The Death of Habeas Corpus, aka, George Bush is a Terrorist

[fedsmack]

Please view Kieth Olbermann's latest comments concering our President. Is is possible that George Bush and his administration have done more to harm to America than the "terrorists" ever hoped to accomplish? http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown-special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words-are-lies-sir/

[REMgirl]

I'm a big fan of Olbermann. He's not afraid to call it like he sees it.

Olbermann has some interesting quotes from Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley regarding the signing of this new law:

Jonathan Turley joined Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."

:(

[akip]

a lot of people hate this law change, not just olbermann. i know someone who's been barred from getting a passport for protesting at the last repub convention. this is more intimidation. i don't think it's paranoid to be alarmed.

[REMgirl]

This from a Daily Kos diary this morning:

"Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba."

There's more interesting and scary info at that site about this loss of freedom. Say hello to the "disappearing" of dissenting human beings.

[slopechz]

I was wondering when someone would post a thread about this travesty. What do our conservative friends think of this law?

[frizgolf]

I was wondering when someone would post a thread about this travesty. What do our conservative friends think of this law?
This law can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
It smacks of desparation from an admin that doesn't have strong enough charges to make a conviction stick.

[slopechz]

This law can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
It smacks of desparation from an admin that doesn't have strong enough charges to make a conviction stick.
Was this the big October Surprise from Karl Rove the media has been talking about? :D

[markalot]

The law stinks. It says that we have no faith in our justice system. The excuse is that these people want to kill us and don't deserve protection.

Well, last I checked mass murderers wanted to kill us, suicidal school killers wanted to kill us, etc. etc.

On the flip side it may take top secret information to get a conviction on some of these guys, and revealing that information is usually bad.

The slippery slope is always covered up with good intentions.

[frizgolf]

Was this the big October Surprise from Karl Rove the media has been talking about? :D
Yes. Karl Rove was going to attempt to fuck a rolling doughnut.

[fedsmack]

The scariest thing is that the fat, ignorant, and apathetic American public have no idea what habeas corpus means to the very existence of freedom and democracy. Olbermann's comments are precisely on point...

"For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.***

We have accepted, that the only way to stop the terrorists, is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists. ***

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But even within this history, we have not before codified, the poisoning of Habeas Corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow. ***

And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check. He lied to get it. He lied as he received it. Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?"

That is the BIG question!

[slopechz]

Yes. Karl Rove was going to attempt to fuck a rolling doughnut.
I thought he did that already.

[twentyshots]

http://www.woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=41700

4 out of 803,881 posts isn't bad.

[REMgirl]

What pisses me off is that there were plenty of Dems who voted for it. I found out that the candidate I'm intending to vote for, Sherrod Brown, voted in favor of it. I sent his office a nasty letter. I know that they felt it would look like they were "weak on terror" if they voted against it, but for God's sake, this is insanity. :mad:

[fedsmack]

On the flip side it may take top secret information to get a conviction on some of these guys, and revealing that information is usually bad. The slippery slope is always covered up with good intentions.
Slippery slope is an understatement. This IS the beginning of the end of America, at least the "good" America. Consider Olbermann's closing comments...

"These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush. "In which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them." 'Presumed innocent,' Mr. Bush? The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain "serious mental and physical trauma" in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

'Access to an attorney,' Mr. Bush? Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant, on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

'Hearing all the evidence,' Mr. Bush? The Military Commissions act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir. They are lies, that imperil us all. "One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," you told us yesterday… "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America." That terrorist, sir, could only hope. Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas Corpus? Gone. The Geneva Conventions? Optional. The Moral Force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out. These things you have done, Mr. Bush… they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

— Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?”

[markalot]

Try to relax.

Olbermann is good entertainment, and I agree with him a lot, but let's not get wrapped up in the drama. Once law does not destroy a country, and this law can still be challenged.

[slopechz]

Try to relax.

Olbermann is good entertainment, and I agree with him a lot, but let's not get wrapped up in the drama. Once law does not destroy a country, and this law can still be challenged.
Drama? Our civil liberties are slowing being chipped away, piece by piece. Scary times we are living in. That's no drama.

[purdueman_in]

Try to relax.

Olbermann is good entertainment, and I agree with him a lot, but let's not get wrapped up in the drama. Once law does not destroy a country, and this law can still be challenged.

The Republicans have done more to establish an Imperial Presidency under Bush than Nixon could have ever hoped to do. This law basically removes the power from 1/3 of our branches of government. Essentially, the President's actions are being declared above Constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances.

[slopechz]

The Republicans have done more to establish an Imperial Presidency under Bush than Nixon could have ever hoped to do. This law basically removes the power from 1/3 of our branches of government. Essentially, the President's actions are being declared above Constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances.
Is that all? :rolleyes:

[fedsmack]

The Republicans have done more to establish an Imperial Presidency under Bush than Nixon could have ever hoped to do. This law basically removes the power from 1/3 of our branches of government. Essentially, the President's actions are being declared above Constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances. Good point, but it ain't just that anymore. Now Congress has given the president the power to do this, so he ain't above the law anymore. It IS the law.

Also, if Sir Markalot thinks the law doesn't or can't destroy this country he is wrong, or obviously has never studied American History, read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Federalist papers.

Please, really, feel free to move to China or North Korea...

[akip]

Good point, but it ain't just that anymore. Now Congress has given the president the power to do this, so he ain't above the law anymore. It IS the law.


i just noticed your avatar---just a heartbeat away. ;)

[markalot]

The Republicans have done more to establish an Imperial Presidency under Bush than Nixon could have ever hoped to do. This law basically removes the power from 1/3 of our branches of government. Essentially, the President's actions are being declared above Constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances.


Really? Then why is it we needed to come up with this law in the first place? What kind of supreme court ruling resulted in this? What shelters this new law from the same review process?

[markalot]

Good point, but it ain't just that anymore. Now Congress has given the president the power to do this, so he ain't above the law anymore. It IS the law.

Also, if Sir Markalot thinks the law doesn't or can't destroy this country he is wrong, or obviously has never studied American History, read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Federalist papers.



Any law can be passed, but it has to be able to resist challenges in the courts. ANY FUCKING LAW CAN BE PASSED. Review your history, watch some ABC shoolhouse rock episodes. :p There is no law above contsitutional review and the worse the offense the better the results in the long run. In WWII we took americans off the street and sent them to camps. Did that crazy attitude destroy america?

[akip]

Any law can be passed, but it has to be able to resist challenges in the courts. ANY FUCKING LAW CAN BE PASSED. Review your history, watch some ABC shoolhouse rock episodes. :p There is no law above contsitutional review and the worse the offense the better the results in the long run. In WWII we took americans off the street and sent them to camps. Did that crazy attitude destroy america?

just wait if bushes manages another supreme court plant. then we'll see what gets kicked out and what passes.

[markalot]

just wait if bushes manages another supreme court plant. then we'll see what gets kicked out and what passes.

Well the last vote on the subject was unanimous, so I'm not too worried.

[fedsmack]

Hopefully you are correct Markalot, and the Supreme Court throws out this law as being unconstitutional. However, given the fact the balance has turned on the Court, it is naive to think that the Court will throw this law out?

The fact is "America," as we knew it ceased to exist when Bush declared the "war on terror" -- a war that (1) by definition can never end and (2) provides the excuse for the government to circumvent the Constitution and throw American citizens in jail without informing them of charges against them.

... we shall all soon be wearing uniforms and goose stepping in honor of the supreme leader...

[purdueman_in]

Good point, but it ain't just that anymore. Now Congress has given the president the power to do this, so he ain't above the law anymore. It IS the law.

Hopefully we will get a Constitutional review of this law before it is too late...and I don't believe it is too late!

[classicgrrl]

what I really want to know is how do you proclaim war on fear?
:confused:

that phrase drives me crazy I hate it.

[epeolatry]

i was driving down I-71 in cinci last night and saw graffiti'd on a building:

HABEAS CORPUS
1305-2006

(i think 1305 was the first date...i was driving)

[fedsmack]

i was driving down I-71 in cinci last night and saw graffiti'd on a building:

HABEAS CORPUS
1305-2006

(i think 1305 was the first date...i was driving) I've seen this graffiti on the wall just as you get off 71 south onto 3rd street. It would appear that some attorneys are still passionate about freedom and justice (really!) The sad part is most peopel driving by have absolutely no idea what it is referring to.
... Rest in peace America.... :(

[yvette7ica]

Was scanning some stuff about habeas corpus and it seems Lincoln supsended the writ of habeas corpus from 1862 to 1866 which primarily effected democratics who were against the civil war. Not sure how relevent it is to the current situation, but it seems kind of interesting considering. Would it be Habeas Corpus 1866-2006?

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425

[fedsmack]

Was scanning some stuff about habeas corpus and it seems Lincoln supsended the writ of habeas corpus from 1862 to 1866 which primarily effected democratics who were against the civil war. Not sure how relevent it is to the current situation, but it seems kind of interesting considering. Would it be Habeas Corpus 1866-2006? There is no comparison between what Lincoln did and what Bush has done. First, what Lincoln did was temporary. The law signed by Bush is a permanent suspension of the writ, not temporary. Second, Lincoln's suspension of the writ was done during an actual time of war within this country. This makes sense. After all, the USA was in internal chaos and anarchy. Currently, contrary to what the adminsitration says, we are not in a time of "war". The war on terror is merely a political sharade as there is no defined enemy. Its just good old fashioned marketing. Plus, only Congress can declare an actual "war".

[onest2.0]

So who is this Habeas fella and how did he die? Was he one of them illegals?

[purdueman_in]

So who is this Habeas fella and how did he die? Was he one of them illegals?

One of the brazillions, to be sure...

[fedsmack]

So who is this Habeas fella and how did he die? Was he one of them illegals?For those of you who don’t know, here’s a simple definition of the writ of habeas corpus from Wikipedia....

“In common law countries, habeas corpus, Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody.”

From approximately 1305, the writ of habeas corpus has been an essential instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action. This procedure was considered essential to individual freedom and was specifically addressed in the document that formed this Country, the United States Constitution. Article One, section nine states simply, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Bush and Congress have suspended the writ, and this ain’t no case of internal rebellion or outside invasion. Simply put, without the writ of habeas corpus, no person in this country has the ability to challenge their detention. All individuals (that means YOU), upon being merely labeled by the President or Attorney General an enemy combatant, have no right to contest that label and can sit in prison for the rest of their life without ever having a hearing.

We are all dead... :mad:

[epeolatry]

you know, all of this is pretty fucked up.

and i'm so tired that i can't stand to think about how fucked this country has become.

[markalot]

Bush and Congress have suspended the writ, and this ain’t no case of internal rebellion or outside invasion. Simply put, without the writ of habeas corpus, no person in this country has the ability to challenge their detention. All individuals (that means YOU), upon being merely labeled by the President or Attorney General an enemy combatant, have no right to contest that label and can sit in prison for the rest of their life without ever having a hearing.

Not true, I'll let you figure out why.

Hint: US Citizen and to what the suspension applies too.

[slopechz]

http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2006/10/15/jack-idema-and-habeas-corpus/

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061028/OPINION/61026030/1049

http://anchorweb.org/content/view/1110/

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/23/18322727.php

And on and on. I guess if we look hard enough we can find someone with credibility to agree with the new law. Please post something, anything to prove me wrong.

[twentyshots]

Not true, I'll let you figure out why.

Hint: US Citizen and to what the suspension applies too.

so let me get this straight, you still think they will comply with the laws that they haven't changed because they are such an upstanding administration?

[slopechz]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/couricandco/entry2109264.shtml

[markalot]

So while the new law dramatically reduces the legal rights and remedies of resident aliens, it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Bush Administration, on at least two occasions before the new law was passed, tried to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens. The men, Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, both were designated as “enemy combatants” by the White House and held for years in military custody without charges or due process before the U.S. Supreme Court essentially bailed them out.

As your article pointed out, Bush tried and failed to suspend it for US citizens. I'm sure the asshole will try again, but the supreme court will slap it down again.

But what's your goal here? To understand the problem or is this just another I hate Bush thread? We all fucking hate Bush, I think even big sug hates Bush, so who the hell are you talking too?

[markalot]

so let me get this straight, you still think they will comply with the laws that they haven't changed because they are such an upstanding administration?

Um no, and when have I ever? I don't trust that any person in government will comply with any fucking law, that's why I dislike government.

[slopechz]

Not true, I'll let you figure out why.

Hint: US Citizen and to what the suspension applies too.
Rather than post snide comments like this, why not explain your point with facts. This is a political forum, correct? There are two sides to every argument, please explain yours.

I understand the issues just fine and certainly don't need to create another hate Bush thread. The "enlightened" 2006 conservatives in this forum are doing a great job of that.

[classicgrrl]

so everyone in this country who is not a US citizen can be detained without knowledge of why and with no legal way to fight it?

I'm confused...

MAL - you're particular statement of US citizen and what the law pertains to made NO sense to me at all.

[markalot]

It means that the law that was recently passed does NOT affect US citizens.

The fact that Bush (or any sitting president) can suspend HC for anyone is nothing new, but the supremes have shown they will not uphold that suspension for citizens.

[DaHood]

the supremes have shown they will not uphold that suspension for citizens.
Damn. I didn't know they had that much power.

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/Supremes%20publicity_200x250.jpg

[classicgrrl]

It means that the law that was recently passed does NOT affect US citizens.

The fact that Bush (or any sitting president) can suspend HC for anyone is nothing new, but the supremes have shown they will not uphold that suspension for citizens.

they shouldn't be able to do it to non-us citizens either.

saw a yahoo report that Bush said we didn't torture prisoners.
didn't bother to read it since it's a lie anyway...

[markalot]

they shouldn't be able to do it to non-us citizens either.

saw a yahoo report that Bush said we didn't torture prisoners.
didn't bother to read it since it's a lie anyway...

I'm ok with non citizens, especially if they are terrorists, but of course who decides if they are terrorists? Cheney?

And yea, Cheney in an interview the other day said it was a no brainer to dunk terrorists in water. Now the whitehouse is saying he didn't mean torture.

I guess he must have meant those dunking machines they have at carnivals?

[slopechz]

I'm ok with non citizens, especially if they are terrorists, but of course who decides if they are terrorists? Cheney?
One fact that I have come across over and over is that we have imprisoned over 5000 people as terror suspects (without being charged!). If memory serves me correctly, ninety nine percent turned out to be innocent of accusations that they were engaged in terrorist activities. Very troubling, don't you agree?

[ThomasC]

Damn. I didn't know they had that much power.

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/Supremes%20publicity_200x250.jpg
:D

la la la la

[markalot]

One fact that I have come across over and over is that we have imprisoned over 5000 people as terror suspects (without being charged!). If memory serves me correctly, ninety nine percent turned out to be innocent of accusations that they were engaged in terrorist activities. Very troubling, don't you agree?

No.

I've heard they might not be terrorists, or we can't prove that are, but I've only heard of a few stories of someone who might be really innocent ... and even then the facts are blurry.

Innocent people with full HC rights are imprisoned in America every day. That's troubling to a degree, but it still happens. All systems are flawed. THe problem with applying HC to these people who might be terrorists is that they'll flood the system with requests.

It's easy to get all worked up about it, but what I want to hear is a reasonable alternative.

[slopechz]

No.

I've heard they might not be terrorists, or we can't prove that are, but I've only heard of a few stories of someone who might be really innocent ... and even then the facts are blurry.

Innocent people with full HC rights are imprisoned in America every day. That's troubling to a degree, but it still happens. All systems are flawed. THe problem with applying HC to these people who might be terrorists is that they'll flood the system with requests.

It's easy to get all worked up about it, but what I want to hear is a reasonable alternative.
That was a rhetorical question, I know your not troubled by it.

God forbid an innocent person (citizen or otherwise) receive due process, an American value we all should be proud of. Are any alternatives being suggested by anyone? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. If you know of something please share.

And who is getting "all worked about it"? I am trying to rap my head around your point of view. There is a big difference between being worked up about an issue and trying to see a different point of view (namely your point of view). For someone who hates Bush, your certainly doing a good, albeit subtle job of defending his policies. Your turn.

[REMgirl]

Senator Patrick Leahy wrote this prior to the bill being passed. I think it offers a lot of important information. Here is part of what he had to say:

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Specter-Leahy-Dodd Amendment To Strike Section 7
Of The Military Commission Bill
Senate Floor
September 28, 2006

Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, there are approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people who work for American firms, raise American kids, and pay American taxes. Section 7 of the bill before us represents a choice about how to treat them. This bill could have been restricted to traditional notions of enemy combatants – foreign fighters captured on the battlefield – but the drafters of this bill chose not to do so. So let’s be clear about the choice this bill would make. Let’s be absolutely clear about what this bill says to lawful permanent residents of the United States. And then let’s decide if it’s the right message to send to them, and to the rest of the world.

Imagine that you are a law-abiding, lawful permanent resident. In your spare time, you do charitable fundraising for international relief agencies that lend a hand in disasters. You send money abroad to those in need. You are selective in the charities you support, but you do not discriminate on grounds of religion. Then one day there is a knock on your door. The Government thinks that the Muslim charity you sent money to may be funneling money to terrorists, and it thinks you may be involved. And perhaps an overzealous neighbor who saw a group of Muslims come to your house has reported “suspicious behavior.” You are brought in for questioning.

Initially, you are not too worried. This is America, you are innocent, and you have faith in American justice. You know your rights, and you ask for a lawyer. But no lawyer comes. Once again, since you know your rights, you refuse to answer further questions. Then the interrogators get angry. Then comes solitary confinement, then fierce dogs, then freezing cold that induces hypothermia, then waterboarding, then threats of being sent to a country famous for its torture techniques, then Guantanamo. And then nothing, for years, for decades, for the rest of your life.

That may sound more like an experience from some oppressive and authoritarian regime, something that would have happened under the Taliban, something that Saddam Hussein would have ordered or something out of Kafka. There is a reason why that does not and cannot happen in America. The protection is called habeas corpus or, if you do not like the Latin phrase by which it has been known throughout out history, call it access to the independent federal courts to review the authority and legality by which the Government has taken and is holding someone in custody. It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation.

The rest of the document can be found at:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806.html


This is presented as a worst-case scenario. But the fact that the President hasn't just suspended habeas corpus from the Constitution, but eliminated it entirely is cause for concern.

[fedsmack]

It means that the law that was recently passed does NOT affect US citizens. You are correct, the law is intended not to apply to US citizens. BUT, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and the authorities call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" – exactly how are you going to convince the authorities to give you a court hearing to prove you are not?

[akip]

i lost faith in the righteous intentions of the feds when my friend's kid was pulled off the sidewalk at the repub convention (along with an old man who was just going to the ATM), incarcerated in a bus station for three days throughout which he was mistreated, denied his right to call a lawyer, and later had his application for a passport turned down.

[slopechz]

i lost faith in the righteous intentions of the feds when my friend's kid was pulled off the sidewalk at the repub convention (along with an old man who was just going to the ATM), incarcerated in a bus station for three days throughout which he was mistreated, denied his right to call a lawyer, and later had his application for a passport turned down.
You bleeding heart liberals are all the same. ;)

Seriously, this is a perfect example of my concern with the Habeas Corpus issue.

[twentyshots]

.......incarcerated in a bus station for three days throughout which he was mistreated, denied his right to call a lawyer, and later had his application for a passport turned down.

this sounds like most experiences at the bus station :p

seriously, i am going to assume he was protesting the convention? we all remember there was a slew of this kind of stuff back in 2004 between protestors and the GOP.

[markalot]

this sounds like most experiences at the bus station :p

seriously, i am going to assume he was protesting the convention? we all remember there was a slew of this kind of stuff back in 2004 between protestors and the GOP.

You can go back and find a lot of questionable government actions during conventions. And notice that this was prior to the so called death of HC.

[slopechz]

You can go back and find a lot of questionable government actions during conventions. And notice that this was prior to the so called death of HC.
Which is even more reason HC needs to be restored to it's previous state.

[akip]

seriously, i am going to assume he was protesting the convention? we all remember there was a slew of this kind of stuff back in 2004 between protestors and the GOP.

yeah he was there for the protest, but he and his girlfriend were just standing around, apart from the crowd. they weren't agitating, throwing rocks, yelling, just standing. cops came by and said, "get off the street," so, taking it literally, they stepped up on the sidewalk. and that was it. one of his friends who was also swept up and carted off to the bus station was later visited and interrogated by the FBI in her dorm.

[markalot]

Which is even more reason HC needs to be restored to it's previous state.

How far back? Chicago?

[markalot]

Liberals are generally for more government, so you lost me on that one. Keep in mind Bush is not a conservative and none of this HC crap is what I would consider conservative. If this is the new conservative and the original definition is dead then I'm simply not a conservative, but I don't see myself turning liberal any time soon ;)

If I disappeared there would be a missing persons report filed and someone somewhere would know I was a citizen and could prove it. The government might like to try, but if they fucked up the revolt would be amazing to behold.

Maybe that's what we need?

[akip]

There was the old saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. I believe a while back I heard a variation on this. A liberal is a conservative who got arrested.

:D guffaw of the day.

[markalot]

As you would. Admit it.

Sure I would. You have defined social conservatives, I am a fiscal conservative. The original definition of conservative is how one interprets the constitution. I agree that conservative today usually means social, but there are a few old style conservatives left. Besides, I don't really fit any popular label.

I support any action that makes bringing criminals to justice easier as long as the process remains open.

What you are worried about requires someone to break the law. You point to a bad law and say this can be abused because what's to stop someone from calling you a non-citizen and sending you off to wherever. That's fine, but it requires someone break the law.

Before it wasn't on paper, now it is. That doesn't change anything, and it certainly didn't stop Bush from doing whatever the hell he wanted too. History will judge Bush, the facts will come out over time, and our laws will improve because of it.

Have you really read this thing? It won't matter if someone files a missing persons report. The whole point of this is that IT WON'T MATTER IF ANYONE KNOWS! People disappear all the time. They get murdered. They leave their spouses. They steal their kids and take off. Happens all the time.


Paranoia. I can't really address something that is so far fetched. You will claim it's not far fetched at all, dead end. Too many people who would want to talk, governments can't keep secrets.

[slopechz]

Paranoia. I can't really address something that is so far fetched. You will claim it's not far fetched at all, dead end. Too many people who would want to talk, governments can't keep secrets.
What? Can you explain this as it really makes no sense. To you it does, but help us mere mortals out. Please share.

[markalot]

What? Can you explain this as it really makes no sense. To you it does, but help us mere mortals out. Please share.

Which part don't you understand?

Could a US citizen be taken by the US and brought to a secret location prior to this new law? How about after?


Can government keep secrets? If so, how did we find out about the secret CIA prisons?

[slopechz]

Which part don't you understand?

Could a US citizen be taken by the US and brought to a secret location prior to this new law? How about after?


Can government keep secrets? If so, how did we find out about the secret CIA prisons?
Now it really is very easy to pick up anyone, anytime, anywhere. What does that have to do with paranoia? It really isn't paranoia, it is our new reality.

[markalot]

Now it really is very easy to pick up anyone, anytime, anywhere. What does that have to do with paranoia? It really isn't paranoia, it is our new reality.

How many times has it happened? Where is the rational evidence that it's going to start happening? Who was on the grassy knoll?

[slopechz]

How many times has it happened? Where is the rational evidence that it's going to start happening? Who was on the grassy knoll?
It happened here during the GOP convention. Big news here. People rounded up whether they were protesting or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thrown into cages covered with grease for 3 days without a bathroom, food or a lawyer. And that was before Bush pummeled HC. A friend of mine works for the Bloomberg Administration and he tells me procedures are now in place to hopefully ensure something like this never happens again (and the fact that the city is up to its eyeballs in litigation over false arrests certainly helps).

This is like a dog chasing his tail, a waste of time. I am over it. Your not concerned about this and that certainly is your choice.

[akip]

Thrown into cages covered with grease for 3 days without a bathroom, food or a lawyer.

thanks for reminding me of something---my friend's son's girlfriend got a kidney infection 'cause she wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom.

[markalot]

It happened here during the GOP convention. Big news here.

News? How is it you know about this? I thought I was arguing about the likelihood of no one knowing what happened. Aren't there pending lawsuits over these wrongful detainments?

This is like a dog chasing his tail, a waste of time. I am over it. Your not concerned about this and that certainly is your choice.


Concerned about what? I think you've already determined what we're talking about without listening to a damn thing I've been saying.

Habeas Corpus is important, this law does not kill it for US citizens. The only examples of how this law is killing HC involve breaking the law. It seemed simple enough.

[slopechz]

Did you say something? It does not compute. Waste of time. Time to move on.