A blog about Kern County and Politics.
Real Name: Tom Webster Gender: male Member Since: August 14, 2006 Last Signed In: September 04, 2008 Profile Views: 11647 Blog Views: 13455 One Last Time for the Fans - Drinking Liberally Tonight Bloggers and Lagers: This Saturday from Noon to Three at Pizzaville Bloggers' Beer and Pizza at PizzaVille on Saturday Drinking Liberally - The bar is now open! Drinking Liberally Thursday Night Not Yet Drinking Liberally Drinking Liberally? Bush Announces The End of the Surge McCain Breaks His Own Laws McCain's Idea of Love August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 Part II
I've gone on about this piece of legislation before. Last night, Keith Olbermann did another comment on it that you can watch here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...
I stayed up pretty late, going over the details with people and it seems we are walking very close to the edge of the abyss. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, besides making legal our reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, also creates a new class of criminals: unlawful enemy combatants. Anyone, including US citizens, may be declared unlawful enemy combatants under this law. The remainder of the law only deals with alien enemy combatants (AECs) or non-citizens. There is no procedure that details the process for a citizen that has been detained as a non-alien enemy combatant. Among the procedures for dealing with AECs is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the law that requires that evidence used against you is presented. This, like the wiretapping bill, is going to be argued for using the premise that anyone who is detained will have actually broken the law and they will be presumed to be terrorists, despite the fact that hundreds of people who have been detained already have been released because no link to terrorism could be found. We cannot allow ourselves to believe that there is no reason for a trial of any person, no matter how vile that person may be. Last, here is the crux of the debate: How secure is your citizenship? If your citizenship is the only thing standing between yourself and the loss of all of your rights, how solid is that foundation? In World War II, the Japanese were forced to renounce their US citizenship (which can be done on US soil only during time of war) so that they could legally be interned. The Patriot Act II, which has not passed, strips citizenship from anyone who is involved with terrorist activities. It does not make clear how that determination is made. We stand now, one pen stroke away from ending the great experiment that is America. And I can think of no way to do a damn thing about it. 77 comments from 10 users
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 20, 2006 at 04:31 PM
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 20, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Hey, anyone see the new RNC ad that steals LBJ's "Daisy" commerical?They use the Dem's own stuff against them..sad. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 20, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Jose Padilla. American Citizen born in Brooklyn NY detained for years without being charged with a crime. Still think it's only for non-citizens?
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 20, 2006 at 04:19 PM
Congress sold us down the river Tom..ain't that something?
posted by
anglo1
on Oct 20, 2006 at 04:17 PM
Dusty, surely you don't consider yourself moderate. As for calling people names I seem to remember you namecalling more than once on this site. I believe most in this country are moderate unlike you. I guesss I do use "liberal" in a negative way. I know I would be pissed if someone called be a liberal.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 20, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Here's a good catch in the LA Times reprinted from WaPo:In early drafts, the bill would have cut off habeas corpus only for unlawful combatants detained "outside the United States" and at Guantanamo Bay. However, the final version deleted that phrase. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 20, 2006 at 08:44 AM
Adam, I'm further perplexed by the fact that many of the people who put blind faith in the government today are the very same people who warned about government abuse of power during the 1990s.. To hear the far right read amazing things into some of Clinton's Executive Orders is a lot like what some on the Left read into Bush's signing statements. Remember, Clinton was fighting a war on domestic terrorism (remember OKC?), and the far right was even more paranoid about Clinton's war on terror than the Left vs. Bush. . (The difference is, the Left is warning us about a government that really is malicious and untrustworthy.) posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 20, 2006 at 08:26 AM
Anglo, most everyone knows that Islamic radicals would love to do all those terrible things. And most everyone with a brain knows that "getting along" with the radicals is as futile as "getting along" with James Dobson or Tom DeLay.. It's just that some of us suggest that we refrain from "staying a course" that seems to be generating more of them. . I don't know why that is so difficult for some on "one side of the political spectrum" to figure out. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 20, 2006 at 06:07 AM
Iraq didn't bomb us with our planes. Are you that ridiculously 'out there' as to stil think Iraq was behind 9/11? Guess you will buy into anything this administration puts out there as gospel..they love you for it too. I guess you don't mind the continued slaughter of our soldiers, they are just numbers right, not people? Your logic, or actually lack of it...is simply amazing Ron. Do you talk to people the way you comment here on these blogs?
posted by
allRED
on Oct 20, 2006 at 05:40 AM
According to Matt the more we kill with our way of fighting, causes more to become terrorist, Plus the panty hose treatment really pppp's them off, lets see how can we fight them and keep them happy? Maybe rubber bullets and rubber bombs. Just maybe if they hadnt bombed us 1st with our planes, maybe we wouldnt be there. Sure I know, we didnt have to go into Iraq, well according to the left we didnt. Polls are in your favor and we havent been attack, so you keep the polls and I'll take the peace of mind. Ron. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 20, 2006 at 05:01 AM
Anglo..you fail to realize or address the fact that the majority of the population now believes the President is doing a lousy job, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and we need to get out of Iraq asap.Are you calling the majority of Americans liberal? By your own comment I would have to say yes you are. I think most of America is moderate and apolitical when it comes to party loyalty. This left, right bs has got to stop. It prevents us as a country in standing together to solve the problems that have been created by entering Iraq on reasons that are now found to be lies or half-truths. Labels do nothing but piss people off. You use them as a slap to the face. You use them to put down people who are intelligent, care about this country and wish to see our borders secure. When the majority of us comment on this blog, we never lable negatively the citizens of the U.S. We do go after the elected officials that got us into this mess. Why is your only defense to attack the citizens and call them 'liberals' and put up a ridiculous statement that "liberals" "believes that if we just try to get along with these radical Muslims or tyrants like in Iran, N Korea, Venezuela that they will either like us or leave us alone."--No one on these boards has suggested anything so innane and simple-minded and I do not know of anyone anywhere that has used that line of reasoning as well. We use the words negotiate strategy and many others. We say many things, but we do not say "just try to get along". I am deeply offended with your rhetoric aimed at me and others here, that simplies a situation that is anything but simple. And to put it off as "our beliefs" is a blatant lie. If you wish to continue the "status quo" that the President seems to think is just working fine, that is your right. I think that the over 70 dead soldiers this month alone is proof that the war in Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket quicker than you can verbally attack everyone who believes differently than you as "liberals". The month isn't even close to being over yet. I challenge you to find any documentation that this war is winnable. Because the fact is, no one is saying that, including the military leaders who have served in Iraq and those serving now. But if you can find one that says we can still win this war, I will buy you lunch. If we can't "win" what are we going to do? If we can't win, why are we still allowing our men and women to die daily over there? Just answer those questions if you can. To label the majority of americans with a word that you use as a negative term shows how little you respect the people of this country. I thought you were better than that Anglo. posted by
mattloch
on Oct 19, 2006 at 11:36 PM
Anglo, do not confuse "results" with "effectiveness". In several bombing raids, Allied bombers got great results, blowing up several German factories, and using weapons like napalm and incendary bombs to kills tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilians. The results were clear: huge swaths of industrial cities were reduced to rubble. But how effective was it? Despite the numerous deaths and the loss of industrial capacity of the cities in question, the loss of manufacturing power was offset in the short-term by civilians in other cities increasing their output out of the feelings of patriotism and anger towards the Allied powers. Long-term effectiveness was also reduced once the destroyed factories were rebuild, often within days or weeks of destruction, or relocation to caves or broken up into smaller, harder to target and hit units.. What does this mean to you? You can kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of the people you believe are trying to "slit your throats", but does that do anything to reducing the numbers of people waiting behind them, or the numbers of people who don't feel that way today, but may be swayed to do so tomorrow? Of course not. Just remember, terrorists aren't born, or bred, or hatched from eggpods like insects; terrorists are created. They are created by unfair and uneven living conditions. They are created by senseless killings of family members. They are created every time somebody think that they are good for nothing but death and destruction. People do not become suicide bombers for the glory; they become suicide bombers because there is nothing glorious left in their lives. posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Anglo, Yoo did not write a memo about this. This was part of a debate where Yoo said that in war, the President's power is only checked by the power of the purse in Congress. Other than that, the president could do anything he wanted without repercussions. Cassel brought up the most horrible thing he could imagine to show that even Yoo believed that there were some limits on the presodent's power.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Anglo, millions of people? As for just getting along, that's a load of crap. There is a very strong argument to be made that WWII was won in part because the Allied powers cut off the Axis' access to oil. There are levels of strategy and ways to defeat an enemy that have nothing to do with dropping big bombs. We need to isolate these terrorists and cut them off so that they do not have a sympathetic population to shelter them. By the government's own metrics, this war has created more terrorists. It's time to start fighting smart.
posted by
anglo1
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:20 PM
I know how you feel, I am amazed how one side of the political spectrum refuses to believe that there have been and are millions of people that would absolutely love to slit your sons, daughters, parents, grandchildren ,grandparents throats and anyone else that did not believe the way they do. These may be the most difficult times our gov. has faced because their are no borders or boundaries for our enemies. It seems to me like most of the left believes that if we just try to get along with these radical Muslims or tyrants like in Iran, N Korea, Venezuela that they will either like us or leave us alone. History doesn't show that. Abu Graib had some problems but did you see anything in the photos that you could actually call torture, in a "war" setting? I may have missed it. As long as our enemies are abiding by the Geneva convention rules I guess we should to. If I thought I could possibly save my loved ones by torture, I can't think of much that I wouldn't try. Its not apathy when our gov. is doing all it can to keep us as safe as possible.
posted by
anglo1
on Oct 19, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Yoo did not write a memo stating is was ok to crush a child's testicles, did he? I just wrote a long response to Tom and to Dusty about this and these worthless liberal professors who "are" immune, but somehow it got lost. Oh well, this is shorter. I may be wrong but I think when Tom wrote big. I think he was speaking to someone else.posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 05:25 PM
Dusty, anglo, meet John Yoo. Teaches law at Berkeley. He makes Al Gonzolas look like Pop'n'Fresh. The Unitary Executive theory is also refered to as the Yoo Doctrine. Here's a gem from the article:In explaining the Yoo Doctrine, Yoo made the following statements during a December 1, 2005 debate in Chicago, Illinois with Notre Dame Law School Professor Doug Cassel:
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Anglo..its not an editorial..he stated unequivocally what the bill does and doesn't do. His whole reputation could be shot to hell if he is lying, or stretching the truth. A sitting professor can't afford to do that..come on.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 05:17 PM
Dude..slang for Sir. anglo :) Tell me, do you acturally think he would lie about whats in the bill? Why would he put his reputation on the line?
posted by
anglo1
on Oct 19, 2006 at 05:13 PM
Dusty , I'm guessing that were joking about a professor being non-partisan. Most are cut from the opposite side of the cloth that the extreme right hail form. Dude?
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 05:02 PM
I will have you know Mattloch that the brits are now saying the court document isn't signed and may be a forgery where Sir Paul is called a drunkard and wife strangler.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 19, 2006 at 04:41 PM
And don't forget now Pete, we have the divorce between Sir Paul McCartney and his wife (famous people- strike one). Over one billion bucks on the line with this one, so you know people will care a lot about it ($$$= strike two). She's making crazy statements about him (which is the third strike for the public's fascination with it), and it'll only be a matter of time before he swings back. The media will be all over this one, and claim that it's not their fault they spend so much time on it, because it's what the (lowest common denominator) people want to watch. Best line so far: "he'd better win, because if you can't win against a one-legged woman in an ass-kicking contest, you're through......"
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 04:34 PM
Have they mentioned Paris freaking Hilton today? The MSM does have much more important fish to fry.How can someone take a Constitution Law Professor's statement, who teaches our kids btw, as a partisan view? If he was lying I would think no one would defer to his pronouncements of fact.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 04:21 PM
Tom, you've said a mouthfull there. Even non-partisan opinions are tagged as partisan if they don't agree with one's position. Also, this is way too complicated for the MSM to handle. I mean come on, they've got the population counter to watch, and something having to do with that runaway bride woman.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 04:14 PM
There is no signing statement for this bill on the site yet. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wc...
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 04:08 PM
Thanks, Anglo. I don't know where to get a non-partisan opinion that everyone could believe is non-partisan. Also, mainstream media isn't talking about this. I'll keep looking.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 04:01 PM
I know you didn't delete my comment, but two of them aren't here..the spam fairy ate them..who knows? ;PI would hurt you if you even came near me with that book Tom..you are forewarned. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Anglo, I guess that is the point of the LARGE TYPE,getting their point across. But its lost on me. Tom read the whole damn bill, he should be able to point you in the right direction dude.posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:57 PM
Hey Dusty, did you just accuse me of deleting you? Hrrmff. That's it, I'm buying you a copy of Bill O'Reilly's new book and I'm paying RETAIL for it. No, no no, sorry. Some things we shouldn't even joke about. posted by
anglo1
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Anybody know how we could get a "non partisan" answer to the question regarding aliens vs. the possibility of a citizen losing his status as a legal US citizen. I don't understand how this could happen, can someone enlighten me.I don't mind the large type sometimes, makes it seem like its a point you really want to get across. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:39 PM
Mattloch, I will try one more time..HERE is a government website that gives the signing statements. You enter the bill number I think..you have it..go try.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:37 PM
Now pete, i DID put the damn code in and the post still isn't here..wtf?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:34 PM
Happened to me twice already. I'm so glad I'm protected from the spam that wasn't being posted.Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:32 PM
this so sucks Pete..now I forgot what my comment was..oh, yeah..Tom..that site is a propaganda site..you nimrod ;P
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:30 PM
you didn't type in the new spam machine code. Tisk tisk dusty."Did ya get the memo?" "Yeah, well we're using new cover sheets on the TPS reports now, m-kaaaay" SPAM SPAM cheese & SPAM posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Tom..I put in a comment and its not here..did the comment fairy get it, or did you delete it?
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:20 PM
Hey, this is the same Attorney General that said it isn't torture up to organ failure and death. Anything short of that is fair game. What did you expect?
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 03:12 PM
Ok, I am already tired of the friggin spam stopper..we don't get spam here, I have never seen any..as already pointed out..you have to register to comment on this bloody site..jeebus.I am reading Tom's link..just wanted to bitch a lil..I never do you know.. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 02:54 PM
Alberto Gonzales doesn't answer questions, he dodges them and distracts the questoner. He did it on every question he was asked during confirmation.SPAM SPAM sausage and SPAM posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Wasn't for you Dusty. I just wanted it to be on par with the big words above so that no one would miss it. Here's some good lawyer speak from Alberto Gonzolas about the problem I have. It's from a not so reliable website, but I trust them for stuff like this.http://www.whitehouse.gov/a... Brad, from San Jose writes: Alberto Gonzales
Anyone else think this is a bit weaselly, switching from talking about the Act to talking about the commissions themselves? posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 02:23 PM
Tom..the big lettering..we aren't blind..at least I am not, and I do believe I am the oldest person here. I read the part about unlawful enemy combatants too. But convincing some people takes alot more than just reading,cutting and pasting the sections. They want physical proof of some kind..whateverthehellthatmeans.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Ki6amd,I actually read the actual bill my actual self, the whole thing. I even posted the definition of unlawful enemy combatant for you so you didn't have to summerize it incorrectly or otherwise. Let me ask you a very specific question, since you've read the bill, what happens to an American citizen who is declared an unlawful enemy combatant? posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Here is the link to the Presidential signing statements that I use. Its the list for this year, up to Oct 17th. None are included for the Mil. Comm. Act.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:51 PM
Sorry to ask again, but every single link posted above is either for the Senate or House bills; none are for the bill the president signed, and none of them contained his now infamous "signing statements". . Independent of that, Ki6amd, what makes you think that "unlawful enemy combatants" ever need to be charged with anything, let alone tried. That's what habeas corpus means. You get rid of that, it becomes a license to hold people forever, and never charge them for anything, let alone put them in front of a star-chamber kangaroo court. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:46 PM
The October Surprise
|
