National Yawn as Our Rights Evaporate

  1. We never learn:

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101906L.shtml


    Quote from www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101906L.shtml
    For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
    A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.
    We have been here before - and we have been here before led here - by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.
    Last edit by indigo girl on Oct 20, '06
    •  
  2. 20 Comments

  3. by   indigo girl
    A Sad Day for America:

    http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4511966


    Quote from www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4511966
    Bush is also allowed to interpret the Geneva Conventions on Humane Treatment of Prisoners of War.
    Furthermore, the CIA apparently will be able to continue sending prisoners to secret prisons abroad and agents will have immunity from prosecution for their interrogation practices. Many Europeans who have lived under tyrannical regimes cannot believe the U.S. would submit to such questionable treatment of detainees.
    Last edit by indigo girl on Oct 20, '06
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    The yawn is because, to the extent anybody besides a few liberals actually CARE about the rights of terrorists, it is to deprive them of rights, which is exactly what this legislation aims to do.

    We aren't engaged in a 'lawsuit on terror'. It is a war.

    I don't particularly care if non US citizen terrorists are allowed to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, I DO particularly care that they don't.

    Bottom line, I understand why most Americans yawn about this. Of course, I'm not just yawning; I'm cheering. This is why President Bush is a great President.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  5. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Of course, I'm not just yawning; I'm cheering. This is why President Bush is a great President.
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Scalia: "Someday, You're gonna get a very conservative Supreme Cabal. . ."

    He argues that liberals using the Supreme Cabal to 'get their way', was not only reckless, but foolish
    I'm overwhelmed by the irony...


    cheers,
    Roy (gotta get back to cleaning the house)
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    I'm overwhelmed by the irony...
    No irony. The one argument supports the other.

    The Scalia argument is that the Supreme Cabal is NOT the place to create what should be legislative processes. To make an 'end run' around the legislature serves only to allow the same thing to occur by polar reverse in a different political climate. And that would ultimately be much to the dismay of those that defined the rules regarding 'end runs' around the balance of powers. I agree.

    The Supreme Cabal recently ruled on the issue of tribunals to incorrectly say that the Congress didn't sufficiently exercise its authority. It did the first time.

    Nevertheless, Congress revisited the issue to clarify it and remove all doubt from its intent.

    So, ALL three branches of gov't have had a say here but the over-riding authority comes form Congress, and is therefore, accountable to the voters.

    President Bush's new authority here comes from Congress, as stipulated by the Supreme Cabal.

    The case for tribunals emphasizes the concerted action of the balance of powers that the very issues and concerns Scalia raised served to undermine.

    The inference here is that these powers are an attempt by the executive to 'get its way' regardless the other branches. In reality, the President now has a clear mandate BECAUSE and based on the actions of the other branches. And so, the Scalia argument is supported in this process.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 20, '06
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    I find it ironic because on hand hand you protest the abuse of the Supreme Court but on the other hand you support abuse of executive power as legislated by a subservient Congress.

    Sorry Timothy, I just don't have the time to engage in word play.

    I just find it amusing when liberals complain of "abuse of the Constitution" - are they willing to revoke anti-hate speech, anti-gun control and reverse discrimination laws?

    I also find it amusing when conservatives defend growth of government power as a required necessity to win whatever or whoever we are fighting at the moment. When was the last time we weren't fighting against something or someone? They want to dismantle the Welfare state because they want to feed their ever growing Warfare state.

    Bottom line? Just because Congress authorised it and the Executive agrees doesn't make it right. Your argument rests on the premise that the government given such power won't abuse it. Sure, today the clause states "non Americans" - what's to stop the next idiot 10 years down the line to modify that to mean "anyone against the government" ?

    There ain't no such thing as "benevolent government".


    My last post in this thread.

    cheers,


    EDIT TO ADD ::: PS -- Since we once supported Osama and his terrorist buddies, will those who supported him be booked under this new act? Or are government minions (as always) beyond reproach?
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Oct 20, '06
  8. by   indigo girl
    As expected, none of us have changed our positions.
  9. by   VivaLasViejas
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    President Bush's new authority here comes from Congress, as stipulated by the Supreme Cabal.

    The inference here is that these powers are an attempt by the executive to 'get its way' regardless the other branches. In reality, the President now has a clear mandate BECAUSE and based on the actions of the other branches. And so, the Scalia argument is supported in this process.
    Oh, that makes me feel SO much better.

    Clear mandate? From whom? The rubber-stamp Republican Congress? The 35% or so who still support Bush and his policies?

    I think not...........
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    but on the other hand you support abuse of executive power as legislated by a subservient Congress.
    I just don't see it as an abuse of power to deal with non-nation non-uniformed armed combatants in the same fashion as we have since Washington. (General Washington used a military tribunal to try and hang Major John Andre, the British spy and emissary to Benedict Arnold.)

    Military tribunals are not some newly described or created concept or use of wartime powers. The Constitutional powers haven't been 'expanded' for this. They have now simply been defined as remaining consistent with historical perspectives and uses of power in regards to military tribunals.

    It is certainly not an abuse of Constitutional power: the balance of powers are in more or less agreement, or at least, have more or less all weighed in on this issue. And Congress DOES have the power to wage war and to describe the terms of such. That is not a new power, rather, it is an enumerated power of the Constitution. This is EXACTLY what the Constitution had in mind for the use of such wartime powers: Congress authorizes, Executive exercises.

    You can talk about 'rubber stamp' Congress and 'rubber stamp' Cabals if you like, but this is how we decided to check the powers of gov't. And that check has a very key component: the power of the vote.

    You might disagree with the 'rubber stamp', but it is a stamp of the people's making. If you don't like it, go vote in 3 weeks. I know I will vote. I'm planning on voting on Monday (In Texas, you can early vote during the 3 wks before the gen election date.)

    Of course, it doesn't really matter how I vote as far as this issue is concerned: from MY Congressman - "It's time for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to face justice." Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas (1 of 34 Democrat Congressmen to vote for the measure). I believe that his opponent, Van Taylor (R), an Iraq War Vet, would agree.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 21, '06
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    The issue here isn't just that a 'rubber stamp' Congress did the President's bidding.

    See, that 'rubber stamp' was also a stamp of the opinion of the American People.

    57% of Americans approve of military tribunals. That means the Congressional vote more or less mirrored, or 'rubber stamped' the public's opinion on the issue.

    The question you have to ask yourself is this: a month before the election, did the Congress vote on this issue in line with the President? Or, their districts?

    I've already told you what how MY Democrat Congressman voted. I assure you, he didn't vote that way to 'rubber stamp' the President.

    http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?...icp=1&.intl=us

    September 12, 2006
    "The survey of 1,000 adults also found that Americans support the President’s call for trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals. Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor the proposal while just 24% are opposed. Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor while Democrats are more evenly divided. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 50% favor the military tribunals and 24% are opposed."

    See it's not an issue of the public 'yawning' about the concept of military tribunals. There is no outcry because the public approves.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 21, '06
  12. by   Roy Fokker
    Ok, I said my previous post was my last.

    This is positively my last.

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I just don't see it as an abuse of power to deal with non-nation non-uniformed armed combatants in the same fashion as we have since Washington. (General Washington used a military tribunal to try and hang Major John Andre, the British spy and emissary to Benedict Arnold.)
    We also starved and shot prisoners of war from the Civil War to World War I. We put hundreds of thousands of Nisei in internment camps for being born with Japanese blood during World War II [I think it would be imprudent to mention that the armed forces were still segregated as of WWII] - can we use that as justification for our current policies?

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Military tribunals are not some newly described or created concept or use of wartime powers. The Constitutional powers haven't been 'expanded' for this. They have now simply been defined as remaining consistent with historical perspectives and uses of power in regards to military tribunals.
    I understand how military tribunals work.

    I know and understand (and have repeatedly pointed out infact!) that the people we are "capturing" in A'ghan, Iraq and other places are not enemy combatants according to the Geneva Convention. The fact that Hitler used the same arguement to support his plan is immaterial.

    But that doesn't mean that anyone accused of anything in this nation has to endure the concept of "guilty untill a miracle pops up".

    EVERYONE is "innocent untill proven guilty" and it has to be with a "speedy trial" where they can "face their accusers" whilst having "the right to consultation".


    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    It is certainly not an abuse of Constitutional power: the balance of powers are in more or less agreement, or at least, have more or less all weighed in on this issue.
    Whats next? "The ends justify the menas" ?

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    And Congress DOES have the power to wage war and to describe the terms of such. That is not a new power, rather, it is an enumerated power of the Constitution. This is EXACTLY what the Constitution had in mind for the use of such wartime powers: Congress authorizes, Executive exercises.
    You are claiming that "Congress is exerting it's independent will".

    As I said before - I disagree. Riddle me this ~ Why hasn't Congress declared War in Iraq? Hell, why hasn't Congress declared war against A-Q ? Why hasn't Congress declared "WAR" PERIOD ???!!!!! They are the "great representatives of the people" AREN'T THEY????

    On a similar subject: The President has asked for funding for whatever he wishes and Congress has obliged - with nary a voice of dissent (save for one or two!) Congress is AS guilty of the mess we are facing as much as this executive! And this includes BOTH major parties!

    If you DON'T believe me - just check out the voting record!

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    You can talk about 'rubber stamp' Congress and 'rubber stamp' Cabals if you like, but this is how we decided to check the powers of gov't. And that check has a very key component: the power of the vote.
    Exactly - so when the Representatives and the Executive is loaded with the majority of ONE party - we are still talking "choice" right?

    Not that it makes a difference if the Dems were in power - it's the same end result.

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    You might disagree with the 'rubber stamp', but it is a stamp of the people's making. If you don't like it, go vote in 3 weeks. I know I will vote. I'm planning on voting on Monday (In Texas, you can early vote during the 3 wks before the gen election date.)
    Timothy,

    Just stand at a street corner and ask a 100 (hell, ask 500) people ~ "Who elects the President of the United States" ~ I wager 2 beers that atleast 80%-95% of the folks say something along the lines of "the people/citizens elect the President during the Presidential Election". NOW, ask them the follow up question of "do you know how your State elects it's Electoral College?" and be prepared for more than a dozen blank stares. Don't be surprised if some actually ask you what "an electoral college is".



    These are the "people who vote" you're talking about Timothy.

    People who don't even know the basic functions of their government.
    People who moan and complain when government doesn't fix "x" ill or "y" habit
    People who clamour for Democracy whilst forgetting that we are a Republic.

    The list is endless...

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Of course, it doesn't really matter how I vote as far as this issue is concerned: from MY Congressman - "It's time for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to face justice." Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas (1 of 34 Democrat Congressmen to vote for the measure). I believe that his opponent, Van Taylor (R), an Iraq War Vet, would agree.
    How much/many "Iraq War veteran" stuff that counter the ones you posted???????? I won't bother listing the anti-war veterans.... since they are apt to be dismissed out of hand...

    To but quote a few examples from a principled representative:
    Quote from Dr. Ron Paul(R-TX)
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
    More:

    Quote from Dr. Ron Paul(R-TX)
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I have been involved in politics for over 30 years and have never seen the American people so angry. It’s not unusual to sense a modest amount of outrage, but it seems the anger today is unusually intense and quite possibly worse than ever. It’s not easily explained, but I have some thoughts on this matter. Generally, anger and frustration among people are related to economic conditions; bread and butter issues. Yet today .... (full story)
    Quote from Dr. Ron Paul(R-TX)
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Opponents of increased federalization of higher education should be especially concerned about HR 609's "Academic Bill of Rights." This provision takes a step toward complete federal control of college curricula, grading, and teaching practices. While the provision is worded as a "sense of Congress," the clear intent is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring professors' lectures and lesson plans meet with federal approval....... (full story!)
    Just remember folks - when you "vote for the lesser of two evils" ..... you are STILL voting for EVIL.


    cheers,
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Oct 21, '06
  13. by   indigo girl
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Ok, I said my previous post was my last.

    This is positively my last.

    We also starved and shot prisoners of war from the Civil War to World War I. We put hundreds of thousands of Nisei in internment camps for being born with Japanese blood during World War II [I think it would be imprudent to mention that the armed forces were still segregated as of WWII] - can we use that as justification for our current policies?

    I understand how military tribunals work.

    I know and understand (and have repeatedly pointed out infact!) that the people we are "capturing" in A'ghan, Iraq and other places are not enemy combatants according to the Geneva Convention. The fact that Hitler used the same arguement to support his plan is immaterial.

    But that doesn't mean that anyone accused of anything in this nation has to endure the concept of "guilty untill a miracle pops up".

    EVERYONE is "innocent untill proven guilty" and it has to be with a "speedy trial" where they can "face their accusers" whilst having "the right to consultation".


    Whats next? "The ends justify the menas" ?

    You are claiming that "Congress is exerting it's independent will".

    As I said before - I disagree. Riddle me this ~ Why hasn't Congress declared War in Iraq? Hell, why hasn't Congress declared war against A-Q ? Why hasn't Congress declared "WAR" PERIOD ???!!!!! They are the "great representatives of the people" AREN'T THEY????

    On a similar subject: The President has asked for funding for whatever he wishes and Congress has obliged - with nary a voice of dissent (save for one or two!) Congress is AS guilty of the mess we are facing as much as this executive! And this includes BOTH major parties!

    If you DON'T believe me - just check out the voting record!

    Exactly - so when the Representatives and the Executive is loaded with the majority of ONE party - we are still talking "choice" right?

    Not that it makes a difference if the Dems were in power - it's the same end result.

    Timothy,

    Just stand at a street corner and ask a 100 (hell, ask 500) people ~ "Who elects the President of the United States" ~ I wager 2 beers that atleast 80%-95% of the folks say something along the lines of "the people/citizens elect the President during the Presidential Election". NOW, ask them the follow up question of "do you know how your State elects it's Electoral College?" and be prepared for more than a dozen blank stares. Don't be surprised if some actually ask you what "an electoral college is".



    These are the "people who vote" you're talking about Timothy.

    People who don't even know the basic functions of their government.
    People who moan and complain when government doesn't fix "x" ill or "y" habit
    People who clamour for Democracy whilst forgetting that we are a Republic.

    The list is endless...

    How much/many "Iraq War veteran" stuff that counter the ones you posted???????? I won't bother listing the anti-war veterans.... since they are apt to be dismissed out of hand...

    To but quote a few examples from a principled representative:
    More:



    Just remember folks - when you "vote for the lesser of two evils" ..... you are STILL voting for EVIL.


    cheers,
    Hurray for Ron Paul, one of the few honorable men with guts
    left in Congress.

    Torture is evil. It does not matter who is doing it or for what reason.
    It demeans this country, and makes us no better than terrorists. And, outsourcing it, does not excuse it. Saying you do not practice this or condone it, is lying. The people are not stupid.

    3000 dead at the WTC, 3000 fallen in battle, 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians...
    Is it enough yet? And the strange thing is, Bush admits Iraq had NOTHING to do with WTC. Have we appeased the goddess of war he seems to be worshipping? Have we, humans given her enough blood? This is despicable!
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    We also starved and shot prisoners of war from the Civil War to World War I. We put hundreds of thousands of Nisei in internment camps for being born with Japanese blood during World War II [I think it would be imprudent to mention that the armed forces were still segregated as of WWII] - can we use that as justification for our current policies?
    Stop saying it's your last post: please DO continue to post on the subject.

    This issue above was addressed in my last post. First, we were in ERROR for the Japanese Interment in WWI - and we have openly admitted and apologized for it.

    I didn't say that history alone allows for future paths. In fact, I specifically said that the current exercise was one of validating that our historical paths are relevant today.

    You inferred or stated, I don't remember, that this was an 'abuse' of power because Republicans are ever expanding the concept of war powers. I mentioned historical perspectives to counter the assertion that new powers are being created here wholecloth. They are not; they are simply being re-evaluated in current contexts. I concur that we should continually reprove our actions and intents to ensure that we avoid the mistakes of the past. That has been done here.

    Quote from Roy Fokker
    I know and understand (and have repeatedly pointed out infact!) that the people we are "capturing" in A'ghan, Iraq and other places are not enemy combatants according to the Geneva Convention. The fact that Hitler used the same arguement to support his plan is immaterial.

    But that doesn't mean that anyone accused of anything in this nation has to endure the concept of "guilty untill a miracle pops up".

    EVERYONE is "innocent untill proven guilty" and it has to be with a "speedy trial" where they can "face their accusers" whilst having "the right to consultation".
    You are talking about rights that we grant our Citizens. These thugs are not our citizens. And they are also not enemy soldiers. They are somewhere in between. This issue isn't one of 'speedy trial'. This isn't a lawsuit we are waging. And in wartime, the status of prisoners, uniformed or not, is always tied to ensuring that they sit out the remainder of the war.

    So, the issue of 'speedy' release has to deal with how fast their comrades concede or die. That is their decision - and they entered this conflict either knowing the consequences of their decisions or nevertheless, accountable for the consequences of their decisions.

    You'll excuse me if I feel very little remorse for the inconveniences, however major, of people that want to murder my comrades and fellow citizens.

    In all actuality, I would have an equal lack of remorse if we were talking about CITIZENS that wished lethal ill-will on our fellow citizens. The only difference is that our Constitutional framework requires that prosecuting citizens IS a matter of law and not war. There is a difference and it is distinct and NOT some sliding slope. I agree with the difference AND I disagree with the handwringing that such distinctions cannot be made. Of course they can - and should be made.

    Quote from Roy Fokker
    You are claiming that "Congress is exerting it's independent will".

    As I said before - I disagree. Riddle me this ~ Why hasn't Congress declared War in Iraq? Hell, why hasn't Congress declared war against A-Q ? Why hasn't Congress declared "WAR" PERIOD ???!!!!! They are the "great representatives of the people" AREN'T THEY????

    On a similar subject: The President has asked for funding for whatever he wishes and Congress has obliged - with nary a voice of dissent (save for one or two!) Congress is AS guilty of the mess we are facing as much as this executive! And this includes BOTH major parties!

    If you DON'T believe me - just check out the voting record!
    Oh, I believe the voting record. But riddle me this: If the Congress isn't voting its individual will, whose will are they voting? Exactly what gun does the President have to their heads? In fact, they ARE voting the will of the People - or at least, they did when they authorized Iraq and they do now with the concept of military tribunals.

    The fact that the war in Iraq is unpopular now does not mean that it was unpopular in 2002, when it was voted upon. And even our elected members of Congress understand that you cannot change facts on the ground as easily as the public's will. THAT is why the House is in danger of changing hands in 3 weeks.

    And if that happens, you will see that the People's will is STILL the will of Congress, and not the President.

    Even the People understand the difficulty in changing course midstream. The war may be more or less unpopular, but the majority STILL understands that there is a need to, if you'll excuse trite slogans, 'stay the course'.

    I agree that it's more or less 'chicken' of Congress not to declare war. But, this has been the state of affairs since WWII. Congress still has the power to authorize war and war powers, even if it is too chicken to call a spade a spade. And Congress did pointedly authorize this 'war' on terror.

    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Exactly - so when the Representatives and the Executive is loaded with the majority of ONE party - we are still talking "choice" right?

    Not that it makes a difference if the Dems were in power - it's the same end result.
    It is still a choice. Today, the legislature and the President are controlled by one party BECAUSE of the choice of the People. That doesn't mean they are kowtowing to each other, but that both enjoy the same representative support.

    In three weeks, ask me again if the legislature is the strong arm puppet of the President, or, if the People actually have a say in the matter.


    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Just stand at a street corner and ask a 100 (hell, ask 500) people ~ "Who elects the President of the United States" ~ I wager 2 beers that atleast 80%-95% of the folks say something along the lines of "the people/citizens elect the President during the Presidential Election". NOW, ask them the follow up question of "do you know how your State elects it's Electoral College?" and be prepared for more than a dozen blank stares. Don't be surprised if some actually ask you what "an electoral college is".
    I support the concept of the Electoral College. It was the SAME compromise that allowed for House members to be directly elected, but Senators to be elected by State Legislatures. The fact that we moved the Senate to direct elections doesn't remove the wisdom of such a compromise.

    You said so yourself just now: the average voter is purposely uninformed. That is the blessing of living in a nation where bounty doesn't depend on a vote: too many take it all for granted.

    The Electoral College provides a wise buffer. In that, it might be past its prime, just as indirect election of Senators was. But, forcing Presidential Candidates to look at state maps instead of major cities means that our elections move beyond NYC and LA. A good thing, in my book.

    Quote from Roy Fokker
    These are the "people who vote" you're talking about Timothy.

    People who don't even know the basic functions of their government.
    Again, I suggest that you are making the argument FOR the Electoral College. That indirect buffer allows for wiser heads to prevail, as intended in the Constitutional framework.

    This is why I'm not a 'get out the vote' advocate. I'd just as well like those that don't choose to be informed to also choose not to vote.

    Quote from Roy Fokker
    How much/many "Iraq War veteran" stuff that counter the ones you posted???????? I won't bother listing the anti-war veterans.... since they are apt to be dismissed out of hand...
    Any sufficiently large group is going to have members with diverse views. I agree that 'Iraq War Vet' stuff is as anecdotal as it is irrelevent. I merely pointed out that the opponent for my Congressman is running as an Iraq War vet. Because he's running as a Republican, I inferred, correctly, that his positions are distinctly pro-President Bush. It was an easy inference in this particular case. I was not making the case across the board that all vets support President Bush, just that being a vet AND a republican candidate infers that Van Taylor, at least, DOES support the President. That inference is backed by his campaign statements, which I didn't feel were relevant to cite.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 21, '06

close