Bush granted "All powers necessary" to protect America

[Vic]

Clear violation of the 6th Amendment. Hopefully the Supremes will step in, but otherwise the fox guard the henhouse. Where, may I ask, are the Democrat leaders? MIA it seems.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Who would you consider a democrat leader with any particular power? Ted Kennedy? Heh... :\ Let's face it: The GOP has both houses of congress, the presidency, and now the SCOTUS. There ain't no stopping them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Who would you consider a democrat leader with any particular power? Ted Kennedy? Heh... :\ Let's face it: The GOP has both houses of congress, the presidency, and now the SCOTUS. There ain't no stopping them.

"That the 'conservatives' think they are winning proves very little. Conservatives always think they are winning. That the 'liberals' think they are losing proves even less. Liberals always think they are losing." -- Andrew M. Greeley

So... bullsh!t aside, what exactly are the democrats doing to protect our rights in this issue? I consider this much more important than socialized healthcare (which is the democrat darling issue for example) but I see nothing being done. Oh, sure, there's a lot of whining among people who call themselves democrats yet no action whatsoever from elected democrat officials. And those who do not oppose an evil endorse it with their inaction. Would you not say that is the case?

 

[2Xtreme21]

I do agree with you, Vic. The Democrats, as it stands right now, are all talk. But as I said, the reason they are is because they have no room to do anything. Any piece of legislation brought up that contradicts the GOP is going to be immediately shot down. I suppose they can just filibuster everything...

I believe a lot are just waiting for 06 and 08, and hopefully some shifting of power.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Seems like it will be overturned. That can't possibly be constitutional, no "resolution", regardless of wording, can take away our rights under the constitution. And inefinate detention without trial is certainly one of those rights.

According to the article the SCOTUS already ruled on a similar case.

This is a dangerous road. God forbid some leftist wacko wins the Presidency in the future.

why would you bring political agenda into this? I mean, what's with the left bashing? did you think it was somehow constructive to the discussion at hand? 😕

can't we agree that it's dangerous for any person, regardless of their ideology, to have the power to suspend the rights of a US citizen garunteed to them by the constitution?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I do agree with you, Vic. The Democrats, as it stands right now, are all talk. But as I said, the reason they are is because they have no room to do anything. Any piece of legislation brought up that contradicts the GOP is going to be immediately shot down. I suppose they can just filibuster everything...

I believe a lot are just waiting for 06 and 08, and hopefully some shifting of power.

A party should not count on getting elected on the basis of their opposition's failures alone. That never works. The rats rarely get voted out, some promising new star has to get himself voted in.

Personally, I believe that the right and the left hand work together. The one distracts while the other manipulates. Like I said, those who do not oppose an evil endorse it with their inaction. It's odd how often the elected officials in either party at times when they should be protesting loudly and protesting loudly other times when the issue is of little consequence, isn't it? So the left moves in socialism while the right moves in totalitarianism to make sure no one complains about the methods and manner of the socialism. If all one cared about was establishing absolute government power in a democratic nation historically opposed to such a thing, this would be an ideal agenda.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: MadRat
And, btw, notice the little side note from my article: "Luttig, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, was joined in his opinion by Judges M. Blane Michael and William B. Traxler Jr."

He's a white male, which significantly lowers his chances.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: MadRat
And, btw, notice the little side note from my article: "Luttig, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, was joined in his opinion by Judges M. Blane Michael and William B. Traxler Jr."

He's a white male, which significantly lowers his chances.

right ...

like being a white male has lowered the chances of a ALL of our 43 Presidents

8 of our 9 supreme court justices are white ... 1 is a white female, soon to be replaced by a white male

and 95% of our elected politicians are white. especially in the senate, which is probably the most white institution in America

but yes, being a white male significantly lowers your chances of gaining a political career

 

[NumbersGuy]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The term "enemy combatant" is not comprehensive enough to protect us adequitely. A more general, ambiguous term is necessary to expand its reach. Perhaps a simple "enemy of the state" would do, allowing far more bad citizens to be stripped of their rights by executive fiat. This might allow GWB to easily round up all of those traitorous anti war protesters and un-American liberals and keep them out of sight.

:thumbsup:

From the Wikipedia:

"The role of the Gestapo was to investigate and combat "all tendencies dangerous to the State." It had the authority to investigate treason, espionage and sabotage cases, and cases of criminal attacks on the Nazi Party and on Germany.

The law had been changed in such a way that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review. Nazi jurist Dr. Werner Best stated, "As long as the [Gestapo] ... carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally." The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws.

The power of the Gestapo most open to misuse was "Schutzhaft" or "protective custody" ? a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings, typically in concentration camps."

Of course the US is not Nazi Germany, the GOP is not the Nazi party, Guantanamo is not a concentration camp and Homeland is not the same as Fatherland or state. That was long ago, in a continent far away.

Plus we don't have a Gestapo, and nobody says "Heil Bush." :disgust:

862 days to go before Bush and gang are gone.
🙂

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur
So, just what exactly is the evidence against him anyway?

It can't be very good, otherwise why not just try him?

Agreed. If he's such a BAD MAN why not try him? It's starting to look more and more like he's being held because his "mind isn't right."

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dahunan
Just checking in to see if you consider yourself to be a Rightist WACKO?

Not at all. Liberalism is in its last throes.

No, it's is democracy and freedom that is "it's" last throes.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dahunan
Just checking in to see if you consider yourself to be a Rightist WACKO?

Not at all. Liberalism is in its last throes.

No, it's is democracy and freedom that is "it's" last throes.

That wil be the case if the Hillarycare socialists come into power.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dahunan
Just checking in to see if you consider yourself to be a Rightist WACKO?

Not at all. Liberalism is in its last throes.

No, it's is democracy and freedom that is "it's" last throes.

That wil be the case if the Hillarycare socialists come into power.

Ahh, here comes the "rightist whacko" BS. 😀 Tell me again what we should do with our old people??

 

[conjur]

Easy, 1EZduzit.


Kevork 'em.


Problem solved.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Ahh, here comes the "rightist whacko" BS. 😀 Tell me again what we should do with our old people??

The same thing that was done for the ~150 years of our country's history before the New Deal programs.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is very bad to let terrorists opperate because we are liberal. It is very bad to lock up innocent people without trial.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Ahh, here comes the "rightist whacko" BS. 😀 Tell me again what we should do with our old people??

The same thing that was done for the ~150 years of our country's history before the New Deal programs.

So you propose to buy them farms and settle them in the country?? Finally you have a decent idea. :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Who would you consider a democrat leader with any particular power? Ted Kennedy? Heh... :\ Let's face it: The GOP has both houses of congress, the presidency, and now the SCOTUS. There ain't no stopping them.

"That the 'conservatives' think they are winning proves very little. Conservatives always think they are winning. That the 'liberals' think they are losing proves even less. Liberals always think they are losing." -- Andrew M. Greeley

So... bullsh!t aside, what exactly are the democrats doing to protect our rights in this issue? I consider this much more important than socialized healthcare (which is the democrat darling issue for example) but I see nothing being done. Oh, sure, there's a lot of whining among people who call themselves democrats yet no action whatsoever from elected democrat officials. And those who do not oppose an evil endorse it with their inaction. Would you not say that is the case?

I agree, but I'd save my displeasure for the Republicans first, the Dems are second. After all, the Republicans are pretty firmly in control at the moment, and while I can complain that the Dems aren't doing enough, the stupidity is clearly coming from a different primary sourse.

 

[Moonbeam]

Too bad laws can't give the Pres a brain. We'll always be in harms way with this guy driving.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Too bad laws can't give the Pres a brain. We'll always be in harms way with this guy driving.

I wish I could say that the problem was just in Mr. Bush's head, but we've been on this road for quite a while now. Bush and his crew are just a lot more brazen about it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Too bad laws can't give the Pres a brain. We'll always be in harms way with this guy driving.

I wish I could say that the problem was just in Mr. Bush's head, but we've been on this road for quite a while now. Bush and his crew are just a lot more brazen about it.

Indeed. And actually, in certain areas (especially cyber laws) Clinton and friends were just as bad, if not worse. Some of the quotes from those days are right along the same lines as what the Bushies are saying today.