Why the Senate bill is NOT the end of Democracy as we know it

[Todd33]

GOP leaders continued such attacks after the wiretapping vote. "For the second time in just two days, House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists," Hastert said Thursday night, while Boehner lashed out at what he called "the Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies."

These pieces of $hit will say anything, no matter how false. Does anyone in their right mind think the Dems or moderate repugs are interested in terrorist? Of course not, they just go on TV and say the most asinine things knowing the average American knows so little about the bills. Maybe we need to be more like those Asian Parliaments where they run over and beat the crap out of each other, I'd wipe the smirk of fat boy Hastert's face in 2 seconds if I was in the house and he said those things.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Todd33

GOP leaders continued such attacks after the wiretapping vote. "For the second time in just two days, House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists," Hastert said Thursday night, while Boehner lashed out at what he called "the Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies."

These pieces of $hit will say anything, no matter how false. Does anyone in their right mind think the Dems or moderate repugs are interested in terrorist? Of course not, they just go on TV and say the most asinine things knowing the average American knows so little about the bills. Maybe we need to be more like those Asian Parliaments where they run over and beat the crap out of each other, I'd wipe the smirk of fat boy Hastert's face in 2 seconds if I was in the house and he said those things.

The problem is that they are unaccountable for the stupid crap they say. The average voter is too poorly informed to know that Boehner and Hastert are lying. Add that to the fact that the average voter views Democracy as some sort of football game, where the important thing is for his side to win, and you have a situation where the vast majority of people get ALL their information from whatever "their" leaders tell them. I can't think of a worse way to run a Democracy.

Thankfully the founding fathers realized that not everyone would take democracy as seriously as them, so we have courts and a constitution to keep the average dumbasses in check. There ARE ways around the courts of course, but I guess the founding fathers assumed that not that many Americans would be dumbasses at the same time, or at least they wouldn't be dumbasses in the same direction.

 

[palehorse]

I still cannot understand how/why so many people believe that our U.S. Constitution can and should protect Joe beloved patriot after he is picked up on the corner of Fubar St. in Ramadi, Iraq, while carrying an RPG, an AK47, and has C4 taped to his stomach...?

I do understand why he should be treated humanely, but not why some of you feel that he should be given the same civil rights as Joe Smith picked up for drug dealing in NYC.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I still cannot understand how/why so many people believe that our U.S. Constitution can and should protect Joe beloved patriot after he is picked up on the corner of Fubar St. in Ramadi, Iraq, while carrying an RPG, an AK47, and has C4 taped to his stomach...?

I do understand why he should be treated humanely, but not why some of you feel that he should be given the same civil rights as Joe Smith picked up for drug dealing in NYC.

I don't think you really understand the argument. In the first place, this new bill DOESN'T just apply to "Joe beloved patriot picked up in Iraq", it applies to individuals detained ANYWHERE in the world, including the United States, and seems to apply to US citizens as well. It is a well tested legal idea that our legal protections do not ONLY apply to our citizens, but that is at least the minimum requirement. The second objection I and others have is that, while you may understand why we should treat detainees humanely, the gulf between how the government (especially in this bill) defines "humane treatment" and "the same civil rights as Joe Smith from NYC" is rather too large for some of us.

In any case, you seem to misunderstand the debate. It's not about whether or not to give Abu Badguy the exact same rights a US citizens would get if arrested in Chicago, it's about treating detainees humanely and about making sure US citizens aren't loosing thier civil liberties. Whether you realize it or not, both of those things are problems lately.

 

[slash196]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that since the bill is an outline for a new judicial system that it wasn't subject to judicial review?

Besides, I can't imagine a case going to the supreme court about this law since detainees are deprived of their right to challenge their imprisonment in court.