These guys wouldn't know the constitution if it slapped them in the face

I wish conservatives could back away for a few minutes from their fear of breaking with a president of their own party and ask themselves if they want any president to have this power.

Same here, of course -- and as long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony.

The constitution is there for a reason, guys, and a day is going to come when you wish you hadn't gutted it.

Oh, of course, and they will object, loudly, vociferously and obscenely -- if/when Hillary Clinton -- hell, any Democrat -- gets elected.

Really, Kevin, after all this time, you don't imagine these yutzes have any principles at all, do you?

As Al will tell you, the brown people want to kill him (in very nasty ways) because of our freedoms.

So the only way for Al and his Mr. Binky to be safe is for us all to give up our freedom!

Kevin, you don't want the scary brown people to get my wittle Aly-kins, do you?

The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States.

This is the same power that Lincoln had when he fought the Civil War and seized Southerners who had never left the United States. This is the same power that Wilson had when he fought WWI and arrested War opponents. This is the same power that Roosevelt had when he fought WWII and arrested the Japanese so they wouldn't terrorize Americans in our homeland. What's so wrong with giving George W Bush the same powers that every other President had when they were fighting Wars?

I wish conservatives could back away for a few minutes from their fear of breaking with a president of their own party and ask themselves if they want any president to have this power.

Kevin, the law gives the current President of United States the powers to detain enemies of America. Since George W Bush is the current President of United States, he is given that power. A reasonable construction of the statute would say that Bush still has that power even if he is no longer President because the bill gives the powers to the current President of United States, who is George W Bush.

Thomas1: how, exactly, do you impeach a president for following a law passed by Congress?

I just want every Republican to understand they are giving this power to President Hillary Clinton, President Al Gore and President John Kerry. Even, if they are really lucky, President Barack Obama. Think this would change their minds?

Kevin, the mistake you're making is assuming that rightards are afraid of "breaking with the President". Breaking with Dumbya has nothing to do with it, this is purely an election-year ploy to get dems to vote against a horrendous bill and then claim dems are "soft on terror".

It is a purely cynical ploy, the GOP has no concern for the rights of Americans.

I now believe this "maladministration" and its enablers have no intention of ever giving up power.

Of course, it's up to the President whether or not you accidentally or intentionally gave money to terrorist organizations. Without the ability to challenge in court, whatever the accuser says is taken as the truth.

"It also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.""

I'm looking at you, Howard Dean! Get ready for the jackboots to come for you!

Too bad little Al can't read, seeing that Habeous is only to be surrendered under an insurrection, like, say, the Civil War.

Al can't distinguish between the civil war and the evil brown people that keep him typing away in the basement.

Incidentally, if this does violate the constitutional guarantees to a trial and habeas, isn't it just going to be overturned? Last time I checked Congress cannot overrule the constitution with a law. Of course, since it strips the right of appeal, there will be no one with the standing to take it to SCOTUS- that's a neat trick to prevent an unconstitutional law from being overturned, we should try it on other issues.

So the next time a tsunami sweeps across the Indian Ocean killing a quarter of millon largely Islamic souls, ordinary Americans wishing to contribute funds to the Red Crescent to assist tsunami survivors, victims, etc. (rather than assist some Red Cross director pay their Mercedes lease), may be rewarded for their concern with 30 years in Leavenworth or Guantanamo or some detention facility? Right?

I agree with Richard. I think the country should definitely start worrying about the Bush white house declaring some phony emergency that, they will claim, entitles them to stay in power after the 2008 elections.

They will, of course, claim that it is constitutional.

Kevin wrote: "I wish conservatives could back away for a few minutes from their fear of breaking with a president of their own party and ask themselves if they want any president to have this power."

There are no "conservatives" in America. There are only Republican Fascist bootlickers of right-wing extremist corporate-feudalist power.

The Specter Amendment goes down to defeat.

And next they add anti-troll posters to the list.

The worst part of this is that it really isn't the President I'm worried about. It's the US Attorney with political ambitions. Those guys have way too much power as it is.

I assume that this bill doesn't specify muslim extremists. What's to keep a future prez from locking up anyone who contributes to a pro-life group that bombs an abortion clinic?

Re-read your Declaration of Independence, folks. There's a clause in there you might want to re-acquaint yourself with.

Um, is it me or are others skeptical we'll have a non-Republican President or leadership any time soon?

With electronic voting, and no major push to promote absentee balloting, which leaves a clear paper trail as to voter intent, I'm confident we're halfway down a slippery slope to permanent conservative rule. I don't know how they'll pull it off over 20-30 years, but the short term looks pretty easy to do with vote suppression, electronic voting, and so on.

Greenwald also posts on Salon that the recently declassified NIE mentions leftist groups as a potential terrorist threat with no mention of right wingers like Timothy McVeigh or his ilk. That should give everyone pause.

So I think, Kevin, you're being optimistic. It's not a strategy to steal power, probably, but it definitely is a slide now being shoved forward by this sort of legislation.

Senate Kills Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001622.php

Well, well, watch your back.

With the voting machines - the law that was passed specifically says there can be no paper trails. Can anyone tell me why you would include this other than to ensure that when you fuck with the results they can not be traced or recounted. Its absolutely scary. This should be on everyone's mind. I don't trust Bush or any religious conservative. We are very close to not having a voice. But of course then I will have a reason to fight.

"It would be a lot easier, you know, if this was a dictatorship ... and I was the dictator." ~ GWB

From the legislation:

(c) Citizen of the United States- If a detainee is found to be a citizen of the United States of America, the detainee shall not be held or tried under this Act.

Re-read your Declaration of Independence, folks. There's a clause in there you might want to re-acquaint yourself with.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[...]

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

[...]

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

McCain Graham Warner all voted Nay.

And people wonder why liberals are infuriated with the Democrats for sitting politely in the audience watching the Bush administration's latest production, "The Emperor Tiffs with the Three Amigos".

No, that day will NEVER come Kevin. For a few reasons.

1) Diebold

2) No Democrat who was elected president would ever do this. Or at least, they had better not.

"This is the same power that Roosevelt had when he fought WWII and arrested the Japanese so they wouldn't terrorize Americans in our homeland."

Only a racist idiot would refer to what were a vast majority of American citizens as 'Japanese,' distinct from 'Americans,' let alone assume they were terrorists.

And no, that power, if it exists at all, was never appropriate for that situation and was acknowledged as so by the government after the fact, nitwit.

Perhaps, when in the future we have a Dem president, he can test the fortitude of the Reps who voted for it by detaining, as an enemy combatant, one of those high profile stalwarts in the GWOT? Or maybe just hold one for some indefinate period whilst that claim is being determined? Being opposed to torture, I could not condone its use here, except, perhaps, the kind that this fine fellow had approved as legitimate.

That does it. If the Democrats don't filibuster, I'll quit the party.

Again.

What are these "federal courts" you speak of, and how does the presumed contributor "enemy combatant" gain access to them?

(The bill's answer is "they don't".)

If. Sen. Clinton took the floor to say she'd regard those voting in favor of this bill as a "potential threat" to the United States, the results would be most interesting.

The constitution is there for a reason, guys, and a day is going to come when you wish you hadn't gutted it.

True.

The irony is, it won't be because a Democrat is elected. As much as I am on occasion frustrated with Dems not standing up enough to this stuff, I can't picture a Democratic President using this against right wingers, for example.

Reading this bill, however, things are so vague I can see almost everyone being in danger - including honest conservatives who realize too late what kind of power they are giving to the executive and start to oppose it.

I think legislation which does not delineate between the power the Commander in Chief has over a non-citizen, and the power he has over a citizen, is likely a bad idea. I also think it's a shame that Democrats lionize Democratic Presidents who have engaged in actions which they would denounce as near-satanic if done by Republican Presidents. Lemme know when GWB emulates FDR, and has American civilian citizens executed after trial by military tribunals, and after secretly informing the Supreme Court that the executions are going to be carried out no matter how the Court rules on their appeals.

Instead of shouting about the uniquely evil GWB, and Republicans in general, it would be preferable if Democrats took Kevin's approach (although Kevin is certainly prone to FDR worship), and simply denounced the passage of any bill which granted the President such power, and explained how such power has been abused in the past.

"I wish conservatives could back away for a few minutes from their fear of breaking with a president of their own party and ask themselves if they want any president to have this power. The constitution is there for a reason, guys, and a day is going to come when you wish you hadn't gutted it."

I'm just curious how all the rabid Republicans would feel if they enacted this, it passed, and then the Democrats took over the government?
How would they feel if a President Hillary Clinton had this "authority" ?
How would they feel if they knew a President Walter Mondale had this Power?
How would they, the Republican Party, react, when they became the ones who were viewed as anti-American?
The political pendulum swings both ways, and there will come a time when the Democrats will be the ones calling the shots.

"Fare ye well, for so little I note of you, so little will I remember of you."

hey Will, shove that "FDR did it toooo" whine straight up your ass. mm k?

What I find scary is why would anyone do any of this (Torture, G'tmo rendition etc) knowing that you will someday leave office and all the paper trails behind? The current administration will probalbly be able to stonewall investigations by a Democratic house/senate for two years with executive privlage arguments. But what about after 08? I just hope that they are going to run out of town and let the chips fall where they may. the alternitive is a true nightmare

I'm just curious how all the rabid Republicans would feel if they enacted this, it passed, and then the Democrats took over the government?

i say each and every person who supports this stuff should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors: declare every last unAmerican one of them them an "enemy combatant", lock them in individual 2x2x6 rooms for the rest of their lives. pour cold water on them every three hours.

fuck em

They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

The Soviet era dissident and political prisoner Natan Sharansky spoke the other day on CBS Evening News' 'Speaking Freely,' and failed to recognize the moral high ground he thinks the US once had no longer exists. Perhaps he needs to spend a little more time in a stress position in order to regain his liberty comprehension.

The edifice of the American republic crumbled a little more yesterday, when the House essentially set aside the Bill of Rights in fealty to the president with the longest criminal rap sheet in history. When you put a man of such low moral standards and with such a checkered past in the highest office in the land, I guess you should expect the worst.

Remember, the Roman empire did not collapse in the course of one emperor's reign. It was a long, slow rot that did it in. Our next president may be who decides whether America can retain it's past glory or whether it continues down a fetid path of dissolution and decay.

Any Senator or Congressperson who votes for this bill is "purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States" by seeking to undermine and destroy Constitutional government and replace it with a dictatorship, and should therefore, under the terms of the anti-American legislation they themselves have voted for, be imprisoned indefinitely without recourse to the courts.

The Conservative Deflator wrote: "Remember, the Roman empire did not collapse in the course of one emperor's reign. It was a long, slow rot that did it in."

Everything today moves so much faster.

clark, can you provide a link to the text you pulled that from?

Thanks,

hey, Cleek, stop lionizing people who did precisely (actually, did worse) what you find so uniquely objectionable when advocated by the people you oppose, mm k? Otherwise, people may reasonably conclude that you what you really oppose is someone other than yourself or your allies holding power, and thus conclude that you ought to shove you argument up your ass. Or are you too dim to grasp this?

Will Allen, could you explain who did "precisely" or "worse" than what is occurring right now? I'm not clear on what you're trying to say.

Thanks,

The Military Tribunals Act is nothing short of the Enabling Act.

The power to imprison anyone for any reason for any length of time is the dictatorial power that underlies all other dictatorial powers.

Kevin Drum writes: "I wish conservatives could back away for a few minutes from their fear of breaking with a president of their own party and ask themselves if they want any president to have this power."

He said, as if conservatives might want a president who isn't a conservative to have any power whatsoever.

Kevin... conservatives want a conservative president, and they want one with absolute, totalitarian power. Moreover, there is no power they will accept granting to a president who isn't conservative.

Why is this still a problem for people to understand?

To clarify, who is cleek lionizing, what did that person or those people do, is it legislative in nature and, if so, how is it comparable to the current legislation that seeks to give an appalling array of un-checked powers to the President?

Thanks,

Any Senator or Congressperson who votes for this bill ... should therefore, under the terms of the anti-American legislation they themselves have voted for, be imprisoned indefinitely without recourse to the courts.

I doubt very much if the present US Congressional legislators understand that it was Maximillian's own law of capital punishment for dissidents against the state that allowed President Juarez to proceed with his execution.

My husband got incensed at Lindsey Graham this morning and had a little fit..."A fucking JAG officer should know better. Is this asshole a JAG officer or just a JAG-off?"

The Military Tribunals Act is nothing short of the Enabling Act.

Plus, it is being proposed at the same time as other similar efforts to give the Executive unrestrained authority like the Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act.

Where has Hillary been on this? Or John Kerry? Acquiescing while the republicans are allowing Bush to torture and get away with? If anything in the history of legislation should be filibustered, it is this. As far as Hillary goes, she hasn't done anything to stand up and fight and put her neck on the line for what's right for the past 6 years.

hey Will, i'm not lionizing anybody. i didn't a fucking word in support of FDR. FDR isn't running for office again. this is 2006, not 1940. and if you aren't working to solve the current problem, you're only contributing to it. so again, take your dumb-ass whine and shove it straight up your ass.

Everett, to name just one example, FDR had American civilian citizens executed after trial by military tribunal. After sentence was passed down, and before it was carried out, FDR quietly informed the Supreme Court that he was going to have the convicted executed no matter how the Court ruled on their appeal, thus the Court should reflect on it's future legitimacy when considering the appeal. Some justices later remarked fearfully that what they had acceded to was truly dangerous.

This was an absolutely breathtaking exercise in executive power, something that makes GWB look like a County Commissioner, but of course, the tribalists who dominate our political dialogue can't be bothered with history, and thus there arguments, no matter their underlying merit, lack credibility.

There are no "conservatives" in America. There are only Republican Fascist bootlickers of right-wing extremist corporate-feudalist power.

True, but for the sake of brevity, let's just keep calling them conservatives.

Or John Kerry?

Atrios has a statement from Kerry up right now about this.

don't know about Hillary.

Hey, cleek, when you lie about the past, as people do when they portray what is being proposed today as a unique exercise in executive power in American political history, they are a part of the problem, because by lying they weaken the credibility of their argument. So those who lie can shove it straight up their ass.

Nah, most "conservatives" and the Republican party have too much invested in President Alfred E. Newman. So naturally, their attitude about how trashing the Constitution might come back to bight them is consistent with their attitude about other future consequences of Bush's disastrous policies: "What, me worry?"

As their fearless leader once put it about historical judgement: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." Consequences? Screw consequences! Full speed ahead over that cliff . . . my faith (in God, or other dogma, such as supply side economics) with sustain me!

In a twisted way this is progress. Traditionally, conservatives are worryworts, and would dwell on perceived golden eras of the past. Nowadays they just live for their self-absorbed immediate moment.

Hillary did a good job on the Senate floor a little while ago.

Who would have thought that our democracy could be brought down by a handful of glowsticks?

The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

And they can torture that somebody until they admit that it was contributed to terrorists on purpose. Sweet!

The only good news out of this depressing episode in our history is that the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule the legislation unconstituional, at least as it applies to US citizens. Of course it may be hard to find someone who has standing to challenge the legislation.

What I find really depressing is the total absence of meaningful discussion of this legislation by the major news media. Here we are about to gut some of the most cherised parts of our Consitution, and the story isn't even on the front page of the CNN or LA Times websites. Ugh!

And as a Democrat, I have to say that I am very disappointed in Harry Reid (and every other Democratic senator)for agreeing not to filibuster this legislation. This was the issue in which the Democrats needed to stand up and define themselves as being the protectors of the Constitution. Instead they quietly crawled away into the night like cowards.

I mean, if you are not going to stand up to a president with a 40% approval rating, you obviously do not have the backbone to stand up for anyone at all. Utterly disappointing. All the had to do to defeat this legislation was to stand up and state that this legislation allows the president to arrest US citizens and hold them indefintely (i.e. anyone in the US) and it would have gone down in flames. But the Demcorats aren't even competent or gutsy enough to do that.

hey Will, where did i lie about the past ? show me. i mean, when you're done defending exactly that which you claim to be so upset about, can you provide me with a link to the place where i lied about the past ?

let's see it.

Where has Hillary been on this? Or John Kerry?

Where is any civic leader, Democratic, Republican, moderate or liberal, condemning this law in the harshest language possible? Kerry and Edwards are only decrying the torture part. Only Leftists have the comprehension to recognize and courage to state unequivocally that this law is wrong morally for the Republic and liberty in general.

"Wending" its way throught Congress?

Uh, this bill is going through at about the rate of a quadruple dose of Ex-Lax.

It's diarrhea, baby, and it's pretty bad for us.

After this, can any Repub name ONE power Stalin had that W does not?????

Didn't think so.

The Supreme Court may well rule this unconstitutional but in the meantime how many people innocent or not will be tortured?

Not only the do dems not have the courage to fight this like men and women, they don't have the brains to figure out how to turn torture against their opponents - an opponent with low public approval. Weak and stupid.

Senate Kills Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill

A moment of silence please...This is the day the Terrorists Won.

I wouldn't be so sure about the actions of the Supreme Court, mfw13. This is another reason why being ignorant or dishonest about the past is so dangerous; it leads to all manner of false assumptions. Courts can be intimidated, as FDR demonstrated on several occasions, and the Court can just make stuff up. Heck, within the past few years, our Court has ruled that when Congress passes a law which regulates the content of political speech, by certain assemblies of citizens, at certain times prior to an election, no violation of the First Amendment has occurred. The Court sometimes acts as a protector of the law, and thus a brake on executive or legislative power, but it certainly can't be counted on.

The only good news out of this depressing episode in our history is that the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule the legislation unconstituional, at least as it applies to US citizens. -- mfw13

You clearly have more confidence in this Supreme Court than I do.

Terrorists have created a special class because they choose to fight in civilian clothes.

Innocent civilians wear civilian clothes too. What a coincidence!

>This is the same power that Lincoln had
It was wrong in 1860.

>This is the same power that Wilson
It was wrong in 1918. [and was wildy abused]

>This is the same power that Roosevelt had when he arrested the Japanese citizens...
And yes, it was wrong in 1942.

>What's so wrong with giving George W Bush the same powers that every other President had when they were fighting Wars?

1) Er... because it's just plain wrong. Especially with this guy in charge.

2) We are NOT at war. That's the biggest lie that's been put over on the american public in a century.

Fact: 20 guys hijacked some planes due to wildly sloppy police work (and a possible conspiracy of silence by a certain US 'ally').

Fact: 'Insider' Al-Quieda membership in 2001 was estimated by the CIA to be about 700 operatives worldwide. (The rest of Al-Quieda was a bunch of farmers with worn-out AK47's running around camps in the mountains)

World War III? Ya, you betcha. Only because it give the administration power...

Will Allen, presumably you're talking about the 7 Germans and 1 American citizen accused and convicted of spying during WWII. Were I a "tribalist" and seeking to differentiate between that case (decided by the Supreme Court in Ex part Quirin) and the current situation, I might point out the following:

1. We were involved in an armed conflict against Germany,

2. There was a formal declaration of war,

3. The Articles of War provided for the creation of military tribunals for unlawful combatants such as spies,

4. The 8 individuals were proven to be Nazi spies,

5. Historically, the United States executed spies (as have most other countries) during times of war.

If I wanted to make a further distinction, I would point out that FDR didn't torture any of the 8 people in question.

But, putting all that aside, that FDR perhaps exercised his executive power in an extra-constitutional fashion is no excuse for giving GWB free pass to do the same. It is entirely possible to make a principled argument that what our current President is seeking to do is immoral, unconstitutional, and contrary to the foundational values of this country.

The system needs to be torn down and we need to start over.

ahem. this is not 1943, and tu quoque is a logical fallacy. what we have today (2006) is a Republican-caused Constitutional crisis. and no matter how badly the lying Will Allen wants it to be, this is not about FDR.

Cleek, I meant "you" in the general sense, in that many people opposed to this bill, like in this thread, have falsely said that it would usher in an unprecedented exercise in executive power, or that the attempt to exercise such power is the sole province of Republicans or "conservatives", whatever that term means. By lying, they weaken their case. I don't know if you have ever made that claim, and I should have used the word "one", instead of "you", to be clear that I was not directing the remark specifically in your direction. I apologize.

And yet 34 Democrats voted for the bill.

And yet we're still suppose to vote Democrat. I can't do that. I can't vote for these people. I am for voting for new faces, and that all.

I don't see any reason for rewarding Dems for this awful spinelessness.

And it really is being to look like Dems are NOT going to be able to take back either house or senator - and it really is because they just can't take stand on anything and THEN they want to rewarded afterwards, but such acts simply demoralize their own constituency. Is Reid and Pelosi going to get the boot after the midterms? Dems kept Dashcle in until he was voted out of office.

JWB to GWB: sic semper tyrannis

Will Allen:

Although the morally objectionable actions of an otherwise stellar president are highly tangental to this discussion, your post piqued my interest.

Please provide some evidence that the men executed after the military tribunal initiated by FDR were, as you say, American citizens - everything I have read lists all 8 of them as Germans. Additionally, where do you come by what FDR "secretly" told the Supreme Court?

Thomas - we have been over this before - I didn't say that #1 and blow me #2

I apologize.

fair enough. then i retract my "lying Will Allen", from above.

Where is a link for the torture bill habeus corpus suspension?

mhr, you wrote:

"400,000 German prisoners [] were interned in camps in the US in [WWII]. The fact that they wore uniforms went a long way in deciding the circumstances of their internment. They were held for the duration of the war. No lawyer ever argued in a US court to the contrary. Liberals did not march in the streets or write editorials protesting their treatment. Terrorists have created a special class because they choose to fight in civilian clothes. Does not fact in and of itself entitle them to more rights than the Germans got? I think not."

So the thing here, mhr, which you either don't realize or conveniently ignore, is that we don't know who the terrorists are. We have 14,000 people in confinement and there's never been so much as an administrative hearing to determine whether they are, indeed, terrorists. Moreover, unlike, WWII, there is no clear endpoint to the struggle against people who use terrorism as a tactic, so the people currently being confined could potentially be detained indefinitely. And now, the President wants the power to not only detain people indefinitely without opportunity to defend themselves, but to torture those people to extract information from them.

You want to subject terrorists to military tribunals? Be my guest. But do it 1) after a proper administrative or judicial hearing to determine their status as a terrorist, 2) with all evidence available to the government also available to the defendant, 3) without using information obtained by the torture of that or any other person.

This isn't a question of whether terrorists "deserve" rights, it's a matter of whether we want to give up our humanity, our dignity and our liberty because you and your friends on the right are a bunch of whiney, shivering little pussies.

Ackerman: The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States

It also authorizes an American citizen's captors to beat the shit out of him!

Everett: clark, can you provide a link to the text you pulled that from?

Clark won't do that because it would expose the lie he is attempting to establish as truth. His quoted item c is not from the current legislation. It is from a bill submitted by Arlen Specter on June 29. But even under that bill, there was nothing stopping the government from seizing and detaining American citizens indefinitely. The passage quoted by Clark was under a "tribunal" subheading and it merely states that if the tribunal found the person in custody to be an American citizen the June 29 bill would not apply.

Thomas1: Just don't advocate violence against the President or Vice President of the United States, O.K.?

Shut the fuck up, you insane bastard! She said nothing to incur your veiled threats. The piece of shit sitting in the White House can advocate violence against anyone in the world he cares to -- including American citizens -- and you sit here cheering him on. Your hypocrisy matches your hero's, as does your utter worthlessness.

You did it again... moron... Its in the constitution so I will say it all I want... OK? They both need to be impeached asap

What is the obsession with FDR? Because a Democrat did something 60+ years ago that makes decent people shudder, we should now give unbridlesd and unchecked power to a dry-drunk little bitdch to even the score? Two wrongs don't make a right, folks. The error of FDR's decision to inter Japanese Americans is obvious. That was determined in a court of law and reparations were ordered paid. It was after the fact, and did not undo the disgrace of persecuting American citizens, but it was a step toward atonement. Why the hell can't we learn from our collevtive mistakes and do the right thing, instead of insisting this Publican president gets to abrogate civil liberties too, since it's only fair?

History will not judge us kindly after this.

Thomas1:

Call the thought police, Leave, or shut up. You have no moral authority here.

Its in the constitution so I will say it all I want

Unfortunately, we are not governed by the Constitution, but by our fascist rulers.

Everett, if you think that wrongly executing people is somehow superior to torturing them, feel free. Yes, Congress passed a Declaration of War against Germany, which expanded the power of the Executive Branch. Congress, wrongly, I think, now passes force authorizations, and they are now contemplating expanding the power of the Executive Branch via legislation. I think it's a bad idea to grant the Executive the same power over citizens as it has over non-citizens. It isn't unprecedented, however, and when people lie about that, they undercut their argument, in that people can then reasonably argue that their true objection isn't that the Executive Branch would have that power, but that an Executive they dislike would. They would be better served by explaining how such power had been abused in the past, but that would involve being truthful about people they normally lionize, and would inhibit their desire to portray their political opponent as uniquely evil. So they lie instead, and thus decrease their chances of reaching thier goal.

American citizens as enemy combatants

And you know how much Bush hates leakers, like the NIE report leak - are those leakers going to end up in some undisclosed Mideast torture camp? You know Bush would label them enemy combatants. Bush has a visceral hate for people that don't agree with him, like the way Bush hated Joe Wilson and his wife. The hatered you can clearly see in Bush's eyes when reporters call him on issue where he is trying to lie about something. Bush hates people that do not agree with him and you can tell by his eyes and the tone of voice.

Bush is a horribly vindictive man and now Americans are not safe from Bush's vindictive behavior. What about the liberals who can't board planes because Bush decide he didn't like liberal and he stuck them on no-fly list?

Thomas1:

I've already had the FBI at my house twice. I'm on the TCA watchlist. Feel free to make the call. I've changed my email so you can request my home address.

The Constitution isn't the only document upon which this country was founded. The Declaration of Independence understood that the government could come to ignore the Constitution, as it is now doing. In effect, it stated that when government ignored the laws, the people had a responsibility to ignore them also:

"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."

Want to bet that George W. Bush will not be President of the United States on January 21, 2009? The odds are 300,000,000 to 1.

Umm, ThomASS, Bush will be president on 1/21/09 (unless he's impeached and convicted, of course). Since the inauguration of the next democratic president occurs on that day, Dumbya will hold office for at least part of the day.

If you're wagering, I'll take that bet. Here's my $.

Call the thought police, Leave, or shut up. You have no moral authority here.

Tommieboy finally admitted last night that he is sock-puppet troll whose only purpose is to derail fruitful discussion as much as possible.

Please place him in your mental killfile, and refrain from responding to him.

Thomas1, of course, will keep his eye on anyone so subversive as to post words from the Declaration of Independence. What a patriot!

Just a piece of legal advice, enozinho: don't let the FBI into your home. You have no legal obligation to speak to them at all. If they ever do want to question you again, refer them to your lawyer. If, and only if, your attorney determines it's in your best interests to speak to them, then do so at a neutral location, such as your attorney's office, and only with your attorney present and an open recording being made of the proceedings.

Oh Christ Almighty, Thomas1, I'm watching you too, and it's kind of pathetic. This is the internet, you can be anonymous and all that bullshit, and you can report shit to the FBI if you want. Oooh boy. That's scary! Here, I'll tell you what, I think we should tear down the system too. I said it. Tear. It. Down. Now, report that to the FBI. But please, when you do, be sure to explain to them what I mean when I say that. Do you know?

Of course not, you're just a troll. But, if you really want to report it, email me offline, I'll give you all my fundamentals. In fact, I'll even draft the letter for you.

You miserable, pathetic, little bag of authoritarian poo.

Over and out,
Everett Volk

"And as a Democrat, I have to say that I am very disappointed in Harry Reid (and every other Democratic senator) for agreeing not to filibuster this legislation."

Godamnit!!!

Thanks Stefen. I remember getting the same advice at the time. But guys with guns can be very persuasive.

Disputo: Thanks for the heads up.

Lemme know when GWB emulates FDR

Fuck you on the horse's ass you came in on. I wasn't alive 60 years ago, so there wasn't much I could say about it. I am alive today and fuck yeah, I'll say something about it. If you don't like it, too fucking bad, and in the words of your hero "Go fuck yourself".

Thomas1, I just checked my email and I haven't heard from you yet. C'mon dude, you need to report my seditious ass!

Korematsu v US which upheld the keeping of 120,000... blah, blah, blah...ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Here comes Mere Hapless Rightard to regurgitate dipshit Will Allen's talking points. Fuck you, too, mhr. I wasn't alive in 1946, so there was not much I can do about it. If you're OK with this bullshit, STFU and get out of the way, because you're part of the problem, not the solution.

But being a shill for the RNC means never having to say you're part of the solution, right mhr? Will?

S Ra, this site...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/lt_111901-2.html

..provides a brief synopsis, including FDR's stance toward's the Court's authority, although it only mentions in passing two of the accused's status as naturalized citizens.

Stefan, this is the second time you've given this advice here, and while it's good advice, I'd like to point out gently that not everyone has a lawyer on speed dial. I'm fairly resourceful, and it would take me a good chunk of time to track down someone suitable, as my own use of attorneys has been limited to real-estate closings, incorporation proceedings and other simple matters related to my business. In addition, a significant number of people simply cannot afford to hire a lawyer for the purpose of answering FBI or police questions.

MeLose, apparently you are illiterate and thus cannot comprehend where I wrote that I think the legislation is a bad idea. I would have preferred it be filibustered.

Ah, I remember how this goes...now Will begins repeating, ad nauseam and with increasing hysteria, some sub-point of his thread-distracting tangent, and demands that everyone talk about that. Usually, he also throws out charges of illiteracy at someone. Meanwhile, over in corner two, Charlie's doing the "Stop threatening the POTUS!" thing. This place is like Bellevue more days that not these days.

Bwa ha ha! Will, you are too predictable, darling. Right on time with the hysterical shrieks about someone's "illiteracy."

shortstop:

Jeralyn Merritt over at talkleft was nice enough to refer me to a few lawyers in my area. I tried contacting the ACLU in my area as well, but they never got back to me. I've also written an affidavit that my wife will send to the L.A. Times in case I vanish one day. God bless America.

That point goes to Shortstop:)

Thomas1 - Are you ok with me advocating killing you?

You are correct, shortstop, that hiring a lawyer to act as an intermediary with the FBI is beyond the means of some people. The expense, however, pales in comparison with the potential cost of having even an innocuous conversation with a Federal Agent. The way the laws are now written and interpreted, wrongly, in my view, a person would be a fool to have a conversation of any kind with Federal Authorities absent a subpeona and an offer of immunity, no matter how completely innocent of any wrongdoing the person is. Even then, a person would be well served to learn to couch any response to any question in a way that would protect you from future accusation of untruthfullness. It really is a shame, for I fear that eventually current law will go a long way from discouraging even the most honest and law-abiding citizen from cooperating with law enforcement fully.

MeLose, apparently you are illiterate and thus cannot comprehend where I wrote that I think the legislation is a bad idea. I would have preferred it be filibustered.

I'm literate enough to read you're incessant whining about things that happened over 60 years ago. And you didn't say the bill is a bad idea, you said it was "likely a bad idea"? Wow, way to step off the ranch, Will! Afraid the RNC will withhold your troll check for this month?

Shrotstop, please explain how claiming another person's statements to be the exact opposite of what was actually written is not a sign of illiteracy or dishonesty. Would it be preferable if I were to be less generous, and thus conclude that they did not have an intellectual defect, but rather a moral failing?

Just me... answer the question

Yes melose, I wrote "likely". Gosh, what an error on my part.

Thomas1: I'm not threatening to "report" anyone EXCEPT advocates of violence to the President or Vice President of the United States.

When Bush fell off the Segway, I was for it. When he took several topples from his mountain bike, I was absolutely in favor of them. Whenever he might inadvertently step on a rake and slam its handle into his head, I'll be a strong advocate of laughing hysterically at the foolish criminal.

By the way, have you had any mishaps lately that the rest of us could laughingly support as being just desserts?

Yes melose, I wrote "likely". Gosh, what an error on my part.
Posted by: Will Allen

Yes, Will, as a linguist of your stature would no doubt realize, "likely" is a modifier, implying that you don't know that it's a bad idea, you just think it might be.

Changes the context quite a bit, no?

I did already you stupid retarded fool...

JUST ME...

Shortstop: Stefan, this is the second time you've given this advice here, and while it's good advice, I'd like to point out gently that not everyone has a lawyer on speed dial.

Not to mention that calling a lawyer does no good if they won't let you -- just as not letting them in without a warrant does no good if they tell you they don't need a warrant. And they don't.

Thomas1 I'll just sum it up by saying you are a coward and a pussy... I would take a giant shit on you...

I would take a giant shit on you...

Join the CIA, and get paid to do it!

Stefan, this is the second time you've given this advice here, and while it's good advice, I'd like to point out gently that not everyone has a lawyer on speed dial. I'm fairly resourceful, and it would take me a good chunk of time to track down someone suitable, as my own use of attorneys has been limited to real-estate closings, incorporation proceedings and other simple matters related to my business. In addition, a significant number of people simply cannot afford to hire a lawyer for the purpose of answering FBI or police questions.

Very good point. If you don't have a lawyer of your own, or can't afford one (now I sound like a Miranda warning) there are a variety of other resources available -- organizations such as the ACLU, for example, or, if you live near a university or law school, free legal clinics.

And if you really can't get a lawyer, and the FBI or police are still asking to come in, just say no. Don't give them an interview. Too few people remember that they actually have the right to refuse to speak to the authorities. In the vast majority of cases, speaking to the authorities without your own attorney present and monitoring can only be to your disadvantage.

Not really, melose, since I also wrote, a half hour before your post about about me supposedly shilling for the Republicans..

"I think it's a bad idea to grant the Executive the same power over citizens as it has over non-citizens"

Given that someone who is shilling for another does not claim that those for whom they are supposedly shilling have likely put forth bad proposals, or definitely put forth bad proposals, one can only conclude that you are either a liar or an illiterate. Then again, it is possible that you have hit the daily double, and are both.

Thomas1, I do believe you're full of poo when you say, "I'm not threatening to "report" anyone EXCEPT advocates of violence to the President or Vice President of the United States. If you do that, you can explain how you meant it all you want to them."

C'mon, man, we're not rightwingers here, we all know how to read. Originally, dee wrote:

"The system needs to be torn down and we need to start over."

Then (perhaps projecting?), you infer some violent intent there and imply that she's advocating harm to the POTUS or VPOTUS. At this point, enozinho suggested you call the thought police and you responded with, "I'm watching you."

So, Thomas1, what you're actually doing is imputing statements and intentions to folks on this thread, and then threatening to report them. That's a far cry from reporting advocates of violence.

So, I'll say it again, "We need to tear the system down." Now please report my seditious ass, so I don't have to.

Terrorists have created a special class because they choose to fight in civilian clothes. Does not fact in and of itself entitle them to more rights than the Germans got? I think not.
Posted by: mhr on September 28, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

On this one, mhr, it is nothing new.

Ref: The Viet Cong.

They did not wear 'the uniform' of the North, nor did they fight (generally) conventional battles. They, in short, conducted their affairs much as the Jihadi's in Iraq are right now, i.e. terrorist tactics.

I would consider them to be the same - on the battlefield. Out in The World, I would refer to Geneva or local Law depending upon circumstances.

Just because we have made egregious mistakes in the past, does not give us license to continue making them. One can find 'justification' in 'history' for literally anything if we were that craven.

dee: I would take a giant shit on you...

eno: Join the CIA, and get paid to do it!

That was really funny.

I sure as heck will, T1. I mean, as you've so clearly stated, there are all sorts of sick, twisted and violet concepts underlying my assertion that "We need to tear the system down." And since I'm advocating that we do just that, I NEED to be reported. It's what any patriot would and since I'm nothing but patriotic, I'm going to have to report myself if you don't.

Lurker? Posting under some other name? C'mon dude, I'm not some anonymous rightwing troll. My name is Everett Volk. Please, Google me. Look me up. Whatever. And then report me and dee and enozinho and all the other seditious bastards on this site to "The Authorities." I'm begging you, report me. I've said it five times now, and if it's good enough for dee, than it's good enough for me.

We need to tear the system down.

AHHHHHHHH. Six times!

Oops, I meant "violent." Of course, since violet is such a poofter sort of color, and poofters are anathema to Freedomeaglejesusamerica, then no doubt the poofterish violet sentiments underlying the statement "We need to tear the system down" are equally seditious.

And, as long as you don't advocate violence, I won't report you either.

If anybody's in serious danger of being reported, it's someone who's posted obsessively on this board about various scenarios on how to use nukes to kill a million Americans.

I'd be happy to forward all those posts to the proper authorities, along with my theory about how a pathetic, delusional loner might actually try and set off or assist some kind of terrorist attack to instigate a desired police state. I'll make sure to include other disturbing posts from this individual, including the one in which he talks about insurrection:

If same-sex marriage sweeps the country, I expect an armed revolution.

Posted by: Charlie on June 14, 2004 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

They can easily obtain the relevant web activity records from the service provider to see past any ridiculous attempts to hide by changing a handle.

And I'll post to you just what I posted to you. You infer violent intent toward the POTUS or VPOTUS in my statement that we need to tear the system down. That such intent doesn't lay therein speaks more to your state of mind than mine. But, since you threatened, on that basis alone, to report dee, then I plead, beg, urge and otherwise importune you to report me for saying that "We need to tear the system down."

Don't try to weasel out of this troll. You're throwing threats out there that are, on their face, ridiculous. We all know it. You know it. So I'm calling you on it. Follow the fuck up already and report me.

My Seditious Ass would be an excellent name for a band.

And "You're Illiterate! You're Illiterate! You're Illiterate!" would be a good name for a TV show about a wacky group of Republicans and their adventures in psych ward group therapy. After the second episode, they'd all be heavily medicated and doze off, and the series would be canceled.

Thomas1: Just don't advocate violence against the President or Vice President of the United States, O.K.?

That would be a lot easier if he didn't advocate violence against people all over the world -- if he wasn't a murderer.

Thomas1: You have a pending question out there too ; )

Answering questions of someone who supports torture and who has threatened to contact authorities capable of inflicting torture would be as unwise as not having a lawyer present during interrogation.

Questions for you: How many restraining orders have been filed against you? How many cruelty to animal convictions? If God appeared before you and said that you must eat his shit, how wide would you open your mouth?

(No fair saying, "None," "None," and "He wouldn't do that." If he did. (mysterious ways and all))

This is the same power that Wilson had when he fought WWI and arrested War opponents. This is the same power that Roosevelt had when he fought WWII and arrested the Japanese so they wouldn't terrorize Americans in our homeland.

Bullshit. Some not true; some true but immoral. What Roosevelt did to Americans of Japanese dissent was wrong, for example, and he shouldn't have been given the power to do it. It was wrong, by the way, because it was based on lies and irrational fear -- pretty much the situation we have here.

Thomas1, it's plenty clear. You inferred intentions that didn't exist in dee's statement, you implied that dee had done something she didn't and then you made a threat based on that incorrect, illogical, and disprovable implication. Now, you're trying to back off it. The only person today who has even mentioned violence against the POTUS/VPOTUS is you.

You can shuck and jive all you want, but I'm going to call you on it twinkle-toes. Report me and share with the Secret Service, this entire thread. Please, I beg you. Here's their number: 202-406-8000.