? I don't know what to call it. But to suggest somebody lacks a right because it is described in negative terms is...well, evil. Look at the intent of the words, not every little technicality. It's like when people try to point out that "may" and "will" or "can" are not the same when in reference to a translated work. It's technically true, but...seriously!
One of the first things this government did for its people was guarantee the rights to "life, liberty, and the right to own property" I believe it was phrased. By being so technical on the language, one could all but negate the liberty part if given enough time to search for loopholes. Nobody's rights should be denied because someone didn't foresee a minor technicality of language. That's like saying Shakespeare's work isn't beautiful because it's not written in perfect American English.
The fact that anyone even suggests this makes me ashamed to be called an American, or even a human being.
More like the "gun-loving rednecks" are behind the current administration 100%. Even to the point of making statements that "we should turn the entirity of Iraq into a glass parking lot" and "if you don't agree with the president, you are a communist."
*bashes his head on his keyboard*
Gonzales should be disbarred for this reading.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Where's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about? How come no-one puts a bullet in people like this? Is it just the shoot terms in the US that cause such apathy in the redneck population? Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
The reason why they shoudn't be shot, not right away is there are four boxes to be used, in order and the last one is the ammo box. The first box is the soap box, next is ballot box, third is jury box. Only after these three have failed should the fourth box, ammo box, be used.
FalconShould there be a Law?
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
Well, the Bill of Rights can similarly be read not to create the rights to freedom of speech, as it says only that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
There were in fact debates among the founding fathers about what sorts of protections should be explicit in the Constitution and (if one were even necessary) the Bill of Rights. For example, section 9 of Article I forbids Congress to pass an ex post Facto law. Why, some argued, was this even necessary? Didn't everyone know that the government just couldn't do things like passing ex post Facto laws?
The founding generation believed in natural, inalienable rights. They likely didn't see their Constitution as creating or bestowing rights, as they likely believed that the rights weren't within their power to create or bestow. Rather, the Constitution protected rights that logically, morally, and temporally preceded it.
I personally believe in natural, inalienable rights, but I think I am in the minority in this. I also believe, however, that the U.S. Constitution is unintelligible without belief in natural, inalienable rights, and I know that I'm in the minority on that. But that's another topic.
This is all a hardliner's plan to create enough bloodshed and violence (closing borders, turning immigrants into felons, imprisonment for citizens without a trial) to enact martial law for the 2008 elections so they can be cancelled until the end of the war. (but I'm obviously paranoid)
More like the "gun-loving rednecks" are behind the current administration 100%.
Not all of them voted for Bush. I knew a few who were against him. So am I though I'm not a redneck, instead I'm a gun loving longhaired hippy libertarian.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And I'll be wanting some bread with those circuses, thank you very much.
--- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
If you are a US Citizen then surely you can't be considered an enemy of the state until you've actually been CONVICTED of doing something wrong. Otherwise what would stop the president from declaring that "thule (9041)" is an enemy combatant and suspending your right to a fair trial.
If someone really is plotting terrorist activities on US soil then surely regular laws will be able to imprison them, try them and convict them without having to infringe on everyone elses rights.
Clinton was never impeached, and the only people that thought he should have been were the republican nutjobs.
It should have never been there in the first place. His ideas align perfectly with how things are in Mexico though, time for him to go back there.
Let's start with the title "the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens." The exact wording in the Constitution itself is this:
I've bolded some key words above. There is a huge difference between a 'right' and a 'privilege'. A privilege is granted or bestowed upon someone by benevolent authority, and may therefore be revoked by that same authority. Rights are moral principles defining a man's freedom of action in a social context. They are inalienable. That means that they may not be morally infringed upon; a robber is in the wrong, and his victim in the right.The Framers of the Constitution were clear that the document did not bestow a right upon anyone. The original text of the constitution used the word 'right' once, in a context not too popular here; copyright and patent law. Even there, it echoed the terminology from the Declaration of Independence, which makes it quite clear that rights don't come from governments:
When the Bill of Rights was written, there was a concern that enumerating rights might produce the idea that those not mentioned didn't exist. So it explicitly included an amendment that said otherwise.As to the Attorney General's comments,
If anything, Gonzales has erred on the side of saying that the Constitution calls it a 'right', which it plainly does not.Meanwhile, 'is' means 'is'.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Several years ago I wrote a state agency in Ohio telling them that they did not have the authority to collect certain data that they were collecting. (We're calling it data type X.) Ohio law specifically says that any state agency must be granted the ability by the state legislature in order to collect data.)
What Ohio law does have, for this particular example, was a law like "Data type X shall not be a public record." The agency I was dealing with responded that the legislature must have indirectly given the agency the ability to collect data type X because they went out of their way to recognize it in another part of the code.
Both this and Gonzale's testimony are creative ways of redefining law.
Given Bush's wanton violations of the law (e.g. 800+ "signing statements", the tapping of our phones, etc.), the Supreme Court's ruling that Bush violated the Geneva Conventions (making him a de facto war criminal), and the many thoroughly warped claims and positions taken by Ashcroft and Gonzalez, when are we going to face the fact that these people are merely wannabe tyrants and are coming closer and closer to shedding their "wannabe" status?
And when are we going to decide that their actions are "high crimes" and act to remove these tyrants from office?
Re the theory of evolution, "theory" in that context is a term with a specific scientific meaning, in particular, "capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation". Creationism does not rise to the level of a theory in that sense, and nor does "intelligent design".
It's just unfortunate that the colloquial use of the term "theory" has connotations that make it sound more tenuous than it actually is, and that people who want to promote a certain ancient fantasy exploit that pun to good effect.
My question is, why are the troops supporting this government?
... probably not.
Because after all the crap that Bush pulled he somehow won the reelection with over 50 million votes. I think Bush is the worst the President the US has seen, but the country screwed up by voting for this guy and now it has to pay the price for it. If anything, maybe people will start taking their voting privileges more seriously
Was it worth it, to make sure that everyone says "the theory of evolution," but simply refers to the opposing viewpoint as "creationism" (shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
Simple, evolution IS a scientific theory whereas creationism IS NOT a scientific theory. Neither is the so called Intelligent Design (ID), ID IS NOT a scientific theory. All it is is an attempt to replace evolution with creationism in science classes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
When I was in school and studied the Bill of Rights, we were taught that many of the Bill Rights were in response to the way British soldiers acted. Storming into someone's house, seizing property especially guns, throwing you in jail without you knowing why and leaving you there, etc. How do teachers now teach this in light of the behavior of the Bush administration? It just keeps getting worse.
It boggles the mind the lengths this administration will go to to systematically erode the rights and privileges we have all counted on and held up as the granite pillars of our society since our nation was founded.
And yet 28% of Americans still support him. What does that say about us?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I live in Canada. It's cold, it's wet, and during winter(lasts 10 months of the year) it's pretty dark so there aren't many rainbows.
/.ers on that list that I've seen, and they were all jerks anyway. They were bundled off to sunny Cuba for MPAA and RIAA-related comments, not for coup-related reasons.
But yes, using my "m4d hacker skillz" I've managed to download a list of all the people pulled off to Gitmo the past few years. Only 3
Since the time of Cicero the exception proves the rule has been a fundamental legal concept: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?041906
It worked pretty well in Chile. It was on the verge of becoming a second Cuba, it is now among the wealthiest countries in the continent.
Circumcision is child abuse.
...nobody, except for libertarians, seems to care about the Tenth Amendment anymore. Whenever you bring up the Tenth Amendment, politicians would then find a clause in the Constitution, such as the "general welfare" clause or the commerce clause, and then use an extremely broad meaning of those clauses to justify their laws that clearly violate the original and correct meaning of the Constitution. If they can't do that, they then withhold funding to the states unless they comply (read the 55mph speed limit and 21-year old drinking age; they were passed neither because the states universally decided on them nor because it was constitutional, but because the federal government told them "either you pass these laws, or we're not giving you your money. Capice?").
I love the Tenth Amendment, but there are so many violations of the Tenth Amendment in modern America that it feels meaningless. Which is sad, because the Tenth Amendment was there to ensure that the federal government did not get too powerful and trample over the rights of the states and of individuals. But, as I said in a previous post on this same thread, it's not what's written in the Constitution, but who interprets the Constitution. And as long as we have Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution broadly instead of strictly to how the Founders intended, the Tenth Amendment will continue to be spat at, and government will be allowed to grow bigger and bigger until we have no freedoms and no economy.
An enemy is someone who is against the cause. In this case, clearly, the AG *is* an enemy because his words are attacking the very cause of this country.
The US citizenry has a boatload of guns, and a fair number of those gun owners really like Bush.
Though I no longer own a firearm, gun or rifle, I strongly support the right of the people to bear arms. I also oppose Bush.
Now if Gonzales successfully removed the right to eat McDonalds and watch "wrassling" then you might be more likely to see a few hundred thousand nutjobs with a rifle go out for some blood. That sort of shit would be too much :P
Unfortunately as you say I fear, more people would get more upset if McDonalds and wrestling were made illegal that if they lost habeas corpus.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, Franklin didn't say it. And the guy who most likely did say it, Richard Jackson, said it thus:
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
We have not held up Habeas Corpus as a granite pillar of our society since our nation was founded.
It has, instead, been held up as a granite pillar of our society for about 300 years before our nation was founded. It first showed up in England in 1215, but only applied to nobles, but within 150 years or so was being applied to everyone.
That's not just a fun factoid. American law includes English common law as of the moment of the creation of the US, assuming there have been no specific written law to conflict with common law. Aka, if 'physical injury' is mentioned in a Federal law, and no Federal law has bothered to define 'physical injury' and no US court has ever ruled on it, 'physical injury' is defined as of English law circa 1776. (As is common law in state law in the original 13 colonies, and states that were no independent nations pre-statehood. If they were independent nations, they have that common law instead. With a few weird exceptions.)
The writ of habeas corpus, by being written in the constitution and obviously not modifiable by any law, is still a reference to English common law, and so while the US is only 230 or so years old, the right of Habeas Corpus under US law is much older.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
preferential tax treatment for reglious organizations
posting of religious symbols on public property
restrictions on abortion
restrictions on pornography
restrictions on private sexual conduct
undeclared wars
and corporate welfare
are also unconstitutional.
Support SETI@home
.. think that sex should be banned in public schools, it's just appalling to see your children participating in activity such as this!
Look, nearly all military takeovers are by those in majors or colonels. It is almost never lower and rarely by generals. But American Officers are free to quit if they object to policy. It is very doubtful that a military takeover will happen.
About the only way that I can see that happening is if the troops are used against Americans at home. At that point, I think that Bush (or any president) would have a very short time to implement his policy before something happened.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I must ask,, How as a people in a DEMOCRACY can stand for this???
Also,, how come I see all of this stuff comming out of DC, eg: Mail being subject to inspection because of the articles of war..BUT NO ONE IS QUESTIONING IT?? Who asks the questions? who is asking the right Questions?? If so, why are they suppressed or just quashed when it gets up against the "Gears of War"?
I tell ya, I smell a consipricy bigger than watergate, the Contra-arms stuff of Regan, Bigger than CLinton's Puny Impeachment Fiasco( not htat clinton is puny, I think he is a good man and was a good president) but the bs stacked against him was insignificant compaired to whats comming around the corner..
For example, Weapons of Mass Distruction,, What happened with that?? Bush getting caught when OPEC leaders called CNN right after Bush got of the fone with them asking them to back down on their proce per barrel during the re-election so Bush could attribute it to his Forign Policy skills, when actually he was just doing it to bolster his re-election..
What the hell Happened to all of that???? Why is he in office, Why is he supported??
In my opinion I think people are not scared of Bush that woudl be laughable, I think people are afraid of What or who is pulling Bush's strings. Because I know for sure he cant be thinking of this stuf on his own, I mean Spam can only burn so much, right??
If I am wrong in these statements listed above, I stand corrected and Humbly aplolgize.
In closing, who is asking the questions, and who is asking the right questions, and who is giving the answers, and are those answers correct and valid??
Hmmm just a thought..
Gk
I've been thinking the same thing quite often lately. The NRA and it's members often claim that they are America's last line of defense against tyranny, so why are they so often standing behind monsters like Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales? If this sort of government is the freedom gun owners are protecting, we'd be better off with the second amendment overturned.
Almost: those who suggest impeachment are imprisoned and held for treason--suspension of habeas corpus makes this easy.
Say hello to the Secret Service for me.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
We need a "sad but true" moderation option.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
the point i was making was the original poster was acting as if these things started eroding the concept of equal rights and personal responsibility with democratically imposed safety nets.. when it was not the case.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Today's featured article on wikipedia is ... you guessed it, the Bill of Rights. Hilarious.
Derive Politics
This should be voted sad, not funny. Under the current administration who is imprisoned and/or executed are not entitled a trial and nobody will ever know about it.
There are a few reasons why. First the US military is an all volunteer force. The people in uniform choose and swear to uphold the Constitution and orders of the officers appointed above them. Second you would have to have at least 75% of the military has to choose to coup, to even have a chance of success. There are police forces and other government agencies along with National Guard units that would have to come on board. It is a logistical nightmare and the upper brass in the military would see it coming a mile away and be able to squash it.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
"Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason."
Are you trying to be funny, or is this a serious comment? If it is a serious comment, please cite a few examples. I'm especially interested in learning more about the execution(s).
I agree. If there is no trial for treason, then the rule of law has ceased to exist in the United States.
The Bush administration is the most corrupt administration the U.S. has ever had. Here is my summary of the corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.
I hope you will write your own summary and send it to your elected representatives.
--
U.S. government violence in Iraq caused more violence, not peaceful democracy.
I don't care if you have firearms. In fact, I don't particularly care why you have firearms. The elites certainly have them, or employ people who do, and the elites aren't afraid to use them to maintain their position of authority over the rest of us. If it weren't police, it'd be Pinkertons. If the elite are armed and the common man isn't, what hope does the common man have?
The problem with gun nuts is that they plant themselves firmly on the right wing, coddled by misguided "libertarian" ideology, turned into nothing but useful idiots for modern fascists. The second amendment is about enabling revolution. We should be looking past the state, past the republic, past capitalist economics, and so on, toward a new kind of society that can't be so easily corrupted.
If the American Republic -- without a doubt the greatest achievement of the Enlightenment -- has failed so miserably, if private property -- such a liberatory force in the face of feudal property -- has failed so miserably, doesn't that suggest that we need to take a new direction rather than fantasizing about times past?
The left wing has, for the most part, at least in the new generation, overcome its 19th century thinking. The state must die. The "common men" who support the right wing must do the same. There's common ground to be had in that regard. We all want control over our own lives, we all want a government as small as possible to nonexistant, none of us want to be beholden to others be it via chattel slavery, wage slavery, or whatever.
There are alternatives. The unfortunate thing is the "grassroots" of the right wing (that is to say, the common man, who has more in common with his borthers on the left, rather than the elites who use them for their own benefit) has its head so far up the ass of religion and bullshit libertarianism that I fear we'll never get there.
Maybe that's not you. Who fucking knows.
Its sad that in the United States today you have to be an extremist to be successful. It seems that no one is looking out for Joe Public anymore. I suppose that is because Joe Public isn't a fan of voting and even those who do put less research into it then they do the new *insert new gadget here* they plan on buying.
Everyone should get together and start voting for the smaller parties. Maybe if we get the Republicans and Democrats out of power we could be relatively corruption free for a while. Another fun idea would be to implement a lottery system in which any citizen has an equal chance for election like the ancient Greeks had.
As a libertarian, I agree with you 100%.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The Turkish military has staged several coups to restore democracy and remove religious and sectarian zealotry from national politics. Of course, they have Ataturk as a national role model, who was basically Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, FDR and Patton rolled into one.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Well, there are a couple reasons. Mainly, the troops are trained to obey orders and the situation in Iraq really isn't that bad. Don't get me wrong, I completely disagree with what this administration is doing, but by and large what they are doing isn't directly affecting most people. 3,000 deaths over 4 years is not something you ever want but in the grand scheme of things is not a particularly violent war. If a couple hundred foreigners are detained in Gitmo and some innocent people get wiretapped, while that sucks, it isn't enough to spark an entire coup d'etat against the military establishment. If a cultural or military revolution didn't happen over Vietnam, it damn sure won't happen over Iraq.
All I'm seeing here right now are the same old, tired, rehashed posts over and over again. Other than the (dare I say it) on-topic references to the Ninth Amendment, there's the thousand and one posters dragging out the same old tired quote from Franklin (repeating it ad nauseam only weakens its impact, if it actually has any left any more), the anarcho-capitalists who find yet another tenuous reason to drag out gun rights (clue: guns or no guns, they have nukes, gas and germs), and the Democrats who think that a Congress, 95% of whom were around for Gonzales' (and Ashcroft's) confirmation to begin with, will actually take action.
It's going on six years since the USA PATRIOT Act. Can't somebody, somewhere, think of something new and original to post for once?
And is there any reason to believe anything short of the state legislatures forming a new constitutional convention would fix this?
Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
Ammo ain't too cheap neither.
What?
Isn't it interesting how someone who isn't in your country has more rights than someone who is in your country.. hmm..
How we know is more important than what we know.
The Chronicle and Sentinel says "his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative."
But when the Constitution was first passed, there was no Bill of Rights. After all, that's why it's called 'The First Amendment', 'The Second Amendment' and so on.
Freedom of Speech was not mentioned in the Constitution at all for two years. It was not even 'spelled out in the negative'.
Does that mean that, during that time, fundamental rights like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. did not exist?
HELL NO! People have fundamental natural rights, whether they are explicitly protected by the government or not. That's why they're called 'fundamental' and 'natural'. An oppressive government or individual may violate your rights. But they are still your rights, and any violation is unnatural and unjust oppression.
Natural rights are not granted by the Constitution or any other document. Freedom of Speech was not 'granted' by the Constitution in 1789, and is still is not granted today. It exists because it is a natural right. The First Amendment is an explicit protection of rights, but it is not a granting of rights. You can't be granted something that you already have!
Similarly, if habeas corpus really is a fundamental natural human right (like freedom of speech) rather than being a matter of good goverment (like 'no laws ex post facto'), then it exists because of the nature of humanity and natural law. Not because the US Constitution implicitly protects it.
For more details, see The Federalist, No. 84"
...is how even the commentary above refers to how "the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens". I'm not a legal expert, nor a US citizen, but doesn't the US constitution apply to non-US citizens living in the US? Or don't us foreigners qualify for the same basic rights under US law if we are visiting?
Just an observation but when we discuss these things in Europe and Canada we tend to refer to them as "human rights" and not "citizen rights".
But he comes to the exact opposite conclusion one should come to. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. The original writers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of rights for the very reason that people would get to thinking that the Constitution grants rights.
Search: "The constitution doesn't grant rights
Lincoln used the freedom and rights for ALL citizens including minorities (and it was suppose to be applied to women). Now, the republican party as lead by a neo-con, want to apply rights just to whoever they say. Scarey. Downright out scarey. I have to wonder when the troops will be used in the country.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I do believe you've all misunderstood what AG Gonzales was saying. I will describe for you my understanding of the AG's position on the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
There is not a Constitutional grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for every person in the country. [Here's an analogy to aid your understanding: the right to trial by jury is not secured by the Constitution for non-citizens in the country illegally.]
There is a statutory grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Constitution explicitly guarantees that any such statutory grant cannot be suspended except in cases of insurrection or rebellion. This is the only thing that the Consitution has to say explictly about the Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Please note, on this point the AG is not actually implying what everyone is inferring. He is making a very limited point, and y'all are reading stuff into it.]
Ultimately, what he is saying is this: it is up to the legislative process to determine whether or not the Writ of Habeas Corpus ought to extend to non-citizens held as enemy combatants who fail to qualify for POW status. He is certainly not saying (or implying) that the Bush adminstration can ignore the Writ of Habeas Corpus for random citizens snatched of the street.
Who's up for a revolution then? Anyone?
Didn't think so.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Not to the citizenry, who, along with the several States, retain all powers not specifically granted to the federal government.
Gonzales seems to come from the Liberal Democrat school of Constitutional exegesis.
Bill S1 (in it's actual TERMS, as opposed to the article that appeared on /. recently) merely requires bloggers who are paid to blog to declare that they are paid, and by whom, if thier blog is read by more than 500 people.
This is focused on political blogs, but it would also stop subversive ad campaigns.
It's good law.
-GiH
Not a lawyer, just a law student.
"if I didn't support the troops , they wouldn't _be_ troops. they'd be doing some other job."
"Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason."
Are you trying to be funny, or is this a serious comment? If it is a serious comment, please cite a few examples. I'm especially interested in learning more about the execution(s).
Although I was being 60% funny, I was 40% serious. Unfortunately, while I can give you examples of people arrested both in the US and overseas, sent to an offshore, unmonitored "detention camp", tortured, degraded, and humiliated for years with no end in sight, or sent to 'friendly' countries that engage in torture that would make Guantanamo marines turn pale.... I'm afraid I can't give you any concrete examples of people executed. Mostly because no reports are allowed out from these 'secret prisons', and the people we send to 'friendly country' secret prisons are also not reported on... so while people have gone missing, and mysterious deaths have happened, the very people possibly responsible for those deaths have told us "Hey, it was an accident, everything is fine"... and we have no choice but to accept their word on it.
Sorry to disappoint.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
It can only choose to disregard them. Rights are natural, and a government that doesn't recognize them is not a legitimate government.
Is that Bush is too dumb to lie; somebody else made up the lie and bush was the mouthpiece for the lie.
He doesn't understand it's a lie, but that's because he's really dumb. He appears to be the puppet of someone else, but at this point, we can only speculate.
Seriously, when you hear the guy talk, it's pretty clear his IQ is double digits.
He has never succeeded at anything in life. He's failed spectacularly. Which explains his performance as president.
I wasn't saying that all gun nuts were rednecks, nor that all rednecks or gun nuts voted for the shrubbery. The vast majority of the union seem to be pro-shrub, though.
It's unfortunate that most gun nuts are all backwater hick libertarians willing to vote against their own interests, and sit on their firearms against their own interests, instead of more rational people capable of fomenting revolution and bringing about a post-state, post-capitalist society.
Even more unfortunate that most anti-gun liberals don't realize that most of their second ammendment toting brethren are sitting right beside them at work and laughing at all the same jokes they are. Or that said anti-gun liberals are too naive to pull their head out of the sand and push their ideals onto as many people as they can, hollering for their fellows and neighbors to be disarmed and made helpless against the lawless criminals that will not be disarmed. Or that they sully the names of law-abiding citizens merely because they own bullets and guns that fire them.
Believe it or not, you probably know someone whom you respect in the utmost, who carries a gun everyday, everywhere. Unless you absolutely refuse to deal with anyone who isn't pro-life, against capitol punishment, pro-laissez faire and vegitarian, I would gaurantee this. You'd never know it, because he/she doesn't want you to. Stereotypes and slander like the bile you just expressed are the reason why.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation (14th amendment) the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So if it doesn't say the feds can do it in the constitution, or in one of the amendments to the constitution, then the feds cannot legally do it. Yeah, states rights is on a serious decline when a state can't even say that it's sickest citizens can take a drug that will help them, because of some insane federal jihad on drugs.
What isn't specifically allowed to the federal government is forbidden.
What does this mean that the federal government can do?
Protect the borders.
Regulate interstate trade.
Go after criminals who flee into other states for a few capital crimes.
And that is pretty much it.
Like that would help. Look how much ado was made over the definition of the one syllable word "is".
...Gonzales obviously doesn't have a clue about the distinction between negative and positive rights. Maybe he should go read some more Kant.
Yes, I agree. Don't assume because of what I said I am a "liberal." I am not. I am profoundly anti-state. I support decentralized government and decentralized economies. I am socially as libertarian as it gets and yet I reject markets and private property as anachronisms. I strongly support the idea that if elites have guns, we ought to be able to have guns, too. My entire point is that we must look past "liberals" and "conservatives." We all have a lot of common ground.
The fact that I'm angry people get duped into black and white thinking doesn't mean I think in black and white. It just means I'm angry.
By definition rights aren't given. The quote the Oxford dictionary
One cannot grant rights as they are there by default. They can only be taken away. That's why the US constitution doesn't grant Habeas Corpus, because it is there by default.
Gonzales is a dangerous man, as his position is "you have no human rights". The constitution writers position was "you have human rights, but at times we will take them away from you".
Oh, it looks like I misinterpreted your initial comment. Stitching together the original post and your reply, I thought you meant:
... Unless you're saying that you have examples of people who, having called for Gonzales' impeachment, were subsequently sent to offshore detention camps and subjected to torture?
"Because, those who suggest that [AG Gonzales, et al. should be impeached] have been imprisoned or executed."
Apparently, you were making some unrelated comment about extraordinary rendition, and you weren't actually saying anything about people who suggest that AG Gonzales ought to be impeached. My bad!
Err
I remember reading about the end of the Tokugawa Era in Asian History class. One of the first things that happened after the Meji Revolution during Restoration was a poor attempt at banning swords. The ban even went as far a banning the expert experience of swordsmanship in battle and so anybody who was previously a samurai and had opposed the state was given the option to work for the state or they were marked with a warrant for their death. However, the latter was so intense of a punishment that they had to scale it back to accompany for the fact that there must've been thousands of armed soldiers who survived the revolution and where in the opposition of the Meji. Many will not that this is one of the emphasized facts used in the Rurouni Kenshin anime series which does stay true to the weapon ban law of the time.
The practice of hunting down soldiers may have been scaled back, but merely owning a sword on private property without the blessing of the state could mean at best compensation, weilding one in public usually meant jail time at best. I say at best because many of both the local and state police were highly corrupt and were often being bought off by various crime syndicates or politicians. In addition many of the individual police officers were scumbags to begin with and the laws of the time really only stated minimal punishment. It would not be at all uncommon to have been killed for owning a sword in private. The police at the time would even reserve the right to execute individuals who expressed disagreement with the officers during the time of arrest.
This is just one of the many examples of what happens to people who have been denied the right to bear arms. They live at the mercy of unjust laws living everyday in fear of "the law" knowing they can be killed by some rouge cops on a power trip and they have no way of defending themselves. Bob Marley was right when he sang about the Law and the police in many placed when he sang "I Shot The Sheriff."
Pagan? Geek? Check out #paganism on Freenode IRC
You present your points fairly eloquently, but you do not defend them at all. This might be a sign that you are trolling. If you are, well, good job. I bit. Can you, in fact, demonstrate that the American Republic and private property have "failed so miserably"? Do you know what you actually want "post-state", or is it just a nice revolutionary sounding phrase? Would you care to tell us exactly why you think "libertarian ideology" is misguided? Could you please explain why you think that the "common men" who support the right wing must die? Oh wait, that one can probably be chalked up to a minor mishandling of grammar. Would you mind informing us of what these "alternatives" are? What are the characteristics of "19th century thinking", and in what ways does left wing thought differ from "19th century thinking"? Furthermore, in what ways is non-left-wing thought "19th century thinking"? What does "the common man" have in common with his "borthers on the left"? Also, how does "the common man" differ from "the elites"? And finally, what on earth does religion have to do with this?
Your rhetoric sounds quite reminiscent of Marxist rhetoric. Is this (Marxism) the position you are advocating? If so, I'm afraid that I would have to contend that a Marxist society is much more easily corrupted, because much more is under central control. If you can gain control of that center (and Marxism presents no real defenses against this, although defenses could certainly be created), then you have gained control over nearly everything. Whereas with a capitalist economy, gaining control of whatever center there may be (government, in the case of the US) does not automatically grant you control over much. You may be able to use the powers of government to gain control over more, but certainly with a free economy, corruption is more difficult than with a command economy. Furthermore, I am not aware that there are alternatives to these two (other than linear combinations of them, of course). So, your claim that we need something which is not capitalist economics and which is less easily corrupted appears at face value to present a contradiction (the universe explodes).
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I'm curious. A combatant taken prisoner in Afghanistan is in what exact State and district for the purposes of jury selection?
Oh, that's right. A legal proceeding against an enemy combatant isn't a 'criminal prosecution'. He's either a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions, or he's an unlawful combatant (perhaps because he's not wearing a uniform or equivalent) who our troops have authority to immediately execute as spies.
I think it's very important to draw the distinction between that sort of person, and those who are either US citizens or legal aliens, who the President or his delegate (such as AG AG) one day puts on an Unlawful Combatants List. I'd like to get clarified the distinction that the Constitution makes between 'privileges and immunities' of citizens, which we have in addition to the rights that all humans have.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I think the only way to save the United States from eventual collapse at the hands of dictators is for the people to rise up against the currently elected officials and simply vote them out of office. For example if you usually vote Democrat, vote Green instead. If you usually vote Republican, vote Libertarian instead. If you can't identify with any existing independent party, create your own that's based on freedom and liberty and try to attract a candidate to run.
The way I see it, 50% of the population voted, with the votes being almost equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Statistically, this means 50% of the country is on the right, and %50 on the left, and half of those think the entire process is either broken or impossible to influence. The latter is patently false. If the people who didn't vote in the previous election came out and voted for third party candidates, there is a very good chance that a majority of electoral seats would go to third party candidates simply because people suddenly deciding to vote will probably go for a third party candidate as the only hope of changing things, while a few of the people who voted in the previous election will switch to third party candidates.
For such a scenario to work, both the left and the right would have to produce viable third party candidates. In reality, this is just a matter of perception and not actual skill as previous Two Party elections have proven. Internet campaigns and grass roots efforts would have to bring the candidates to the attention of the general public.
As far as I can tell the reason third party candidates have failed in the past has mostly been because voters on the candidate's side of the political section have been afraid to "throw their vote away" and let the opposing Two Party candidate win. If two strong third party candidates are running on both the left and the right, voters will be much more willing to vote for who they really want, instead of for the lesser evil. The biggest problem with this whole idea is simply convincing the general public that it will work, and of course finding viable third party candidates. To be honest, I have no good ideas for who those candidates should be, but that's not really important. What's important is that qualified candidates believe that such a strategy could work, and decide to run as a third party candidate. That's all I'm asking for, some choice. We have two years, that should be enough time for any number of candidates to compete and let the public decide who their favorites are.
I may be overly optimistic, but I don't see any other way to fix the American political system.
Be dethroned by the past,
Walk twards elogance
On the wings of simplicty comes a time to say good bye to what you know
For surely now,
Is such a time
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
I think the best think I can say about this: Get Gonzales out. Get him out NOW!
Grr. Insanity.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
The US Constitution doesn't grant any rights.
The Founding Fathers considered it to be "self evident" that humans had basic rights to life, liberty, and property. The wording of the Constitution grants power to the US Government, not rights to the people. The Federal Government was given the power to suspend the universal right of Habeus Corpus under certain very specific conditions.
Sadly, very few Americans understand that's how the Constitution was written. And nobody in politics (except Congressman Ron Paul) seems to understand either.
There are terrorists out there cracking HD formats and downloading mp3s!!! This is serious people. They have to be stopped and its best to shoot first and ask questions later.
I don't think Gonzalez is evil, I think he's a moron. Conservative justices, led by Justice Scalia don't believe the Constitution grants the "right to privacy," which, literally, is true. As others have pointed out, the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it only limits what the government can do with rights held by the people. (Bill of Rights Amendments 9 and 10.) Seems pretty clear to me, but maybe there's some valid debate in the Constitutional interpretation.
Gonzalez, however, seems to be mixing the right to Habeas Corpus into this debate. I don't think any of the justices have tried to argue that a right *doesn't* exist when the Constitution states clearly that said right *cannot* be denied. I mean, that's moronic.
Gonzalez is a moron.
Stereotypes and slander like the bile you just expressed are the reason why.
Yet you just did the same thing. You're a hypocrite.
It's called forked tongue speak, Al Gonzales is good at it.
The 8th Amendment says, "Excessive bail shall not be required..."
But the Supreme Court has held for a long time that this does not mean you have a right to bail.
IF you are granted bail, it can't be excessive. But if you aren't granted bail, then that text doesn't apply to you.
You know, a lot of people talk about how crappy the United States is becoming, and compare it to Orwell. I don't think that's really an apt comparison. What you really want to do is watch Terry Gilliam's "Brazil." Don't worry. The movie really has nothing to do with Brazil. Instead it's a black comedy about what the future is going to be like (or, for the pessimist, what the present is already like).
Every time I watch it, I'm horrified. It tried to show a future society that is almost comicly inept in just about everything it does EXCEPT totally fuck up peoples' lives. It's far less comedy now, and more like a documentary on current events.
Seriously. Give it a watch if you care at all about privacy, rights, the superiority of a person over an institution, or such things. And perhaps we can all start talking about how our societies are becoming more Gilliamesque, rather than Orwellian.
fifth sigma, inc.
IANAL, I am also not from the USA. So apoligise for my lack of understanding of the US constitution if this is obvious. Is it possible that the Bush Administration could use the constitution to suspend the next election? Perhaps indefinitely? Something like, claim it is wartime and until the job is finish changing leadership could play into the hands of the enemy. I know elections have happened during wartime, Abraham Lincoln is probably the best example, but does the constitution allow for this.
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
Actually in a lot of mideastern countries the military is a strong secular, progressive force.
The Bill of Rights only serves as a last measure against attempts by the government to infringe upon these rights. Our cherished First Amendment, for example, does not give us the freedom to speech. We were born with that right. The amendment simply restricts Congress from making any laws curtailing that freedom. It important to remember that these rights we enjoy are not simply words on some document, but instead are our unalienable and fundamental rights as human beings.
One of the arguments against adding the Bill of Rights, was that the explicit and written protection of certain rights and freedoms would cause some to forget about those not included. Thus the oft forgotten and yet critically important Ninth Amendment declares that: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We do not need some piece of paper or court to tell us that unlawful and secret imprisonment is a violation of our basic rights.
As a procedure it is not self effectuating,. It requires statutory implementation.
The writ of habeas corpus is common law. It does not require any statutory implementation! If a prisoner challenges their detention, their challenge must be brought before the court except "when in times of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Even then, it may only be suspended, not eliminated altogether. So when the Attorney General says:
He is lying.
Gonzales could have phrased his answer in a form more pleasing to the public. But he is not just "technically right". He is fundamentally right, and the principle underlying his answer is a greater defense of our liberty than a position that the Constitution is the fount of our rights.
The position underlying Gonzales's answer is that he doesn't want to go to prison for violating the civil rights of hundreds of people. He needs to convince gullible schmucks like you that he hasn't violated any laws. The position underlying his answer does not defend our liberty one tiny little bit!
The Constitution predicted military coups and set up safe guards in place to prevent it. Or do you think the states having their own militias was an accident? On a related point, look at the relative sizes of the professional armed forces vs the citizen-soldier armed forces.
Hence, the army isn't going to do something the citizens (and just as importantly the states) don't stage coups lest their poor asses get shot off.
It is not the responsibility of the military to clean our messes up for us. It's yours and mine.
the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela
Do you mean the Venezuela in South America? 'Cause the only thing that's an example of is how a thug can take over a control and rob its people of their wealth while lining his own pockets.
Oh, wait, that is progressivism. My mistake.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I wasn't saying that all gun nuts were rednecks, nor that all rednecks or gun nuts voted for the shrubbery. The vast majority of the union seem to be pro-shrub, though.
Perhaps that's because he supports the right of people to carry firearms.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Who was it that observed the longer and more democratic the name of a country, the more tyranical its politics?
Welcome, citizens, to the Democratic Peoples Republic of the United States of America.
do those rights include the right of the government and their corporate lapdogs to silence their critics by denying a permit? or maybe its the right to make their protests irrelevant by moving them to the nearest "free speech zone" some 40 miles away?
If you want to make the case that it's ok for law enforcement to move protestors for practical concerns that's one thing, but to make them ask permission from the two groups most likely to be the target of the protest is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
by rob its people you mean nationalizing the oil industry from the power elite and actually using their national resources to help the majority of venezuelans who are below the poverty line, such as buying unused land from the rich to create farm co-ops for the poor, then i guess so.
Please educate yourself.
But the president does have the power to do it.
Under the Constitution he has the power ONLY if there is a rebellion or invasion. In only ONE case in all of US History has it been suspended, and that was during the Civil war due to rebellion.
I dug out my old Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution, Paul C. Barhtolomew, Littlefield, Adams and Company, Totowa NJ, 8th edition 1973. Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9487 (1861 is worth quoting in full. It arose from President Lincoln's attempt to suspend habeas corpus during the rebellion of southern states in the war between the states:
"The petitioner, a citizen of Baltimore, was arrested by a military officer acting on the authority of his commanding officer. The petitioner was accused of treason against the United States. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while on Circuit Court duty, issued a writ of habeas corpus directing the commanding officer to deliver the prisoner, and this was refused on the grounds that the officer was authorized by the President to suspend the writ.
Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Taney while on Circuit Court dutyQuestion---Can the President suspend the writ of habeas corpus?
Decision---No.Reason---The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be set free on the grounds that (1) the President, under the Constitution cannot suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This can be done under the Constitution only by Congress, since the provision appears in the Article of the Constitution dealing with Congress, and in a list of limitations on Congress. (2) A military officer cannot arreest a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, except in the aid of civil authority when the individual has committed an offense against the United States. In such a case the military officer must deliver the prisoner immediately to civil authority, to be dealt with according to law."
I wish that every citizen of the USA would keep this book on a shelf, and refer to it. Ex parte Merryman has never been overturned by another decision. The US government has violated the Constitution, as read by the Supreme Court in 1861, in many ways. The President has vacated habeas corpus on his own, without Constitutional authority. The congress has suspended habeas corpus without a case of rebellion or invasion in the US. Prisoners of many sorts---those in Afghan and Iraqi prisons, those at Guantanamo, several in military prisons in the US, and others who have been captured (e.g. while changing planes in the US) and sent to imprisonment in other nations---have neither been subject to "the rules and articles of war," nor delivered "immediately to civil authority."Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
Didn't we suppress all the voices of the computer intelligentsia by electronic entertainment? Did you wake up out of your Warcraft/XBox/Playstation trance already? Go back to sleep... Oh! I mean to say... Haven't you heard the Burning Crusade expansion pack is out? Join the 1.2 million minds who purchased the game on the first day and are already sleepily leveling to 70.
I'd like to see this article in a Slashback in a few weeks, with an update on the number of Slashdotters who have called for the AG's death, or even just his impeachment, who have been "disappeared" to Gitmo. I'm willing to bet my next two paychecks that that number will be '0'. Which is odd, because if the administration were half as evil as some people think, the number would be a lot higher than '0'.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Interesting information I suppose but NOT news for nerds!
This is perhaps the umpteenth article kdawson has posted that has been put on the front page that has nothing to do with nerdery.
Please, stop the madness!
It's one thing to nationalize the oil industry. It's stupid, but hey, he's a thug, not a Harvard MBA, so I'll cut him some slack. But he's taking the oil and giving it away to Alaskans and New Yorkers, for free or almost for free, while his people are starving. How is that helping his people?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I hate to break it to you, but the defeat of Section 220 of S1 was not a shining victory for bloggerdom. It was grossly misrepresented by a targeted astroturfing campaign designed to bring about exactly what happened; a bunch of outrage from people who read the spin but never read the bill. It had nothing to do with free speech, but that didn't stop the spinmasters from using it as a hot button to drum up opposition to a law that they wanted stopped.
And before you come back and say "it was so about speech" go read the bill and tell me where, exactly, is the part where any fine, penalty, requirement or restriction can be triggered by any act of free speech--posting on a blog, yodeling from your roof top, or passing out pamphlets on the street corner, whatever you wish. It isn't there.
If you are still barking up this tree you need to face the facts: you were pwned.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
About nothing. He was making a quibbling little technical point, that the Constitution does not expressly grant a right to the writ of Habeas Corpus, while being questioned by a bunch of quibblers -- the senate judiciary committee. And guess what? He's right -- it doesn't. In fact, there's technically no right of habeas corpus at all, there's only the right to *petition* for the writ. (A 'writ' is a court order.) But, even though the Constitution doesn't expressly grant the right, the writ is well established in US law. Heck, the language of the Constitution implies that habeas corpus is even more foundational than the Constitution itself.
Seriously, I usually laugh my ass off when I watch Brazil, and I've watched it a lot.
It's a black comedy, a parody of the present, that never takes itself as seriously as you think it does. It has some really brilliant performances by some of the finest actors around. However, that's not why I laugh.
I laugh because it's true. It's so very close to the truth, and for two decades now, I've watched the gap between the movie and reality shrink. If I didn't laugh, I'd go completely insane.
Truly one of the finest movies of the 20th century. Or at least one of the most twisted.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Evolution is most certainly a theory, it is not considered a law. Don't take that the wrong way, in comparision, creationism is a hypothesis, calling it a theory would be an elevation of status. Hypothesis, theory and law are the three major states of scientific knowledge that I remember, and each takes a lot of work to go from the lower state to a higher state. The problem is firstly, even scientists aren't always specific enough about the use of these words. Another problem is that somehow the popular idea of theory has been watered down.
I think the 2004 "W" win was a coat-tail reaction to the "gay debate", the war didn't seem to have much to do with it. Also, oddly enough, there are people opposed to changing presidents in the middle of a war, though the Jon Stewart example of the bus driver that drove the bus into the ditch should not be allowed to drive again comes to mind.
got sources to back that up? because the populus of venezuela all support him as evident from the failed CIA-engineered coup. it's only the small rich minority who lost power due to the new constitution (established through a mass referendum) and the media elite who oppose him.
You can't be serious. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Watch.
From the US Constitution:
From Our Wartime President Himself:
And finally, From TFA:
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
--MarkusQ
But Democrats are weak and stuff. Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi San Fransisco and swiftboats for truth.
Bush feels.... right. Yeah yeah, all that war stuff. Man, so many words... hard. Bush is strong. Manly. And he hates faggots which is better than John "Flipper" Kerry who people call "Flipper" like that gay whale dolphin.
Although the power is very seldom used, the House of Representatives can impeach cabinet officials.
Oath of office for the Attorney General:
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
He's reading the constitution backwards. It is not a list of rights granted to the people, but rather a limited list of powers granted to the government by the people. The bill of rights further limits those powers.
Quite right, those things should all be done away with as well.
... declare someone's degree null and void? Gonzo obviously slept through at least a few lectures. Take away his degree before he does any more damage.
I caught that exchange (between Specter and Gonzo) and my jaw dropped. Some of the stuff you hear coming out of administration official's mouths can only be the result of overexposure to some sort of reality distortion field. I think it's the only explanation. If not that, then they'd actually have to be as stupid as their public statements would lead you to believe.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
"You're fucked if you speak your mind and you know you will..." http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000J3FB FC001016/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_016/102-2816215-954414 4
Ummm... I dunno.... the subject really sums it up.
Oh yeah, do the country a favor and resign you raving fuckwad.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
I see illegal mexicans standing on the corners constantly pandering for work. The police refuse to talk to them or arrest them, giving them more privacy than the average american citizen. Yet, the no knock laws say i basically have no rights to any privacy.
...Shows Gonzales is either ignorant or lying.
Our Oath of Enlistment:
I, (NAME), do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me. (that's my version anyway).
The people decide our leadership, not us (the military organization).
Besides, would you really want me patrolling your neighborhood with a weapon? I know I don't want to do that. Don't know anyone else in the military who wants to do that either.
...a racist traitorus pig who is a member of la Raza, said group indicating they are working towards the eventual outright seizure of the 11 western statesand a return of them, by force eventually, if necessary, to Mexico, yes, force, by some legal but mostly illegal aliens and various other deluded sympathisers. True facts, anyone can look them up. They don't even hde it! It's not any big secret! That's their plan, by hook or crook, either outright sheer raw numbers assimilation or get close enough then it becomes a fait accomplie, a little nasty work at the end if it is needed. Then welcome to the machete! And they are allowed to waltz around freely spewing this crap,which is TOTALLY ignored by the globaisat controlled mass media, while we get hit over the head daily with this pie in the sky "al queda" nonsense which by and large has nothing to do with us and on the list of important threats to the US mainland is way way way down the list.
He and his group and the nutjobs who back them at the highest national and international levels are NO different from any other racist or tyrannicaly bent superiority group that is commonly villified by civilized people. He is also on record advocating/and or excusing torture of anyone "detained" under authority of this or that stupid "Act" or "signing statement" or whatever other vile gibberish they publish that becomes "law" of late, as official policy, and doesn't see anything illegal about it, because anyone "detained" automagically is no longer a human with any born with or constitutional or even old roman or english common law civil rights,nope, once "detained" they become a "terrorist" instantly, based on..get this..their say-so, and *that's it*. Just beng a terrorist is illegal. How do you become a terrorist? They say so! Isn't that handy? They don't need a reason, they don't have to tell anyone about it, and if YOU know it has happened to anyone and blab about it, then YOU can be "detained".
Isn't that special?
That's all true stuff and there's even more than that. Go google it up, plenty to choose from to verify all that.
And the Dems are still goofing around playacting at any real change. Do people get it yet, the political show they keep swallowing? They should have had the whole top cabal there under indictment by now in their first 100 hours BS political stunt if they were truly honest and at least half assed patriotic, but no-o-o-o-o, can't do that! And they won't, either, because at the top levels they are almost completely compromised.. All you will get from them is some cosmetic changes and your wallet will get lightened in a few different ways from the Rs, and you'll still keep losing rights, see more and more cameras go up, more and more emphasis on the upcoming getting chipped for your convenience, more and more RFID will be in everything, "untrustworthy computing" will proceed by mandated law, and so on and so forth, the whole list, because that is what they have been doing incrementally for the last few decades and it hasn't stopped yet.
That's why this article isn't the least bit surprising to me, based on the track record of the past three administrations primarily when this stuff really hit high gear in the powerband. Same smell, slightly different looking piles of shit. Oh look, this season's pile is swirled to the left instead of the right! Why, that's some real progressive change there!
Please remember, it's not just vague scare quotes and alarm phrases that make him a bad president and his administration incompetent. Everyone has ignored domestic and fiscal policies which have greatly harmed North American unity, which in turn turns into an attack on the economic prosperity of the whole geographical area. Also, cutting taxes while increasing spending is something that will increase federal debt, which will decrease the amount of available money in the budget in the next fiscal year due to increased debt maintenance costs.
Why attack the man and the administration for simply being corrupt, when you can attack them for being incompetent and corrupt?
It's been a long time.
The growth of fascism is correlated with the growth of oligarchical private power. When large private organizations (today, known as corporations) gain enough power, they begin to exert influence on the state. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few large organizations. After a time, these organizations become inextricably linked to the state; they act in the interests in the state, and the state acts in their interests. The symptoms of this are everywhere today in America, ranging from the lobbyist epidemic in Washington to energy companies actually writing energy legislation.
If you study the rise of the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, I think you will find evidence of a tight coupling of private power and the state. Fascists were supported by many of the largest European (and American) corporations, partly because fascist policies favored their profit margins. There is ample evidence of this; Henry Ford was an early supporter of fascist ideas, and Coca Cola invented the Fanta line of drinks in order to sell to the German regime.
Both the government and these corporations idealized self-interest as the guiding principle of society, believing that the public interest could only be served by individuals and organizations pursuing their own self-interest. However, such a viewpoint implicitly favors the most powerful, giving them license to increase their power with impunity. The worship of self-interest and power was taken to its extreme by Germany, and eventually led to the actions in the late 1930's that we commonly associate with fascism. But the period leading to the rise of European fascism should not be ignored, as it is highly applicable to our current predicaments in America.
Here are some quotes on private power that were written in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract). When I read these, I am reminded of recent American politics.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Here's some logic maybe even Gonzales can understand.
"Mr Gonzales, how many fingers do you have on your right hand?"
Gonzales:"5"
"Now, the constition says the Government may not chop off your fingers, correct?"
Gonzales:"Correct"
"But the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, did it?"
Gonzales:"No"
"So Mr. Gonzales, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, and the Constitution says the Government can't take them away, that you probably had them to begin with?"
Gonzales:"..."
The depth of irony here is almost beyond pale. The AG of the United States arguing that the Constitution doesn't explicitely grant a right, which is exactly why the authors of the Constitution framed it the way they did to prevent exactly such arguments. The Constitution *grants no rights*, because you inherently have *all* rights. Same as you were born with fingers and toes, you were born with all rights.
These rights are not just if your an American, they are *inalienable* human rights as understood by the founding fathers.
Truly, this administration doesn't understand what "becoming the enemy" means.
Because Americans are full of ignorant people who don't really care.
The word you're looking for is "Usians". Americans are not Usians. There's no need to insult Mexicans and Canadians.
So how can one claim to be fighting for freedom and "The American Way", while at the same time taking away that very freedom and desecrating all those men that gave up their lives war after war for freedom and keep from giving a maniacal laugh at the same time?
This administration has to be either the most dishonest or mentally challenged administration in history! George W. Bush is responsible for his own actions. Do not assert that the actions of his grandfather are his responsibility aswell. These are two different people -- you can easily disapprove of either man -- but don't merge them into one person for you to drive your rage at.
---FourChannel---
and it completely distorts his original meaning.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This from his book "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania". The problem with your quote is that you imply this is a historical consequence ("will lose both") which is over reaching from Franklin's statement. Other problems include mistaking "little" for "essential" (apparently, he only had a problem if you were giving up an essential right while you are saying that any abandoned liberty--like, say, farting in a theater--is a reason to lose both liberty and security).
I'm afraid that you don't understand the thrust of his idea.
Now, if you want to say that giving up a little liberty for a little security is a bad thing, go right ahead, but please stop giving professional credentials to it beyond your own.
Oh, and to avoid the needless flames, Habeas Corpus is a Capital "E" Essential liberty.
I don't think anymore that Mr. Gonzalez is human. He seems to be lacking a conscience if he can justify torture and thinks the constitution is a rag. Despicable man. Thank you Martha Stout (author of the Sociopath Next Door) for "Thirteen Rules for Dealing with Sociopaths in Everyday Life". Rule 4 in particular is of great value with this Gonzalez humanoid. And here they are: 1. The first rule involves the bitter pill of accepting that some people literally have no conscience, and that these people do not often look like Charles Manson or a Ferengi bartender. They look like us. 2. In a contest between your instincts and what is implied by the role a person has taken on -- educator, doctor, leader, animal-lover, humanist, parent -- go with your instincts. Whether you want to be or not, you are a constant observer of human behavior, and your unfiltered impressions, though alarming and seemingly outlandish, may well help you out if you will let them. Your best self understands, without being told, that impressive and moral-sounding labels do not bestow conscience on anyone who did not have it to begin with. 3. When considering a new relationship of any kind, practice the Rule of Threes regarding the claims and promises a person makes, and the responsibilities he or she has. Make the Rule of Threes your personal policy. One lie, one broken promise, or a single neglected responsibility may be a misunderstanding instead. Two may involve a serious mistake. But three lies says you're dealing with a liar, and deceit is the linchpin of conscienceless behavior. Cut your losses and get out as soon as you can. Leaving, though it may be hard, will be easier now than later, and less costly. Do not give your money, your work, your secrets, or your affection to a three-timer. Your valuable gifts will be wasted. 4. Question authority. Once again -- trust your own instincts and anxieties, especially those concerning people who claim that dominating others, violence, war, or some other violation of your conscience is the grand solution to some problem. Do this even when, or especially when, everyone around you has completely stopped questioning authority. Recite to yourself what Stanley Milgram taught us about obedience. (At least six out of ten people will blindly obey a present, official-looking authority to the bitter end.) The good news is that having social support makes people somewhat more likely to challenge authority. Encourage those around you to question, too. 5. Suspect flattery. Compliments are lovely, especially when they are sincere. In contrast, flattery is extreme, and appeals to our egos in unrealistic ways. It is the material of counterfeit charm, and nearly always involves an intent to manipulate. Manipulation through flattery is sometimes innocuous and sometimes sinister. Peek over your massaged ego and remember to suspect flattery. This "flattery rule" applies on an individual basis, and also at the level of groups and even whole nations. Throughout all of human history and to the present, the call to war has included the flattering claim that one's own forces are about to accomplish a victory that will change the world for the better, a triumph that is morally laudable, justified by its humane outcome, unique in human endeavor, righteous, and worthy of enormous gratitude. Since we began to record the human story, all of our major wars have been framed in this way, on all sides of the conflict, and in all languages the adjective most often applied to the word war is the word holy. An argument can easily be made that humanity will have peace when nations of people are at last able to see through this masterful flattery. Just a 6. If necessary, redefine your concept of respect. Too often, we mistake fear for respect, and the more fearful we are of someone, the more we view him or her as deserving of our respect. I have a spotted Bengal cat who was named Muscle Man by my daughter when she was a toddler, because even as a kitten he looked like a profe
What's truly frightening is that George Bush wanted to name this guy to the Supreme Court, where he could make these "creative" constitutional interpretations have the force of law !!
Usians, not Americans
They more they talk the worse their ratings get.
So please let them keep talking.
The more we know what their thoughts are, the more we know what kind of people they really are.
The best thing they could do now is stop talking.
Goes to show the length at which people will go to subjugate one another.
It's a disease of the ego.
(They also think that tolerance equals advocacy.)
If you think what they are saying is good thing?
Then let you be the one.
> Err ... Unless you're saying that you have examples of people
> who, having called for Gonzales' impeachment, were
> subsequently sent to offshore detention camps and subjected to torture?
With the current administration changing the laws how would you ever know? Seriously.
And when does the war end? WHEN THE ENEMY SURRENDERS. If they don't that's their tough luck.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
A man who wants nothing is invincible
It's true! For the price of a bullet, I can get three flapjacks!
It's been a long time.
What America needs most of all is a constitutional amendment to require *congressional approval* for sending American soldiers *into armed combat*. Giving the President unfettered access to the US military for whatever purpose *he sees fit* makes winning the Presidency an irresistable prize for the fascist elements in US society.
Congress needs to assert itself on this issue and make it stick - take back authority over when and where to wage armed combat.
Then the neocons can run for congress if they want to have input into who to invade.
Because they know it is hard to get back from that point. It's a very long way away, but putting a lot of emphasis on the military and on one paticular religeous faction gives you something like Pakistan in it's darkest days. I find the increasing political influence of radical anti-intellectual sects based loosely on Christianity very disturbing coupled with political leaders having to put an emphasis on their military service - that sort of thing makes it easier for a coup when the real military think people want a real godfearing military government.
The way I see it the best thing the west has going for it is the rule of law. A King John style monarchy is not my idea of a good government.
Got sources for that? I remember that during the height of the current oil crisis, Chavez was offering oil assistance to several US cities. Don't have a link, sorry. I'm sure Google would surely pull something up (hint: Citgo is a branch of the Venezuelan Petroleum Company - it was going to go through them).
As for only the small rich minority and the media elite opposing him... I missed that during the mass demonstrations by the middle class. And bringing up the referendum with the implication that he is supported by the majority of the population is dishonest. The monitors for that referendum generally agree that there were lots of shenanigans around (though nothing that could be outright construed as fraud), and Chavez paid out billions in aid to the poorest of the poor in the months before the referendum.
All in all, Chavez is a populist thug who thinks he is the next.. ummm... Marx? Stalin? Castro? In any case, he loves being a hero for the poor, and doesn't care about the good of his people. Otherwise he wouldn't do shit that lowers the overall GDP of his country.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
do you know what the GDP is? what good is a high GDP if the income gap continues to increase in a country where over 60% of the people living there are below the poverty line? the number of people living below the poverty line has from 60% to 43% from '97 to '05. yes, he truly is robbing his people and not thinking of the good of the nation.
There are strong parallels to be drawn with the jingoism of early 20th century Europe.
Is that a ding I hear? GET BACK IN THE MAGIC HOUSE!!!
I was scrolling through the comments to see if I needed to post this response, you beat me to it. I'm tempted to spend precious time searching for my username and password in order to give you points for insightful.
I won't start on a lesson regarding The Declaration of Independance or The Constitution of The United States of America. I however will take a moment to cut and past a very important quote from it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let's cut it short, if we include the sentence that immediately follows (you find it yourself), it clearly says altogether that the reason why "The United States of America" actually exists is because the founding fathers (no mothers in those rooms back then) felt that our three basic rights had been infringed upon by King George III (he is named specifically). It was not the right of the colonists, but their DUTY to form a new government and declare independance from a man whose actions were describes as :
of an absolute Tyranny over these States
Let me point out that the purpose of The Constitution was to begin to define law for a country where little more existed than a mission statement. The Declaration of Independance was in itself a declaration, but clearly defined the purpose of the document. Why it existed.
Well, let me tell you this. King George was in fact a tyrant. If it weren't for the two hundred years of laws that have been written since the declaration, it is clear to me, our President George would definately live up to his name. Fortunate for us, President George only gets 8 years and can only remove a few handfuls of our rights in that time.
I am proud to be an American. I am also proud to have settled down permanently outside of America. I disapprove of the route it is taking and for the quality of my life and the quality of my childrens, I would prefer to remove myself from a country plagued by politicians that wear either white hats or black hats and seek to overturn 200 years of what made America great by exploiting the grays of law.
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT!!!! It means "We're spelling this out for you because apparently, you're to stupid to understand it yourself George!!!!"
This always scares me. I have never meet this guy myself, only people who claim to speak on his behalf. And disagreeing with God never seems to be an option with those people.
As far as *I* can see, all the right we have, we have solely because other people choose to respect those rights. This seems to indicate that the rights are given by people, not by any god. The set of rights formulated (or was the formulation also godly inspired?) by the US founding fathers seems to me to be one of the best such bill of rights out there. I think the Americans should be proud of them, and fight for these rights to be respected.
Of course I could be wrong, and the rights are really are God given. In that case, fighting for them should be unnecessary. Just lean back and wait for the lightening bolts to hit those people who violate them.
"...Americans are full of ignorant people...."
...If this is true, just allow a brief respite
-for purposes of digestion
Then, Great Work of the Gastronomic Reduction of the General Level of Popular Ignorance
can once again proceed
-so long as the Fava Beans and Chianti remain in plentiful supply....
Cheers - and do try the Priest!
S. Todd
Rock vs. scisors: The people beats the government: Hmm, guess so with revolutions and all.
Scissors vs. paper: Government beats the constitution: Seems to happen a lot, I'll grant you that.
Paper vs. rock: The constitution beats the people: Now what is that about?
So, in no case, will a politician ever be hold responsible for his actions by the voters.
Anyone notice it getting warm yet?
Bush didn't tell lies about the weapons of mass destruction. I lie is when you say something you know is wrong, and at the time nobody knew what Saddam had done with the WMD's he was known to have possessed (and used) earlier, and "destroyed them without telling the world" was not a popular guess.
Bush did lie about the war against Iraq being connected to Al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was exactly one of those US inserted puppet dictators that had generated a huge resentment against US and fertilized the ground for Al-Qaeda. Nobody in the Bush administration did at any time suspect a connection between the arch enemies of Hussein and bin Laden. They were stupid, but not that stupid. That part was a deliberate lie.
Of course now Al-Qaeda and the Baath loyalist are allied in Iraq.
- when people give power to religious extremists. What America needs more than anything else is a pragmatic leadership - one that doesn't dream up 'great principles' and religious moral, but simply relates to reality as it is. Sigh.
Too much Civ4 methinks
While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative
There is a substantial difference between habeas corpus and most of the other rights enumerated; habeas corpus is a right to have the state do something on your behalf (i.e., get a judge to examine a case of imprisonment to determine whether it is legal or not), not a right to not have the state interfere with something you could do for yourself (which all the other quoted examples are). Therefore phrasing it purely in negative terms is not enough: it has to already exist.
Of course, it did already exist when the constitution was phrased, because US law at that time was essentially British common law, in which it clearly existed, had existed for a very long time, and was well-described in the relatively recent Habeas Corpus Act 1679, signed into law by King Charles II. The author of that passage of the constitution will have known this, and that was the basic background he was working from.
Forget Godwin's law for moment. These people are the real deal.
So what you're saying is that it should be "the theory of evolution" vs "the fantasy of creationism". I like it :)
Now if we could only get everybody on /. to use these terms in the future, maybe it will spread and we can finally make "the masses" understand.
Lonestar Planet
'nuff said.
"It boggles the mind the lengths this administration will go to to systematically erode the rights and privileges we have all counted on and held up as the granite pillars of our society since our nation was founded."
It only boggles the mind if you haven't read much history or have little idea how totalitarian states arise and work. USA is turning into the textbook example of a fledgeling police state. It's not too late to turn back, but it is unlikely to happen at this point because the majority of the population is either uneducated or in denial about the fact.
*Ahem*
Perhaps you could make a better effort to research and understand the law before you go spouting off comments like that.
Even if the Second Amendment referred only to ownership of arms by a "government sponsored militia" (which it doesn't), there's the little fact that under the provisions of USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311, every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years is a member of the militia of the United States. Look it up.
In regard to the wording of the Second Amendment: what makes you think "the People" refers to a government-sponsored militia, rather than, you know, to the people? Does the notion of a prefatory clause confuse you?
The way some people here are defending Clinton removes any doubt that may have existed in my mind that, if Bush were a Democrat then the hard core partisan Democrats would be supporting his every move. You people are hypocritical morons. Clinton may not have committed crimes as serious as Bush, but I argue that this is due only to lack of opportunity. Clintons conduct in the Lewinski affair, the Paula Jones case, the mysterious death of Vince Foster, and several other incidents should be enough for any reasonable person to call Clintons character into serious question. I have no doubt that had history afforded Clinton the same opportunities that it has Bush, that Clinton would have proven himself every bit as criminal. I would even posit that Clinton would have been a far more effective and oppressive psudo-dictator than Bush, seeing as how Bush is an utter idiot and Clinton is quite intelligent. These things seem rather obvious to me, but I fully expect these insights and observations to be totally lost on the roving gangs of blind partisan fools that populate slashdot. Wake up, people. Unscrupulous, power mad politicians are the real enemy and no political party is going to protect you from them.
(shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
No, because creationism is not even a theory in the scientific sense. What testable predictions does it make?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Don't worry, there are at least of few of us gun nuts with our heads on our shoulders. :-D
The Bush administration is the most corrupt administration the U.S. has ever had.
Rather at least the most overtly corrupt. Maybe it's more a case of improved communications exposing this corruption, whilst the administration is still in office...
Well, he is an attorney.
Even people who commit mass murder, rape children, or download music online get attorneys.
(OJ, the RIAA, Charles Manson, and SCO all have attorneys)
His job is to argue for the executive, even if he doesn't personally believe in the argument, so he gets points for doing his job, which is an important part of the legal process; but loses points for such a lame argument.
But I wonder if he's argued that some people don't have the right to representation themselves. I recall an expression; "The first lawyer in a town is a poor man, when the second one arrives, they both become rich".
By failing to uphold the justice process, he is attempting to destroy the work of his fellow lawyers, so that they cannot represent clients, earn fees, and make a living.
I wonder what Bar or other association you need to be a member of to be a U.S. Attorney, and what his fellow lawyers think of him at this point (the only lawyer I know personally is very much anti-bush anyway)
rather tired, I expect that when I re-read this tomarrow, I'll be all "What was I thinking?"
There are a ton of replies to this matter, so I apologize if I'm retreading tires here: After reading several comments, which I must say many of them make extremely good points backed up by facts (collective intelligence is really quite amazing) I did come up with a few ideas that I wanted to talk about...First off, I had to think about why Gonzalez would say something like that? I know many of you feel it's just another awful augmentation (sorry Condi, had to use your word) of this current administration, and that's probably true, but something had to give him cause to even come up with this. I don't just throw down some heavy bs unless I've got motivation to do so, so here's why I think we have to joy of getting to debate over this: You might remember some time ago last year that there was quite a bit of squabbling over whether or not suspected terrorists would be able to view/hear the evidence laid against them by the United States because it might contain "sensitive data pertinent to national security" which at the time some people did share with me that it really meant "we don't really have anything on you, but are suspect enough to be guilty". And maybe now that theory was right and that's what Gonzalez is trying to do. We have all these people locked up or detained or being monitored because there is suspicion that they are linked to terrorism, and it feels like a policy that wants to assign guilt by association. There's no quantifiable proof, or at least nothing that a half-decent lawyer couldn't dispute, so of course Gonzalez would say that not everyone is promised proper proceedings. The second part of this issue, where I feel Gonzalez has totally gone wrong, and even where the "conservative-leaning" (as some say) Supreme Court has even documented, as this does not apply to US Citizens. Not now, not ever. The Supreme Court ruled on this in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) in which any accused US citizen will not be denied the writ of habeas corpus even if declared an "enemy combatant" as defined by the November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order. I do feel that our nation does need to be protected from threats domestic and abroad, and I would even support the use of some tactics that some might feel would compromise our freedoms, but as with anything like that, you can always execute within reason. One thing I love about Washington, they love to talk in black and white and then they whine in the gray area. It is truly the crux of modern democracy.
Sometimes the law is treated as a tool rather than the rule. If someone's not causing trouble, they often leave them alone. Remember this the next time a traffic cop decides to let you off with a warning.
So a citizen who independently seeks to overthrow the government is not guilty of treason, only those who support him are?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Well, I'm a bit unhappy that it's happening in my lifetime, but at least I'm not living in the USA anymore.
;)
Read some history, ladies and gentlemen. Over the years there were quite a few world powers you'd never think of today: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and so on. These were countries of POWER. They ruled the world.
And after a collapse, they're now very friendly tourist destinations with lovely countrysides and nice people - who don't get on the nerves of their neighbors.
The state collapse always followed the same pattern. And you can see the exact same thing happening in the USA now. Read it up, you nonbelievers
Personally, I like the USA citizens - at least the ones I met while I lived there for a while. It's the state which is running itself into the ground, and which will collapse relatively soon.
I'm sure the country will turn into a beautiful destination for tourist travels; it'll just take a few years.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Yes, because pinochet implemented free market reforms and then gave up power more or less voluntarily. This makes Chile quite rare in the history of coup d' etats.
Given the overall 'success' rate I'll still pass on the option.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
If it is political in nature or if you are a Global Warming Skeptic.
It seems neo-conservatives are learning to interpret laws in the same twisted way radical liberals do it.
If you disagree, tell me: how is this different from Roe v. Wade, where the 14th Amendment was reinterpreted as meaning this:
a) That non-USA citizens have no right to life on USA soil;
b) That fetuses are not citizens;
c) Thus that fetuses have no right to life on USA soil;
d) But that for some mysterious reason non-fetuses have indeed a right to life on USA soil;
e) And thus that only fetuses have no right to life on USA soil?
It's so illogical that even more reasonable liberal law scholars that are pro-choice still can't agree with the thing.
Gonzales "reasoning" works in a similar way: if the plain reading of what the law says doesn't support your political agenda, read it in another way, no matter how outrageously absurd it is, and bet your success on having enough people wishing to go with you.
What you Americans are lacking is, IMHO, a political party whose focus is "Constitutional Conservatism", something that would strongly reject any kind of unhistorical reading or reinterpretation of the fundamental law of the land, only accepting changes by way of due constitutional amendments.
The way your country is doing things these days, with lawyers and judges being able to alter the meaning of the text in such as way that it ends saying the contrary of what it was meant to say, without any of this having to go through actual established legislative procedures (the Congress for standard laws and State ratifications for Constitutional changes), is wreaking havoc on your rights. If you don't try to change this, in the end you'll have laws that mean nothing, and thus no rights at all.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Read the summary I wrote, linked in the grandparent post. It would be difficult to find an administration more intensely dishonest and corrupt and incompetent. Fernando Collor de Mello's administration in Brazil didn't kill as many people, for example.
--
U.S. government violence in Iraq caused more violence, not peaceful democracy.
As a swede I've always been skeptical about the US citizens right to bear arms, but in one stroke it all became clear to me!
Two wrongs do make a right!
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
14. Paragraph divisions are our friends.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
> Why hasn't the military staged a coup d'état?
Q.: Why has there never been a military coup in the United States?
A.: Because there's no U.S. embassy in Washington.
I second Knux, what human rights violators in Brazil? Theres a corrupt government, but its not the dictatorship of the 60s.
i l
Id actually say the US is far worse in human rights violations these days (see: Iraq, Guantanamo, etc).
Heres a Wikipedia article for you, which states "Police violence is one of the most internationally recognized human rights abuses in Brazil", which it is, but its also a problem in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Braz
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
" . . . but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted."
The rights aren't "granted" because a wording that suggests The People have "permission" to speak freely, etc. implicitly recognizes the supreme authority of the government!
The brilliance of our Founding Fathers was exhibited when they elaborated our inherent freedoms in terms of limitations on government power rather than a wording that lists things that people are "allowed" to do. If our rights are "granted"[given] they can always be taken away. The Constitution states that our rights are inherent and that we may not be deprived of them. Gonzales and his doublespeak be damned.
You act as if that wasn't the plan all along.
didn't GIVE rights to people, it TOOK them AWAY from governments.
I can't remember who was arguing the point, but in an IEEE publication someone brought up the interesting point that if you depend on the law to be too exact, you're basically giving criminals the ability to "hack" the system. I would suspect that writing a perfect law is as easy as writing code that will determine whether an arbitrary program will halt. That's why you want (good) judges to have the ability to "interpret" the law. Obviously, this suffers from the problem that bad judges also have the ability to interpret the law.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Although there were only 6 Justices when the Constitution first went into effect, there were 10 Justices at the end of the Civil War (9 at the beginning), and are currently 9.
Furthermore, it was Marbury v. Madison that establshed the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter - in 1803.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Like this one from yesterday:
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report."Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
Iran: Israel, US will soon die
What?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Did you actually read what he said? Here's the choicest part:
Now, come on. Doesn't that at least qualify as *stupid*?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I think you're thinking of Slartibartfast.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"...Attorney General Alberto Gonzales actually had the audacity to argue before a Congressional committee that the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens"
Fine. Amend the constitution so it does. Plainly and comprehensively. It's hard to believe Gonzales was the first person with the legal acumin to realize it was absent (what *have* those lawyers and judges been doing using habeas corpus all this time in the U.S.?), but I guess he should get full credit for this startling legal discovery. The legal concept *only* goes back for centuries. It's amazing, but I guess the people who put together the U.S. constitution forgot about it.
I'm sure he and the Bush administration will be pushing to fix this problem right away!! It'll be quite the accomplishment for this administration. Maybe Gonzales and Bush will win the Nobel Peace Prize for their work to bring the U.S. constitution up-to-date with the (rummages for history of habeas corpus) 17th century or earlier.
Wow, great response, although there is the mostly theoretical alternative (all attempts to try this have been violently crushed from the outside) of anarchism. Anarchism has two serious obstacles, the first is the aforementioned external powers saying no way are we going to let this happen! The second is that it depends on people behaving in their long term best interests, which we seen is improbable although it does happen on occasion.
Right, because Bush is a republican in the school of Barry Goldwater...
All you have to do is look at the Department Homeland Security to see how little Bush cares about small government.
The tax cuts exist for only one reason, so that Bush can pander to the fiscal conservatives - you know the ones that aren't so much for conservative government fiscal policy as they are conservative with their personal finances. In other words the same people who would have stopped voting Republican post-Reagan had the government not kept handing them money.
"With the current administration changing the laws how would you ever know? Seriously."
...]
If the current administration *wasn't* changing the laws, how would you ever know? If someone were to be disappeared by the government, whether or not the gov't was changing laws wouldn't matter a bit when it comes to people ever knowing about it. If anything, all of the law-changing would bring heightened scrutiny -- so a gov't desiring to disappear people would certainly seek to throw off suspicion by giving lip-service to the existing law. [and so the creeping paranoia of the conspiracy theorist begins
Maybe a bit of understanding can be gained drinking from the headwaters in The Dreamtime America.
Note that Natural Rights are NOT gifts from THE Creator, but THEIR Creator. This applies to every human who has been, is, and will be, and ALL are endowed with this Natural Liberty by their personal conceptualisation of the Creative Force. This is not an abstraction of Thomas Jefferson's written work:
Congressman Keith Ellison recently used Jefferson's copy of the Quran for his symbolic photo-op after being sworn in as the first muslim Congressman in American History. Jefferson also respected atheists:
Jefferson often showed more respect to atheists and pagans than he did to traditional Christians:
And there is no doubt whether Jefferson believed that habeas corpus was a Natural Right, possessed by all humans:
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
I encourage you to copy or come up with your own, and SEND IT. TELL OTHERS TO!
Dear Sir,
I am writing to you because I am scared. I am scared of our government, and I am terrified because I've never been in this position before. I'm twenty one, barely even a voter, and I've grown up believing we are the best nation in the world. However, the recent turn that American politics has taken is terrifying. Post 9 11, security measures were passed, and that's understandable. We live in a dangerous world, and we need to be kept safe by our government. But, in recent times, it seems that the people have come to think of Washington, D.C. as 'the' government, not 'our' government.
As a Republican, I'm given to understand that you believe in small government with limited power over the freedoms of the people. Recently, the US Attorney General, MY Attorney General, has made the claim that the rights not granted to us by the constitution are not assumed to be ours. This flies in the face of the tenth amendment, common law, and common sense. Our country is becoming more authoritarian by the second, and I am frightened by it. Our country now has very visible and disturbing parallels to pre WWII Germany. 9 11 was our Reichstag fire, and now we are running scared in a direction I do not like.
As my representative in my government, what are you doing to protect the rights of the people of this great nation? What can WE do to put executive power in check? I want to help. I want to make the citizens realize what's happening and stop it. Tell me what you are doing in regards to this, and tell me how to help.
One who has actually READ the document and understands that the Constitution doesn't confer rights to citizens (the creator does that, whether you believe the creator is God, the Spagetti Monster, or random chance) but grants limited rights to government.
Whether Gonzales is ignorant or a lying sack of shit, he needs to go away. Of course, that's true of this entire administration.
Let's recap, shall we?
Care to try again?
--MarkusQ
P.S. If you're stumped, you may want to try switching to something like "Think of the Underwear Gnomes!" It won't be any more convincing than "Think of the Bloggers!" but it might be a refreshing change of herring.
Great. Next thing you know "The Trial" will no longer be a fictional story.
You name me one president in modern history who has directly assaulted the constitution with such vigor as the Bush administration. Never have so many doors to our constitutional rights been closed, locked, and had the key thrown away, as right here right now.
There should be riots in the streets that the ATTORNEY GENERAL doesn't feel the right to a fair trial and due process is a guaranteed right of every citizen.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
sheesh, could the story be any more biased ? the opening line "In yet another attempt to create legitimacy for the Bush Administration's many questionable legal practices" man, just post the story and let me be the judge.i don't need to be spoon fed your ideology in every damn story on /.
Someone in the know, where do we begin to petition his removal from office? He is not fit to be a part of this democracy.
That is in contrast to Natural Law, which holds that human beings are born with "certain unalienable rights," as stated in the Declaration of Independence and implied numerous times in the US Constitution, and those rights are granted by a Higher Power than any human legislature. Under this theory, the Constitution serves to protect rights that already exist; it does not create them and certainly shouldn't be allowed to contradict them, although it has in the past, but I digress. According to Natural Law, any legislation (signed into law or not) that contradicts a Natural Right is illegal and unenforceable, and it is perfectly natural for such laws to be broken. No human law can contradict a Law granted by a Higher Power.
For a purely secular view of Natural Law, the "Higher Power" could be a reference to the Universe itself, and not necessarily a deity.
Because if the right does not exist how can it be suspended? If there was never an explicit grant there is nothing to suspend so why talk about it being suspended.
Besides aren't we talking here about inalienable rights? Which in fact means unable to be taken away.
It also appears like an attempt to ignore Amendment IX amongst other bits and pieces.
However, his actions might be (partial) responsibility of his grandfather.
A family can bestow certain ethical values - if this was missing from his ancestors, there is a greater chance it was not passed to him while he was growing up.
In the slashdot world I would guess that just the beta tags on this post should get the article a flamebait, or troll modifier. But then again.... your mileage may vary. ;-)
"Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous." "I hear and I forget. I see and I rem
He was using OR, not XOR ;)
I don't think the Constitution explicitly allows for the citizens to keep and bear arms then, by their logic. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The sad fact is that our own government is, always has been, and always will be, more of a threat to our freedoms than foreign enemies.
You're splitting hairs that not even Gonzales split. Look at his own words: "It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion."
Do you actually think it's not a right, or are you just playing devil's advocate?
Note also the definition of privilege:
So, if we're going to get all technical, this is a right that was granted (as opposed to an inalienable right, perhaps). Therefore, Gonzales is wrong when he says "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus." No matter how you slice it, he's wrong - unless you're going to start arguing about what the definition of "is" is. (As in, technically, it doesn't say that, but it sure as hell implied that when it said the right/privilege could not be suspended. What do you think they meant, if not that the right/privilege was there in the first place?)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The scariest part about this whole argument is not the fact that this argument is being made, governmental agencies have been trying to make this argument for over 200 years now. The scariest part is that the Bush administration has been trying to make this argument, to a lesser degree, since the 9/11 attacks. The idea that these are not absolute (other than Justice Holmes' famous "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" line) is an absurdity. The Bill of Rights was enacted to limit the Federal Government's power over states and people. These are unalienable rights and I find it amazing that anyone thinks habeas corpus (the right to seek redress for unlawful imprisonment) is not an absolute, inalienable right.
If somehow they're allowed to do this, police can arrest and hold people in jail, indefinitely, without charges. Somehow I had hoped this only happened in other countries, but now I worry that our administration will change all that.
MEF
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
What a sick son of a bitch. All from the heart of America...GG and americans elected this in 2004..to think -_-
What does this have to do with News for Nerds. I'm sorry. I'm tired of all of this Bash Bush BS on slash dot.
It is perfectly valid analysis to look at the behavior of family members through the generations in order to find out whether there is a pattern of behavior that one can use to predict future behavior of members of that family. Genetics and parenting account for quite a bit of observed human behavior, don't you think?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well at the very least, maybe Daddy would stop bursting into tears over how the media is treating his son if he'd just realize the son was bringing this all on himself.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"I think we should follow Gonzalez instruction, suspend his habeus corpus rights and just toss him in a hole for all eternity where he can starve to death. Maybe after a few months, or decades he will have a change of heart regarding the importance of this right."
QFE Best. Suggestion. Ever.
Even if the Second Amendment referred only to ownership of arms by a "government sponsored militia" (which it doesn't), there's the little fact that under the provisions of USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311, every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years is a member of the militia of the United States. Look it up.
That's a statute, not a Constitutional provision. Which means that if Congress passes a law incompatible with that Section you cited, then the later law overrides the earlier one.
Why is this on Slashdot at all, except for someone's left political ranting, and a Slashdot admin willing to promote it?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
> the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas
> corpus rights on US citizens.
Uhhh, the attorney general should realize the Consitution doesn't bestow any rights whatsoever. The people (perhaps via their states) retail all the rights. They are inalienable and congenital. The Constitution creates the government, and grants it powers, powers over those rights, with the permission of the governed.
That's what makes this nation philosophically superior to most others, even other democracies, which either have no constitution and a parliament with unlimited powers, or some kind of constitution that presumes government, then goes about "granting" rights to "the people." Nobody ever bothers to ask how some people, calling themselves "government" gained the power to grant "rights" to other people. Like little kids playing a game of traffic cop, the bossy ones take charge and make themselves the cop while the other kids drive the tricycles around crying.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The US Attorney General is right. The Constitution itself does not expressly grant Habeas Corpus. It just says when it can be taken away. Article 1 Section 9 does say "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The Bill of Rights does cover the idea of Habeas Corpus in Amendment 6, but not expressly mentions the words Habeas Corpus. Case law and custom does support Habeas Corpus, especially Ex parte Milligan.
If a US senator asks if the Constitution grants Habeas Corpus, the correct answer is no.
In God we trust, all others require data.
The Dhimmicreeps have been insisting for years that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms wasn't explicitly granted by the Constitution. So why should this sort of logic bother them. .... Only three rights are listed explicitly but clearly the Founders had a longer list in mind. Any cursory reading of the document makes that clear.
Fundamental problem is that language about all men being endowed with certain unalienable rights among which are
The Courts have also peered into shadows and penumbrae to construct a case for unlimited rights to do certain things not explicitly listed in the Constitution. I am of course referring to abortion. Roe v Wade was, in my view a bad way towards a legitimate end. There were other ways to accomplish the legalisation of abortions but Roe v Wade was about the only way to give a fig leaf to the "Anytime Any Reason" abortion rule the Dhimmicreeps will defend to the last 'creep.
And just to make my position on abortion clear. There are times when it is the only viable solution to a medical issue but abortion for convenience in the 2nd and 3rd trimester is an abomination.
So, to summarise, the RKBA explicitly mentioned in the Constitution can be limited but the right to abortion, not found anywhere in the document or Bill of Rights and constructed from dimly seen principles, cannot be? Consistency is not the legal system's forte going by this standard.
IBM
Score: 5, Insightful.
This is the kind of democracy the U.S. wants to export to the rest of the world?
Saddam, in one single day, killed some 50,000 people just to test out his nifty new WMD (poison gas). While more & faster than usual, it was not out of character for him to order the deaths of large numbers of people. In his last election, he got 100% of the vote - not because the people liked him, but because the alternative amounted to "please torture me and kill my family."
The option was/is not "N dead or 0 dead."
The option was/is "N dead or 100*N dead."
Which would you rather see? if the US did nothing, would you criticize the non-involvement?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Selling Saddam Hussein poison gas is hardly non-involvement by the US.
"America will be much better off after he is gone! Anybody else would be better than him!"
Okay, Universe, I get it, I was wrong. Anybody else who isn't a fascist ass-kisser would be better than Gonzales. I expect this wish to also be perverted and for me to regret saying it three years from now...
The enemies of Democracy are
Marbury v Madison was also the first case of Judicial Activism from the Supreme Court. It was a case that even the Chief Justice and Opinion writer agreed had no standing in their court. Many of Marshall's contemporaries disagreed with his analysis:
In the final analysis though, it is the citizenry who decides constitutionality, not nine old pontificates who publicly display their fetish for black satin moo moos. Everyone must decide for themselves how far their knees bend in acquiescence when facing this tyranny.
There is no justice to be found in a people which allows its government multiplicity in its application of power over individuals. There is no freedom in a people who believe that their liberty is a grant from the government. There will be no peace in a country which does not carefully guard the rights of even their worst enemies. The Dreamtime America becomes naught but a brutal memory if we do not leash and muzzle our leviathan which was loosed upon the world as a wolf among the sheep in the throes of our vengefulness after September 11, 2001.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
While I agree with you, I'm going to play devil's advocate.
/. are on the fringes of society. The sheep we make fun of, well, by calling them sheep, are the mainstream society: the soccer moms, the well-to-do businessmen, the American Idol worshippers, etc. How much will their lives change if habeus corpus is revoked? Heck, how many of them know that habeus corpus is something to be protected? And you wonder why they don't know what it is? Because even if removed, it won't affect them. They tow their party line, so neither party will touch them. They vote for the same person every year because politics usually means little change in the average person's life.
We here on
So you can say, "But why isn't everyone up in arms? Oh, right, they're ignorant." Why should they care? It won't change a thing for them.
The founding fathers also offer a solution to America's current problem: whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The problem with stating that rights come from a creator, or are inherent in nature is simply pragmatic. You must look at the reason that people made a statement like that to begin with. The only place rights come from is other people's willingness to defend those rights. You can squawk all you like about God, Nature, or Ronald fricken' McDonald giving you rights, but if other people won't uphold those rights, all your squawking means nothing. So people claim those rights come from some higher authority in order to convince others that upholding those rights is important.
The problem here is that this is a very base level of moral reasoning, amounting to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The problem is that others may not believe in your proposed source of authority. That is why it is important to cut out the bullshit and go stright to the heart of the matter. You must convince people to uphold rights not out of respect or fear of authority, but out of pragmatic self interest.
Consider the case where you are utterly alone in the world. You would no more conceive of the concept of rights than a fish would conceive of water. Rights are not inherent within the individual, because without society, the very concept would be meaningless. Try telling a wolf about your right to a fair trial. Try explaining to a tiger that you have the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. Without society, these phrases are meaningless.
I repeat: the only reason anyone ever brought Nature or a Creator into the picture is in order to convince others to uphold particular rights by appeal to authority. That is the only point, the only goal: getting others to go along with your ideas about rights. Remember, my claim that my right to Life and Liberty is not going to stop a bullet or a knife, no matter how loudly I shout about it. A bunch of armed friends ready to retaliate may. That is the ugly, cynical truth of the matter.
The constitution is a malleable document. We can change it. We, the people, can rewrite it to add or remove any rights we like. Any rights we add become self-evident, granted by the creator, according to the language. Any rights we take away, such as, oh I don't know, the right to burn a flag or the right to marry a same sex partner, are gone, and it doesn't matter one bit that at one time they were considered inalienable or Creator-granetd, now does it? I'm sure there were some black people, prior to the civil war, who would have had some very interesting things to say about rights, inalieanable, Creator-given or otherwise.
Do not be trapped by appeals to authority. Recognize where rights really come from, outside of the comforting fairy tale. They come from your willingness and ability to uphold them in other people. They come from your ability to convince other people to uphold them in you. That is all, but that is enough.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This was originally about censorship, but apparently it works as well on other arbitrary uses of power. We could use a rallying cry. This could help.
It stops where it starts, or not at all.
Happy people don't start revolutions. This is not an American trait. It is a human trait.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
you responded.
If you want to make the case that it's ok for law enforcement to move protestors for practical concerns that's one thing, but to make them ask permission from the two groups most likely to be the target of the protest is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
I agree that the permit process has been abused. Various watchdog groups have been filing suits based on these abuses like crazy.
But the justification for it is valid.
The thing that a lot of people who complain about judicial activism seem to fail to realize (although I suspect it's not eluded your notice) is that 7 out of the 9 Justices were appointed by Republican presidents. That was true before GWB took office, and it's still true today.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Right. It makes sense "logically" (as in the computer science sense of the term only), but it doesn't make sense "logically" (as in the common sense use of the term). Furthermore, one could argue that English is a context-sensitive language (as opposed to context-free - and yes, I'm abusing the word "context" in an extraordinary rendition kind-of-way), and hence from the context (including the fact that it was built on Common Law, which includes the right of habeas corpus), the statement that you can't take away that right except in case of rebellion or invasion is a clear admittal of said right of habeas corpus. There's a reason that English isn't used as a specification language, of course.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Today's "neocons" love the idea of a big government, so long as it is big in the right areas. They are downright offended by social programs, but they'd have no qualms about spending a few trillion dollars on the military. The idea is to kill social spending. And it'll be the first thing to go because anyone who wants to cut military spending is against the troops and is a traitorous coward.
You cannot justify the War in Iraq by simply saying that Saddam was a very bad man who killed his own people. We (the US) have ignored many very bad men who killed their own people. Why the sudden concern about Iraqis?
How about the Sudanese government, who at this moment is supporting and supplying a genocide that has resulted in the deaths of 400,000 people? Why haven't we invaded? Why didn't we invade Cambodia to stop Pol Pot? Why didn't we invade Uganda to stop Idi Amin.
US attorney General Alberto Gonzales is unfortunately right, however he is spinning his statement to appear to say something other than it does.
Yes, the constitution doesn't grant any rights explicitly. What Gonzales is implying is that because it doesn't grant rights they don't exist. This is a fallacy of spin. The constitution explicitly specifies when rights may be suspended only. Thereby saying that by virtue of being human you have these rights and they need not be granted by any government.
The founding fathers recognized we are to be subject to the rule of law (verses the whim of the people or king), so they specified when it is in the best interest of the people to remove certain rights for the greater good, and to forbid the government from tampering with them otherwise.
"Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy
I have never gotten off with "just a warning", always a citation, even when being very very kind to the officer
The court most specifically DID NOT rule that non-USA citizens have no right to life on USA soil. They DID NOT rule on the citizen status of fetuses. All they said was that it was not the intent of the writers of the 14th ammendment to protect fetuses, which is pretty self evident. Please, read more about Roe v. Wade from non-propaganda sources. If you can back up any of your absurd statements with references, then you might have something, but as it is I'd say your argument rests on false assertions.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Four levels back, I challenged anyone to point out where, specifically the bill would have had any impact on free speech.
When I pointed out that your last response was just smoke and mirrors and didn't answer the question you came back with...
...and then just repeated your claim. I doubt seriously that Mr. Holmes has ever read the bill in question, since it was just written this year and he has been dead for some time. But even if he had somehow gotten a hold of a copy (from H. G. Wells maybe?), the quote you cite doesn't mention it.
Why not just quote it in full right here? It's not that long:
...oh, I see. Perhaps you didn't quote it in full because it has nothing to do with free speech and that would have been obvious to everyone if you had provided more than just a link and a snotty remark?
First off, you don't need experts to see when something is illogical, which is what I was pointing out. In fact, such appeal to authority is generally considered a logical error.
Secondly, what expert are you talking about? How about a UCLA law professor that agrees with me?
Finally, your question-begging statement "The gov't would be placing restrictions, with possible jail time for not "having your papers in order" before engaging in certain types of political speech." is exactly what I'm challenging you to substantiate, from primary sources (e.g., the bill). Simply restating it doesn't serve, will not make it true, and if anything serves to further my conviction that you not only know that what you are saying is wrong but are actively working to perpetuate this meme, knowing it to be false.
You are correct, I misspelled it in my irritation; I also missed a closing tag on my list. As for applying it, how about an example:
This is a perfect example of a non sequitur right here--a reply that has no relevance to what pre
So if we negate 2/3 of the document, what rights DO we have?
And did this idiot swear to uphold the constitution, not try to tear it apart?
The founding fathers knew this nonsence would happen.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm so sick of hearing about how Americans are lazy, stupid, don't care, etc. It's a false stereotype, fabricated by people who simply do not understand the U.S.
Americans care, first and foremost, about rule of law and proper procedure. This is why you don't see huge impeachment protests, coups, assassinations, etc. We trust in our electoral system for making changes in government. We trust it enough to not constantly short-circuit it by impeaching people every time we disagree with them. That's why Clinton had even higher approval ratings after his impeachment than before--to most Americans the whole process was unnecessary and unseemly.
Americans are paying close attention, and in case you didn't notice, they voted their unhappiness pretty clearly last November. I know you want us to change right away, but here in the U.S. we believe in our laws enough to let things play out as prescribed. Even most of those who strongly oppose Bush's policies are willing to wait and see how things play out with a Democratic Congress. We voted a change and now we're going to see how it goes.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant" and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals "kangaroo courts" because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.
Some language in the new law also suggests that "any person," presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.
"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.
Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that "any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission ... may direct."
Who has "an allegiance or duty to the United States" if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.
Besides allowing "any person" to be swallowed up by Bush's system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush's tribunal process to play out.
The law states that once a person is detained, "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever ... relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."
Keep passing the open windows...
When we consider what was written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we really need to give consideration to the hypocrisies. When the forefathers say "self-evident", they are saying that with the same attitude that people hundreds of years ago said that "the earth being the center of the universe is self-evident". Or the existence of God is "self-evident".
I mean, most of our forefathers owned slaves. Most of our forefathers felt women should not vote. Most of our forefathers felt that the practice of homosexuality should probably be punished by death.
In my opinion, nobody has any unalienable rights. When you are born, you live until you killed by someone (or something) else.
If you want to be smart, don't worry so much about protecting your "rights" or your "perceived rights". Forget about that and worry about how you can sufficiently influence your own environment to allow you to live your life to its fullest. Whether that is through money, through love, through giving, or through force.
Is it now considered "bashing" to be wary about people who claim to speak on behalf of God? I know political correctness has gone rampant in the US, but I had no idea it was so insane. If people speak for God I can't argue with them, as God's authority clearly superseeds mine. That leads to all kind of nonsense (like 9/11) which scares me. My apologies if that hurts your sensitivity.
> Inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
Lots of people live separated from the rights we talk about. And as the article shows, even for those who do enjoy them there is no guarantee for them being permanent. So they cannot be inherent by that definition.
> You have to claim and stand up for your rights. You. Not somebody else.
Unless I'm a lot stronger than than everybody else, I cannot unilaterally create any rights. Rights require some kind of consensus. The way rights are created and maintained, is by building that consensus. Even organizations like RIAA and MPAA needs to buy the support of politicians and to some degree the population at large for all the new rights they create for themselves (in the form of DRM and more).
And I am not letting you deprive me of my right to acknowledge the people who created the rights I enjoy today. They are the result of a long struggle to change the hearts and minds of the people, and to shape a society where they can exist. They way we can best honor them is to work to maintain the consensus and the society where they can exist, not by leaning back in an illusion than they are in any way permanent or inseparable from us.
> I know personal responsibility s not in vogue these days, but it is really something that we
> should not abandon so readily.
Why are you then so willing to do it, talking about inherent rights, abandoning your responsibility for their creation and maintenance?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So even if Habeas Corpus isn't enumerated, it still exists, and can't be denied except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
But this still doesn't explain why some opponents of the President think that Constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens of the US need to be extended to their enemies.
Our original Constitution forbade taxes on personal labor and private control of currency. Look at what we have now; - the Federal Reserve and income taxes.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. But that is not the case. The United States government has no power to issue money, control the flow of money, or to even distribute it - that belongs to a private corporation registered in the State of Delaware - the Federal Reserve Bank."
"The purpose of the personal income tax is to redistribute wealth upward and to control the civil society. The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to redistribute the wealth upward and to control the civil society. The receivers of the redistributed wealth and the controllers of the society are the private owners of the Federal Reserve -- not the government."
http://www.populistamerica.com/federal_reserve
The problem with this is that the grandfather's actions dealing with Nazis and Arabs led directly to the war the grandson is fighting right now. Or rather, specifically NOT fighting, as he's too big of a coward to take to the field himself as long as there are other people's children volunteering to be sent.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There is nothing truthful in any comparison between Barry Golwater and the foulness of Contemporary Conservatism. The Senator had very little in common with the GOP at the time of his death, and readily admitted it. To compare Goldwater to Bush in this thread is evil. There is no question which side of personal liberty Goldwater stood upon. After his retirement, he became an outspoken advocate for gay rights, and clearly stated that it was oppositional to the tenants of his brand of conservatism to work against their natural rights as human beings.
Goldwater was outspoken in his criticisms towards GOP presidents he felt had abused their office:
Goldwater had little patience for the 'religious right', especially when they attempted to get him to pull his support for Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. O'Connor turned out to be both honest in testimony given regarding her judicial philosophy, and a real conservative on the bench, instead of the right-sided activists which are defined as conservatives presently.
Goldwater clearly foresaw the threat of religious fervency to the GOP. He had no love for America's TelevangelTubby fatwads:
Goldwater didn't mince his words, yet was capable of placing a tremendous amount of hard hitting message into a small package:
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
I, for one, am calling all of my congresspeople, and insisting that Gonzales be impeached for gross incompetance. He serves, and is paid with my tax dollars, at the consent of Congress. If this is the level and type of service he is providing, I am not okay with money for his paycheck coming out of mine. The President and Vice President can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors;" there is no such standard for the officers of the executive branch, and I think something like this - particularly when added his previous statements - more than merits his removal. As far as I am concerned, he is fired. I'll be doing what I can to see that reality reflects this.
There does seem to be a family tendency towards immorality of this nature. It doesn't, however, answer nature vs. nurture. It could be quite possible for one of the Bushes to be an honest and moral person.
But given current evidence, that's not the way I'd bet.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The problem with that is that some slick lawyer could just present the Constitution's Godel number as evidence and the whole legal system would come crashing down in a heap of self-reference.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
This of and by itself speaks loudly to the moral relativism which runs rampant within modern conservative thought. No Real Conservative would ever justify an overreaching Executive's actions by grounding their arguments into the thoughts, words or deeds of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Besides that, it is a clear-cut violation of the US Constitution for Mr. Bush, of and by his own unlawful claim to war powers that exist without the Supreme Law of the Land, to have abrogated habeas corpus:
Article. I. of the US Constitution defines the duties of the legislative branch of our government. Habeas Corpus is only mentioned once in The US Constitution: Article I, section 9; clause 2:
It was not within Mr. Bush's rightful powers to rescind habeas corpus, he should have instead requested it from Congress.
Even Kenneth Starr wrote a letter of opposition to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, because it unlawfully would rescind habeas corpus rights:
So here, a Republican Majority Congress defended a GOP president's unconstitutional usurpation of their duties with their unconstitutional act, rescinding habeas corpus in absence of any "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" . Not only that, the same enactment conferred immunity to the executive branch for past violations they committed, which is another constitutional violation in itself:
Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution states:
You defend tyranny, and you add to this offensiveness by implying the Mr. Bush's War Upon Iraq was in some convoluted rationalisation, a war upon our real enemy, al Qaeda.
Pass this trash upon some FREEPing board which may yet still fall for the distortions, ok?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
It's all a matter of discerning a Word Of Art (the State) from a Mathematical Unit (State). Consider Judiciary Act, Section 11;
There is no less than 300 years of Country prior to there ever being any united States, than everyone is so set on preserving the name of a foreign federation in the District of Columbia or a corporation appearing in 1871 in the singular "United States."
That's the cost of idolatry. A friend of mine tried to convince me of this cool Jeep automobile in his parkway, dated around early 1990, was once a favorite posession and daily-driven by John Wayne. I suppose this John Wayne was either another instance unrelated to the popular pre-1979, or an imposter attempting to presume character of the John Wayne.
It's the same play on words I'm trying to elude upon; the United States is or the United States are, as differentiated by title and application even of the Uniform Commercial Code by an administrative body "State" of the State, even if that administrative State is integrated as a private citizen known as "United States" (singular-corporation); UCC 9-307...
without prejudice
Got sources to back up that it was CIA? That's a very matter-of-fact assertion. BTW, The middle class is not too keen on Chavez either.
A guy who is currently in the process of changing the laws to extend his presidential term indefinitely and rule by edict? He's pulled licenses from media outlets even mildly critical of him? It's not enough in my mind that he's a good leader because he helps people. He also has to not hurt people, and follow the law and respect basic civil rights. On Slashdot, Bush Jr. gets (deservedly) nailed for some pretty crooked moves, while Chavez is busy throwing people in jail and shutting down TV stations for disagreeing with him, and riling up the population against foreign "devils" preparing for an imaginary attack. Why isn't this asshole being impeached?
The coup d'etat already occurred in 2000/4 with ballot rigging, the blessings the Supreme Court and was televised.
November was a minor setback. If something is not immediately done to remove electronic voting systems by the next election, golly golly the Republicans will stage an unexpected, unlikely and overwhleming landside re-taking of power.
The democrats still seem to think this is a gentleman's game, but their mistake is to ignore the many times the neo-cons have used any methods available to achieve their ends, after all they are on a higher mission, and a few eggs must get cracked to make the omelete of jingoistic patriotic soundbites with a tasty filling of fascism.
Recall that hitler was elected. Like a corporation, the neo-cons will continue with a new faceman in a new election, and continue to coalesce power by any means necessary. Sad thing is McCain seems eager to be their butt-boy. Others await in line. The end result will be the same. The neo-cons are a junta.
I hope the future proves me wrong, but I think my fears are realistic based on past performance.
-- 1984, because the future is now
"You have liberated me from thought."
Its not that, "Your rights come from god". They say your creator, that can mean many things is is partly unknown and is "somewhat" true. You and someone else on here said your rights come from what "other people expect" this VERY MUCH wrong. Your rights come from your property Let me explain.
Your rights don't come from government, they exist outside of government control. To understand this you need to understand the nature of a right.
The most basic right you have is the right to life. Your creator gives you life. (We currently do not understand why this is or how it works so we use the term creator as a generic term, not as in a Christian god, its not very important to dwell on this however.) Ahem again.. your creator gives you life and thus you own your life. It is yours. You have a right to life. Your right is intrinsic. It exists always regardless of any other people. No other person owns your life. If you suggest that someone owns your life you are saying that someone else has a higher claim on it than you do. No other person or group of people have a higher claim on your life than you do. If someone were to end your life that would be murder. You also can not give a group of people a right you do not possess yourself. It doesn't matter how many people support it. If a group of people were to end your life that would still be murder. If a government has no law regarding murder, by defacto "allowing" murder by lack of punishment, killing another is *still* wrong. So.. lastly if the government decides to end your life it is still, and always will be, murder.
To sum it up, Regardless of who (or how many) people do it, Murder is a violation to your right to (your property of) life, always, everywhere, no exceptions. Rights are not given to you by other people as people may decide that people with funny noses do not have certain rights they do or they may decide that women can not own a house. That is also wrong, so rights don't come from people either.
The same thing can we applied to other rights we have.
To control ones life is slavery.
To take someones property of any kind is theft.
To kick your argument totally into the dirt I'll give another example.
You live in a house with 2 roommates. This is a tiny "community". You are the only one in this community who owns a car. The majority of the community may "expect" you to drive them to work, or they may expect to borrow your car but since you own it, you get to decide what happens with it. They can not force you to drive them to work, however you may freely choose to do so. You are even free to negotiate terms for doing so.. ie: they give you gas money. You control what happens with that car regardless of what they expect.
Don't feel bad if you dont understand what a right is, most people don't.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
how do we know it was the CIA? because the National Endowment for Democracy (which has a long history of being used by the CIA for covert ops abroad) has been in strong opposition of their incipient grassroot democracy. because chavez is hugely unpopular with washington especially since he's taken back control of the oil in venezuela so that US conglomerates can no longer profit lucratively from stealing one of Venezuela's most valuable natural resources.
secondly, i challenge you to give an example of him censoring the media, as all accounts that i've read have shown the direct opposite. instead of silencing his opposition (the media elite still have a strong foothold in venezuela), he has chosen to simply run his own television show which allows him to respond to allegations brought against him as well as have an open forum with the public. he has shown no signs of being a draconian dictator, and seems very well connected with the popular.
also, for the record. in the US the middleclass which you see most visible in the media is actually a minority. the denses populations in the US live in poor urban neighborhoods. that is why we have the highest poverty level of all 1st world nations. in venezuela the "middle class" is an even small portion. they are the rich upperclass which i refer to. they may have the lifestyle of the average american suburbanite, but they are far from the median socioeconomic class in venezuela (even more relatively privileged than the middle class in the US).
Except that, he's right. Habeas corpus isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
More from the transcript: From the Constitution:That doesn't sound out of context to me. Technically, he's correct that it's not guaranteed by the Constitution — although there's a major school of thought that such rights are not guaranteed by any document, but by The Creator (TM). That aside, however, the existence of the right is recognized; and nmoreover, this existence is assured under English common law, and by a couple hundred years of jurisprudence.
Of course, the question of exactly to whom such a right is granted by the creator is a valid legal question. And, unfortunately, in that sense the Dred Scott decision may still stand, assuming one is willing to accept that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" does not apply to the Federal government.
I'd still like to see a complete transcript, but it looks to me like he should lose his job over this. Unfortunately, if he doesn't quit, and the president doesn't fire him, there's no way to remove the AG from office. AFAIK, the law doesn't allow for his impeachment. The only way would be to impeach the President — perhaps repeatedly — until someone fires him. A greater blow to the executive branch I can scarce imagine.
I swear, the current administration isn't trying to turn the clock back to the 1910's, or even the 1840's; it seems like they're trying to push things all the way back to a —ing Revolution.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Where's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about?
I heard about this four days ago on a firearms discussion board I frequent. It was brought up in the Legal & Political forum on said board. We don't run around casually threatening to shoot government officials, despite what you may think. There was some rather strong language. The consensus was that the AG is no friend of ours with opinions like that. You may be surprised to learn that being pro-2nd Amendment does not necessarily equate to being a Republican and definitely does not equate to supporting the current administration.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
please view the award-winning documentary that i linked to which has an irish film crew's footage of the 24-hour coup d'etat to get a better idea of the situation for yourself.
if you want an idea of the type of people opposing chavez, let me just cite this instance: when amnesty canada planned to air the documentary about the coup despite 3rd party protest, amnesty venezuela actually received threats serious enough that they contacted amnesty canada directly and insisted on the film being pulled for fear of their safety. in contrast, chavez has always fought his opposition with dialog and with the populus of venezuela behind him. that is why the coup amounted to a huge embarassment to the conspirator. and if he is such a cold-blooded dictator, then why did he not seek retaliation against the cabal of conspirators who tried to overthrow him through media deceit and threat of violence (chavez gave himself up during the seige on the presidential palace when it became clear that if he did not do so his staff would come under danger of fire)?
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised shows actual footage of the happenings inside the presidential palace during those uncertain hours. The bravery and resolve of both Chavez and his staff is actually quite touching and paints the chavez government in a rather different light than what U.S. media would like americans to believe.
That's among the most ridiculous comments I've read today. (Are you suggesting that he would take to the field himself if the supply of volunteers dried up?)
Seriously, even if we set aside the issue of age, it is not cowardice for a public figure to refrain from taking to the field himself. If Mr Bush were in fact to kit up and join a front-line squad in Baghdad, it would not be an act of bravery but an act of stupidity: he would be recklessly endangering the lives of those around him, because to kill or capture George W. Bush would immediately become the single highest-priority task for every single insurgent in Iraq. Since when was taking obvious precautions to protect American troops and Iraqi civilians alike "cowardly"?
If you were somehow trying (rather ineptly) to allude to his not having taken part in combat during Vietnam, then you might almost have a hint of a point. Except that it's disputable whether avoiding front-line combat in Vietnam was really cowardly. Some would say it was merely common sense.
Actually, I'd always thought of pro-2nd ammendment people as being bi-partisan, as in, all politicians are disgraceful.. and one thing I've always liked about the gun nuts is that they don't threaten anybody, they just go and do it. Bullets speak louder than words.
How we know is more important than what we know.
How, exactly? How are you proposing that Bush's grandfather's dealings with Nazis and Arabs directly led Western intelligence services to mistakenly believe that Saddam had WMDs?
The WMD is just the intelligence the Bush Administration was asking for. The real start to all of this started with Prescott Bush and his dealings to import Arabic Oil- without which we would never have gotten involved with the Middle East at all. No interest in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would have meant no Gulf War I, and no need to remove Saddam Hussien in Gulf War II.
How are you proposing that Bush's grandfather's dealings with Nazis and Arabs directly led the vast majority of American congressmen and women to support regime change in Iraq?
Regime change in Iraq became neccessary because of the Assassination Attempt on Former President Bush I, and 9-11. That assasination attempt would never have been tried if not for Gulf War I, which would not have happened had we not been importing oil from the Middle East. It's all linked.
Now having said that- Prescott Bush wasn't exactly the begining of the story either. Our sale of Rum to the region in the late 1700s is closer to the begining. But that just goes to show what a national security risk foreign trade really is.
That's among the most ridiculous comments I've read today. (Are you suggesting that he would take to the field himself if the supply of volunteers dried up?)
More like, we would have found a way without war if he was forced to go himself (or for that matter, if any family member of any elected official in the Beltway was at risk in this war).
Seriously, even if we set aside the issue of age, it is not cowardice for a public figure to refrain from taking to the field himself. If Mr Bush were in fact to kit up and join a front-line squad in Baghdad, it would not be an act of bravery but an act of stupidity: he would be recklessly endangering the lives of those around him, because to kill or capture George W. Bush would immediately become the single highest-priority task for every single insurgent in Iraq. Since when was taking obvious precautions to protect American troops and Iraqi civilians alike "cowardly"?
Seems to me that by drawing every single insurgent to attacking a single man, that would protect any American troop or Iraqi civilian that was *not* that man. In fact, knowing that, one could put forth a very interesting honeypot tactic in which you surround that man with a killzone, and anybody coming near him is killed. As the insurgents take the bait, you'd end up with nice piles of dead insurgents. Is the military mind really so naive not to see such an opportunity?
If you were somehow trying (rather ineptly) to allude to his not having taken part in combat during Vietnam, then you might almost have a hint of a point. Except that it's disputable whether avoiding front-line combat in Vietnam was really cowardly. Some would say it was merely common sense.
Actually, I was only alluding to the idea that a leader should either take the same risks he asks others to take, or find a way that does not include those risks.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
People who are pro-2nd amendment tend to be conservative, by and large Republican with a smattering of Libertarians, more Democrats than you'd likely believe, and plenty of us who consider ourselves unaffiliated with any party.
We do not, however, just go out and "do it." A lot more heated rhetoric gets thrown around than bullets. We're not so different than others in that.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
It's hard to argue with his tactics, since we've spent three years killing the exact same people for the exact same reasons.
It's been a long time.
The whole point and basis of civil society is that we do that for one another, as well as ourselves. What you suggest is a mercenary attitude, that - no matter how practical - is the antithesis to the concept of "society". We all know that it's true, but we should be endeavouring together to make it less true, day by day. What is happening, is the opposite.
I'm not suggesting a mercenary attitude. I'm saying that it is a complete illusion that people have rights at all.
If you live through tomorrow, it is for the simple reason that you either did not kill yourself or something else did not kill you. If you own your house tomorrow, it is because the bank has allowed you to do that. If you are allowed to walk down the street, it is because someone else doesn't feel the need or desire to stop you -- or they cannot stop you.
A person's ability to do something solely resides in their environment allowing them to do it. For example, murdering someone is illegal in the United States. A person supposedly has no "right" to do that. However, if you have the enough resources at your disposal, I assure you that you can do it without significant fear of reprisal -- if any reprisal at all.
I'm sorry to rain on people's idealistic parade here, but no piece of paper is going to protect you -- no matter how eloquently written it is. It is *words on paper*. No piece of paper is going to prevent someone from taking what is yours. Likewise, no piece of paper is going to prevent you from doing what you want.
A "right" is a complete illusion. If you want to protect yourself, you have got to have influence, power, and control over your immediate environment. Otherwise, your destiny is solely at the mercy of the external forces around you.
A "right" is a social convention used to define what is, and is not, acceptable civil behaviour. Rather than delineating every possible way a person can be violated, we describe them as having personal "right" attributes. Of course your rights can, and probably will, be violated. The whole concept of law and justice, however, is built on the idea that this is not a favorable situation, and should be remedied and prevented whenever possible. Of course corruption can protect the privilege of some over the rights of others. So can deceit, counter-intelligence, prestidigitation, isolation, and many other concepts or processes. This does not, however, refute the fact that the ideas that "rights" signify are worth attempting to protect as much as is possible. The whole point of an "ideal" is that it is something one strives for, and while it may not be achieved, any progress toward it will better the circumstances of at least someone, somewhere.
Oh, I completely agree with you and made sure to note in my post that the rules governing the withdrawl of habeus corpus do NOT authorize blanket suspension, even when the conditions are apparently met. And, certainly, as the Geneva Conventions are covered by Constitutional obligations, the Government is not authorized to suspend habeus corpus, no matter whether it is a privilege, right, or pretzel.
This is why it is so vitally important to get away from the idea of the Constitution authorizing freedoms to individuals, because if you look at it that way, such authorization can always be taken away. No, the ONLY safe way to regard what is written is to regard it as a law regarding what the Government may do and what freedoms the Government has. Which means that the Government is legally required to obey the Geneva Conventions. It has not been authorized the freedom to not obey them.
(Whether this applies to those sections that have been signed by enough nations to be regarded as International Law but not by the US specifically is a matter of debate. I would say yes, as it HAS signed up to the agreement that this is the case, and that means the US Government hasn't the authority to exclude those portions. It's a little dodgier in those cases where the US hasn't signed up to any of the agreement at all, but in a case where the US has accepted the bulk of the treaty AND has accepted that the remainder is indeed governing in matters of International Law, then I'm not convinced that its obligations under the Constitution permit it to reject those remaining parts in any way, shape or form.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I agree when he said the Constitutional right to habeas corpus is not explicitly stated. He was right about that. However, he was arguing that the government's implementation of that right is not guaranteed, which I believe to be an incredibly dangerous interpretation. How do people like him get away with stuff like this?
Well, I am not suggesting we all turn into Waco's, but it does make me glad that I have been supporting the NRA's defense of the 2nd amendment and the ACLU's support of free speech. Guess that makes me a strange bedfellow ...
Please do something instead of complaining, at the very least sign here http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer Read this from Sean Penn http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
Under the Gonzales rationale, there is NO Constitutional Right to Possess Privatre Property
Also worth noting is that the Constitution's one mentioning of habeas corpus is listed under Congressional Powers, not the Executive's. Mr. Bush's thefts of the detainees' habeas corpus rights before the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was enacted into law are multiple Constitutional violations by an overreaching executive.
and you sir, are a tampon in a girlieboy's trousers desperately in need of having a Bush Man Date properly inserting an Official Abu Ghraib Interrogator's Model Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment®* . It seems you mind still resides in the darkness...
* The Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment, and all of its variants is a registered trademark and property of the RNCC. It is protected by the DMCA, RIAA, DoJ, DOT, IRS, USMC as well as any Federal, State or International statutes we can bring to bear targeting your bit&torrented ass, so don't even think about it Mr. Limp-Wristed Geek, because the NSA is always listening in on you too.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Just when were we invaded by Iraqis?
When did a obscene act of terror by 20 determined and lucky guys, which to America's great misfortune got scheduled during an administration that was so arrogant, ignorant and derelict that they didn't see it coming, get hyperbolised into a definition of "invasion"? Twenty guys five years ago does not an invasion make.
The Constitution's restraints upon a legitimate American government did not end the day The ole Gimper's 'freedom fighters' became Duyba Pudd's 'evil doers', no matter how many different ways LooneyCons attempt to spin it. Although it's easy to understand why they are so easily terrorised: 6 years out and they still shriek in panicky alarm, and shudder with hysterical quivering whenever their thoughts are drawn like a moth to a light, inexorably towards the Penis of the President Past. CaponCons, still resentful that their hereditary afflictions of weak bladders and uncontrollable sphincters made them unsuitable to serve in the US Military.
See how much fun non sequitur and ad hominem arguments can be? I hope all of this diversionary excitement did not cause you to forget to stock up on that most important conservative provision in case of terrorist attack, or even in the more likely event that the BusHandlers decide things are bad enough for a feigned for political expediency, heightened color coordinated terror fear level: A case of Super-Absorbent Depends©...
Got anymore of them original insults like girlyboy; Mr. Dittohead?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
I agree with you that they clearly do not define it as an *inalienable* right as it can be taken away from you in case of invasion or rebellion. That does not mean it's not a right. (If "right" implied "inalienable", then why would anyone use the phrase "inalienable right"?) In fact, as I'm sure you recall, Gonzales himself used the word "right" when paraphrasing that part of the Constitution. (Do you, or do you not, think think that Gonzales' statement was stupid?)
Now, let's look again at what Gonzales said, and for sake of argument we'll replace his word "right" with "privilege":
Can you make any sense out of that? How does saying a privilege shall not be suspended except in cases of X or Y not imply that you have that privilege except in cases of X or Y?Maybe you want to play the game of let's fix Gonzales' statement to be what you want it to be:
Does that still make any sense? Forget the semantic games, look at it pragmatically. From any practical point-of-view, what is he trying to say? Is he trying to imply that the Constitution was just being coy? That it's just stating that this privilege only exists in case of rebellion or invasion so that's the only time it can be suspened? Seriously, what in the world is he trying to say that makes any sense to you? Can you put it in your own words so that it makes some sense?However, please keep in mind that what Gonzales did not say (and it seems you're implying) is that he was talking about a case of rebellion or invasion.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Better to stop one tyrant than to ignore them all.
And when choosing which tyrant to stop, best to stop the one most relevant to other interests (yes, self-interest DOES play a role; and yes, oil does matter - or did you bike to work & grow your own food for today?).
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
My side never wins.
Er, yeah, I'm aware of that. Question mark? :-)
I was just pointing out that the law on the books defines the militia very broadly. It's not that important anyway since the Second Amendment guarantees the [i]individual[/i] right to bear arms. (This is the DOJ's opinion too, not just mine.)
The president hasn't the right to imprison humans as criminals without acquiring a conviction against them in a public trial that follows due process of law. You claim the detainees are murderers. What do you base this allegation upon? The word of a man who took this country to war for causes which turned out to be false?
And you call ME a Moron?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
It is heartening when learning of others who also carry the fight. When I began, there were times I felt as if I was standing alone against the stormwall. I believe that the great majority of Americans can be made to understand why an equal application of law, irrespective of citizenship, is one of the essential cornerstones to justice; and in a society where justice is denied, liberty is only a soon to be forgotten dream.
On this there can be no agreement to disagree. It is a clear line which cannot be crossed. It is not up for negotiation upon any bargaining table. The president's war powers do not magically place him without the US Constitution. He is not above the law. Existing on the high ground offers no significant advantage if one exists there alone, it is good that others agree. The Dreamtime America may yet survive. The enfilade of their moral awakening awaits.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
It sounds like we are very much of the same mind. I'm a fiscal, small government and "no foreign entanglements" conservative. For the first time in my life I voted a straight Democratic ticket, not so much because I agree with much the party has to say but because I hate what Bush & Co. are doing to our country.
As for the Republicans "misexecuting" their platform, I'd more say that they sold out to the neocons and the PWIFs and are executing their joint plan perfectly; the PWIFs want to bring about the end times, and the neocons want a permanent state of war to feed their oil and money pump. They're both getting what they asked for, while the bulk of the party gets exactly what the Democrats got (except we're supposed to smile and like it). Uh, no.
--MarkusQ
It doesn't work for him, it doesn't work in your case, the size of the entity notwithstanding. Just because they advise the President doesn't make them the very best; it makes them well connected - remember that. That's assumption #1. As for assumption #2, just because they're lawyers doesn't make their advice sound - as always, remember that nearly everything in Washington is said and done for political reasons. It is far more probable that those particular lawyers are on Bush's staff precisely because they say what he wants to hear.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Judging from the server logs relevant to a section of a site I am a primary of, there has been a slowly increasing interest in habeas corpus. Maybe I misinterpret but I believe it represents an increasing concern also.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
No offense taken, btw, although I am glad you didn't burst into flames over my response. I happened upon your post in this thread after laying a few licks down before it. It seems that the more I age, the closer I relate to my roots from the high desert west; and often go cowboy, slinging fast and hard off of the hip. Goldwater happens to be one of the few contemporaneousness politicians I respect. Not because he held positions that I agreed with, but because his positions were true to his philosophy first, damn the party. He was actually troubled that racists were attracted to his ideology in '64, because his opposition to Johnson's Great Society was anchored in exactly what he said it was, a belief that welfare would trap its recipients within a web of defeatism, and make their plight worse than before. When he ran the family's department store in Arizona, it was the first to hire blacks as retail clerks, and offered one of the most generous health/retirement packages of any employer in the state. Facts that many of Goldwater's critics seem to miss. I tend to slam quick and hard around conservatives, and within their namespaces, whenever I come across hypocritical claims of affinity to Goldwater too.
In the same vein is a fairly recent article by a paleocon that I've often disagreed with in the past, heir to a Greek shipping business, Taki Theodoracopulos, who has even bragged about naming one of his houses after Pinochet. Still, it is hard to disagree with his renouncement of the bipolar polity:
I await the PostDigital Political wavefront...
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Rather ironic that the previous post was under the heading: "If People could READ" , when you supply data that isn't even what was asked for. It is easy to understand why you'd post as an anonymous coward with sources like MEMRI and the Washington Times too. I asked for citations backing up the claim that "France, China and Russia were against because they were secretly making billions on the oil for food program." , and you respond with a copy and paste excerpt from a subsection of an out of date MEMRI article which is titled:
You dump data which is total number of barrels of oil in Iraqi vouchers, which doesn't indicate if the vouchers were filled or unfilled, doesn't offer a dollar amount, doesn't differentiate between secret and public, and doesn't attempt to sort legal from illegal. To that I'll add that MEMRI is a known propagandiser which often plays fast and loose with the truth.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
not really.. when the end to which the permit process is supposed to aim can be as easily reached by allowing cops to move protest groups a mere 100 ft one way or another.
anything more has obvious intent.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Chavez not renewing license of station critical of him
m _ca/venezuela_chavez
w ould-abolish-presidential-term-limit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm
Chavez rule by decree
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_re_la_a
Chavez changing constitution to remove presidential term limit
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/01/11/chavez-
Chavez' laughable claim of US Invasion plans. Like no one else would notice some aircraft carriers floating off Venezuela.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4359386.stm
As for the Republicans "misexecuting" their platform, I'd more say that they sold out to the neocons and the PWIFs and are executing their joint plan perfectly.
Republicans have long harkened to the cry of "fiscal conservancy," but having both houses and the presidency, and having not executed on this front proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't what they claim. Big lie. I tell them that occasionally, when they call and ask for donations. Did you ever get the "one question survey" thing from the Republican fundraisers, that was actually a solicitation? Seems like lying is becoming part of the party.
I'm willing to give the Democrats a try for a while, I suppose. They're talking balanced budgets, and I'd rather go with the pseudo-socialists, insofar as they get away from this chickenhawk shit, and at least try to balance the budget. And frankly, in relative valuation, I'm willing to live with the Dems just to get us out of Iraq and the sacrifice everything for the War on Terror mantra.
C//