Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 28, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ENEMY COMBATANTS....Bruce Ackerman provides a good nickel summary of the main problem with the detainee bill currently wending its way through Congress:

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 allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. 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.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

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'll wish you hadn't gutted it.

Kevin Drum 12:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (198)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

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

Posted by: GOD on September 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Gregory on September 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Al's Mommy on September 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Al on September 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: northzax on September 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Richard on September 28, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SP on September 28, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

"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!

Posted by: American Hawk on September 28, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Al's Mommy on September 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SP on September 28, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Ray Waldren on September 28, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Fred on September 28, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Specter Amendment goes down to defeat.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 28, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Steven Donegal on September 28, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Dug on September 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Jim J on September 28, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Joe on September 28, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Senate Kills Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill

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

Well, well, watch your back.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Otolaryx on September 28, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: clark on September 28, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

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:

Posted by: Stefan on September 28, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

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".

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: MNPundit on September 28, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

"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.

Posted by: Bill H. on September 28, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: jeffreyw on September 28, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

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

Again.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

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".)

Posted by: Robert Earle on September 28, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: JMG on September 28, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Fides on September 28, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

"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."

Posted by: sheerahkahn on September 28, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: codemonkey on September 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 28, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

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

Thanks,

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

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,

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: s9 on September 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

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,

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

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.


Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

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?"

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK
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.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Chrissy on September 28, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on September 28, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Or John Kerry?

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

don't know about Hillary.

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Bragan on September 28, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

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!

Posted by: ckelly on September 28, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: mfw13 on September 28, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"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.

Posted by: jawbone on September 28, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

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


Didn't think so.

Posted by: CN on September 28, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Chrissy on September 28, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Senate Kills Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill

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

Posted by: ckelly on September 28, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: bragan on September 28, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

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

Innocent civilians wear civilian clothes too. What a coincidence!

Posted by: ckelly on September 28, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

>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...

Posted by: Buford on September 28, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

JWB to GWB: sic semper tyrannis

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: S Ra on September 28, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I apologize.

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

Posted by: cleek on September 28, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: factchecker on September 28, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:

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

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

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."

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

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 $.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Stefan on September 28, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

"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!!!

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

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".

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

That point goes to Shortstop:)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 - Are you ok with me advocating killing you?

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Just me... answer the question

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

I did already you stupid retarded fool...

JUST ME...

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I would take a giant shit on you...

Join the CIA, and get paid to do it!

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Stefan on September 28, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Otolaryx on September 28, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

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

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

That was really funny.

Posted by: nintendo on September 28, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

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!

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

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))

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: David in NY on September 28, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Given the fact the your posts are tedious and interminable, one would think that it is understandable that someone might miss the one point you make in a 1200 word post.

Since it is obvious I am able to read, comprehend and respond to your posts, yet you continue to refer to me as illiterate, would lead one to infer that, indeed there is a liar in this thread, and it ain't me.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I am not "Charlie"

I'll leave that up to the proper authorities to decide, although I'm sure they won't be fooled any more than anyone here is. They have experts both in psychopathology and cyberfraud.

I will gladly answer your questions, as soon as you answer mine. Posted by: Charlie on May 7, 2004 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey Davis or SavageView - are you still around?
Posted by: Charlie on May 3, 2004 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

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.

And yet Viet Cong prisoners held by the Americans during the Vietnam War were held under Geneva Convention standards. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention was construed broadly by the US military so as to accord full POW status to Viet Cong fighters, so that any VC captured in combat would be held in a POW camp rather than in civilian jail. US Army policy in Vietnam was that all combatants captured during military operations were to be given POW status, regardless of the type of fighting unit to which they belonged. See, e.g. in MACV Directive 381-11, dated 5 March 1966.

The delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross said of the US govt. policy regarding treatment of Viet Cong as POWs:

"The MACV [Military Assistance Command Vietnam] instruction . . . is a brilliant expression of a liberal and realistic attitude.... This text could very well be a most important one in the history of the humanitarian law, for it is the first time . . . that a government goes far beyond the requirements of the Geneva Convention in an official instruction to its armed forces. The dreams of today are the realities of tomorrow, and the day those definitions or similar ones will become embodied in an international treaty . . . will be a great one for man concerned about the protection of men who cannot protect themselves."

Well, those were the days...ironic, isn't it, that we now look back to the Vietnam War, for god's sakes, as a highlight of American humanitarianism and respect for international law....

Posted by: Stefan on September 28, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Post deleted.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Thomas1, yes. As I stated before, you inferred intentions in dee's statement and then implied that she intended violence. You did that right here:

No thanks, dee. I guess you meant "tear down the system" except leave Bush and Cheney in office, unharmed then?

What else were you doing EXCEPT implying that she had violent intent in her original statement? Nothing. You made the inferrence, you made the implication, you made the threat. So follow through, twinkletoes. Report me.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

No, Melose, what is obvious, if indeed you are not illiterate, is that you lied. Why do you believe so plainly being dishonest serves your purpose?

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

"You're illiterate! You're illiterate! You're illiterate!"

Nurse Ratched hustles in, calling, "What is that racket! Who is making that noise?!

"Oh, it's you Willy. I'm going to have to tell your mother about this." Willy starts to shiver and cry. Thomas1 jumps to his feet and flies at the nurse, strangling her. Cut to a scene six months later.

Thomas1 sits in front of the window, staring blankly out, fresh lobotomy scars apparent on his forehead. He is silent. Really, really silent.

Well, I told y'all it was a feel-good comedy.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Everett, from now on every criticism of the Bush regime will be considered an implied violent threat. Fear of terrorists will be replaced by fear of political arrest as an enemy combatant.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, just let us know if you have something to say.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile, no doubt Thomas1 creams his tighty-whiteys at the thought.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Will Asperger, I most certainly will.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

No, Melose, what is obvious, if indeed you are not illiterate, is that you lied. Why do you believe so plainly being dishonest serves your purpose?
Posted by: Will Allen

No, Will ,the only thing obvious is that you are an insufferable asshole. Missing one comment in your hundreds of words in this thread is hardly a lie, it is an omission. Call it a lie if you like, it doesn't bother me, nor does it change the fact that you are an insufferable asshole.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

nor does it change the fact that you are an insufferable asshole.

Right you are. Nor does it change the fact that he'll be reposting some barely varied form of "Are you a liar or are you illiterate? Squaaaaawk!" 17 more times before he's through. The last five or six posts in the thread will be his.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

When is Inauguration Day, MeLoseBrain? (Talk about a lobotomy ; )
Posted by: Thomas1

OK, you got me TomASS, now STFU, nobody cares what you have to say.

Of course, Will Allen will say I lied about Inauguration Day, right Will?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

The one thing Bush loves to do is make people's assholes insufferable. The Soviets called it the invisible brand.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen, my apologies for not responding to you earlier, I was trying to get my seditious ass reported to the Secret Service. I'll respond in turn:

Everett, if you think that wrongly executing people is somehow superior to torturing them, feel free.

I don't think wrongly executing someone is superior to torture. However, I disagree with your characterization that the 6 condemned in Ex parte Quirin were wrongly executed. In the context of a formal declaration of war and ongoing hostilities, it seems reasonable to apply rules specifically mandated by Congress before the fact in the Articles of War. Thus, without further evidence to the contrary, I would assert that a military tribunal was not an improper forum for the trial of the 8 accused saboteurs.

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.

We agree on this point.

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

I'm not sure about the specifics of this claim, but I think I agree and disagree somewhat. In most instances, I believe that citizens and non-citizens alike have the same constitutional protections. However, in times of war, I can see where there may be instances when non-citizens should be treated differently. But, in those cases, there needs to be 1) a clear demarcation between times of war and times of peace (i.e. a formal declaration and cessation of hostilities), and 2) clear checks on the power of the Executive. If one is going to assert that the Executive has limitless power in an unending conflit, I will have to heartily disagree.

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.

Not sure how to respond to this. I greatly admire much of what FDR did as a President, especially during the Depression, but I recognize that he was deeply flawed. Among his flaws, however, was NOT a willingness to gut the Constitution for partisan gain. Nor among his flaws was a desire to have Congress ratify his power to indefinitely detain and torture individuals he has declared enemies. Yeah, he militated for the execution of the 8 accused in Ex parte Quirin, but that was an isolated incident, there were procedural protections in place, he didn't assert some magical CiC power to do so, and he certainly NEVER asked Congress to explicitly give him the power to do it in perpetuity.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

The "No thanks, dee" post came AFTER she refused to answer my question and wanted me to "blow" her.

You can't dig yourself out twinkletoes. If she had said, "Ok" instead of "I never said that" would you have then NOT made the inferrence? I'm quite certain the answer is no.

So c'mon twink, step up to the plate and follow through on that swing. You threatened to report folks who said, "We need to tear down the system", so go ahead and report me. Please, for the love of all that is red, white and blue, report me.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Everett, I'll have to side with the Justice who wrote the decision justifying the tribunals, after the six were executed (talk about after the fact!), who privately concluded that the naturalized citizens should have had the protection of the normal criminal courts, which would have been consistent with Civil War precedents. Those two were wrongfully executed, and they were wrongfully executed not because Roosevelt had the honesty to openly petition Congrees for such authority, but because Roosevelt was not inhibited in any way from using the most raw political power to intimidate the Supreme Court whenever he saw fit, as evidenced by the fact that it is something he attempted with some frequency. He did indeed try to gut the Constitution, he just did it behind closed doors. I prefer my Constitution-gutters to do their gutting in the open.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Have you tried to argue the same way against FDR's romp through the Bill of Rights?

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on September 28, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

I did not threaten to report folks who said that. Please review what I did threaten to report folks for, and then we can discuss all you'd like.

Sure you didn't twinkletoes. Let's look at your process

1. You inferred that dee intended violent action when she said we need to tear the system down.

2. You implied that the statement included the intention to harm the POTUS/VPOTUS.

3. You stated that you would report anyone who advocated violence against the same.

If that's not a threat to report anyone who says, "We need to tear down the system." I don't know what is. I've said it atleast 8 times now. So report me. Please, for the love of Mom, apple pie, and baseball, report me before I say it again.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 is a Moron -

I totally agree with you. But it's just so fun and easy. Kind of like going to the shooting range and choosing the target at 3 yards. You can't hardly miss. But, that said, I apologize for diverting from the original topic.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

I know, I participated, too, with my psych ward TV show tangent. And the whole thread is now about Will's obsession with FDR and Charlie's obsession with his own navel, not about the detainee bill. Which is, of course, exactly what Will and Charlie intended.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

If you threaten to have sex with children, I will report you, Thomas1.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, melose, you blatantly misrepresent what other's positions are, in a post filled with invective, then, when called on it, you lack the grace to retract (see my interaction with cleek above, given you are likely too stupid to understand the meaning of "grace". It's not a reference to the former movie star who married Monaco's Prince), and that makes somebody else
an insufferable asshole. Thank you for another diversion through the ruins of your intellect.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, you better not threaten to cut up any babies, because I'll report you if you do.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Don't even think about threatening to rape your grandson, Thomas1, because I'll report you if you do.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: I like to hold my poop in.

Careful, I think that makes you an "Enema Combatant" -- and you gotta remember that the decider-in-chief doesn't speak English all that well.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

'Taint a premise, 'tis a factual statement. But I'll put your actions in syllogistic format if you wish:

Major Premise: All threats of violence against the POTUS/VPOTUS must be reported.

Minor Premise: The statement that we need to tear down the system contains an implied threat of violence against the POTUS/VPOTUS.

Conclusion: Statements that we need to tear down the system must be reported.

Now twinkletoes, you stated the first and second, those of us with an inkling of logic can reach the natural conclusion that flows therefrom. So go and report me please.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, but I've got reason to watch you, Thomas1.

And I'll report you if you threaten to explode bombs in the faces of Muslim schoolchildren, too.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Who's typing for you then?

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Will. when posters give cover for a Congress willing to burn our constitution in the streets, it pisses me off. I'm funny that way.

Yeah, yeah, I know, FDR did it too, 20 years before I was born. Sorry I didn't have the forsight to object. The only thing is, Will, that quaint document - the Geneva Convention - hadn't been drawn up. Now that doesn't mean I support what FDR did - I don't - just that he wasn't violating the constitution. But you knew that, Will, so, tell me, who's the liar?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, you don't understand the difference between directly stating something and implying something? Or are you just playing dumb because you're unwilling to follow through on idle threats? I guess that means you're not going to report me, eh?

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

I understand the difference. I am not playing dumb. It is not an idle threat to report anyone, you included, for advocating violence against the President or Vice President of the United States.

Really?

If same-sex marriage sweeps the country, I expect an armed revolution. Posted by: Charlie on June 14, 2004 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

You wrote this, you know you wrote this, I know you wrote this, Kevin knows you wrote this, Jesus Christ knows you wrote this. Sounds to me an awful lot like a call for violent revolution.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

I understand the difference. I am not playing dumb. It is not an idle threat to report anyone, you included, for advocating violence against the President or Vice President of the United States.

No, the idle threat is the one not followed through on.

So here you are, implying that certain posters who have said they want to tear down the system have made threats of violence against POTUS/VPOTUS. And, then, a few posts later you are threatening to report people who make threats against POTUS/VPOTUS. The clear implication: you want to report people who say they want to tear down the system.

Now, I've clearly stated that I want to tear down the system. By your logic, and your logic alone, that's reportable. So go ahead and report me twinkletoes. Or stop making idle threats. Whichever you prefer. I know you're a blowhard, regardless. But, if you do intend to follow through, email me offline and I'll give you all the information you need to file a full and complete report.

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Now, Thomas1, why would I do that? Your inferences and implications are clearly stated:

"I guess you meant 'tear down the system' except leave Bush and Cheney in office, unharmed then?"

Posted by: Everett on September 28, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Asking a proven liar anything is hardly an effective means to get at the truth.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

No, melose, FDR did violate the Constitution, in that the executed citizens deserved a trial in criminal court, but FDR had them put before a military tribunal, which did not have reasonable doubt as the standard of guilt, while FDR had his Attorney General quitely informing the Court that he was going to fry the accused no matter how the Court ruled, and after the tribunal found them guilty, he strapped two citizens into ol'Sparky, and tossed the switch, and then had the Court write up an opinion in support of the executions after the fact.

Now, the fact that FDR violated the Constitution then does not justify violations now. It is a lie, however, a lie many in this thread have put forth, to say that what Bush is proposing is an unprecedented exercise in executive power. There isn't much greater exercise in power than killing citizens while telling the Supreme Court that the killings are going to take place no matter how the Court rules. Furthermore, it is a lie which does not serve the purpose of effectively opposing what the people here purport to wish to stop, because the lie reasonably can cause others to claim that what the liars really oppose is the exercise of power by an executive they oppose, instead of the general principle involved.

In other words, when supposedly arguing for a general principle, it is inadvisable to lie about how the principle has been treated in the past. Better to explain why the abuse of the principle in the past was harmful, as an example of why the principle should be upheld today.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I can't be sure I agree with you on this because you've cried wolf so many times before, but if you are sincerely concerned about these issues AND if you think the evil, evil Repubs are going to throw charitable citizens in the gulag [between putting arsenic in the drinking water and dumping grandma in the snow with no shoes] why don't you call for a sunset provision in two or three years, as was done with the Patriot Act. Then we can decide who's rhetoric is overblown and which concerns were justified when cooler heads can prevail.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 28, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Every time you deny having been Charlie (and several other aliases, as well). Every time you give cover to the lying Coward in Chief. In short, every time you have opened your mouth for the past sixty-seven years.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 is gay... very gay (not there's anything wrong with that)

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

It's the one thing you have the proof for, Charlie -- every time you look in the mirror. But like your cowardly hero, like he does for his lies and his murderous crimes, you justify what you do. I am saddened by how pathetic you are, made worse because you actually look up to someone who is even more pathetic than you are. At 67, that is your legacy for the world.

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

No, melose, FDR did violate the Constitution, in that the executed citizens deserved a trial in criminal court

Actually, Will, I believe both of the American citizens had their sentences commuted, the 6 Germans were executed. But I'll refrain from calling you ignorant or a liar.

You see, Will, what is dumb (I won't say ignorant, because, believe it or not, I don't believe you are) is to arbitraraly assign some kind of litmus test to democrats who oppose the detainee bill. By your logic, any time I oppose a Republican bill, I should scour the history books to make sure no democrat ever supported a similar measure. Thanks, Will, but I'll pass. Yet I don't sense that you expect the same of republicans. Funny, that.

For the record, Will, the democrats were wrong about slavery. I want to make sure that, when these political thugs legalize the slave trade, I'm covered. OK?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: STATEMENTS, not QUESTIONS, and if untrue, they are lies.

You're not 67?

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas your so full of shit your not even worth me typing over... so this is the last time I acknowledge you... but one time before I go... FUCK YOU... You are a retard

Posted by: dee on September 28, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

If, except for you, all the people in the nation advocated violence against Bush, including those you would otherwise report them to, would you, if you had the power, be in favor of killing them all to protect Bush?

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

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

What if they manage to pass laws enabling gay marriage and the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses?

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, so suppose they kill him in a giant on-rushing mob of 300 million. If you had the power, would you execute them all?

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously it would be the law.

Wouldn't your "Christian" values require you to advocate violence against the chief executive were they to pass that law? Where "babies" are murdered for their cells?

Or don't you care about them?

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

They all aided and abetted with malice aforethought the killing of Bush, yes. Those who didn't personally get their hands around his neck were sorely disappointed (years leater they would claim they did).

Kill them all?

Posted by: watchingyou on September 28, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: mmf铃声 on September 28, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

No, Melose, one of the citizens, Herbert Haupt, was executed, and the other George Dasch, was sentenced to thirty years, which was commuted in 1948. Thus I was wrong to imply that both were electrocuted, but the larger point, which was that it was unconstitutional to deny them trials in criminal court, which also was inconsistent with Civil War precedent, remains.

For the record, I did not arbitrarily assign a litmus test to anybody, or ask anyone to scour the records of Democrats. I merely said it was unwise to put forth demonstrable historical falsehoods when making a political argument, because doing called into question one's credibility. In other words, it is better to be truthful about the past, or to restrict one's comments to that which one knows to be true, or to actually endeavor to learn history prior to making broad historical claims as part of larger argument about today's political debates. Is that really so difficult?

Posted by: Will Allen on September 28, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Lieberman voted for torture.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK
all" guilty of murder with special circumstances warranting the death penalty under the law? Thomas1 8:12 PM
As I recall, you have no problem with the innocent being put to death, but then neither to the Christo-fascist loons like you.

[recommend open new window if click link]

As for speaking ill of Dear Leader,

'Burning Bush' comment draws prison term
Man plans to appeal
Friday, December 6, 2002 Posted: 2:59 PM EST (1959 GMT)
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (AP) -- A man who made a remark about a "burning
Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced
Friday to 37 months in prison.
Richard Humphreys of Portland, Oregon was convicted in September of
threatening to kill or harm the president and said he plans to appeal. He
has said the comment was a prophecy protected under his right to free
speech.
Humphreys said he got into a barroom discussion in nearby Watertown with a
truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized the
president was to visit Sioux Falls the next day and told police Humphreys
talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a
flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it.
"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," Humphreys
testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was
funny."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning.bush.ap/ [This page removed from CNN. Haven't found archive]

No despot could ask for better protection.

By the way, Keith Olbermann received an envelope containing a suspicious power at his home. It was postmarked California. You have a history of stalking people's home addresses and are notorious for immature, creepy behavior. What say, chum......?

Posted by: Mike on September 28, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen:

It's indeed unprecedented.

We're not at war with a nation.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Oh whine - anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" can go to hell and stay there, as far as I'm concerned.

If you donate to middle eastern charities, with their track record of supporting swine like Hamas and Hizb' Allah and the rest, you deserve whatever you get.

Posted by: pnut on September 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well I for one am definitely in favour of using this if a Democrat ever gets elected president. We should definitely just pick up random conservatives, throw them in military prison, and repeat until they shut up out of fear. Then when they understand why the law was a bad idea in the first place, we repeal it and let the poor suckers go home.

Sometimes you just got to treat these lunatics like the sub-humanoids they are.

Posted by: reader on September 28, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Here's an idea. The first act of the new Democratic president in '08 should be to declare all Repubicans in the Congress to be enemy combatants and ship them off to Gitmo to be waterboarded until they confess to treason and then shipped off to a secret prison in Syria to serve their sentence.

Posted by: trublu on September 29, 2006 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

President Bush in Alabama:

"The greatest danger is not that America's presence in the war in Iraq is drawing new recruits to the terrorist cause," Bush said. "The greatest danger is that an American withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists and help them find new recruits to carry out even more destructive attacks."

What evidence does President Bush have to support this? The NIE doesn't support this -- it is just the President's opinion, which happens to fly in the face of the opinion of 16 government spy agencies.

I agree with posters upthread -- the detainee bill is an election season ploy to try and portray Dems as soft on terror. The "fear-and-flag" strategy has been greatly overused and polls show people are moving on.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on September 29, 2006 at 6:20 AM | PERMALINK

As the under-appreciated Alan Colmes pointed out last night, the biggest problem with this bill is not harsher interrogations allowed etc. It's the erosion of protection of due process, to see who is guilty or knowing secrets to begin with. Also, it's putting so much power to rescind judicial process in the hands of the President. As Alan mocked conservatives, ref. Kevin: Do you want these kinds of powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton? Indeed, I doubt I would.

Posted by: Neil' on September 29, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

I merely said it was unwise to put forth demonstrable historical falsehoods when making a political argument, because doing called into question one's credibility.

Who's putting forth "demonstrable historical falsehoods"? I'm sure you'll scour through this thread and find an example (and then call me either ignorant, a liar, or both), but I don't recall anyone saying that Bush is the only president to stretch the limits of the constitution. I think most here know enough US history to acknowledge at the very least that Lincoln assumed constitutionally questionable powers (strangely, you don't ask Republicans to acknowledge that). The difference, Will, is that the constitution does allow for expanded executive powers during wartime. Now you may think it's just some quaint notion that Bush did not get an official declaration of war, but it is what it is. If Dumbya wanted expanded powers, he should have asked for an official declaration. But he wouldn't have gotten that, now would he, Will?

Whatever the constitutional excesses of past presidents, Bush is the first to try to codify unconstitutional behavior into law. That's why many GOP pols don't believe this bill will withstand SCOTUS review (but don't call the republicans cynical, Will, for passing on unconstitutional bill just before an election so they could bludgeon dems with it).

Regardless, your argument is dubious to begin with. I'm fairly certain that an overwhelming majority of non-troll posters (Al, Chickenhawk, Thomas/1/Charlie/Cheney need not apply), if not a plurality, would agree that Japanese internment was a horrendous mistake. If you want to find modern-day supporters of FDR's internment policy, maybe you should look at, oh, I don't know...Republicans?! (Michelle Malkin come to mind?)

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 29, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

While I agree Japanese internment was a horrendous mistake, I disagree about your "quaint notion that Bush did not get an official declaration of war." An Act of Congress that, by its own explicit terms, constitutes statutory authorization for the use of military force under the War Powers Act is, ipso facto, a declaration of war, regardless of whether you think it is "official" or not. It may be conditional or limited, but it is, nevertheless, a declaration of war.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans have no worries. With the media and the voting machine companies on their side, there will not be another Democratic president in our lifetimes.

Posted by: McCord on September 29, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

The liar using my handle and email address above is largely correct in his statement, though also a complete scumbag namestealer, and an illustration of why we need an identity verification system.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly